---

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


           Wednesday, November 1, 2017, Vol. 19, No. 216



                            Headlines

ADVANCED CALL: "Erekson" Suit Alleges FDCPA Violations
AMAZON.COM INC: Hunton & Williams Attorneys Discuss Court Ruling
AMERICAN AIRLINES: "Grabham" Suit Alleges Equal Pay Act Violation
AMERICAN FAMILY: "Thomas" Suit Remanded to Wash. Superior Court
ANTHONY SOLOMON: No Class Action Status Yet for Sex Crime Claims

ASSOCIATED CREDIT: Partial Summary Judgment in FDCPA Suit OK'd
AUSTRALIA: Toxic Firefighting Foam Class Actions Pending
BARN CATS: "Barnett" Suit Alleges FLSA Violation
BMW: Siskinds Commences Class Action Over N20 Engine Defects
BNSF RAILWAY: Class Action Status Denied for Antitrust Lawsuit

BOCA WEST: Court Dismisses Amended "Calmes" Suit w/o Prejudice
BOSCH GMBH: Seeks Dismissal of Racketeering Class Action
BRAMBLES: Maurice Blackburn Mulls $100-Mil. Investor Class Action
BRANDECO LLC: "Braley" Suit Seeks Damages Under Sherman Act
BROWN COUNTY, WI: Court Denies Summary Judgment Bid in "Jacobs"

CALIFORNIA HIGHWAY: Bid to Amend "Rogers" Complaint Denied
CALIFORNIA HIGHWAY: Partial Dismissal of "Rogers" Recommended
CANADA: Nov. 30 Manitoba Flood Class Action Opt-Out Deadline Set
CANADA: Settles Sixties Scoop Class Action for Up to $800MM
CANTEEN 82: "Ponce" Suit Alleges New York Labor Law Violations

CAREMARK RX: $124MM Attys' Fees Award in "Lawler" Suit Vacated
CARNIVAL CORP: Robocall Settlement Payout Lot Less Than Expected
CBL & ASSOC: Bid for Judgment on Pleadings in "Catlin" Denied
CELGENE CORP: Class Cert. Sought in Thalomid Antitrust MDL
CENTURYLINK INC: Bernstein Named Lead Counsel in Securities Suit

CHARTER COMMUNICATIONS: Wants Judge to Pause TCPA Class Action
CHEMOURS COMPANY: Faces 2nd Suit Over GenX Water Contamination
CHICAGO BRIDGE: Terry Seeks to Certify Class of Field Workers
CINEMARK USA: Appeal in "Amey" Case
CLUBCORP HOLDINGS: Bid to Join Blaschak & McNally Suits Pending

COLGATE-PALMOLIVE CO: Dean Seeks to Certify Class of Purchasers
COMMERCE BANCSHARES: Continues to Defend Against "Warren" Suit
CONVERSE INC: Averts Class Action Over Mandatory Bag Check
COOK COUNTY, IL: Retailers Laud Repeal of Sweetened Beverage Tax
CORAL TELL: Israel Court Approves Settlement

COSTA DEL MAR: Faces Class Action Over "No Gimmicks" Warranty
CSX TRANSPORTATION: Jury Trial in "Tipton" Reset to Feb. 26
DUN & BRADSTREET: Court Denies 3rd Bid to OK Class Settlement
EA RENFROE: 9th Cir. Denies Judicial Notice Bid in "McFaddin"
EL POLLO LOCO: "Olvera" Class Suit Underway

EL POLLO LOCO: Motion to Dismiss Consolidated Suit Underway
ENERGY EVENTS: Faces Class Action Over Cancelled Marathon
ENVISION HEALTHCARE: Faces Class Action Over Inflated Stock Price
EQUIFAX INC: "Coade-Wingate" Suit Alleges FCRA Violations
EQUIFAX INC: Credit Unions File Data Breach Class Action

FACEBOOK INC: Drops Plan to Create New Class of Shares After Suit
FAIR RATE: Faces Class Action Over Unsolicited Faxes
FANDUEL LTD: Posts Huge Losses, Continues to Defend Class Suits
FERRARA CANDY: 8th Cir. Remands "Waters" MMPA Suit to State Court
FORCEFIELD ENERGY: February 8 Settlement Fairness Hearing Set

FORD MOTOR: JND Named Notice Administrator in MyFord Touch Suit
G&H DAIRY: "Guzman-Padilla" Class Settlement Has Final Approval
G&H DAIRY: Court Awards $2,000 to "Guzman-Padilla" Class Reps
GCA SERVICES: Court Certifies Class in "Jama" Minimum Wage Suit
GE HEALTHCARE: Iraq War Victims Sue Over Alleged Bribery Scheme

GENERAL ELECTRIC: Faces Class Action in Calif. Over 401(k) Plan
GENERAL MOTORS: "Jenkins" Suit Alleges Breach of Implied Warranty
GENERAL WIRELESS: Class Action Plaintiffs Object to Plan
GEO GROUP: Fact Discovery in Class Suit Yet to Begin
GHIRARDELLI CHOCOLATE: Faces Suit Over Consumers Act Violations

GLOBAL LEARNING: Faces Class Action Over Donation Tax Scheme
GROGG'S HEATING: Faubel Moves for Class Certification Under FLSA
HSBC CANADA: Ponzi Scheme Victims File Class Action
IC SYSTEM: Court Stays Loveland's Motion for Class Certification
IKO MANUFACTURING: Class Cert. Sought in Roofing Shingle MDL

ILLINOIS: Case Management Order Entered in "Bentz" Suit
INDIANA: Mandated Sex Offender Classes Unconstitutional
INVESTMENT TECHNOLOGY: Class Suit over AlterNet Underway
J. JILL INC: December 12 Lead Plaintiff Motion Deadline Set
KELLY'S BREW: "Atyani" Labor Suit Remanded to State Court

KIMBERLY-CLARK: 9th Cir. Reverses Ruling in "Davidson" Suit
KRISPY KREME: Faces Another Class Action Over Nutritional Labels
KRISPY KREME: Plaintiff Withdraws Suit Over Apple Fritters Label
LA QUINTA: Motion to Dismiss Class Suit Pending
LEE COUNTY, FL: Class Action Mulled Over Ten Mile Canal Failure

LEIDOS INC: Settles Investor Fraud Class Action
LEIDOS INC: Court Agrees to Remove Case from Argument Calendar
LENDINGCLUB CORP: Court Certifies Class in Securities Litigation
LENNY & LARRY'S: Judge Narrows Claims in Label Fraud Class Action
LINEAGE LOGISTICS: $149K "Bailes" Settlement Has Final Approval

LOS ANGELES, CA: Class Certification Sought in "Arellano" Suit
M&T BANK: Trial in Securities Case to Begin June 2018
MAGNACHIP SEMICON: Ct. Denies Prelim. Approval of 2nd Class Deal
MANNKIND CORPORATION: Continues to Defend Class Suit in Israel
MDL 1720: Class Counsel Order in Antitrust Suit Affirmed

MDL 2179: BP's Dispositive Bid on Released Claims Partly Granted
MEDICAL TRANSPORTATION: Harris Seeks Certification Under FLSA
MERCHANTS CREDIT: Class Certification Sought in "O'Boyle" Suit
MONTEREY FINANCIAL: 9th Cir. Remands "Brinkley" to District Ct.
NATIONSTAR MORTGAGE: Bid to Junk Amended "Pemberton" Suit Denied

NAVIENT CORP: December 15 Lead Plaintiff Motion Deadline Set
NEW YORK: 2d Cir. Vacated Dismissal of "Linares" Prisoners Suit
NIEMANN FOODS: Settlement in "Fikara" Suit Has Prelim Approval
PCL CONSTRUCTION: Six Lawsuits Over Outer Banks Outages Combined
PHILLIPS 66: 401(k) Participants File ERISA Cass Action

PURDUE PHARMA: Jacksonville City Council to Pursue Opioid Lawsuit
QUAKER OATS: Court Dismisses Class Action Over Maple Oatmeal
QUALCOMM INC: Court Narrows Claims in Securities Fraud Suit
RENZENBERGER INC: Class of Drivers Certified in "Wright" Suit
SAINT-GOBAIN PERFORMANCE: Sullivan Moves for Class Certification

SANOFI PASTEUR: $61.5MM Deal in Antitrust Suit Has Final OK
SCANA CORP: Faces SEC Nuke Plant Probe Amid Class Action
SHELL OIL: Illinois Village Residents Object to Settlement
SOUTHWEST BANCORP: "Ubaldi" Case Still Ongoing
SPOKEO INC: False Data Class Action to Proceed, Court Rules

SPX CORP: Court Refuses to Certify Class in "Di Biase" Suit
SUBARU OF AMERICA: Faces Second Oil Consumption Class Action
SUGAR TRANSPORT: Dec. 18 "Guinn" Class Certification Hearing
SUNWING: Quebec Man Files Class Action Over Champagne Service
SYSCO CORP: Partly Compelled to Reply to "Martin" Interrogatories

TAYLOR FARMS: Cato Urges Court to Address Evidentiary Issue
TENET HEALTHCARE: Motion to Dismiss Class Suit Pending
TENET HEALTHCARE: Antitrust Class Action Pending in San Antonio
THRIVENT FIN'L: DOL Files Motion to Stay BIC Litigation
TJX COMPANIES: Prelim Approval of "Chester" Class Deal Denied

TOTAL SYSTEM: Lead Plaintiffs' Motion for Leave to Amend Pending
TROY CONSTRUCTION: "Hensley" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT
TRUSTMARK CORP: Says No Activity Related to Amended Suit
TWIN 161 CORP: "Basurto" Suit Alleges FLSA and NYLL Violations
U.S. PHYSICAL: Shareholder Class Suit Underway

UNITED STATES: Army Corps Flood Case Attracts Scores of Lawyers
UNITED STATES: Sued Over Unconstitutional Abortion Veto Power
UNITED STATES: Nov. 27 Final Deadline Set for Cobell Settlement
UNIVERSAL HEALTH: Suit by Teamsters Remains Pending
URBAN OUTFITTERS: Faces Class Action Over Unpaid Overtime Wages

US STEEL: Faces Class Action Over Huge Stock Price Drop
VALEANT PHARMA: Florida to Pursue Direct Action
VOCUS TELECOMS: Fund Manager Vows to Lobby Against Class Action
WAWA INC: Gervasio Moves for Certification of Class Under FLSA
WEST MARINE: "McNeil" Class Suit Underway

WILLMARK COMMUNITIES: Appeal in "Parker" Class Suit Dismissed
YAKIMA, WA: Keith Effler Settles Rainbow Shadow Report Suit

* 20% of Food Class Actions Nationwide Filed in N.D. California
* Ballard Spahr Attorneys Provide Details on CFPB Rule Lawsuit
* High Court to Decide on Enforceability of Class Action Waivers
* Illinois Employers Face Biometric Privacy Law Class Actions
* Labeling Critical to Avoiding Class Action Settlements

* McGuireWoods Attorneys Discuss Waiver "Opt Out Provisions"
* Sen. Elizabeth Warren Issues Opinion on CFPB Arbitration Rule
* Vandeventer Attorney Discusses Employment Law Developments




                            *********


ADVANCED CALL: "Erekson" Suit Alleges FDCPA Violations
------------------------------------------------------
Gale Erekson, and all others similarly-situated v. Advanced Call
Center Technologies, LLC, Case No. 3:17-cv-02766 (D. S.C., October
12, 2017), is brought against the Defendants for violations of the
Fair Debt Collection Practices Act.

The Plaintiff is a resident in the State of South Carolina, County
of Richland and City of Columbia and is a consumer.

Defendant Advanced Call Center Technologies is a debt collector.
[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Holly E. Dowd, Esq.
      THOMPSON CONSUMER LAW GROUP, PLLC
      822 Camborne Place
      Charlotte, NC 28210
      Tel: (888) 332-7252 ext. 260
      Fax: (866) 317-2674
      E-mail: hdowd@consumerlawinfo.com


AMAZON.COM INC: Hunton & Williams Attorneys Discuss Court Ruling
----------------------------------------------------------------
Michael J. Mueller, Esq. -- mmueller@hunton.com -- Corey Lee, Esq.
-- leec@hunton.com -- Thomas R. Waskom, Esq. --twaskom@hunton.com
-- of Hunton & Williams LLP, in an article for Lexology, report
that in a decision with significant implications for online
retailers, on September 19, 2017, the Ninth Circuit Court of
Appeals found that a consumer who purchased a product from Amazon
was bound by hyperlinked terms of service containing an
arbitration provision.  In Wisely v. Amazon.com Inc., the three-
judge panel affirmed a district court's order dismissing an Amazon
user's putative class action alleging violations of California
consumer protection laws, and granting Amazon's motion to compel
arbitration.  The Ninth Circuit's decision provides justification
for the enforceability of arbitration provisions contained in an
adhesive contract, which is a "standardized contract which,
imposed and drafted by the party of superior bargaining strength,
relegates to the subscribing party only the opportunity to adhere
to the contract or reject it."

Case Background

Plaintiffs Andrea Fagerstrom and Allen Wiseley brought a putative
class action in California state court against Amazon asserting
claims under California's Unfair Competition Law (UCL) and False
Advertising Law (FAL).  After removing the case to the US District
Court for the Southern District of California, Amazon moved to
dismiss the action and compel arbitration.4

The motion was based on the terms and conditions to which
consumers agree when they make purchases through Amazon's website.
Customers must go through a checkout page, which contains a
"notice to customers stating that `By placing your order, you
agree to Amazon.com's privacy notice and conditions of use.' "The
conditions of use (COU) include an arbitration provision that
states:

Any dispute or claim relating in any way to your use of any Amazon
Service, or to any products or services sold or distributed by
Amazon or through Amazon.com will be resolved by binding
arbitration, rather than in court, except that you may assert
claims in small claims court if your claims qualify . . . . The
arbitration will be conducted by the American Arbitration
Association (AAA) under its rules, including the AAA's
Supplementary Procedures for ConsumerRelated Disputes.6

On October 20, 2015, the district court granted Amazon's motion to
compel arbitration and dismissed the action without prejudice.  In
doing so, the district court determined that the COU created a
valid contract between Amazon and its customers, including
Mr. Wiseley.

Mr. Wiseley appealed the district court's ruling, arguing that the
district court erred in compelling arbitration because the
arbitration provision of the COU is unconscionable.

Ninth Circuit Opinion

The Ninth Circuit affirmed, finding the COU is a binding contract
and neither procedurally nor substantively unconscionable.

First, the court recognized that COUs "are adhesive in nature,"
but held that adhesion alone is not sufficient "to support a
procedural finding of procedural unconscionability," where there
are no other "indicia of procedural unconscionability present."
The court further found that Wiseley's "clicking the corresponding
action button" on Amazon's checkout and account registration pages
"constituted agreement to the hyperlinked COU." Mr. Wiseley had a
" `reasonable opportunity to understand' that he would be bound by
the additional terms."

Similarly, the court found that the incorporation by reference of
the American Arbitration Association's (AAA) rules was not
procedurally unconscionable because Mr. Wiseley "had a `reasonable
opportunity to understand'. . . that the Consumer Arbitration
Rules would apply in the context of his consumer purchases, and he
could call the provided phone number to resolve any lingering
uncertainty."  The court further stated that if an arbitration
clause is presented in the same font as the rest of the COU and
has key terms bolded, there is no procedural unconscionability.13

Second, the court found that "Wiseley's three arguments for
substantive unconscionability" lacked merit.  The court determined
that "a unilateral modification clause does not render the
arbitration provision substantively unconscionable because Amazon
is limited by the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing.
"Further, "the arbitration clause's exemption of intellectual
property claims for injunctive relief does not make the provision
overly harsh or one-sided."  Lastly, the court determined that the
attorneys' fee provision was not substantively unconscionable
because it was reciprocal under Washington law, and it also
complies with California law. Consequently, the court affirmed the
district court's ruling.

Implications

The Ninth Circuit's opinion bolsters the enforceability of
arbitration provisions contained in adhesive contracts.  However,
companies that have electronic agreements that are "adhesive"
should be mindful that the arbitration clauses should be presented
in the same font as the rest of their conditions of use, and have
key terms bolded such that a party can have reasonable notice of
the additional terms.  This is consistent with prior decisions
involving "click-through" agreements for consumer products.  For
example, the Tenth Circuit in Hancock v. AT&T Co. held that
arbitration provisions and other contractual terms in electronic
transactions are enforceable even if a consumer is provided a
hyperlink or other way to access the terms of the contract and
requires the consumer to affirmatively accept those terms
(including the arbitration provision contained therein) by
checking off a box or clicking a button that expresses assent to
the terms.  In Hancock, the court stated that clickwrap agreements
that provide "[r]easonably conspicuous notice of the existence of
contract terms and unambiguous manifestation of assent to those
terms by consumers" are routinely upheld. Further, the US District
Court for the District of New Jersey granted Dell's motion to
compel arbitration in Khan v. Dell Inc., after it found that
customers who purchased Dell's 600M computers were required to
review and agree to the product purchase agreement, which
contained an arbitration provision and a class-action waiver,
during their online checkout process.21 The Khan Court in part
based its holding on that, under AT&T Mobility LLC v. Concepcion,
131 S.Ct. 1740 (2011), and Texas and New Jersey state law, the
fact that the contract was one of adhesion was insufficient to
prevent enforcement of the contract's arbitration clause. [GN]


AMERICAN AIRLINES: "Grabham" Suit Alleges Equal Pay Act Violation
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Lorie Grabham, and all others similarly-situated v. American
Airlines, Inc., Case No. 2:17-cv-03741 (D. Ariz., October 12,
2017), is brought against the Defendants for violations of the
Equal Pay Act of 1963 and the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938.

Plaintiff Lorie Grabham is a resident of Glendale, Arizona and was
employed by the Defendant.

Defendant American Airlines, Inc., is a Delaware corporation with
its corporate headquarters in Fort Worth, Texas and a second
corporate office located in Phoenix, Arizona 85034.  Defendant is
the world's largest airline and operates a hub at Phoenix Sky
Harbor International Airport in Phoenix, Arizona. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Eric D. Zard, Esq.
      CARLSON LYNCH SWEET
      KILPELA & CARPENTER, LLP
      1350 Columbia Street, Suite 603
      San Diego, CA 92101
      Tel: (619) 762-1910
      Fax: (619) 756-6991
      E-mail: ezard@carlsonlynch.com


AMERICAN FAMILY: "Thomas" Suit Remanded to Wash. Superior Court
---------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Richard A. Jones of the U.S. District Court for the Western
District of Washington, Seattle, granted the Plaintiff's Motion to
Remand the case captioned MIRANDA THOMAS, Plaintiffs, v. AMERICAN
FAMILY MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY, et al., Defendants, Case No. C17-
475-RAJ (W.D. Wash.).

The Plaintiff filed the putative class action against the
Defendants, alleging violations of the Washington Consumer
Protection Act, in King County Superior Court.  She alleges that
the Defendants committed unfair and deceptive acts while
collecting on a debt the Plaintiff incurred following a motor
vehicle collision with one of American Family Mutual Insurance Co.
and American Family Insurance Co. ("AF")'s insureds.  Her
Complaint alleges damages less than $5 million.

The Defendants removed the case to the District Court under the
Class Action Fairness Act of 2005 ("CAFA").  The Plaintiff then
filed her Motion for Remand.  Defendants AF and AFNI oppose the
Motion.

Judge Jones concludes that while it is true that the Defendants
need not prove that its estimate is accurate to a legal certainty,
they must still show that their estimates are reasonable.  AFNI
provides no data to support the original estimate of $10.2 million
and instead relies on speculative statements.  AFNI's co-
defendants, AF, provide data, but do not show by a preponderance
of the evidence that its interpretation of that data and the
resulting estimate, are reasonable.

By AF's own acknowledgement, it based its estimate on all
subrogation claims within its initial narrowed grouping of claims
that involved multiple types of damages.  AF's estimate makes
assumptions about AFNI's typical collection practices that are not
backed by any evidence.  AF only speculates what types of claims
could lead to AFNI sending multiple collection letters, but AF
does not assert that it has any actual knowledge of AFNI's
procedures.  AF has not shown that its interpretation of the Class
and resulting calculations are reasonable.

As the Defendants have not shown by a preponderance of the
evidence that the amount in controversy exceeds the threshold
requirement set out in CAFA, Judge Jones granted the Plaintiff's
Motion for Remand and remanded the case to King County Superior
Court.

A full-text copy of the Court's Oct. 20, 2017 Order is available
at https://is.gd/MEeQfX from Leagle.com.

Miranda Thomas, Plaintiff, represented by Roger M. Townsend --
rtownsend@bjtlegal.com -- BRESKIN JOHNSON & TOWNSEND PLLC.

Miranda Thomas, Plaintiff, represented by Brendan Wesley Donckers
-- bdonckers@bjtlegal.com -- BRESKIN JOHNSON & TOWNSEND PLLC,
Cynthia J. Heidelberg -- cheidelberg@bjtlegal.com -- BRESKIN
JOHNSON & TOWNSEND PLLC, David Elliot Breskin --
dbreskin@bjtlegal.com -- BRESKIN JOHNSON & TOWNSEND PLLC & David
A. Weibel -- dweibel@thwpllc.com -- BISHOP MARSHALL & WEIBEL, PS.

American Family Mutual Insurance Company, Defendant, represented
by Deborah A. Ellingboe -- debbie.ellingboe@FaegreBD.com -- FAEGRE
BAKER DANIELS LLP, pro hac vice, Michael J. Kaupa, FAEGRE BAKER
DANIELS LLP, pro hac vice, Rory W. Leid, III -- rleid@cwlhlaw.com
-- COLE WATHEN LEID HALL PC, Erika Holsman -- eholsman@cwlhlaw.com
-- COLE WATHEN LEID HALL PC & Kimberly Larsen Rider --
krider@cwlhlaw.com -- COLE WATHEN LEID HALL PC.

American Family Insurance Company, Defendant, represented by
Deborah A. Ellingboe, FAEGRE BAKER DANIELS LLP, pro hac vice,
Michael J. Kaupa, FAEGRE BAKER DANIELS LLP, pro hac vice, Rory W.
Leid, III, COLE WATHEN LEID HALL PC, Erika Holsman, COLE WATHEN
LEID HALL PC & Kimberly Larsen Rider, COLE WATHEN LEID HALL PC.

AFNI, Inc, Defendant, represented by Elizabeth K. Morrison --
emorrison@grsm.com -- GORDON & REES, Sean P. Flynn --
sflynn@grsm.com -- GORDON & REES LLP, pro hac vice & David W.
Silke -- dsilke@grsm.com -- GORDON & REES.


ANTHONY SOLOMON: No Class Action Status Yet for Sex Crime Claims
----------------------------------------------------------------
Jason Miller, writing for The Intelligencer, reports that
a retired Belleville orthodontist who was facing a slew sex crime
charges, including the production of child pornography and
voyeurism, died from liver cancer.

Anthony Gary Solomon's death was confirmed by Darcy Merkur, A Bay
Street litigation lawyer at Thomson Rogers Lawyers, forging the
civil action of several female plaintiffs, including Sarah
Davidson, who retained the firm to launch civil claims against
Solomon.

"I just found out this morning.  I heard he passed away," Mr.
Merkur said of Solomon's death.  "I had heard that he was sick
with some kind of life-threatening cancer."

Though Solomon is deceased, which will certainly mean an end to
criminal action against him, Mr. Merkur said "we can still pursue
the estate."

The question now are the avenues available to those seeking
compensation.

"Sometimes there is insurance that covers," Mr. Merkur said.
"Insurance covers professional negligence."

He said these circumstances may be outside the scope of
professional negligence, but if he has insurance then the firm
will be looking into options for potential claims.

"Then we can go after him, personally, and go after the estate,
personally," Mr. Merkur said of another route.

"She (Davidson) wants the matter addressed and we're just trying
to assess if there is an economical way to do so," he said.

The local prosecutors' office has set an Oct. 25 date for
Solomon's next court appearance.

"The Crown will just present proof of death and that will be it,"
Mr. Merkur said.

Reached on Oct. 17, Hastings County Crown attorney Lee Burgess
confirmed it was also his understanding that Solomon died.

"Solomon has passed away of natural causes," Mr. Burgess said.

Mr. Burgess will provide more details at the Oct. 25 court date.

"I don't want to say what will be happening on the 25th, at the
moment," Mr. Burgess said.

The father of two Belleville teenage girls allegedly captured in
videos by Solomon says it's disappointing Solomon won't be
answering to the allegations due to his untimely death.

"It's totally odd, that's for sure," said the father who didn't
want to be named.  "I just found out this morning.  It's an
unfortunate ending, but what can we do?"

Police say the retired 69-year-old, who was residing in Toronto,
had been under investigation since February 2017 before he was
charged.

Police accused Solomon of inappropriately recording video of
clients without their consent or knowledge, which they claim
included both adults and children under the age of 18 among the
recorded.

The Belleville Police and Toronto Police Service attended an
address in Toronto on July 12 to execute a search warrant.

Solomon was charged with voyeurism -- surreptitiously recording
images of a person over the age of 18 years, voyeurism --
surreptitiously recording images of a person under the age of 18
years, possession of child pornography and making child
pornography.

The Thomson Rogers website states Davidson, 28, was a patient of
the former orthodontist in 2004/2005 when she was just 15 years
old.  It indicates she's one of several hundred of the former
orthodontist's victims who were surreptitiously videotaped,
without consent, while under his care at his Belleville dental
office.

"It is understood that hundreds of similar videotapes were seized
by police from the former orthodontist during a recent search of
his office and house," the firm's website indicates.

Speaking to The Intelligencer on Oct. 17, Mr. Merkur said "We've
been consulted by a host of people with similar complaints about
breaches of privacy.  I think we have a few dozen, if not more,
who have contacted us and we've been keeping them updated."

It hasn't reached class action status at this point, where
everyone is bundled under the same claim. "We have not done so
yet," said Mr. Merkur.  "It is unclear if we will advance a class
action or not." [GN]


ASSOCIATED CREDIT: Partial Summary Judgment in FDCPA Suit OK'd
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the case captioned MYRON HARGREAVES, CORTNEY HALVORSEN, and
BONNIE FREEMAN, Plaintiffs, v. ASSOCIATED CREDIT SERVICE, INC., a
Washington Corporation, and PAUL J. WASSON AND MONICA WASSON,
individually and the marital community, Defendants, Case No. 2:16-
CV-0103-TOR (E.D. Wash.), Judge Thomas O. Rice of the U.S.
District Court for the Eastern District of Washington granted the
Defendants' Motion to Dismiss for Failure to State a Claim or
Alternatively Motion for Partial Summary Judgment.

The case concerns a claim against Defendant Associated, a
Washington debt collection agency.  On April 1, 2016, Hargreaves
filed a putative class action, alleging that Associated
misrepresented information in writs of garnishment, which allowed
them to unlawfully garnish the Plaintiffs' exempt property in
violation of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act ("FDCPA"), the
Washington Consumer Protection Act ("WCPA"), and the Washington
Collection Agency Act ("WCAA").  On Nov. 16, 2016, Hargreaves,
along with Halvorsen and Freeman, filed a First Amended Complaint
adding the Wasson Defendants.

The Defendants seek an order dismissing the Plaintiffs' "reason to
believe claims," which refers to the Defendants allegedly, falsely
certifying that they had reason to believe the assets they were
attempting to garnish were not exempt.  Alternatively, they
request partial summary judgment for failure to state a claim
under Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 8(a) and 12 (b)(6) and that
there are no disputed questions of fact that preclude a finding
that Mr. Wasson lawfully executed each application for writ of
garnishment.

Judge Rice finds that the Defendants satisfied the "reason to
believe" standard through their sworn testimony.  He determines
that it is sufficient for the Defendants to find that a debtor is
employed and has a bank account, or has a bank account and does
not know or have reason to believe that that the debtor's account
is only comprised of Social Security benefits or some other
totally exempt source.

Under various privacy laws like the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Financial
Modernization Act, financial institutions must respect the privacy
of their customers' nonpublic personal information.  Accordingly,
the Defendants cannot access the debtor's account balances before
issuing the writ of garnishment, and the negligible "reason to
believe" standard accommodates this limitation.  It is then
sufficient for the Defendants to believe the Plaintiffs had funds
in their bank accounts exceeding those exempt from garnishment
without requiring more specificity as to the exact amount or
nature of those funds.  The Judge granted the Defendants' Motion
for Partial Summary Judgment on the FDCPA claim.

At oral argument, the Plaintiffs agreed that the WCAA is not an
independent cause of action and they did not object to having it
dismissed as an independent cause of action.  Accordingly, Judge
Rice granted the Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment on the
WCAA claim.

Also, at oral argument, the Plaintiffs stated that their WCPA
cause of action is only based on their contention that the
Defendants did not have sufficient "reason to believe."  The
Plaintiffs admit that if the Court rules on the "reason to
believe" standard in favor of the Defendants, then the WCPA action
should also be dismissed.  Since he has found that the Defendants
had adequate "reason to believe," the WCPA claim is also
dismissed.  Therefore, Judge Rice granted the Defendants' Motion
for Partial Summary Judgment in regard to the WCPA claim.

Accordingly, Judge Rice granted the Defendants' Motion to Dismiss
for Failure to State a Claim or Alternatively Motion for Partial
Summary Judgment.  He directed the District Court Executive to
enter the Order and furnish copies to the counsel.

A full-text copy of the Court's Oct. 20, 2017 Order is available
at https://is.gd/JnrM3J from Leagle.com.

Myron Hargreaves, Plaintiff, represented by Kirk D. Miller --
kmiller@millerlawspokane.com -- Kirk D Miller PS.

Associated Credit Services Inc, Defendant, represented by John
Gregory Lockwood, Law Office of J Gregory Lockwood PLLC.

Paul J Wasson, Defendant, represented by Kevin James Curtis --
info@winstoncashatt.com -- Winston & Cashatt, Molly Marie Winston,
Winston & Cashatt & Roger James Peven -- rjpeven@gmail.com -- Law
Office of Roger J Peven.

Monica Wasson, Defendant, represented by Kevin James Curtis,
Winston & Cashatt & Molly Marie Winston, Winston & Cashatt.


AUSTRALIA: Toxic Firefighting Foam Class Actions Pending
--------------------------------------------------------
Christopher Knaus, writing for The Guardian, reports that a top
United States environmental official has described the
contamination of drinking water by toxic firefighting chemicals as
the most seminal public health challenge of coming decades.

The US, like Australia, is still grappling with how to respond to
widespread contamination caused by past use of per- and poly-
fluoroalkyl substances (Pfas) in firefighting foam.

The manmade chemicals share a probable link with cancer, do not
break down in the environment and have contaminated groundwater,
drinking water, soil and waterways.

The Australian government has continued to maintain there is no
concrete evidence of a link between the chemicals and adverse
health impacts, but has been criticised for the inadequacy of its
response.

The government's stated position sits in stark contrast with a
view expressed by a senior official in the US Centres for Disease
Control and Prevention (CDC), a government agency and the
country's leading public health institution.

Patrick Breysse, director of the CDC's National Centre for
Environmental Health, described the chemicals as "one of the most
seminal public health challenge for the next decades", according
to the Bloomberg news agency.

Mr. Breysse estimated 10 million Americans were currently drinking
contaminated water.

He said soon "we think that hundreds of millions of Americans will
be drinking water with levels of these chemicals above levels of
concern", according to Bloomberg.

The comments have renewed calls for governments across the globe,
including Australia, to urgently investigate the extent of
drinking water contamination.

Rob Billott, the lawyer who led the US class action against Pfas
user Dupont, has been pushing in recent months for the CDC to more
thoroughly investigate the chemicals.

He said the comments from Mr. Breysse should be quickly acted
upon.

"This reaffirms the importance of thoroughly -- and promptly --
investigating and addressing the threat that these chemicals
present to human health when they are found in our drinking water
supplies," he told Guardian Australia.

The Australian government is currently facing two class actions
from residents in contaminated communities: Oakey in Queensland
and Williamtown in New South Wales.

Urgent action has been taken to provide bottled water and a
treatment facility for residents in Katherine, in the Northern
Territory, after the drinking supply was contaminated.

The ABC revealed a 1987 report to defence had warned of the
potential toxicity of firefighting foam.

The government was warned by the US Environmental Protection
Agency in 2000 of the dangers of Pfas.

Despite this, defence continued to use Pfas firefighting foam at
bases until at least 2004, when it began a slow phaseout of the
most toxic product. [GN]


BARN CATS: "Barnett" Suit Alleges FLSA Violation
------------------------------------------------
Pamela Barnett, and all others similarly-situated v. Barn Cats,
LLC and Randal Mouw, Case No. 1:17-cv-00901 (W.D. Mich., October
12, 2017), is brought against the Defendants for violations of the
Fair Labor Standards Act and the Michigan's Workforce Opportunity
Wage Act.

Plaintiff Pamela Barnett is a resident of the State of Michigan
and worked for the Defendants.

Defendants own and operate a construction company engaged in
providing goods and services across the U.S.  Its principal place
of business is in the City of Rockford, State of Michigan. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      C. Christopher Newberg, Esq.
      RODENHOUSE KUIPERS, P.C.
      678 Front Avenue NW, Suite 176
      Grand Rapids, MI 49504
      Tel: (616) 451-4000
      E-mail: chris@rodenhouselaw.com


BMW: Siskinds Commences Class Action Over N20 Engine Defects
------------------------------------------------------------
Siskinds LLP on Oct. 17 disclosed that it has commenced a proposed
class action against BMW regarding an engine used in numerous BMW
models during the period between 2012-2015.

The proposed action alleges that BMW vehicles equipped with the
"N20" engine contain defects in the primary and secondary assembly
chains.  It is alleged that these defects cause the chains to wear
out prematurely, resulting in costly repairs borne by the proposed
class.

The action seeks to represent all persons who purchased or leased
a BMW vehicle containing the N20 engine during the period between
2012-2015.

If you purchased or leased one of these vehicles, please contact
Siskinds LLP by phone at 1-800-461-6166 xt. 4228 or by email at
laura-marie.paynter@siskinds.com

                     About Siskinds LLP

Siskinds LLP -- http://www.siskinds.com-- is a full-service law
firm headquartered in London, Ontario and is Canada's leading
class actions firm.  It was also the first law firm to secure
certification of a class proceeding under the Class Proceedings
Act, 1992. [GN]


BNSF RAILWAY: Class Action Status Denied for Antitrust Lawsuit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Mark Edward Nero, writing for American Shipper, reports that
U.S. District Court Judge Paul Friedman on Oct. 10 issued an order
denying class action status for a decade-old antitrust lawsuit in
which a group of rail shippers is accusing the four major U.S.-
based Class I railroads of a five-year price-fixing conspiracy.

In an order that was issued nearly 10 years after the case was
transferred to the court, Judge Friedman said that the plaintiffs
didn't managed to establish the requirements for the case to be
prosecuted as a class action lawsuit.

The denial of class certification means that each plaintiff must
establish its individual claim and prove damages based on its own
shipments during the class period.

The lawsuit, In re Rail Freight Fuel Surcharge Antitrust
Litigation, was filed by a nationwide consortium of rail-freight
shippers against the four Class I railroads -- BNSF Railway, Union
Pacific Railroad, CSX Transportation and Norfolk Southern Railway
-- for recovery of damages suffered by shippers because of alleged
scheme to impose fuel surcharges between July 1, 2003 and Dec. 31,
2008.

According to judge's order, although the plaintiffs have provided
"strong evidence of conspiracy and class wide injury," their
"damages regression model is flawed."

The court order is not a ruling on the merits of the claims
against the railroads.

Both the plaintiffs or railroads are eligible to appeal the order,
but an appeal requires a petition for permission to appeal to be
filed with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia
within 14 days of the date the order was issued. [GN]


BOCA WEST: Court Dismisses Amended "Calmes" Suit w/o Prejudice
--------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Robin L. Rosenberg of the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of Florida dismissed without prejudice the case
captioned FRANK CALMES, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. BOCA WEST COUNTRY CLUB, INC., a
Florida Not for Profit Corporation, BW-PC, LLC, a Florida Limited
Liability Company, JEROLD GLASSMAN, PHILIP KUPPERMAN, and LARRY
CORMAN, Defendants, Case No. 9:17-CV-80574-ROSENBERG/HOPKINS (S.D.
Fla.).

Plaintiff Calmes, represents an alleged class of property owners
at the Defendant, alleging that the Defendants committed various
acts of mismanagement of Boca West, including mismanaging the sale
of club property and increasing membership dues.  This has
impacted the values of the Class Members' properties.

Defendant BW-PC was involved in business dealings with Defendant
Boca West.  Defendants Glassman and Kupperman are board members at
Defendant Boca West, and Corman is General Counsel for Defendant
Boca West.  The Amended Complaint alleges that the Plaintiff and
all of the Defendants are citizens of Florida.  Several of the
Class Members, however, are allegedly citizens of other states.

The Plaintiff alleges eight counts in his Amended Complaint.  He
alleges Declaratory Judgment (Count I), Breach of Contract (Count
II), Injunctive Relief (Count III), Violation of Florida's
Consumer Protection Laws (Count IV), Unjust Enrichment (Count V),
Civil RICO/Conspiracy (Count VI), Breach of Fiduciary Duty (Count
VII), and Professional Negligence (Count VIII). The Amended
Complaint invokes federal court jurisdiction under the Class
Action Fairness Act.

The Defendants filed their Motion to Dismiss on June 22, 2017.
The Plaintiff filed his Response on July 13, 2017, and the
Defendants filed their Reply on July 20, 2017.

Judge Rosenberg finds that the Plaintiff alleges insufficient
facts for the Court to establish that it has subject-matter
jurisdiction under Class Action Fairness Act ("CAFA"): (i) the
Plaintiff does not allege sufficient facts for the Court to
plausibly infer that the amount in controversy exceeds the
jurisdictional requirement of $5,000,000; (ii) he does not offer
any support for the statements or even name the states of which
the other class members are citizens, although the Plaintiff
alleges that there are class members who are citizens of states
other than Florida; and (iii) the Amended Complaint does not
provide what percentage of the Class are citizens of Florida and
it states that all of the Defendants are citizens of Florida.

Because the Judge concludes that there are insufficient facts to
support finding that it has subject-matter jurisdiction under
CAFA, she then analyzes whether it has subject-matter jurisdiction
under federal question jurisdiction.  She finds that (i) the
Plaintiff's Declaratory Judgment Act claim does not provide a
basis for subject-matter jurisdiction; and (ii) the Amended
Complaint does not allege that the Defendants committed violations
of any of the enumerated state or federal laws necessary to bring
a claim under the federal RICO statute.

Judge Rosenberg concludes that the Plaintiff alleges insufficient
facts for the Court to conclude that it has subject-matter
jurisdiction under CAFA or federal question jurisdiction.  Based
on the foregoing, she dismissed without prejudice the Plaintiff's
Amended Complaint.  The Plaintiff may file a Seconded Amended
Complaint by Oct. 24, 2017.  The Judge granted the Defendant's
Motion to Dismiss in so far as the Plaintiff's claims are
dismissed.  She denied as moot the Defendants' Joint Motion to
Require Plaintiff to Post Bond Pursuant to Fla. Stat. Section
501.211(3) Pending the Outcome of Litigation.

A full-text copy of the Court's Oct. 13, 2017 Order is available
at https://is.gd/znsWhs from Leagle.com.

Frank Calmes, Plaintiff, represented by Michael J. Braunstein --
MBraunstein@BraunsteinFirm.com -- The Braunstein Law Firm, PLLC.

Frank Calmes, Plaintiff, represented by Ronald Scott Kaniuk --
ron@kaniuklawoffice.com -- Kaniuk Law Office.

BOCA WEST COUNTRY CLUB, INC., Defendant, represented by S.
Jonathan Vine -- jonathan.vine@csklegal.com -- Cole Scott &
Kissane, Barry Adam Postman -- barry.postman@csklegal.com -- Cole
Scott & Kissane, Joshua Alexander Goldstein --
joshua.goldstein@csklegal.com -- Cole Scott & Kissane, P.A. & Nina
Christine Schmidt -- nina.schmidt@csklegal.com -- Cole, Scott,
Kissane P.A..

Jerold Glassman, Defendant, represented by S. Jonathan Vine, Cole
Scott & Kissane, Barry Adam Postman, Cole Scott & Kissane, Joshua
Alexander Goldstein, Cole Scott & Kissane, P.A. & Nina Christine
Schmidt, Cole, Scott, Kissane P.A..

PHILIP KUPPERMAN, Defendant, represented by S. Jonathan Vine, Cole
Scott & Kissane, Barry Adam Postman, Cole Scott & Kissane, Joshua
Alexander Goldstein, Cole Scott & Kissane, P.A. & Nina Christine
Schmidt, Cole, Scott, Kissane P.A..

Larry Corman, Defendant, represented by Richard Wayne Epstein --
richard.epstein@gmlaw.com -- Greenspoon Marder, P.A., Roy Taub --
roy.taub@gmlaw.com -- Greenspoon Marder, P.A. & S. Jonathan Vine,
Cole Scott & Kissane.

BW-PC LLC, Defendant, represented by S. Jonathan Vine, Cole Scott
& Kissane, Barry Adam Postman, Cole Scott & Kissane, Joshua
Alexander Goldstein, Cole Scott & Kissane, P.A. & Nina Christine
Schmidt, Cole, Scott, Kissane P.A..


BOSCH GMBH: Seeks Dismissal of Racketeering Class Action
--------------------------------------------------------
Cara Bayles, Y. Peter Kang and Bonnie Eslinger, writing for
Law360, report that Robert Bosch GmbH Inc. asked a California
federal judge on Oct. 17 to end a putative racketeering class
action brought by dealerships alleging the auto parts maker helped
Volkswagen AG skirt emissions regulations, saying there's no
evidence Bosch knew what its parts were used for or that
dealerships were injured by the scheme.

The franchise dealers, who already reached a $1.2 billion
settlement with Volkswagen over the emissions scandal, accused
Bosch of knowingly assisting VW by creating the defeat device that
hid from drivers and government regulators the "clean diesel"
cars' substandard emissions rates.  But Matthew Slater --
mslater@cgsh.com -- of Cleary Gottlieb Steen & Hamilton LLP told
U.S. District Judge Charles Breyer at the Oct. 17 hearing that the
franchise dealerships lacked standing to sue Bosch, because the
connection between the two was too attenuated to allege an injury.

He said the dealers' second amended complaint was full of
allegations against VW, not Bosch, and that the dealerships had
only alleged they'd been harmed by the damage to VW's reputation
as a result of the scandal.  That isn't enough to establish
standing under the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations
Act, Slater said, adding that VW's reputation has since been
restored by $14.7 billion in settlements with drivers and the U.S.
government.  He added the dealers had actually profited from VW's
misconduct.

"They can't deny that they benefited from the RICO scheme they
allege.  They were able to sell more cars because of the
deception, and at a premium," he said.  "There must be a direct
relationship between the plaintiffs' own injury and the defendant.
. . . Those are not arguments which the plaintiff made at all. The
same injuries would have arisen with or without Bosch. . . . That
breaks the chain."

The VW-branded franchise dealers allege Bosch knew since at least
2014 of VW's illegal use of such devices in its vehicles and even
"worked hand in glove" with VW in developing them.

The suit is part of multidistrict litigation established to
process claims against the automaker after the U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency and the California Air Resources Board revealed
in 2015 that VW installed so-called defeat devices in its diesel
vehicles to trick federal emissions tests and make it appear as if
the vehicles were environmentally friendly.

Volkswagen admitted fault and revealed that the software was
installed in millions of diesel vehicles worldwide, nearly 600,000
of which were sold in the U.S.  The defeat devices allowed the
vehicles to emit more toxins into the air after they leave testing
labs and are out on the roads.  The government hit VW and its
subsidiaries with a Clean Air Act suit over the emissions cheating
in January 2015.

Judge Breyer has approved $14.7 billion in settlements with the
U.S. government and approximately 475,000 owners of affected VW
and Audi 2.0-liter diesel vehicles to provide compensation,
remediation and an investment by the automaker into zero-emissions
vehicle technologies.

In June, Judge Breyer granted Bosch's motion to dismiss the
dealers' claims, finding the complaint "blur[red] the lines"
between Robert Bosch GmbH and Robert Bosch LLC, and that RICO
requires a pleading specifying the role of each individual
defendant.  The judge also said the dealers failed to plead that
each Bosch defendant "knowingly participated in the scheme to
defraud, with specific intent to deceive."

Mr. Slater said on Oct. 17 that other than adding "LLC" throughout
the newest complaint, the dealers hadn't changed much, and had
"failed to cure the fundamental defect" of their suit: that it was
"overwhelmingly about the VW defendants and not Bosch."  He said
Bosch was contracted to supply parts to VW, but that there was no
evidence it knowingly participated in the scheme.

"There's no communication where the parties came together and said
they would agree to enterprise," he said. "There's no evidence
that Bosch said, "We think it's a good idea.'"

But the dealers' attorney, Steve W. Berman of Hagens Berman Sobol
Shapiro LLP, said that wasn't true, and that the complaint alleged
Bosch's "knowing participation in an enterprise that was fraud."
Berman said the acoustic function Bosch developed wasn't just
designed to cancel out noise, but to adjust the car's performance,
and pointed to communications between Bosch and VW not only about
making and calibrating the device, but also about removing it from
specification sheets to cover their tracks.

"Maybe in Germany hiding evidence of criminal activity is part of
the normal course of business, but it's not here.  Here, that's
wire fraud," Berman said.

He also said that the dealers could allege financial injury in
addition to the reputational harm that took away business and
lowered the franchise's worth.  He said the dealers had paid top
dollar for the vehicles, which suddenly fell in value and sat on
their lots after the revelation of the emissions cheating.

Judge Breyer didn't indicate how he would rule on the motion, but
he did agree with Berman, saying, "They can't take conduct X, call
it ordinary business practices, and then escape liability because
X is fraudulent."

He also said that the argument that VW's settlement had cleared
its reputation couldn't have been made two years ago, when the
scandal first occurred.

The dealers are represented by Steve W. Berman of Hagens Berman
Sobol Shapiro LLP.

Bosch is represented by Matthew D. Slater of Cleary Gottlieb Steen
& Hamilton LLP.

The multidistrict litigation is In re: Volkswagen "Clean Diesel"
Marketing, Sales Practices and Products Liability Litigation, case
number 3:15-md-02672, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of California. [GN]


BRAMBLES: Maurice Blackburn Mulls $100-Mil. Investor Class Action
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Mathew Dunckley, writing for Sydney Morning Herald, reports that
embattled logistics giant Brambles faces a fresh challenge in the
shape of a potential $100 million class action over alleged
failures to keep investors informed.

Brambles, which is a global pallet giant that operates in more
than 60 countries, faces the prospect of a Maurice Blackburn-led
class action that will allege the company failed to keep investors
informed about its true financial position leading into the early
months of this year.

With the support of British litigation funder Harbour, Maurice
Blackburn argues that Brambles had misled investors when it
reaffirmed earnings guidance for the 2017 financial year in
October of 2016.

Brambles indicated in January, about 11 weeks later, that it would
not meet that guidance, triggering a 15.8 per cent fall in its
share price, then a month later it again downgraded guidance,
sparking a further 9.9 per cent fall.

At its result, in August last year, Brambles provided guidance of
sales growth of up to nine per cent and profit growth of up to 11
per cent for the 2017 financial year.

It reaffirmed that guidance its annual general meeting in November
where chairman Stephen Johns told investors that the outlook for
both measures "remains unchanged".

"We remain committed to the five-year targets we set in December
2013 and our ongoing business strategy," Mr Johns told investors
at that meeting. [GN]


BRANDECO LLC: "Braley" Suit Seeks Damages Under Sherman Act
------------------------------------------------------------
Laura Braley, and all others similarly-situated v. Brandeco, LLC,
Casad Company, Custom Wristbands Inc., Netbrands Media Corp.,
Zaappaaz, Inc., Mashnoon Ahmed, Christopher Angeles, Akil Kurji,
and Azim Makanojiya, Case No. 4:17-cv-03064 (S.D. Tex., October
12, 2017), seeks treble damages under the Sherman Act and the
Clayton Act.

Plaintiff alleges that this case involves a price-fixing
conspiracy in which representatives of the corporate Defendants,
including the four individual Defendants, used text messages,
instant messages, and in-person meetings to fix the prices of
customized promotional products.

Plaintiff Laura Braley is a resident in Virginia Beach, Virginia.
Braley purchased customized promotional products from one or more
Defendants.

The five corporate Defendants are online vendors of customized
promotional products, including wristbands and lanyards.

The four individual Defendants Mashnoon Ahmed, Christopher
Angeles, Akil Kurji, and Azim Makanojiya are controlling officers
of corporate Defendants Netbrands, Custom, Brandeco, and Zaappaaz,
respectively. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Miranda Y. Jones, Esq.
      Heim, Payne & Chorush, LLP
      1111 Bagby, Suite 2100
      Houston, TX 77002
      Tel: (713) 221-2000
      Fax: (713) 221-2021
      E-mail: mjones@hpcllp.com


BROWN COUNTY, WI: Court Denies Summary Judgment Bid in "Jacobs"
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the case captioned AARON L. JACOBS, JR., Plaintiff, v. KERRI
BARKLEY and ROBERTA LONGSINE, Defendants, Case No. 16-cv-246-pp
(E.D. Wis.), Judge Pamela Pepper of the U.S. District Court for
the Eastern District of Wisconsin (i) denied the Plaintiff's
motions to compel and to certify class and appoint class counsel;
and (ii) granted the Plaintiff's motions withdraw third amended
complaint, to amend the complaint, and to extend the discovery
deadline.

Plaintiff Jacobs is confined at the Brown County Jail, and is
representing himself.  On Dec. 19, 2016, the Court screened the
second amended complaint, and allowed the Plaintiff to proceed on
a First Amendment claim based on allegations that the Defendants,
under Brown County Jail policy, failed to provide him with
incoming mail, and returned the mail to the sender, on four
separate occasions.

Judge Pepper addresses the Plaintiff's motions to amend the
complaint, to certify class and appoint class counsel, to compel,
and for extension of the discovery deadline.

Judge Pepper will grant the Plaintiff's motion to amend the
complaint.  He may proceed on his First Amendment claims against
the Individual Defendants based on the six mail rejection
incidents.  The Plaintiff also may proceed on a Monell claim
against Brown County, based on allegations that the jail's policy
at the time was to reject the mail and return it to the sender
without notice.  The Judge does not, however, see a plausible
Fourteenth Amendment claim based on these allegations.  She also
doesn't see a plausible claim based on the Plaintiff's allegations
related to the "Returned Mail Spreadsheet," on which jail staff
allegedly logged at least 70,730 pieces of inmate mail that were
denied and returned to the senders between Jan. 1, 2004, and May
18, 2017.

The Judge advises the Plaintiff that it will not grant any more
motions for leave to file amended complaints.  Once the Defendants
have answered the third amended complaint, she will issue a
scheduling order setting deadlines for the completion of discovery
and for filing dispositive motions.

Judge Pepper denying the Plaintiff's motion to certify the class,
and thus she will not appoint an attorney to represent a class the
court has not certified.  Because the Plaintiff is representing
himself, he cannot adequately represent the proposed class, and
thus he cannot show all four pre-requisites for class
certification.  At this point, the Plaintiff may proceed on his
own and litigate his own claims.

The Judge finds that the Defendants appropriately objected to, and
answered, the Plaintiff's requests.  With respect to the responses
to the Plaintiff's interrogatories and request for production of
documents, she cannot find that the Defendants acted in bad faith
by filing to respond, or that their tardiness was prejudicial to
the Plaintiff.  Therefore, the Judge will not waive the
Defendants' objections, and it will deny the Plaintiff's motion to
compel.

Finally, on June 23, 2017, the Defendants filed a motion for
summary judgment.  Based on the Court's decision granting the
Plaintiff's motion to file a third amended complaint, Judge Pepper
will deny without prejudice the Plaintiff's motion for summary
judgment.  The Judge notes that, if the Defendants review the
third amended complaint and conclude that it does not require any
changes in their motion for summary judgment, the Defendants may
renew the motion for summary judgment, rather than writing new
briefs.

For these reasons, Judge Pepper (i) denied the Plaintiff's motion
to compel discovery; and granted the Plaintiff's motion for
extension of discovery deadline, nunc pro tunc to the date the
defendants provided the Plaintiff with the last round of
discovery.  She ordered that if the Defendants believe they need
to conduct additional discovery as a result of the third amended
complaint, they may, at the time they file their response to the
third amended complaint, ask the Court to set discovery deadlines.

The Judge also granted (i) the Plaintiff's motion to withdraw his
first motion to file a third amended complaint; (ii) his motion to
withdraw the complaint he filed along with that motion; (ii) his
second motion to file an amended complaint; and denied the
Plaintiff's motion to certify class and appoint class counsel.

She ordered that the proposed third amended complaint is the
operative complaint in this case.  The United States Marshal will
serve a copy of the third amended complaint and her Order on the
new Defendants under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4.  The
Congress requires the U.S. Marshals Service to charge for making
or attempting such service.  The current fee for waiver-of-service
packages is $8 per item mailed.  The full fee schedule is provided
at 28 C.F.R. Sections 0.114(a)(2), (a)(3).  Although the Congress
requires the Court to order service by the U.S. Marshals Service
precisely because in forma pauperis Plaintiffs are indigent, it
has not made any provision for these fees to be waived either by
the court or by the U.S. Marshals Service.

Judge Pepper ordered that the Defendants file a responsive
pleading to the third amended complaint.  She denied without
prejudice their motion for summary judgment.

A full-text copy of the Court's Oct. 13, 2017 Order is available
at https://is.gd/a5onen from Leagle.com.

Aaron L Jacobs, Jr, Plaintiff, Pro Se.

Kerri Barkley, Defendant, represented by Jane E. Howard --
jhoward@crivellocarlson.com -- Crivello Carlson SC & Samuel C.
Hall, Jr. -- shall@crivellocarlson.com -- Crivello Carlson SC.

Roberta Longsine, Defendant, represented by Jane E. Howard,
Crivello Carlson SC & Samuel C. Hall, Jr., Crivello Carlson SC.


CALIFORNIA HIGHWAY: Bid to Amend "Rogers" Complaint Denied
----------------------------------------------------------
In the case captioned KIM EDWARD ROGERS, Plaintiff, v. CALIFORNIA
HIGHWAY PATROL, et al., Defendants, Case No. 2:17-cv-000149 JAM
GGH (E.D. Cal.), Magistrate Judge Gregory G. Hollows of the U.S.
District Court for the Eastern District of California denied as
moot the Plaintiff's Motion to Amend the First Amended Complaint
("FAC"), i.e., file his proposed Second Amended Complaint.

In a Findings and Recommendations regarding the Defendant's Motion
to Dismiss the First Amended Complaint filed concurrently with the
Order, the Magistrate Judge recommended, inter alia, that portions
of the FAC be dismissed with leave to amend.  Therefore, the
Plaintiff's Motion to Amend the Complaint is denied as moot.
However, for purposes of pleading guidance and to modify the
timing requirements for filing an amended complaint, the following
order issues.

He ordered that if the district judge adopts the recommendations
in the aforementioned Findings and Recommendations, the filing of
the amended complaint will take place no later than 14 days after
the adoption is filed in the Court.  This deadline modifies and
supersedes the 21 days from the court hearing deadline announced
orally in the Court.  If for any reason, the district judge does
not adopt the Findings and Recommendations, the Plaintiff will be
guided by the district judge's order in terms of when to file an
amended complaint.

Although the facts stated in the FAC are sufficient generally to
underpin the Plaintiff's theory of relief and meet the
plausibility requirement established by Bell Atl. Corp. v.
Twombly, Magistrate Judge Hollows notes that with regard to what
he claims to be an ongoing policy and practice of the Defendants
that results in a systematic deprivation of equal protection to
him, he does not state with any specificity what actions each of
the named defendants performed, other than those described with
regard to Defendant Wesley J. Fish, that resulted in a deprivation
of his rights, and that serve as a sufficient underpinning for his
plea for declaratory and injunctive relief.

In any amended complaint, the Plaintiff must delineate a factual
basis for the naming of each Defendant, clearly and succinctly, in
order to sustain his claim to a right to recover damages for his
purported injury.  It is insufficient to allege in a claim that
all the Defendants at all times contributed to all deprivations if
this is not factually accurate.  The Plaintiff may desire to
separately plead the facts of each of the actionable incidents
that are permitted to go forward, i.e. the November 2014 incident
and the February 2016 incident, to make his allegations more
clear.

The Magistrate Judge expresses no opinion as to whether that claim
for damages will survive as to all or any of the Defendants, but
he says they can be retained in the action if the Plaintiff can
allege specific acts engaged in by each of them that are relevant
to his claim and allow this matter to survive until it can be
tested either by way of trial or summary judgment.

The Plaintiff will also be guided by the discussion in the
Findings and Recommendations, if adopted, regarding the naming of
Defendants for injunctive relief purposes, i.e., the CHP for 42
U.S.C. 2000d claims, and the present Commissioner of the CHP for
42 U.S.C. section 1983 claims.  No other Defendants in their
official capacity will be named for injunctive relief purposes.

Unless and until the Plaintiff becomes represented by a lawyer, no
class action may be pursued in the case.

In light of these, Magistrate Judge Hollows dismissed as moot the
Plaintiff's Motion to Amend.  The Plaintiff will file any amended
complaint after adoption, or not, of the Findings and
Recommendations regarding the Defendants' Motion to Dismiss in
compliance with the timing provisions of this order or a
superseding district judge order.

A full-text copy of the Court's Oct. 9, 2017 Order is available at
https://is.gd/LyVSXf from Leagle.com.

Kim Edward Rogers, Plaintiff, Pro Se.

M. Richard, Defendant, represented by Catherine Woodbridge --
catherine.woodbridge@doj.ca.gov -- Attorney General's Office of
the State of California.

Wesley J. Fish, Defendant, represented by Catherine Woodbridge,
Attorney General's Office of the State of California.

Sean D. Kent, Defendant, represented by Catherine Woodbridge,
Attorney General's Office of the State of California.

Justin A. Thompson, Defendant, represented by Catherine
Woodbridge, Attorney General's Office of the State of California.

Jeffrey A. Nichols, Defendant, represented by Catherine
Woodbridge, Attorney General's Office of the State of California.

Phillip A. Williams, Defendant, represented by Catherine
Woodbridge, Attorney General's Office of the State of California.

C. Vasiliou, Defendant, represented by Catherine Woodbridge,
Attorney General's Office of the State of California.

California Highway Patrol, Defendant, represented by Catherine
Woodbridge, Attorney General's Office of the State of California.


CALIFORNIA HIGHWAY: Partial Dismissal of "Rogers" Recommended
-------------------------------------------------------------
Magistrate Judge Gregory G. Hollows of the U.S. District Court for
the Eastern District of California has issued his findings and
recommendations in the case captioned KIM EDWARD ROGERS,
Plaintiff, v. CALIFORNIA HIGHWAY PATROL, et al., Defendants, Case
No. 2:17-cv-000149 JAM GGH (E.D. Cal.).

The Plaintiff complains of several stops by the California Highway
Patrol in which he claims that he, an African-American, was
racially profiled in that the stop was nothing but a ruse to
harass him.  He claims incidents occurring in 2013, 2014, and
2016.  The 2014 incident also involved a search of his car after
he was arrested for reckless driving.  During this search, some
video pornography was found, and possibly child-pornography.  The
Plaintiff's car was impounded, and he was taken to the South
Sacramento CHP station.  The subject of the inquiry there was not
his reckless driving but his possession of pornography as
plaintiff was a registered sex offender.

Later, the Plaintiff's car was the subject of an impoundment
search in which child pornography was found.  It is not clear on
what charges plaintiff was maintained in state custody for a few
days, but he was released.  However, on Jan. 6, 2015, a federal
complaint was filed against him, and he was indicted on child
pornography charges on Jan. 22, 2015.  He was ordered detained and
remained in federal custody for the duration of his criminal
proceedings.

In December 2015, the district court granted his motion to
suppress what was found in the impoundment search of his car
because of its improper impoundment.  The indictment was dismissed
on Feb. 25, 2016.  The United States appealed this decision, but
quickly dismissed the appeal.  The Plaintiff had been released
from federal custody in late December 2015 in conjunction with
decision on the motion to suppress.

The Plaintiff brings this action, initially filed on Jan. 24,
2017, in pro se.  After summons was issued and service was begun
on the original Defendants, all of the Defendants, with the
exception of C. Vasilou, who could not be located under that name,
returned executed summons on May 4, 2017.  In the interim,
however, the Plaintiff had filed a First Amended Complaint ("FAC")
on March 17, 2017 which is the current operative complaint.  The
FAC raised federal claims under 42 U.S.C. section 2000d and 42
U.S.C. section 1983.

The Plaintiff sought entry of default against the Defendants on
June 22, 2017, and the Clerk of the Court entered default on June
26, 2017.  He then moved for entry of default judgment on June 29,
2017.  Both the Clerk's entry of default and the motion for
default judgment were stricken by an order of the Court dated July
27, 2017, insofar as the Plaintiff's actions were predicated on
the Defendants' failure to respond to the original Complaint which
had been superseded by the FAC with which the Defendants had not
yet been served, and ordered the Plaintiff to personally serve the
FAC.

The Defendants filed a Motion to Dismiss the FAC under Federal
Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) filed on Aug. 25, 2017.  The
Plaintiff filed a Motion to Amend a Second Amended Complaint on
Sept. 15, 2017.  Both the Plaintiff, pro se, and the Defendants,
through counsel, appeared at a hearing held on Oct. 5, 2017.

Magistrate Judge Hollows recommended that:

     a. the case proceeds, as further limited, only on the 42
U.S.C. 2000d (Title VI) claims and the 42 U.S.C. section 1983
claims recommended for retention; all other federal and state
claims should be dismissed;

     b. the Defendants' Motion to Dismiss the Section 2000d and
Section 1983 claims pertinent to the Sept. 11, 2013 incident, be
granted based upon the statute of limitations.

     c. the Defendants' Motion to Dismiss the Section 2000d and
Section 1983 claims, as relating to the Nov. 14, 2015 incident,
should be denied as brought within the statute of limitations by
tolling provisions found in California Government Code 945.3; and
the same denial should be applied to the Feb. 5, 2016 claims even
without tolling consideration;

     d. the Defendant's Motion to Dismiss the Plaintiff's state
law claims, should be granted for failure to file state
administrative claims as required by the California Tort Claims
Act;

     e. the Defendants' Motion to Dismiss the California Highway
Patrol from the action as a state agency with Eleventh Amendment
sovereign immunity from suit be denied with respect to section
2000d claims; and be granted with respect to Section 1983 claims;

     f. the Defendants' Motion to Dismiss the individual
California Highway Patrol defendants be denied insofar as they are
sued in their individual capacity for section 2000d and 1983
claims whereas insofar as they are sued in their official
capacity, only the present Commissioner of the California Highway
Patrol should be named for section 1983 purposes;

     g. the Defendants' Motion to Dismiss the entire First Amended
Complaint under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8 should be
granted as the Plaintiff must plead the specific involvement of
each Individual Defendant with respect to the Section 2000d and
Section 1983 claims and the Plaintiff should be granted leave to
amend in this respect; and

     h. the class action allegations of First Amended Complaint
should be stricken without prejudice due to no attorney
representation of alleged class members.

Magistrate Judge Hollows' recommendation is submitted to the
United States District Judge assigned to the case, pursuant to the
provisions of 28 U.S.C. Section 636(b)(1).  Within 14 days after
being served with his findings and recommendations, or no later
than 4:00 p.m. on Oct. 24, 2017, the parties may file written
objections with the court.  Such a document should be captioned
"Objections to Magistrate Judge's Findings and Recommendations."
He advised the parties that failure to file objections within the
specified time may waive the right to appeal the District Court's
order.

A full-text copy of the Court's Oct. 9, 2017 Findings &
Recommendations is available at https://is.gd/3zQtXK from
Leagle.com.

Kim Edward Rogers, Plaintiff, Pro Se.

M. Richard, Defendant, represented by Catherine Woodbridge --
catherine.woodbridge@doj.ca.gov -- Attorney General's Office of
the State of California.

Wesley J. Fish, Defendant, represented by Catherine Woodbridge,
Attorney General's Office of the State of California.

Sean D. Kent, Defendant, represented by Catherine Woodbridge,
Attorney General's Office of the State of California.

Justin A. Thompson, Defendant, represented by Catherine
Woodbridge, Attorney General's Office of the State of California.

Jeffrey A. Nichols, Defendant, represented by Catherine
Woodbridge, Attorney General's Office of the State of California.

Phillip A. Williams, Defendant, represented by Catherine
Woodbridge, Attorney General's Office of the State of California.

C. Vasiliou, Defendant, represented by Catherine Woodbridge,
Attorney General's Office of the State of California.

California Highway Patrol, Defendant, represented by Catherine
Woodbridge, Attorney General's Office of the State of California.


CANADA: Nov. 30 Manitoba Flood Class Action Opt-Out Deadline Set
----------------------------------------------------------------
To anyone who is a member of the Pinaymootang (Fairford), Little
Saskatchewan, Lake St. Martin, or Dauphin River First Nations, who
lived in Manitoba during the 2011 Flood:

A Class Action Lawsuit May Affect Your Legal Rights.

CERTIFICATION

The Courts have determined that the class action is certified and
can proceed as a group action rather than having each member of
the class bring a separate lawsuit.

SETTLEMENT

Following certification the parties entered into negotiations and
have settled the lawsuit.  The settlement must be approved by the
Court before settlement benefits can be paid to the class.  If the
settlement is approved another Notice will be published with
details on how to make a claim for payment.

The Settlement Approval Hearing is scheduled to occur on
January 12, 2018 at 10:00 am at the Law Courts, 408 York Avenue,
Winnipeg, Manitoba.

Settlement Outline:
While not admitting wrongdoing, the Governments of Manitoba and
Canada have agreed to pay $90,283,000.00.  This amount includes a
contribution towards lawyer ("Class Counsel") fees and expenses as
well as Administration costs.

All members of the Pinaymootang (Fairford), Little Saskatchewan,
Lake St. Martin, and Dauphin River First Nations resident in
Manitoba at the time of the 2011 flood are eligible to make claims
for both Disruption Payments and Special Circumstances
compensation.

Because payments under the settlement are based on the number of
people that come forward to make claims, it is not possible to
estimate the amounts eligible Class Members may receive.

The timing and process for making a claim and receiving payment
under the Settlement Agreement will be available in another Notice
if the Settlement Agreement is approved by the Court.

WHAT YOU NEED TO DO:
YOUR OPTIONS AT THIS STAGE

Do
Nothing
Stay in this lawsuit.  Share in the Settlement Agreement, if Court
approved.  Give up certain rights.

By doing nothing, you will be entitled to participate in the
Settlement, but you give up any rights to sue on your own about
the same claims made in this lawsuit.

By staying in the lawsuit, you have a right to submit comments on
the Settlement that the Court will consider at the Approval
Hearing.  If you wish to make a comment, you must submit your
written comment to the Notice Administrator no later than November
30, 2017.

Remove Yourself
("Opt Out")
Get out of this lawsuit.  Get no money or benefits from the
Settlement.  Keep your legal rights to sue on your own.

If you ask to be removed ("opt out"), you will not be entitled to
any payment under the Settlement.  You keep your legal rights to
sue on your own about the same legal claims made in this lawsuit
(subject to any limitation periods that may apply).

To remove yourself ("opt-out") of the lawsuit and any Settlement
that is approved by the Court, you must complete and return an
"Opt-Out" Form to the Notice Administrator no later than
November 30, 2017.

2011 Manitoba Flood Class Action
PO Box 4454, Toronto Station A,
25 The Esplanade
Toronto, ON M5W 4B1

LEARNING MORE

The Court Office will NOT be able to answer questions about the
matters in this Notice.  If you have any questions regarding the
Certification or about the Settlement Agreement, information is
available by contacting Class Counsel at:

McKenzie Lake Lawyers LLP
Website: www.mckenzielake.com
Email: manitobaflood@mckenzielake.com
Phone: 1.844.672.5666

Troniak Law
Website: www.Troniaklaw.com
Email: troniaklawoffice@gmail.com
Phone: 1.877.947.1743

IMPORTANT DATES:

Opt-Out Deadline:  November 30, 2017
Comment Deadline: November 30, 2017
Settlement Approval Hearing: January 12, 2018
[GN]



CANADA: Settles Sixties Scoop Class Action for Up to $800MM
-----------------------------------------------------------
Thompson Citizen reports that the federal government announced
that is committing up to $800 million towards settling a class
action suit relating to the Sixties Scoop, the period from the
1960s to 1980s when Indigenous children were taken from their
families by child welfare authorities and placed in foster care or
adopted out to non-Indigenous families.

The agreement-in-principle between the government and the
plaintiffs includes up to $50 million for the establishment of a
foundation to provide education, healing, wellness and
commemoration activities for communities and people to help ensure
that First Nations, MÇtis and Inuit languages and culture are
preserved in ways that complement government programs. Another
$500 to $750 million will go towards individual compensation for
status Indians and Inuit who were affected by the Sixties Scoop.
There is also $75 million dedicated to paying legal fees
associated with the settlement.

"The Sixties Scoop was a dark and painful chapter in Canada's
history," said Minister of Crown-Indigenous Relations and Northern
Affairs Carolyn Bennett in a press release.  "The survivors have
identified the loss of language and culture, and therefore their
identity, as the greatest harm. The creation of a foundation will
directly address the need for survivors to claim a secure personal
cultural identity."

"I'm encouraged by the announcement of the settlement, and that it
signifies a first step towards a lasting justice for the victims
of the Sixties Scoop, many of whom came from our MKO First
Nations," said Manitoba Keewatinowi Okimakanak (MKO) Grand Chief
North Wilson in an Oct. 6 press release.  "On behalf of the MKO
leadership and the 73,000 citizens across the MKO territory in
Northern Manitoba, I acknowledge Minister Bennett and the
government's efforts to reach a settlement out of court related to
the multiple class action lawsuits launched and certified over the
last several years over the Sixties Scoop.  We have a very large
population base in MKO territory, and the Sixties Scoop practice
certainly affected many of our families and tore children away
from not only their families and homes but also from their
languages and cultures.  As a result of the disconnect many of the
disenfranchised Sixties Scoop victims have no sense of identity,
have turned to unhealthy coping mechanisms and will never return
to their home communities or be reunited with their families.
Although measures included in the $800 million settlement for
direct compensation are a positive step towards reconciliation
between Canada and First Nations, we still have too many
Indigenous children being apprehended in Manitoba. Manitoba
remains the jurisdiction with the highest child apprehension rates
in the world, and we must hold the different level of government
accountable for properly resourcing our Indigenous child
protection agencies and for ensuring that the underlying causes of
ongoing child apprehension in Manitoba are meaningfully addressed
in partnership with the MKO First Nations." [GN]


CANTEEN 82: "Ponce" Suit Alleges New York Labor Law Violations
--------------------------------------------------------------
Cynthia Ponce, and Ricardo Cruz, and all others similarly- Xiaoyan
Liu, Guizhen Li, Liberato Tenelema, Feng Wu Du, Shui Xin Mo, Chong
Chen, Jun Geng Li, and all others similarly-situated v. Canteen 82
Inc. dba Canteen 82, Steam Noodle House, Inc., Steamer Dumpling
House Inc., Allen Li, P Ching Yep, and Song Zheng, Case No. 1:17-
cv-07862 (S.D. N.Y., October 12, 2017), seeks to recover unpaid
overtime wages, liquidated damages, prejudgment and post-judgment
interest and attorneys' fees and costs under the Fair Labor
Standards Act and the New York Labor Law.

The Plaintiffs are all residents of New York and were all
employees of the Defendants' restaurant.

Defendants own and operate a single integrated business enterprise
comprising three Chinese restaurants located in both New York and
Connecticut. [BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

      Jian Hang, Esq.
      HANG & ASSOCIATES, PLLC
      136-18 39th Ave., Suite 1003
      Flushing, NY 11354
      Tel: (718) 353-8588
      E-mail: jhang@hanglaw.com


CAREMARK RX: $124MM Attys' Fees Award in "Lawler" Suit Vacated
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the case captioned Stanley D. Lawler, v. Sam Johnson and City
of Birmingham Retirement and Relief System. Clete Walker, v. Sam
Johnson and City of Birmingham Retirement and Relief System.
Georgia Urology, P.A., et al., v. Sam Johnson and City of
Birmingham Retirement and Relief System, Case Nos. 1151347,
1160049, 1160158 (Ala.), Judge Lyn Stuart of Supreme Court of
Alabama vacated the trial court's order awarding attorney fees and
remanded the case.

After the class counsel negotiated a $310 million settlement of
Johnson v. Caremark Rx, LLC resolving class members' fraud and
suppression claims stemming from the previous settlement of the
MedPartners class action, the objectors filed notice with the
Jefferson Circuit Court that they objected to class counsel's
request that 40% of the settlement, or $124 million, be paid to
them as an attorney fee.  The trial court thereafter overruled
those objections, its judgment approving the settlement became
final, and entered an order awarding class counsel the $124
million attorney fee they had requested.

The objectors subsequently separately appealed that award to this
Court, arguing that they had been given insufficient opportunity
to object to the class counsel's requested attorney fee inasmuch
as their objections were due before class counsel's attorney-fee
application was filed, and that the attorney fee ultimately
awarded was excessive.

Judge Stuart agrees with Lawler's and the other objectors'
argument that a schedule the Georgia Urology claimants can present
their arguments regarding their claims to the trial court again on
remand along with their objections regarding class counsel's
attorney-fee application.  Should an issue in that regard still
exist after the trial court enters a new order making an award of
attorney fees, Walker and the Georgia Urology claimants may argue
them on appeal, along with any objections they have to that new
attorney-fee award.  Requiring the class members to object to the
class counsel's attorney-fee request before any such request is
formally made violates the class members' due-process rights.

Furthermore, Judge Stuart agrees with Lawler that the objectors
were entitled to more information from the class counsel about the
time expended on this case in order to allow them to properly
articulate their objections.  Accordingly, the Judge now vacated
the order entered by the trial court awarding class counsel an
attorney fee of $124 million and remanded the case.

On remand, the class counsel may file a new attorney-fee
application, including more detailed information regarding the
time expended in this case and how that time was spent.  The
objectors will then be given a reasonable opportunity to review
that application and may, if they still have objections to class
counsel's new application, file those objections with the trial
court.  After the trial court considers those objections and
enters a new order making an award of attorney fees, any party
with a grievance may file a new appeal with this Court.

A full-text copy of the Court's Oct. 20, 2017 Opinion is available
at https://is.gd/afEQ25 from Leagle.com.


CARNIVAL CORP: Robocall Settlement Payout Lot Less Than Expected
----------------------------------------------------------------
Scott Berson, writing for Miami Herald, reports that if you've
ever gotten a spam phone call offering you a "free cruise," you're
not alone.

In fact, a class-action lawsuit was brought against three cruise
lines for their alleged role in the calls.  But for those who
signed on to the settlement, the payout may be a lot less than
expected.

The lawsuit, called Charvat v. Carnival et al, says the cruise
companies Carnival, Royal Caribbean and Norwegian Cruise Line
authorized Resort Marketing Group to make recorded "robocalls"
offering free cruises between July 2009 and March 2014.  This, the
lawsuit claims, violated the Telephone Consumer Protection Act.

A $12.5 million settlement was reached in July, in which the
cruise companies agreed to pay $300 for every call, for up to
three calls, that each person claimed they received.  That meant
people could join the settlement and receive as much as $900. [GN]


CBL & ASSOC: Bid for Judgment on Pleadings in "Catlin" Denied
-------------------------------------------------------------
In the case captioned CATLIN SPECIALTY INSURANCE COMPANY,
Plaintiff, v. CBL & ASSOCIATES PROPERTIES, INC., CBL & ASSOCIATES
LIMITED PARTNERSHIP, CBL & ASSOCIATES MANAGEMENT, INC., and JG
GULF COAST TOWN CENTER, LLC, Defendants, C.A. No. N16C-07-166 PRW
CCLD (Del. Super.), Judge Paul R. Wallace of the Superior Court of
Delaware granted Catlin's Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings as
to Counts I and II and denied as to Count III, and denied the CBL
Defendants' Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings.

On March 16, 2016, on behalf of itself and all others similarly
situated, Wave Lengths Hair Salon of Florida, Inc., doing business
as Salon Adrian, filed suit against CBL & Associates, Inc.
alleging that company had executed a fraudulent scheme through a
criminal enterprise to overcharge small business tenants for
electricity at its shopping malls resulting in fraudulent and
illegal markups that exceeded 100% of the tenant's actual
electricity usage charges.  On July 1, 2016, Salon Adrian amended
the complaint, naming CBL Defendants and JG Gulf Coast Town
Center, LLC ("GCTC").

Salon Adrian's claims against CBL Defendants are currently pending
in the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Florida
("Underlying Action").  Salon Adrian's lawsuit against the CBL
Defendants and GCTC arises out of those Defendants' allegedly
fraudulent scheme devised to purposefully and fraudulently
overcharge Salon Adrian (and many others) for electricity.

Following the filing of that suit, CBL Defendants and GCTC sought
Catlin's insurance coverage for the Underlying Action, pursuant to
a policy in effect from Dec. 31, 2015 until Dec. 31, 2016 ("Catlin
Policy").  In this action, Catlin argues that each and every claim
in the Underlying Action is based upon the Defendants' allegedly
intentional, knowing, and wrongful conduct.  And so, Catlin
argues: its policy does not cover such claims; it has no duty to
defend CBL Defendants in the Underlying Action; and it has no
obligation to pay any defense costs or damages incurred by the
litigation.  CBL Defendants and GCTC counter that they are
entitled to Catlin's insurance coverage because the Underlying
Action involves alleged negligent acts, errors, or omissions in
the rendering of professional services -- something explicitly
covered by the Catlin Policy.

Before the Court are each side's cross-motions for Judgment on the
Pleadings.  Each asks for declaratory judgment that there either
is or is not coverage under the Catlin Policy.

Judge Wallace finds that the Catlin Policy provides coverage to
CBL Defendants for claims arising out of negligent acts, errors or
omissions.  In other words, whatever the act, error, or omission
that brings about CBL Defendants' liability, that act must be
negligent, that error must be negligent, or that omission must be
negligent.  If not, that act, error, or omission is not covered.

The Judge also finds that the Underlying Action alleges no
negligent (or even grossly negligent) conduct.  Instead, it is
based on a plainly pled theory that CBL Defendants engaged in a
pattern of intentional, knowing, wrongful, fraudulent conduct.
There is no hint in the Underlying Action's claims that CBL
Defendants acted in a negligent fashion.

Finally, Judge Wallace finds that Salon Adrian, in the Underlying
Complaint, has alleged no semblance of negligent conduct.  Nor has
it alleged any claim through which CBL Defendants could be found
liable under a negligent theory.  CBL Defendants have pointed to
no authority that one can be found to have negligently violated
FDUTPA or breached on a contract through a negligent act, error,
or omission.  And Salon Adrian alleges CBL Defendants
intentionally and willfully engaged in a decade-long course of
conduct designed to defraud its tenants.

Because the only reasonable interpretation of the allegations in
the Underlying Action sound in intentional conduct, and the Policy
does not cover such acts, Judge Wallace granted Catlin's Motion
for Judgment on the Pleadings as to Counts I and II and denied as
to Count III, and denied CBL Defendants' Motion for Judgment on
the Pleadings.

A full-text copy of the Court's Oct. 17, 2017 Memorandum Opinion
and Order is available at https://is.gd/BA6t3K from Leagle.com.

Emily K. Silverstein, Esquire -- esilverstein@moodklaw.com --
Marks, O'Neill, O'Brien, Doherty & Kelly P.C., Wilmington,
Delaware, Louis H. Kozloff, Esquire --
lkozloff@goldbergsegalla.com -- (pro hac vice) (argued), Goldberg
Segalla LLP, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, Attorneys for Plaintiff.

John A. Sensing, Esquire -- sensing@potteranderson.com -- Potter
Anderson & Corroon LLP, Wilmington, Delaware, Alan E. Popkin,
Esquire -- alan.popkin@huschblackwell.com -- (pro hac vice), David
W. Sobelman, Esquire -- david.sobelman@huschblackwell.com -- (pro
hac vice), Melissa Z. Baris, Esquire --
melissa.baris@huschblackwell.com -- (pro hac vice), Husch
Blackwell LLP, St. Louis, Missouri, Attorneys for Defendant.


CELGENE CORP: Class Cert. Sought in Thalomid Antitrust MDL
----------------------------------------------------------
The Plaintiffs in the litigation titled In Re Thalomid and
Revlimid Antitrust Litigation, Case No. 2:14-cv-06997-MCA-MAH
(D.N.J.), ask the Court to certify these classes:

   a. The Antitrust/Consumer Protection Damages Class (under Fed.
      R. Civ. P. 23(b)(3)):

      All persons or entities who purchased and/or paid for some
      or all of the purchase price for thalidomide in any form
      after November 6, 2010 or lenalidomide in any form after
      January 29, 2011, in California, the District of Columbia,
      Florida, Kansas, Maine, Massachusetts, Michigan, Nebraska,
      New York, North Carolina, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Rhode
      Island, or Tennessee, for consumption by themselves, their
      families, or their members, employees, insureds,
      participants, or beneficiaries (the "Antitrust/Consumer
      Protection Damages Class");

   b. The Unjust Enrichment Damages Class (under Fed. R. Civ. P.
      23(b)(3)):

      All persons or entities who purchased and/or paid for some
      or all of the purchase price for thalidomide in any form
      after November 6, 2010 or lenalidomide in any form after
      January 29, 2011, in California, the District of Columbia,
      Florida, Kansas, Maine, Massachusetts, Michigan, Nebraska,
      New York, North Carolina, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Rhode
      Island, or Tennessee, for consumption by themselves, their
      families, or their members, employees, insureds,
      participants, or beneficiaries (the "Unjust Enrichment
      Damages Class"); and

   c. The Injunction Class (under Rule 23(b)(2)):

      All persons or entities who purchased and/or paid for some
      or all of the purchase price for thalidomide in any form
      after November 6, 2010 or lenalidomide in any form after
      January 29, 2011, in the United States or its territories
      for consumption by themselves, their families, or their
      members, employees, insureds, participants, or
      beneficiaries (the "Injunction Class").

Excluded from the classes are these persons or entities:

   -- Defendant and their officers, directors, management,
      employees, subsidiaries, or affiliates;

   -- Government entities, except for government-funded employee
      benefit plans;

   -- All persons or entities who purchased Revlimid or Thalomid
      for purposes of resale or directly from Defendant or their
      affiliates;

   -- Fully insured health plans (i.e., Plans that purchased
      insurance from another third-party payor covering 100% of
      the Plan's reimbursement obligations to its members);

   -- "Single flat co-pay" consumers who purchased Revlimid or
      Thalomid only via a fixed dollar co-payment that does not
      vary on the basis of the purchased drug's status as branded
      or generic (e.g., $20 for both branded and generic drugs);

   -- The judges in this case and any members of their immediate
      families.

The Plaintiffs also ask the Court to appoint International Union
of Bricklayers and Allied Craft Workers Local 1 Health Fund,
International Union of Operating Engineers Stationary Engineers
Local 39 Health and Welfare Trust Fund, The Detectives' Endowment
Association, Inc., David Mitchell, City of Providence, and New
England Carpenters Health Benefits Fund as Class Representatives,
and to appoint Hausfeld LLP, Hach Rose Schirripa & Cheverie LLP,
and Block & Leviton LLP as Co-Lead Counsel for the Classes.

A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=hVGn1bz2

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Melinda R. Coolidge, Esq.
          Walter D. Kelley, Jr., Esq.
          HAUSFELD LLP
          1700 K Street, NW, Suite 650
          Washington, DC 20006
          Telephone: (202) 540-7200
          E-mail: mcoolidge@hausfeld.com
                  wkelley@hausfeld.com

               - and -

          Brett W. Landau, Esq.
          Katie R. Beran, Esq.
          HAUSFELD LLP
          325 Chestnut Street, Suite 900
          Philadelphia, PA 19106
          Telephone: (215) 985-3270
          E-mail: blandau@hausfeld.com
                  kberan@hausfeld.com

               - and -

          Whitney E. Street, Esq.
          Matthew Smith, Esq.
          BLOCK & LEVITON LLP
          610 16th Street, Suite 214
          Oakland, CA 94612
          Telephone: (415) 968-1852
          E-mail: wstreet@blockesq.com
                  msmith@blockesq.com

               - and -

          Frank R. Schirripa, Esq.
          Daniel B. Rehns, Esq.
          John A. Blyth, Esq.
          HACH ROSE SCHIRRIPA & CHEVERIE LLP
          112 Madison Avenue, 10th Floor
          New York, NY 10016
          Telephone: (212) 213-8311
          E-mail: fschirripa@hrsclaw.com
                  drehns@hrsclaw.com
                  jblyth@hrsclaw.com

               - and -

          James Notis, Esq.
          Jennifer Sarnelli, Esq.
          GARDY & NOTIS, LLP
          560 Sylvan Avenue
          Englewood Cliffs, NJ 07632
          Telephone: (201) 567-7377
          Facsimile: (201) 567-7337
          E-mail: jnotis@gardylaw.com
                  jsarnelli@gardylaw.com

               - and -

          Jeffrey B. Gittleman, Esq.
          BARRACK, RODOS & BACINE
          330 Two Commerce Square
          2001 Market Street
          Philadelphia, PA 19103
          Telephone: (215) 963-0600
          Facsimile: (215) 963-0838
          E-mail: jgittleman@barrack.com

               - and -

          Todd A. Seaver, Esq.
          BERMAN TABACCO
          44 Montgomery Street, Suite 650
          San Francisco, CA 94104
          Telephone: (415) 433-3200
          E-mail: tseaver@bermantabacco.com


CENTURYLINK INC: Bernstein Named Lead Counsel in Securities Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case captioned BENJAMIN CRAIG (LEAD CASE), v. CENTURYLINK
INC., et al., DON J. SCOTT, v. CENTURYLINK INC., et al., AMARENDRA
THUMMETI, v. CENTURYLINK INC., et al, Civil Action Nos. 3:17-CV-
01005, 3:17-CV-01033, 3:17-CV-01065 (W.D. La.), Magistrate Judge
Joseph H.L. Perez-Montes of the U.S. District Court for the
Western District of Louisiana, Monroe Division, granted the State
of Oregon's motions to be appointed the Lead Plaintiff and to
appoint Bernstein, Litowitz, Berger & Grossman, L.L.P. and Stoll
Berne as the Co-Lead Counsel; and denied the remaining motions.

The complaint was filed pursuant to the Securities Exchange Act of
1934 by Craig, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated.  The Named Defendants are CenturyLink, Glen F. Post III
(the CEO and President of CenturyLink Inc. at all relevant times),
and R. Stewart Ewing, Jr. (CFO, Executive Vice President, and
Assistant Secretary of CenturyLink Inc. at all relevant times).

Craig alleges a federal securities class action pursuant to on
behalf of all investors who purchased or otherwise acquired
CenturyLink common stock between March 1, 2013 and June 16, 2017.
He alleges that CenturyLink publicly issued materially false and
misleading statements and omitted material facts regarding its
compliance with applicable laws and regulations, causing its stock
prices to artificially inflate.  Craig alleges that he and other
investors suffered significant losses and damages when the truth
as to CenturyLink's unlawful business practices emerged and its
stock prices fell.  He seeks certification of the class action,
appointment of himself as class representative, appointment of his
attorney as lead counsel, a jury trial, compensatory damages,
costs (including expert fees), attorney fees, and injunctive
relief.

Three related stockholder suits have been filed: Scott filed Scott
v. CenturyLink; Thummeti filed Thummeti v. CenturyLink, et al.;
and Michael Barbree and Glen Walker filed Barbree, et al. v.
Bejar, et al.  Barbree has since been voluntarily dismissed.
Thus, to date, there are three stockholder actions against
CenturyLink in the Western District of Louisiana.  The Thummetti
case was filed first, on June 21, 2017.  Attorney Jeremy Alan
Lieberman of the Pomerantz Law Firm published a notice of the
proposed class action in the Globe Newswire on June 21, 2017.

Four Motions to Appoint Lead Plaintiff have been filed by the
potential class Plaintiffs in the Craig case: KBC Asset Management
NV; the Police and Fire Retirement System of the City of Detroit
and the Laborer's Pension Trust Fund-Detroit and Vicinity
("Detroit"); the State of Oregon on behalf of the Oregon Public
Employees Retirement Fund ("Oregon"); and Amalgamated Bank, as
Trustee for the Long View Collective Investment Fund.  Other
potential Plaintiffs are Sona Andresian, Mark D. Alger, Allen
Feldman, Art Kleppen, Essex Lacy, and Tae Yi.

The Movants' motions to appoint the Lead Plaintiff are now before
the Court for disposition, and are set for hearing on Oct. 25,
2017.  Since filing those motions, Oregon and KBC filed a Joint
Motion to Continue.  The joint movants seek a continuance
principally because, on Oct. 6, 2017, the U.S. Judicial Panel on
Multidistrict Litigation issued a Conditional Transfer Order
("CTO") conditionally transferring these securities actions to the
U.S. District Court for the District of Minnesota.

Magistrate Judge Perez-Montes denied the Joint Motion to Continue.
He finds that as correctly noted by Defendant, the CTO is merely
an administrative act of the Clerk which can be and will be
vacated upon the showing of good cause by any party.  He further
finds that a hearing is not affirmatively required, and would not
meaningfully aid in the Court's decision regarding the competing
motions to approve a lead plaintiff.  In the interest of
efficiency, therefore, the Magistrate Judge canceled the Oct. 25,
2017 hearing.

Since Oregon has the largest loss after KBC, it is presumed to be
the most appropriate lead plaintiff.  Oregon's claim for losses on
commons stocks, the claims or defenses of the representative
parties are typical of the claims or defenses of the class and the
representative parties will fairly and adequately protect the
interests of the class.  The fact that Oregon did not sustain a
loss when it sold some of its CenturyLink bonds does not provide
it with a "unique defense."  There is little difference between
Oregon, who did not sustain a loss on its bonds, and a party who
does not have any CenturyLink bonds at all-neither has sustained a
loss on CenturyLink bonds, while both suffered losses on
CenturyLink stock.  Therefore, Magistrate Judge Perez-Montes
granted Oregon's motion to be appointed the Lead Plaintiff.

Magistrate Judge also granted Oregon's motion to appoint
Bernstein, Litowitz, Berger & Grossman, L.L.P. and Stoll Berne as
the Co-Lead Counsel.  He has reviewed the resume of each firm and
is satisfied that each firm could adequately represent the
Plaintiff class in the action.  He ordered the Lead Counsel to
enroll in the action immediately.  It is noted that the Lead
Counsel will not be permitted to conduct all business in the case
solely through local counsel or by phone, and will be expected to
prosecute the case in Louisiana.

Magistrate Judge Perez-Montes accordingly denied the motions for
Lead Plaintiff and Lead Counsel filed by Craig, Scott, KBC,
Detroit, and Amalgamated Bank.

A full-text copy of the Court's Oct. 20, 2017 Memorandum Order is
available at https://is.gd/rkEh4V from Leagle.com.

Benjamin Craig, Plaintiff, represented by Adam M. Apton --
AApton@zlk.com -- Levi & Korinsky.

Benjamin Craig, Plaintiff, represented by Nicholas Ian Porritt --
nporritt@zlk.com -- Levi & Korinsky, pro hac vice.

K B C Asset Management N V, Plaintiff, represented by James
Parkerson Roy -- jimr@wrightroy.com -- Domengeaux Wright et al,
Andrew P. Arnold -- aarnold@motleyrice.com -- Motley Rice, pro hac
vice, Gregg S. Levin -- glevin@motleyrice.com -- Motley Rice, pro
hac vice, James M. Hughes -- jhughes@motleyrice.com -- Motley
Rice, pro hac vice, John Parkerson Roy -- johnr@wrightroy.com --
Domengeaux Wright et al & William H. Narwold --
bnarwold@motleyrice.com -- Motley Rice, pro hac vice.

City of Detroit Police & Fire Retirement System, Plaintiff,
represented by Jason W. Burge -- jburge@fishmanhaygood.com --
Fishman Haygood.

Laborers Pension Trust Fund - Detroit & Vicinity, Plaintiff,
represented by Jason W. Burge, Fishman Haygood.

State of Oregon, Plaintiff, represented by Fred W. Sartor, Jr.,
Nelson Zentner et al, Avi Josefson -- avi@blbglaw.com -- Bernstein
Litowitz et al, pro hac vice, George M. Snellings, IV, Nelson
Zentner et al, Gerald H. Silk -- jerry@blbglaw.com -- Bernstein
Litowitz et al, pro hac vice, Keil M. Mueller --
kmueller@stollberne.com -- Stoll Stoll et al, pro hac vice, Keith
S. Dubanevich -- kdubanevich@stollberne.com -- Stoll Stoll et al,
pro hac vice, Michael D. Blatchley -- michaelb@blbglaw.com --
Bernstein Litowitz et al, pro hac vice & Timothy S. DeJong --
tdejong@stollberne.com -- Stoll Stoll et al, pro hac vice.

Amalgamated Bank, Plaintiff, represented by Andrew Allen Lemmon --
ndrew@lemmonlawfirm.com -- Lemmon Law Firm.

Don J Scott, Consol Plaintiff, represented by Matthew E. Lundy,
Lundy Lundy et al.

Amarendra Thummeti, Consol Plaintiff, represented by Jeremy Alan
Lieberman -- jalieberman@pomlaw.com -- Pomerantz, Joseph Alexander
Hood, II, Pomerantz & Patrick V. Dahlstrom --
pdahlstrom@pomlaw.com -- Pomerantz.

CenturyLink Inc, Defendant, represented by Thomas M. Hayes, III --
tom@hhsclaw.com -- Hayes Harkey et al, Brandon Wade Creekbaum --
brandon@hhsclaw.com -- Hayes Harkey et al, George Edward Anhang --
ganhang@cooley.com -- Cooley, pro hac vice & Lyle Roberts --
lroberts@cooley.com -- Cooley, pro hac vice.

Glen F Post, III, Defendant, represented by Thomas M. Hayes, III,
Hayes Harkey et al, Brandon Wade Creekbaum, Hayes Harkey et al,
George Edward Anhang, Cooley, pro hac vice & Lyle Roberts, Cooley,
pro hac vice.

R Stewart Ewing, Jr, Defendant, represented by Thomas M. Hayes,
III, Hayes Harkey et al, Brandon Wade Creekbaum, Hayes Harkey et
al, George Edward Anhang, Cooley, pro hac vice & Lyle Roberts,
Cooley, pro hac vice.

David D Cole, Consol Defendant, represented by Thomas M. Hayes,
III, Hayes Harkey et al, Brandon Wade Creekbaum, Hayes Harkey et
al, George Edward Anhang, Cooley, pro hac vice & Lyle Roberts,
Cooley, pro hac vice.

Sona Andresian, Movant, represented by Patrick W. Pendley --
pwpendley@pbclawfirm.com -- Pendley Baudin & Coffin.

Allen Feldman, Movant, represented by Tracy W. Houck, Houck &
Riggle.

Mark D Alger, Movant, represented by Tracy W. Houck, Houck &
Riggle.

Tae Yi, Movant, represented by Tracy W. Houck, Houck & Riggle.

Essex Lacy, Movant, represented by Tracy W. Houck, Houck & Riggle.

Art Kleppen, Movant, represented by Tracy W. Houck, Houck &
Riggle.


CHARTER COMMUNICATIONS: Wants Judge to Pause TCPA Class Action
--------------------------------------------------------------
Steven Trader, Shayna Posses and Sophia Morris, writing for
Law360, report that Charter Communications Inc. asked a California
federal judge on Oct. 13 to pause a proposed class action alleging
it violated the Telephone Consumer Protection Act by autodialing
consumers until either its First Amendment challenge of the law or
a separate case considering the definition of an autodialer is
resolved.

The telecom giant, which also does business as Spectrum, argued in
its stay motion that a decision by the court that a certain TCPA
provision is discriminatory and restricts free speech -- by
creating exemptions for government-sent messages about debts while
barring similar private calls -- could have a significant impact
on the case against it launched by a call recipient.

So too could a decision by the D.C. Circuit on whether the Federal
Communications Commission unreasonably expanded the definition of
an automated telephone dialing system in 2015 to include not only
equipment with the current capacity to store and produce random
and sequential numbers, but also systems that could be modified in
the future to have that capacity -- a question the appellate court
is poised to decide in the case of ACA International v. FCC.

"At a minimum, whether the 'actual' or 'potential' capacity of
Spectrum's dialer is at issue will control the scope of discovery,
including written discovery, expert reports and technical
deposition testimony concerning the 'capacity' of the coding,
software and hardware constituting the dialer," Spectrum wrote.
"And if this court finds that the challenged provision cannot be
constitutionally applied to Spectrum, Spectrum will have a
complete defense to plaintiff's claim, and Spectrum will not need
to incur the costs of discovery and other proceedings."

Steve Gallion filed suit in early July, the same day he allegedly
received a call on his cellphone from Spectrum that was placed
using an automatic telephone dialing system.  During the call, a
prerecorded voice directed him to stay on the line to hear about
pricing promotions, Mr. Gallion said.

He asserted that he had never been a Spectrum customer and had not
consented to receive calls from the company, alleging that it
violated his privacy and forced him to incur charges or lose phone
time.

Spectrum asked for judgment on the pleadings on Sept. 26, arguing
that the TCPA provision Mr. Gallion invokes is unconstitutional
because it favors certain speakers, content and viewpoints --
mainly the government's -- while punishing others.

The provision in question prohibits using an automatic telephone
dialing system or an artificial or prerecorded voice to make a
non-emergency call to any cellphone number without permission,
unless the purpose is to collect a debt owed to the government.

By doing so, the provision "discriminates based on a call's
content," theoretically giving Spectrum the right to make
autodialed calls to consumers on the government's behalf but
preventing it from making the same sort of calls to collect on a
private debt, the company contended.

The section also suffers from a "blatant" speaker-based preference
for government and government-authorized messages while targeting
disfavored, private messages, the company said in its pleading
motion.

As for the ACA International case, Spectrum noted on Oct. 13 that
as its call system does not currently have the capacity to
generate random or sequential phone numbers, the D.C. Circuit's
decision on whether the FCC overbroadly interpreted the TCPA's
autodialer definition in 2015 would certainly impact Gallion's
lawsuit.

That case was fully briefed and argued back in October 2016,
meaning the D.C. Circuit is likely to decide it soon, so granting
a stay pending that decision poses no risk of harm to
Mr. Gallion, Spectrum argued.

Counsel for Mr. Gallion did not immediately return a request for
comment on Oct. 16.

Mr. Gallion is represented by Todd M. Friedman, Adrian R. Bacon,
Meghan E. George and Thomas E. Wheeler of the Law Offices of Todd
M. Friedman PC.

Spectrum is represented by Helen B. Kim --
hkim@thompsoncoburn.com -- and Geoffrey L. Warner --
gwarner@thompsoncoburn.com -- of Thompson Coburn LLP and Matthew
A. Brill -- matthew.brill@lw.com -- and Andrew D. Prins --
andrew.prins@lw.com -- of Latham & Watkins LLP.

The suit is Gallion v. Charter Communications Inc., Case No. 5:17-
cv-01361 (C.D. Cal.).  The case is assigned to Judge Christina A.
Snyder.  The case was filed July 6, 2017. [GN]


CHEMOURS COMPANY: Faces 2nd Suit Over GenX Water Contamination
--------------------------------------------------------------
WRAL.com reports that a utility that provides water in
southeastern North Carolina has sued a company it accuses of
polluting the Cape Fear River, where the utility gets its water.

The Cape Fear Public Utility Authority filed a complaint in U.S.
District Court on Oct. 16 accusing Chemours and DuPont of
violating the Clean Water Act and several other federal laws by
putting a chemical known as GenX into the water.

The state Department of Environmental Quality will also conduct
two additional tests to two Cumberland County elementary schools
and Gray's Creek High School, which gets water from the Public
Works Commission.

"PWC has not provided any information or level of concern about
their water supply that supplies not just the schools, but the
city of Fayetteville," Cumberland County Schools Superintendent
Tim Kinlaw said.

GenX, which is used to make Teflon and other items, is an
unregulated chemical, and the health effects of long-term exposure
to it aren't well known.

Still, state regulators have ordered Chemours to provide bottled
water to dozens of people who live near the company's plant on the
Cumberland-Bladen county line whose private drinking water wells
have shown high levels of GenX.  On Oct. 17, another nine homes
were added to the list to receive bottled water, bringing the
total to 35.

"Bottled water is a short-term fix, and we're working with the
counties and the company to find a long-term solution for families
who rely on these wells," Secretary of Environmental Quality
Michael Regan said in a statement.

Mr. Kinlaw says at this point, there is no reason for parents to
be concerned about the water quality. He has not received official
notification from the state about water testing.

Chemours Plant

The complaint calls for damages of more than $75,000.  A spokesman
for Chemours did not immediately respond to questions about the
lawsuit.

Cape Fear Public Utility Authority director Jim Fletcher told
North Carolina lawmakers that the utility's water meets state and
federal drinking water standards, but he said too little is known
about GenX.

The lawsuit is the second against Chemours over GenX.  Two weeks
ago, a Wilmington man filed what he hopes will become a class-
action lawsuit over health problems and lower property values.
[GN]


CHICAGO BRIDGE: Terry Seeks to Certify Class of Field Workers
-------------------------------------------------------------
The Plaintiffs in the lawsuit styled JEFFREY W. TERRY, TONY BABB,
JASON FOWLKES, ROBERT MCDANIEL, MATTHEW CLIPPARD, individually and
for others similarly situated v. CHICAGO BRIDGE & IRON COMPANY,
CBI SERVICES, INC., CB&I CONSTRUCTION SERVICES, LLC, CB&I
SERVICES, LLC, and STONE & WEBSTER SERVICES, LLC, Case No. 4:17-
cv-00367 (S.D. Tex.), move for conditional certification of this
class:

     All "field, non-manual exempt workers" employed by Chicago
     Bridge & Iron Company, CBI Services, Inc., CB&I Construction
     Services, LLC, CB&I Services, LLC, and/or Stone & Webster
     Services, LLC during the last 3 years.

Jeffrey W. Terry, et al., filed the collective action on behalf of
hourly field workers, who were paid straight time for overtime by
the Defendants.

The Plaintiffs ask the Court to grant the Motion and: (1)
conditionally certify this action for purposes of notice and
discovery; (2) order that judicial notice proposed by Plaintiff be
sent to all Putative Class Members; (3) order the mailing and e-
mailing of the proposed notice, along with a reminder notice after
30 days; (4) order CB&I to post the notice documents on CB&I's
jobsites/offices for the entire opt-in period; (5) authorize
follow up calls to ensure returned notices are delivered to the
Putative Class Members; (6) order CB&I to produce to Plaintiffs'
Counsel the contact information for each Putative Class Member
within 20 days of the Courts order; and (7) authorize a 60-day
notice period for Putative Class Members to join the case.

A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=kRrm5QRT

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Richard J. (Rex) Burch, Esq.
          James A. Jones, Esq.
          BRUCKNER BURCH PLLC
          8 Greenway Plaza, Suite 1500
          Houston, TX 77046
          Telephone: (713) 877-8788
          Facsimile: (713) 877-8065
          E-mail: rburch@brucknerburch.com
                  jjones@brucknerburch.com

               - and -

          Michael A. Josephson, Esq.
          Andrew W. Dunlap, Esq.
          Lindsay R. Itkin, Esq.
          JOSEPHSON DUNLAP LAW FIRM
          11 Greenway Plaza, Suite 3050
          Houston, TX 77005
          Telephone: (713) 352-1100
          Facsimile: (713) 352-3300
          E-mail: mjosephson@mybackwages.com
                  adunlap@mybackwages.com
                  litkin@mybackwages.com


CINEMARK USA: Appeal in "Amey" Case
-----------------------------------
Cinemark USA, Inc., said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended
July 2, 2017, that the appeal in the case, Joseph Amey, et al. v.
Cinemark USA, Inc., Case No. 3:13cv05669, In the United States
District Court for the Northern District of California, San
Francisco Division, remains pending.

The case presents putative class action claims for damages and
attorney's fees arising from employee wage and hour claims under
California law for alleged meal period, rest break, reporting time
pay, unpaid wages, pay upon termination, and wage statements
violations. The claims are also asserted as a representative
action under the California Private Attorney General Act ("PAGA").

The Company denies the claims, denies that class certification is
appropriate and denies that a PAGA representative action is
appropriate, and is vigorously defending against the claims.

The Company denies any violation of law and plans to vigorously
defend against all claims. The Court recently determined that
class certification is not appropriate and determined that a PAGA
representative action is not appropriate. The plaintiff has
appealed these rulings. The Company is unable to predict the
outcome of this litigation or the range of potential loss.

Cinemark is a supplier of products and solutions that conserve
water and manage the flow of fluids and energy into, through and
out of buildings in the residential and commercial markets of the
Americas, Europe and Asia-Pacific, Middle East and Africa
("APMEA").


CLUBCORP HOLDINGS: Bid to Join Blaschak & McNally Suits Pending
---------------------------------------------------------------
ClubCorp Holdings, Inc. said in its Form 8-K Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended
June 30, 2017, that counsel for plaintiffs in the Blaschak and
McNally actions filed a motion to consolidate this action with
those other actions.

On July 25, 2017, Haowen Meng filed a purported stockholder class
action against the Company, the directors of the Company, and
Apollo Global Management, LLC in connection with the merger
contemplated by the Merger Agreement in the Eighth Judicial
District Court of the State of Nevada in Clark County. The case is
captioned Meng v. ClubCorp Holdings, Inc., et al., No. A-17-
758912-B.  On August 2, 2017, plaintiff filed an amended
complaint. The amended complaint purports to assert a claim
against the directors of the Company for allegedly breaching their
fiduciary duties of loyalty, due care, good faith, and candor owed
to the plaintiff and the public stockholders of the Company,
including by allegedly agreeing to a transaction at an
unreasonably low price, failing to take the necessary steps to
maximize stockholder value, giving preferential severance benefits
to certain executives, agreeing to allegedly preclusive deal
protection provisions, and failing to include critical information
in the preliminary proxy statement previously filed by the Company
with the SEC. The amended complaint also purports to assert a
claim against Apollo Global Management, LLC for aiding and
abetting the directors' purported breach of fiduciary duty. The
amended complaint seeks, among other things, to enjoin the merger
contemplated by the Merger Agreement unless and until the Company
adopts a process for obtaining a merger agreement with the best
possible terms for stockholders. On August 2, 2017, counsel for
plaintiffs in the Blaschak and McNally actions (discussed below)
filed a motion to consolidate this action with those other
actions. The Company believes these claims are without merit and
intends to vigorously defend against these claims.

On July 31, 2017, Richard Baum filed a purported stockholder class
action against Apollo Global Management, LLC, the Company, and the
directors of the Company in connection with the merger
contemplated by the Merger Agreement in the Eighth Judicial
District Court of the State of Nevada in Clark County. The case is
captioned Baum v. Affeldt, et al., No. A-17-759227-C. The
complaint purports to assert a claim against the directors of the
Company for allegedly breaching their fiduciary duties of care,
loyalty, good faith, and independence owed to the plaintiff and
the public stockholders of the Company, including by allegedly
agreeing to a transaction at an unreasonably low price, engaging
in an allegedly unfair process that involved conflicts of
interests, agreeing to allegedly preclusive deal protection
provisions, and allegedly including materially incomplete and
misleading information in the preliminary proxy statement. The
complaint seeks, among other things, to enjoin the merger
contemplated by the Merger Agreement. The Company believes these
claims are without merit and intends to vigorously defend against
these claims.

On August 1, 2017, Dan Blaschak filed a purported stockholder
class action against the directors of the Company in connection
with the merger contemplated by the Merger Agreement in the Eighth
Judicial District Court of the State of Nevada in Clark County.
The case is captioned Blaschak v. Beckert, et al., No. A-17-
759270-B. The complaint purports to assert a claim against the
directors of the Company for allegedly breaching their fiduciary
duties of care, loyalty, good faith, candor, and independence owed
to the plaintiff and the public stockholders of the Company,
including by allegedly agreeing to a transaction at an
unreasonably low price, agreeing to allegedly preclusive deal
protection provisions, and allegedly including materially
incomplete and misleading information in the preliminary proxy
statement. The complaint seeks, among other things, to enjoin the
merger contemplated by the Merger Agreement. On August 2, 2017,
counsel for plaintiffs in this action and the McNally action filed
a motion to consolidate this action with the McNally action and
the Meng action.

On August 1, 2017, Joyce McNally filed a purported stockholder
class action against the directors of the Company in connection
with the merger contemplated by the Merger Agreement in the Eighth
Judicial District Court of the State of Nevada in Clark County.
The case is captioned McNally v. Beckert, et al., No. A-17-759271-
B. The complaint purports to assert a claim against the directors
of the Company for allegedly breaching their fiduciary duties of
care, loyalty, good faith, candor, and independence owed to the
plaintiff and the public stockholders of the Company, including by
allegedly agreeing to a transaction at an unreasonably low price,
agreeing to allegedly preclusive deal protection provisions, and
allegedly including materially incomplete and misleading
information in the preliminary proxy. The complaint seeks, among
other things, to enjoin the merger contemplated by the Merger
Agreement. On August 2, 2017, counsel for plaintiffs in this
action and the Blaschak action filed a motion to consolidate this
action with the Blaschak action and the Meng action. The Company
believes these claims are without merit and intends to vigorously
defend against these claims.


COLGATE-PALMOLIVE CO: Dean Seeks to Certify Class of Purchasers
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Plaintiffs in the lawsuit styled JACQUELINE DEAN and MELANIE
BARBER, on Behalf of Themselves and all Others Similarly Situated
v. COLGATE-PALMOLIVE CO., Case No. 5:15-cv-00107-JGB-RAO (C.D.
Cal.), move for an order certifying a class defined as:

     All persons in California, Delaware, the District of
     Columbia, Kansas, Missouri, New Jersey, Ohio, Utah, Virginia
     and West Virginia who purchased Optic White on or after
     October 1, 2013, or who purchased Optic White Platinum on
     or after February 1, 2014.

The Plaintiffs also ask the Court to appoint them as Class
Representatives, and to appoint their counsel, Bursor & Fisher and
Levi & Korsinsky, as Class Counsel.

The Court will commence a hearing on December 4, 2017, at 9:00
a.m., to consider the Motion.

A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=WdKN52SU

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          L. Timothy Fisher, Esq.
          Yeremey O. Krivoshey, Esq.
          BURSOR & FISHER, P.A.
          1990 North California Blvd., Suite 940
          Walnut Creek, CA 94596
          Telephone: (925) 300-4455
          Facsimile: (925) 407-2700
          E-mail: ltfisher@bursor.com
                  ykrivoshey@bursor.com

               - and -

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

               - and -

          Courtney E. Maccarone, Esq.
          LEVI & KORSINSKY, LLP
          30 Broad Street, 24th Floor
          New York, NY 10004
          Telephone: (212) 363-7500
          E-mail: cmaccarone@zlk.com

               - and -

          Christopher Marlborough, Esq.
          THE MARLBOROUGH LAW FIRM, P.C.
          445 Broad Hollow Road, Suite 400
          Melville, NY 11747
          Telephone: (212) 991-8960
          E-mail: chris@marlboroughlawfirm.com

               - and -

          Todd S. Garber, Esq.
          FINKELSTEIN, BLANKINSHIP, FREI-PEARSON & GARBER, LLP
          1311 Mamaroneck Avenue, Suite 220
          White Plains, NY 10605
          Telephone: (914) 298-3283
          E-mail: tgarber@fbfglaw.com


COMMERCE BANCSHARES: Continues to Defend Against "Warren" Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Commerce Bancshares, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period
ended June 30, 2017, that the Company believes the Warren
complaint lacks merit and will defend itself vigorously.

On August 15, 2014, a customer filed a class action complaint
against the Bank in the Circuit Court, Jackson County, Missouri.
The case is Cassandra Warren, et al v. Commerce Bank (Case No.
1416-CV19197).  In the case, the customer alleges violation of the
Missouri usury statute in connection with the Bank charging
overdraft fees in connection with point-of-sale/debit and
automated-teller machine cards. The class was certified and
consists of Missouri customers of the Bank who may have been
similarly affected. The case has been stayed pending the final
outcome of a similar case in which a ruling has been made in favor
of the bank defendant.

The Company believes that the stay will remain in effect until any
appeals in the similar case have run their course.  The Company
believes the Warren complaint lacks merit and will defend itself
vigorously. The amount of any ultimate exposure cannot be
determined with certainty at this time.


CONVERSE INC: Averts Class Action Over Mandatory Bag Check
----------------------------------------------------------
Kathryn Moody, writing for HRDive, reports that a federal district
court granted summary judgment to Converse in a class-action
mandatory bag-check suit.  The lead plaintiff failed to show that
the security screenings were onerous, the U.S. District Court for
the Northern District of California held (Chavez v. Converse,
Inc., No. 5:15-cv-03746 (Oct. 11, 2017)), dismissing the claims.

The employees claimed they should have been paid for their time
spent waiting for the required bag inspections each time they left
the premises, in accordance with California labor law. Converse
argued that the off-the-clock time required for the inspections
was de minimis and, therefore, not compensable.

Converse provided evidence showing that the bag inspections lasted
less than 10 seconds, on average.  The plaintiffs, however, had
claimed that they waited more than two minutes in some cases.

Dive Insight:

De minimis time is not compensable.  It essentially builds in
protections for employers against the "split-second absurdities"
that can arise in the workplace, according to Judge Nathanael
Cousin.

Many of the questions within this case revolved around whether the
de minimis doctrine, which comes from the federal Fair Labor
Standards Act, applies to state law at all.  The California
Supreme Court is set to decide that question but, until it does,
the court here said it was bound by 9th Circuit precedent, which,
for now, allows de minimis to be applied to California law.

Eric Chavez, the lead plaintiff, claimed that the time taken up by
the bag checks would survive the de minimis defense.  But the
court disagreed, finding that (1) the time taken up by inspection
did not typically pass two minutes; (2) it could be more
administratively difficult if employees had to clock out after the
inspections; (3) the aggregate time of all times of inspection
upon leaving the store for breaks and otherwise did not exceed 10
minutes; and (4) evidence seemed to show that employees did not
have to wait for inspections with "any regularity."

In California, a number of mandatory bag inspection cases have
come before the courts in recent years.  Employees at Apple, Nike
and Converse had all been granted class action in the respective
suits. But the courts have often sided with employers.  Apple won
their case in a similar suit in 2015, and Nike recently prevailed
in their case, as well. [GN]


COOK COUNTY, IL: Retailers Laud Repeal of Sweetened Beverage Tax
----------------------------------------------------------------
Charles W. Lin, Esq. -- charles.lin@bryancave.com -- of Bryan Cave
LLP, in an article for Lexology, wrote that Cook County, Illinois
has repealed its sweetened beverage tax, just two months after the
unpopular ordinance was implemented.  As previously reported, Cook
County was among a number of localities across the country to pass
sugary drink tax laws, including the following:

   -- Berkeley in December 2015;
   -- Albany, California in December 2016;
   -- Philadelphia in January 2017;
   -- and Oakland, California; Boulder, Colorado; and Cook County,
Illinois in July 2017.

Cook County consumers objected, however, to paying an additional
68 cents for a two-liter soft drink or an extra 72 cents for a
six-pack. Retailers complained the tax was driving consumers to
neighboring jurisdictions to avoid the tax.

The sweetened beverage tax also triggered numerous lawsuits, some
of which are still playing out in court.  The Illinois Retail
Merchants Association sued the county to get the tax thrown out
days before it was to take effect.  The court granted a
restraining order to keep the tax from being imposed.  Later,
however, the court allowed the tax to move forward. The merchants
appealed that decision.

And law firms filed at least a dozen consumer class actions
against retailers and fast food chains that failed to properly
calculate the tax on retail sales.  For example, one plaintiff
sued a retailer for allegedly wrongly charging the tax on
unsweetened sparkling water.  The case, which seeks class-action
status, is still pending. [GN]


CORAL TELL: Israel Court Approves Settlement
--------------------------------------------
Digital Turbine, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended
June 30, 2017, that a district court in Israel has approved the
settlement of a class action lawsuit against Coral Tell Ltd.

The Company said, "On May 30, 2013, a class action suit in the
amount of NIS 19,200, or approximately $5,300, was filed in the
Tel-Aviv Jaffa District Court against Coral Tell Ltd., an Israeli
company that owns and operates a website offering advertisements.
Coral Tell Ltd. is currently being sued in a class action lawsuit
regarding phone call overages, and has served a third-party notice
against Logia and two additional companies for our alleged
involvement in facilitating the overages. The suit relates to a
service offered by the Coral Tell website, enabling advertisers to
display a virtual cellular number in the advertisement instead of
their real cellular number. The plaintiff claims that calls were
charged for the connection time between two segments of the call,
instead of the second segment alone; that the caller was charged
even if the advertiser did not answer the call (as the charge
began upon initiation of the first segment); and that the caller
was charged for text messages sent to the advertiser, although the
service did not support delivery of text messages. We have no
contractual relationship with this company. We believe the lawsuit
is without merit and a finding of liability on our part remote.

"On June 19, 2017 the District Court approved a settlement
agreement between the plaintiff and defendant, and dismissed the
third-party notices (Logia included). The defendant may appeal the
dismissal of the third-party notices. After conferring with
advisors and counsel, management believes that the ultimate
liability, if any, in aggregate will not be material to the
financial position or results or operations of the Company for any
future period."

"The Company does not believe there is a probable and estimable
claim. Accordingly, the Company has not accrued any liability."

Digital Turbine, through its subsidiaries, innovates at the
convergence of media and mobile communications, delivering end-to-
end products and solutions for mobile operators, application
advertisers, device OEMs and other third parties to enable them to
effectively monetize mobile content and generate higher value user
acquisition.


COSTA DEL MAR: Faces Class Action Over "No Gimmicks" Warranty
-------------------------------------------------------------
John Council, writing for Law.com, reports that a Fort Worth man
has filed a class action suit against the manufacturer of Costa
Del Mar sunglasses alleging the company's aggressive "no gimmicks"
warranty was nothing of the sort, and that it was in fact a trick
the company used to lure customers into making expensive repairs
on shades they claimed would be fixed for a "nominal fee."

The recent lawsuit filed in a Harris County state district court
brings deceptive trade practices allegations against Florida-based
Costa, which advertises itself as the nation's fourth-largest
sunglasses brand in America.  Costa in-store displays stress that
its sunglasses are "Backed for life. The best in the industry. No
gimmicks. No disclaimers. Just an unwavering confidence in our
product."

According to his lawsuit, Brian H. Burden purchased a pair of
Costa Brine sunglasses in September 2015 for $179.96.  On the back
of the box, Costa displayed the following statement: "If our
sunglasses are damaged by accident, normal wear and tear, or
misuse, we replace scratched lenses, frames and other parts for a
nominal fee."

Several months later in 2016, the frame of Mr. Burden's Costa
sunglasses broke due to normal wear and tear so he sent them back
to Costa for repairs.

"Instead of charging a nominal fee, Costa charged [Burden] $63.39
for repair, including a diagnostic fee, not including shipping,"
the petition alleges.  "Costa charged [Burden] nearly 40 percent
of the cost of a brand new pair of sunglasses, far more than a
nominal fee."

"Costa's claim that it will repair damaged sunglasses 'for a
nominal fee' is false and deceptive, designed to lure consumers
into paying a premium for a warranty against damage due to
accident, normal wear and tear, or misuse, only for consumers to
later discover the bait-and-switch," the petition alleges.
"Unfortunately, Costa's 'no gimmicks' warranty is just that--a
gimmick--designed to trick customers and maximize revenues for
Costa's repair center at the expense of Costa's customers."

The lawsuit seeks more than $1 million in damages from similarly
situated in Texas and notes that Burden's attorneys have filed a
parallel lawsuit against Costa in Florida.

Charles T. Jeremiah -- Charles.Jeremiah@hklaw.com -- a partner in
the Houston office of Holland & Knight who represents Mr. Burden,
did not return a call for comment about the petition.  Neither did
a spokesperson for Costa. [GN]


CSX TRANSPORTATION: Jury Trial in "Tipton" Reset to Feb. 26
-----------------------------------------------------------
In the case captioned CHARLES TIPTON, et al., Plaintiffs, v. CSX
TRANSPORTATION, INC., and UNION TANK CAR COMPANY, Defendants.
DEDRA JONES, et al., Plaintiffs, v. CSX TRANSPORTATION, INC., and
UNION TANK CAR COMPANY, Defendants. KELLI JOHNSON, et al.,
Plaintiffs, v. CSX TRANSPORTATION, INC., and UNION TANK CAR
COMPANY, Defendants, Nos. 3:15-CV-311-TAV-CCS, 3:15-CV-337-TAV-
CCS, 3:15-CV-497-TAV-CCS (E.D. Tenn.), Judge Thomas A. Varlan of
the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Tennessee
granted in part and denied in part the Plaintiffs' Motion to Stay
Litigation Pending Appeal Pursuant to Rule 23(f), or, in the
Alternative, for a Continuance of Trial Date.

The case concerns a train derailment and resulting chemical fire
in Maryville, Tennessee, which caused the mandatory evacuation of
thousands of local residents.  A number of those residents have
brought suit against the operator of the train, Defendant CSX, and
the owner of the tank car that derailed and caught fire, Defendant
UTC, asserting state-law tort claims.

On July 22, 2015, Plaintiffs Charles Tipton, Billy Tipton, Travis
Pruett, and Elizabeth Pruett filed suit against the Defendants,
purporting to represent themselves and others similarly situated
in a class action lawsuit.  They asserted claims of negligence and
private nuisance under Tennessee common law against both the
Defendants.  Various other Plaintiffs filed separate lawsuits
arising from the same train derailment.

On May 18, 2016, the Court granted the unopposed motion of the
Plaintiffs in Tipton v. CSX Transportation, Inc., No. 3:15-cv-311,
Jones v. CSX Transportation, Inc., No. 3:15-cv-337, and Johnson v.
CSX Transportation, Inc., No. 3:15-cv-497, to consolidate their
respective actions.  The Court designated Tipton as the lead case,
and on June 10, 2016, the Plaintiffs filed a Master Consolidated
Class Action Complaint, which superseded all prior complaints in
the consolidated cases.

The proposed class was defined as all natural persons, whether
minor or adult, including any person claiming by, through or under
a Class Member, who had a possessory interest in real property and
who were physically present in the Evacuation Zone during and
after the early hours of July 2, 2015, and  who evacuated; and all
natural persons, including minors and adults, who were physically
present in the Evacuation Zone, who had a possessory interest in
real property in the Evacuation Zone, but who were sheltered in
place during or after the early morning hours of July 2, 2015.

Then, on June 7, 2016, the Court entered an order granting in part
and denying in part the motions to dismiss filed by the Defendants
in both the consolidated cases and Hall v. CSX Transportation,
Inc., No. 3:15-cv-346.  It rejected application of the Tennessee
firefighter's rule and economic loss doctrine, held that the
Plaintiffs properly stated claims for negligence and nuisance, and
found that only some of the Plaintiffs' allegations were preempted
by federal law.

On Oct. 14, 2016, the Plaintiffs moved to certify the matter as a
class action under Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 23(a),
23(b)(3), and, alternatively, 23(c)(4).  The Court referred the
motion to Magistrate Judge C. Clifford Shirley, Jr., for his
consideration.  On July 11, 2017, Magistrate Judge Shirley entered
a Report and Recommendation ("R&R"), recommending class
certification as to the liability issues in the case but not as to
the nature of the Plaintiffs' injuries or the extent of damages.

The Defendants filed several joint objections to the R&R, to which
the Plaintiffs responded.  Then, on Sept. 26, 2017, the Court
entered an order sustaining the Defendants' objections to the R&R
and denying class certification.  Specifically, the Court held
that the Plaintiffs had failed to satisfy the impracticability of
joinder requirement under Rule 23(a)(1).

On Oct. 3, 2017, the Plaintiffs filed a motion to stay these
proceedings pending resolution of their forthcoming petition for
permission to appeal the Court's Sept. 26, 2017 order to the U.S.
Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit.  They alternatively
request a continuance of the trial date, currently scheduled for
Nov. 13, 2017, to permit sufficient time to prepare for trial,
dispose of pending motions, and resolve other pretrial issues.
Defendant UTC filed a response opposing any stay of this matter
but suggesting that a short continuance of the trial date would be
appropriate.  Defendant CSX then filed a response opposing either
a stay or continuance.

On Oct. 10, 2017, the Court received notice that the Plaintiffs
had filed their petition for permission to appeal.  The Defendants
have also filed separate motions for summary judgment, which are
now fully briefed.  In addition, the Plaintiffs have moved for
leave to file an amended consolidated complaint, which the
Defendants oppose.  These motions remain pending before the Court
at this time.

First, the Plaintiffs' burden with respect to showing a likelihood
of success on the merits is two-fold: they must show (i) a
likelihood that the Rule 23(f) petition will be granted, and (ii)
that the Sixth Circuit will reverse the Court's class
certification decision.  Judge Varlan finds that the Plaintiffs
have offered no new substantive argument to lead the Court to
reconsider the conclusions it reached in its Sept. 26, 2017 order.
In other words, they have failed to make the strong showing of a
clear abuse of discretion that the Sixth Circuit requires before
it will overturn a district court's considered judgment as to an
issue of class certification.  Therefore, the Judge finds that, as
a whole, the Plaintiffs have not demonstrated a likelihood of
success on the merits.

The Judge next turns to the second and third factors: whether the
Plaintiffs will suffer irreparable harm absent a stay, and whether
a stay would cause substantial harm to the Defendants or others.
He agrees with the Defendants that the Plaintiffs have not shown
that they would suffer irreparable injury -- distinct in character
and extent from the usual class certification dispute -- absent a
stay.  In essence, they have merely alleged -- in a largely
conclusory fashion -- that they will be economically disadvantaged
if they are forced to litigate the case absent class
certification.  Thus, the second factor does not favor the
Plaintiffs' position.

As for the third factor, Judge Varlan notes that the harms
Defendant CSX claims it will suffer if a stay enters are the same
basic litigation expenses the Court has found insufficient with
regard to the Plaintiffs.  On the other hand, the Plaintiffs bear
the burden of proving the absence of harm to other affected
parties, and there is also no threshold requirement of
irreparability -- mere substantial harm will suffice.  Further,
while the Rule 23(f) commentary suggests that appellate courts
should review such petitions expeditiously, it is unknown when the
Sixth Circuit will actually rule on the Plaintiffs' petition.
Thus, the costs the Defendants would incur as a result of a stay
are difficult to ascertain.  The Judge ultimately finds that this
factor is largely neutral, favoring neither side's position
strongly.

Finally, regarding the public's interest in this litigation, the
Plaintiffs argue that a stay would best serve the public interest
because proceeding to trial while their Rule 23(f) petition is
pending would be an inefficient use of judicial resources.  The
Judge finds that a stay would not serve the public interest.  The
public has an interest in prompt resolution of the cases that will
be tried in this District.  A stay would disrupt the orderly and
efficient administration of this litigation to an extent that a
continuance or other remedies would not.  In sum, the public's
interest in prompt disposition of cases in federal court suggests
proceeding as promptly as possible.

Alternatively, the Plaintiffs request a six-month continuance of
the trial date, currently scheduled for Nov. 13, 2017.  After
carefully considering the parties' respective positions, the Judge
finds that a continuance in this matter is necessary to promote
judicial economy and preserve party resources.  He finds that
additional time will be necessary to effectively develop a trial
plan -- for this and the related cases -- and dispose of the
motions pending before the Court.

Most significantly, Judge Varlan is concerned that two weeks is an
insufficient amount of time to resolve all pending Daubert issues.
On the other hand, he does not find a continuance of six months to
be necessary to address these concerns.  Indeed, he is cognizant
of the fact that this matter has been pending for over two years
and that additional undue delay may prejudice the Defendants.  He
concludes that rescheduling the jury trial in this matter for Feb.
26, 2017 will permit sufficient time to resolve all essential
issues and dispose of all pending motions.

For the reasons discussed, Judge Varlan granted in part and denied
in part the Plaintiffs' motion for a stay pending appeal or to
continue the trial date.  He also denied as moot the Plaintiffs'
motion to shorten the time for CSX to respond to their motion to
stay or continue.  Accordingly, the Judge ordered that the jury
trial in this matter, previously scheduled for Nov. 13, 2017, is
cancelled and is rescheduled for Feb. 26, 2018 at 9:00 a.m.

Furthermore, Judge Varland ordered that the final pretrial
conference, previously scheduled for Nov. 6, 2017, is cancelled
and is rescheduled for Feb. 20, 2018 at 2:30 p.m.  Any unexpired
scheduling deadlines as of the time of the filing of the
Plaintiffs' motion will be applied as calculated from the new
trial date and according to the same time limitations set forth in
the Court's original Scheduling Order.  No further continuances
will be granted absent extraordinary circumstances.

A full-text copy of the Court's Oct. 13, 2017 Memorandum Opinion
and Order is available at https://is.gd/0Jhmqr from Leagle.com.

Charles Tipton, Plaintiff, represented by Beecher A. Bartlett, Jr.
-- bbartlett@kramer-rayson.com -- Kramer, Rayson LLP.

Charles Tipton, Plaintiff, represented by Craig L. Garrett, Craig
L Garrett, Attorney at Law PLLC, David G. Bryant --
david@davidbryantlaw.com -- David Bryant Law, PLLC, pro hac vice,
Douglas A. Ruley, Davis & Whitlock, PC, pro hac vice, James S.
Whitlock -- jwhitlock@enviroattorney.com -- Davis & Whitlock, PC,
pro hac vice, Jeff Friedman -- jfriedman@friedman-lawyers.com --
Friedman, Dazzio, Zulanas & Bowling, P.C., pro hac vice, L.
Jeffrey Hagood, Hagood Moody Hodge PLC, Matthew D. Conn --
mconn@friedman-lawyers.com -- Friedman, Dazzio, Zulanas & Bowling,
P.C., pro hac vice, Shane D. Gosdis, Gosdis Law Firm PLLC, pro hac
vice, Todd J. Moody, Hagood Moody Hodge PLC & Gary A. Davis --
gadavis@enviroattorney.com -- Gary A. Davis & Associates.

Billy Tipton, Plaintiff, represented by Beecher A. Bartlett, Jr.,
Kramer, Rayson LLP, Craig L. Garrett, Craig L Garrett, Attorney at
Law PLLC, David G. Bryant, David Bryant Law, PLLC, pro hac vice,
Douglas A. Ruley, Davis & Whitlock, PC, pro hac vice, James S.
Whitlock, Davis & Whitlock, PC, pro hac vice, Jeff Friedman,
Friedman, Dazzio, Zulanas & Bowling, P.C., pro hac vice, L.
Jeffrey Hagood, Hagood Moody Hodge PLC, Matthew D. Conn, Friedman,
Dazzio, Zulanas & Bowling, P.C., pro hac vice, Shane D. Gosdis,
Gosdis Law Firm PLLC, pro hac vice, Todd J. Moody, Hagood Moody
Hodge PLC & Gary A. Davis, Gary A. Davis & Associates.

Travis Pruett, Plaintiff, represented by Beecher A. Bartlett, Jr.,
Kramer, Rayson LLP, Craig L. Garrett, Craig L Garrett, Attorney at
Law PLLC, Douglas A. Ruley, Davis & Whitlock, PC, pro hac vice,
James S. Whitlock, Davis & Whitlock, PC, pro hac vice, Jeff
Friedman, Friedman, Dazzio, Zulanas & Bowling, P.C., pro hac vice,
L. Jeffrey Hagood, Hagood Moody Hodge PLC, Matthew D. Conn,
Friedman, Dazzio, Zulanas & Bowling, P.C., pro hac vice, Shane D.
Gosdis, Gosdis Law Firm PLLC, pro hac vice, Todd J. Moody, Hagood
Moody Hodge PLC & Gary A. Davis, Gary A. Davis & Associates.

Elizabeth Pruett, Plaintiff, represented by Beecher A. Bartlett,
Jr., Kramer, Rayson LLP, Craig L. Garrett, Craig L Garrett,
Attorney at Law PLLC, Douglas A. Ruley, Davis & Whitlock, PC, pro
hac vice, James S. Whitlock, Davis & Whitlock, PC, pro hac vice,
Jeff Friedman, Friedman, Dazzio, Zulanas & Bowling, P.C., pro hac
vice, L. Jeffrey Hagood, Hagood Moody Hodge PLC, Matthew D. Conn,
Friedman, Dazzio, Zulanas & Bowling, P.C., pro hac vice, Shane D.
Gosdis, Gosdis Law Firm PLLC, pro hac vice, Todd J. Moody, Hagood
Moody Hodge PLC & Gary A. Davis, Gary A. Davis & Associates.

Patsy Abbott Roy, Plaintiff, represented by Douglas A. Ruley,
Davis & Whitlock, PC, pro hac vice, James S. Whitlock, Davis &
Whitlock, PC, Shane D. Gosdis, Gosdis Law Firm PLLC, pro hac vice
& Gary A. Davis, Gary A. Davis & Associates.

CSX Transportation, Inc., Defendant, represented by April N. Ross
-- aross@crowell.com -- Crowell & Moring, LLP, pro hac vice, Emily
L. Herman-Thompson -- ethompson@boatlf.com -- Baker, O'Kane,
Atkins & Thompson, John W. Baker, Jr. -- jbaker@boatlf.com --
Baker, O'Kane, Atkins & Thompson & Scott L. Winkelman --
swinkelman@crowell.com -- Crowell & Moring, LLP, pro hac vice.

Union Tank Car Company, Defendant, represented by April Adams Carr
-- acarr@wmbac.com --Woolf, McClane, Bright, Allen & Carpenter,
PLLC, Jacob V. Bradley -- jacob.bradley@quarles.com -- Quarles &
Brady, LLP, pro hac vice, Joshua B. Fleming --
josh.fleming@quarles.com -- Quarles & Brady, LLP, pro hac vice,
Mark A. Kircher -- mark.kircher@quarles.com -- Quarles & Brady,
LLP, pro hac vice, Michael J. King -- mjk@painebickers.com --
Paine Bickers LLP & W. Kyle Carpenter -- kcarpenter@wmbac.com --
Woolf, McClane, Bright, Allen & Carpenter, PLLC.


DUN & BRADSTREET: Court Denies 3rd Bid to OK Class Settlement
-------------------------------------------------------------
In the case captioned O&R CONSTRUCTION, LLC; DIE-MENSION
CORPORATION; VINOTEMP INTERNATIONAL CORPORATION; CPRINT, INC.;
ALTAFLO, LLC; and FLOW SCIENCES INC., individually and on behalf
of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. DUN & BRADSTREET
CREDIBILITY CORPORATION; DUN & BRADSTREET CORPORATION; and DUN &
BRADSTREET, INC., Defendants, No. C12-2184 TSZ (W.D. Wash.), Judge
Thomas S. Zilly of the U.S. District Court for the Western
District of Washington, Seattle, denied without prejudice the
deferred portion of the Plaintiffs' third unopposed motion for
preliminary approval of class action settlement.

The matter comes before the Court on the Plaintiffs' third
unopposed motion for preliminary approval of class action
settlement.  The motion was previously granted in part and
deferred in part, with direction to the parties to file a
supplemental brief, along with revised proposed forms of notices
to class members, a revised stipulation of settlement, and any
proposed opt-out form.

When the Plaintiffs first sought approval of the parties'
settlement, they estimated that the class, comprised of all
persons and entities in California, New Jersey, North Carolina,
Ohio, and Washington who purchased a CreditBuilder product from
Aug. 1, 2010, to the present, had over 35,000 members.  In
connection with their second attempt to obtain approval, they
represented that the class contains 89,719 members.  On their
third try, despite an earlier end date of the class period (namely
Jan. 24, 2017, rather than the present), the class size grew to
95,502 members.  The average recovery was anticipated to be $18.93
per class member, with 6,406 members (6.7%) receiving $0, almost a
third of the class being paid $5 or less, and roughly half of the
class getting $10 or less, while 67 entities (0.07%) each
recovered over $500.

Given the tremendous fluctuations in class size estimates and
proposed pro rata awards, Judge Zilly has significant doubt about
whether the class has been defined in a principled fashion, as
opposed to merely for the purpose of obtaining a desired result.
He also concludes that the pro rata distribution of settlement
funds, which the parties have persisted in proposing despite the
Court's suggestion otherwise, cannot be approved.  The table of
award amounts provided by the Settlement Administrator, and
reproduced in the proposed email notice to class members, also
does not offer a meaningful way to understand how the pro rata
recoveries are distributed.

Finally, although mindful of the provision of the parties'
settlement that calls for the Defendants to add, for a period of
at least two years, a full-time employee whose primary
responsibility will be to respond to, and enhance the quality of
responses to, trade disputes, the Judge will not approve a
settlement in which a substantial portion of the class will
forfeit all rights of action in exchange for no, or virtually no,
monetary award.

For the foregoing reasons, Judge Zilly denied without prejudice
the deferred portion of the Plaintiffs' third unopposed motion for
preliminary approval of class action settlement.  The class
defined in the Order entered May 5, 2017 will remain certified for
settlement purposes pending further order.  Any renewed motion for
preliminary approval of class action settlement will be filed
within 60 days of the date of this Minute Order.  No extension of
this deadline will be granted without a hearing attended by the
counsel for all parties.

The Judge advised the parties he will decline to approve any
proposed settlement in which the proceeds are distributed in a pro
rata fashion or in which any class member is awarded less than
$10.  The Counsel will consider whether persons or entities with
Net Purchase Amounts not exceeding a minimal amount or $0 should
be excluded from the class because they have already received
refunds or credits for all, or virtually all, sums spent on
CreditBuilder products, and would not have the requisite injury or
damage to pursue a claim against defendants.  The Counsel are also
again encouraged to define two or more subclasses to which
different fixed amounts could be paid, depending on the nature of
the CreditBuilder products they purchased or some other
correlative factor.

Judge Zilly adds that if a renewed motion cannot be timely filed,
the parties will file a Joint Status Report by the same deadline,
indicating whether the Court should (i) rule on the motion to
dismiss brought by Defendant Dun & Bradstreet, (ii) decertify the
class, (iii) set deadlines by which an amended consolidated
complaint must be filed, and (iv) issue a scheduling order.  Such
Joint Status Report will set forth the extent to which further
discovery is required and how long the parties anticipate such
discovery will take, indicate when the parties will be prepared
for trial, and identify any scheduling conflicts within the three
months preceding and the six months following the parties'
proposed trial date.  He directed the Clerk to send a copy of this
Order to all the counsel of record.

A full-text copy of the Court's Oct. 13, 2017 Order is available
at https://is.gd/Z61xu3 from Leagle.com.

O&R Construction, LLC, Plaintiff, represented by Aaron A. Bartz,
SHANBERG STAFFORD & BARTZ LLP, pro hac vice.

O&R Construction, LLC, Plaintiff, represented by Bradley Jerome
Moore -- brad@stritmatter.com -- STRITMATTER KESSLER WHELAN
KOEHLER MOORE KAHLER, Christopher Collins -- chrisc@rgrdlaw.com --
ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN & DOWD LLP, pro hac vice, Drew Legando,
LANDSKRONER - GRIECO - MERRIMAN, LLC, pro hac vice, Frank J.
Janecek, Jr. -- frankj@rgrdlaw.com -- ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN & DOWD
LLP, pro hac vice, Jack Landskroner, LANDSKRONER - GRIECO -
MERRIMAN, LLC, pro hac vice, Lea Malani Bays, ROBBINS GELLER
RUDMAN & DOWD LLP, pro hac vice, Ross E. Shanberg, SHANBERG
STAFFORD & BARTZ LLP, pro hac vice, Stuart A. Davidson, ROBBINS
GELLER RUDMAN & DOWD, LLP, pro hac vice, Theodore J. Pintar --
tedp@rgrdlaw.com - ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN & DOWD LLP, pro hac vice
& Thomas E. Egler -- tome@rgrdlaw.com -- ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN &
DOWD LLP, pro hac vice.

Vinotemp International Corporation, Consol Plaintiff, represented
by Aaron A. Bartz, SHANBERG STAFFORD & BARTZ LLP, pro hac vice,
Bradley Jerome Moore, STRITMATTER KESSLER WHELAN KOEHLER MOORE
KAHLER, Christopher Collins, ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN & DOWD LLP, pro
hac vice, Drew Legando, LANDSKRONER - GRIECO - MERRIMAN, LLC, pro
hac vice, Frank J. Janecek, Jr., ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN & DOWD LLP,
pro hac vice, Jack Landskroner, LANDSKRONER - GRIECO - MERRIMAN,
LLC, pro hac vice, Ross E. Shanberg, SHANBERG STAFFORD & BARTZ
LLP, pro hac vice, Stuart A. Davidson, ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN &
DOWD, LLP, pro hac vice, Theodore J. Pintar, ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN
& DOWD LLP, pro hac vice & Thomas E. Egler, ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN
& DOWD LLP, pro hac vice.

Die-Mension Corporation, Consol Plaintiff, represented by Bradley
Jerome Moore, STRITMATTER KESSLER WHELAN KOEHLER MOORE KAHLER,
Christopher Collins, ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN & DOWD LLP, pro hac
vice, Drew Legando, LANDSKRONER - GRIECO - MERRIMAN, LLC, pro hac
vice, Frank J. Janecek, Jr., ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN & DOWD LLP, pro
hac vice, Jack Landskroner, LANDSKRONER - GRIECO - MERRIMAN, LLC,
pro hac vice, Ross E. Shanberg, SHANBERG STAFFORD & BARTZ LLP, pro
hac vice, Stuart A. Davidson, ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN & DOWD, LLP,
pro hac vice, Theodore J. Pintar, ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN & DOWD
LLP, pro hac vice & Thomas E. Egler, ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN & DOWD
LLP, pro hac vice.

CPrint, Inc., Consol Plaintiff, represented by Aaron A. Bartz,
SHANBERG STAFFORD & BARTZ LLP, pro hac vice, Bradley Jerome Moore,
STRITMATTER KESSLER WHELAN KOEHLER MOORE KAHLER, Christopher
Collins, ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN & DOWD LLP, pro hac vice, Drew
Legando, LANDSKRONER - GRIECO - MERRIMAN, LLC, pro hac vice, Frank
J. Janecek, Jr., ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN & DOWD LLP, pro hac vice,
Jack Landskroner, LANDSKRONER - GRIECO - MERRIMAN, LLC, pro hac
vice, Ross E. Shanberg, SHANBERG STAFFORD & BARTZ LLP, pro hac
vice & Stuart A. Davidson, ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN & DOWD, LLP, pro
hac vice.

Altaflo, LLC, Consol Plaintiff, represented by Bradley Jerome
Moore, STRITMATTER KESSLER WHELAN KOEHLER MOORE KAHLER,
Christopher Collins, ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN & DOWD LLP, pro hac
vice, Drew Legando, LANDSKRONER - GRIECO - MERRIMAN, LLC, pro hac
vice, Frank J. Janecek, Jr., ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN & DOWD LLP, pro
hac vice, Jack Landskroner, LANDSKRONER - GRIECO - MERRIMAN, LLC,
pro hac vice, Ross E. Shanberg, SHANBERG STAFFORD & BARTZ LLP, pro
hac vice, Stuart A. Davidson, ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN & DOWD, LLP,
pro hac vice, Theodore J. Pintar, ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN & DOWD
LLP, pro hac vice & Thomas E. Egler, ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN & DOWD
LLP, pro hac vice.

Flow Sciences, Inc., Consol Plaintiff, represented by Bradley
Jerome Moore, STRITMATTER KESSLER WHELAN KOEHLER MOORE KAHLER,
Christopher Collins, ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN & DOWD LLP, pro hac
vice, Drew Legando, LANDSKRONER - GRIECO - MERRIMAN, LLC, pro hac
vice, Frank J. Janecek, Jr., ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN & DOWD LLP, pro
hac vice, Jack Landskroner, LANDSKRONER - GRIECO - MERRIMAN, LLC,
pro hac vice, Ross E. Shanberg, SHANBERG STAFFORD & BARTZ LLP, pro
hac vice, Stuart A. Davidson, ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN & DOWD, LLP,
pro hac vice, Theodore J. Pintar, ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN & DOWD
LLP, pro hac vice & Thomas E. Egler, ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN & DOWD
LLP, pro hac vice.

Dun & Bradstreet Credibility Corporation, Defendant, represented
by Charles C. Huber -- huberc@lanepowell.com -- LANE POWELL PC,
Christopher Chorba -- cchorba@gibsondunn.com -- GIBSON DUNN &
CRUTCHER LLP, pro hac vice, Timothy W. Loose --
tloose@gibsondunn.com -- GIBSON DUNN & CRUTCHER LLP. pro hac vice
& Zathrina Zasell G. Perez -- zperez@gibsondunn.com -- GIBSON DUNN
& CRUTCHER LLP, pro hac vice.

Dun & Bradstreet Corporation, Defendant, represented by Mikael A.
Abye -- mikael.abye@shearman.com -- SHEARMAN & STERLING LLP, pro
hac vice, Richard F. Schwed -- rschwed@shearman.com -- SHEARMAN &
STERLING LLP, pro hac vice & Charles C. Huber, LANE POWELL PC.

Dun & Bradstreet Inc, Defendant, represented by Mikael A. Abye,
SHEARMAN & STERLING LLP, pro hac vice, Richard F. Schwed, SHEARMAN
& STERLING LLP, pro hac vice & Charles C. Huber, LANE POWELL PC.


EA RENFROE: 9th Cir. Denies Judicial Notice Bid in "McFaddin"
-------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit denied Appellant's
motion for judicial notice the case captioned JACQUELINE McFADDIN,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated,
Plaintiff-Appellee, v. E.A. RENFROE & COMPANY, INC., a Georgia
corporation, Defendant-Appellant. JACQUELINE McFADDIN, Plaintiff-
Appellee, v. E.A. RENFROE & COMPANY, INC., a Georgia corporation,
Defendant-Appellant, Case Nos. 15-55886, 15-56404 (9th Cir.).

The Court agrees with the district court that the choice of forum
provision, the prevailing party provision, and the cost provision
are unconscionable.  Renfroe stipulated it would not enforce the
choice of forum provision, and the prevailing party and cost
provisions are severable.  Hence, the Court vacated its ruling
that the entirety of the arbitration agreement is unenforceable.

It also finds that the district court did not address whether the
arbitration agreement's waiver of class action claims is
enforceable and applies to McFaddin's California's Private
Attorneys General Act claim.  It directed the district court to
address this issue before reconsidering whether the agreement
remains enforceable.

A full-text copy of the Ninth Circuit's Oct. 17, 2017 Memorandum
is available at https://is.gd/o16ZUp from Leagle.com.


EL POLLO LOCO: "Olvera" Class Suit Underway
-------------------------------------------
El Pollo Loco Holdings, Inc. continues to defend against the case,
Elliott Olvera, et al v. El Pollo Loco, Inc., et al., according to
its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarterly period ended June 28, 2017.

On or about February 24, 2014, a former employee filed a class
action in the Superior Court of the State of California, County of
Orange, under the caption Elliott Olvera, et al v. El Pollo Loco,
Inc., et al (Case No. 30-2014-00707367-CU-OE-CXC) on behalf of all
putative class members (all hourly employees from 2010 to the
present) alleging certain violations of California labor laws,
including failure to pay overtime compensation, failure to provide
meal periods and rest breaks, and failure to provide itemized wage
statements. The putative lead plaintiff's requested remedies
include compensatory and punitive damages, injunctive relief,
disgorgement of profits, and reasonable attorneys' fees and costs.
No specific amount of damages sought was specified in the
complaint. The parties executed a Stipulation of Class Settlement
and Release which the court recently refused to approve on the
grounds that it did not provide sufficient compensation for the
putative class members. Further settlement discussions were not
successful, and the litigation is moving forward with plaintiff's
class certification motion due to be filed September 1, 2017.
Purported class actions alleging wage and hour violations are
commonly filed against California employers.

"We have similar cases pending and fully expect to have to defend
against similar lawsuits in the future," the Company said.

El Pollo Loco is a differentiated and growing restaurant concept
that specializes in fire-grilling citrus-marinated chicken and
operates in the limited service restaurant ("LSR") segment.


EL POLLO LOCO: Motion to Dismiss Consolidated Suit Underway
-----------------------------------------------------------
Defendants' motion to dismiss a consolidated complaint remains
pending, El Pollo Loco Holdings, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarterly period ended June 28, 2017.

Daniel Turocy, et al. v. El Pollo Loco Holdings, Inc., et al.
(Case No. 8:15-cv-01343) was filed in the United States District
Court for the Central District of California on August 24, 2015,
and Ron Huston, et al. v. El Pollo Loco Holdings, Inc., et al.
(Case No. 8:15-cv-01710) was filed in the United States District
Court for the Central District of California on October 22, 2015.
The two lawsuits have been consolidated, with co-lead plaintiffs
and class counsel.

A consolidated complaint was filed on January 29, 2016, on behalf
of co-lead plaintiffs and others similarly situated, alleging
violations of federal securities laws in connection with Holdings
common stock purchased or otherwise acquired and the purchase of
call options or the sale of put options, between May 1, 2015 and
August 13, 2015 (the "Class Period"). The named defendants are
Holdings; Stephen J. Sather, Laurance Roberts, and Edward J. Valle
(collectively, the "Individual Defendants"); and Trimaran Pollo
Partners, L.L.C., Trimaran Capital Partners, and Freeman Spogli &
Co. (collectively, the "Controlling Shareholder Defendants").

Among other things, Plaintiffs allege that, in 2014 and early
2015, Holdings suffered losses due to rising labor costs in
California and, in an attempt to mitigate the effects of such
rising costs, removed a $5 value option from our menu, which
resulted in a decrease in traffic from value-conscious consumers.
Plaintiffs further allege that during the Class Period, Holdings
and the Individual Defendants made a series of materially false
and misleading statements that concealed the effect that these
factors were having on store sales growth, resulting in Holdings
stock continuing to be traded at artificially inflated prices. As
a result, Plaintiffs and other members of the putative class
allegedly suffered damages in connection with their purchase of
Holdings' stock during the Class Period. In addition, Plaintiffs
allege that the Individual Defendants and Controlling Shareholder
Defendants had direct involvement in, and responsibility over, the
operations of Holdings, and are presumed to have had, among other
things, the power to control or influence the transactions giving
rise to the alleged securities law violations. In both cases,
Plaintiffs seek an unspecified amount of damages, as well as costs
and expenses (including attorneys' fees).

On July 25, 2016, the Court issued an order granting, without
prejudice, Defendants' Motion to Dismiss plaintiff's complaint for
failure to state a claim. Plaintiffs were granted leave to amend
their complaint, and filed an amended complaint on August 22,
2016.

Defendants moved to dismiss the amended complaint, and on March
20, 2017, the Court dismissed the amended complaint and granted
Plaintiffs leave to file another amended complaint.  Plaintiffs
filed another amended complaint on April 17, 2017. Defendants
filed a motion to dismiss the amended complaint on or about May
17, 2017. The Court took the motion under submission, and the
parties are waiting on the Court's decision. Defendants intend to
continue to defend against the claims asserted.

El Pollo Loco is a differentiated and growing restaurant concept
that specializes in fire-grilling citrus-marinated chicken and
operates in the limited service restaurant ("LSR") segment.


ENERGY EVENTS: Faces Class Action Over Cancelled Marathon
---------------------------------------------------------
L. Robert Batterman, Esq. -- rbatterman@proskauer.com --
Michael Cardozo, Esq. -- mcardozo@proskauer.com -- Robert E.
Freeman, Esq. -- rfreeman@proskauer.com -- Howard L. Ganz, Esq.
-- hganz@proskauer.com -- Wayne D. Katz, Esq. --
wkatz@proskauer.com -- Joseph M. Leccese, Esq. --
jleccese@proskauer.com -- of Proskauer Rose LLP, in an article for
The National Law Review, wrote that following news that the 2017
Vancouver USA Marathon in Vancouver, Washington was cancelled,
marathon hopefuls who were denied the opportunity to receive a
finisher's medal for all of their training may still receive a
consolation prize.  Registrants were notified on August 18, 2017
that the race would be canceled, just weeks before the runners
were set to hit the starting line on September 17.  Runners also
were told that they would not receive full refunds of their
registration fees.  Instead of starting his cooldown early, Cory
Bradley, a registered participant for the race, filed a putative
class action suit the day after the announcement on behalf of all
registrants (Bradley v. Energy Events LLC, No. 17-01291 (D. Or.
Amended Complaint filed Aug. 28, 2017)).  The complaint alleged,
among other things, that Energy Events LLC ("Energy Events") and
its sole owner and operator, Brian Davis, intentionally misled
consumers by promoting advertising materials promising a fun, run-
filled weekend in exchange for their registration fees, even as
the race organizers knew that they would never be able to fulfill
such a promise.

The Vancouver USA Marathon has been an organized event hosted by
Energy Events LLC since 2010, featuring a range of events and
distances, including full and half-marathon courses, and a three-
day beer festival, which attract around 3,000 participants every
year. The events have been held along the Columbia River and
historic parks and sights of Vancouver, Washington.

One of the reasons for this year's low registration and
cancellation may have been related to a snafu that chafed many
prior competitors. In the race's sixth year, runners may have
noticed that they set a new PR (or "personal record").
Unfortunately, this may have been because the 2016 Vancouver USA
Marathon course was 1,126 feet short of a full-marathon distance
course.  In practical terms, this meant that the race did not
count towards qualification for other more well-known marathons,
such as the Boston Marathon.

Each year, thousands of marathon racers dream of qualifying for
the Boston Marathon by satisfying the course's infamous qualifying
times based on age and sex.  As the Boston Athletic Association
notes on its website, only "certified full-marathon distance
[courses] will be accepted for qualifying."  Three months after
runners crossed the finish line of the 2016 Vancouver USA
Marathon, many runners were told by Boston Marathon organizers
that their finishing times would not count towards qualification.
And if a runner hadn't completed another marathon within the one-
year window that ended that September, there was now no way for
them to qualify for the 2017 Boston Marathon.  Moreover, runners
looking to complete their first marathon may have been left
feeling as if they still hadn't really achieved that goal; those
who wanted to add another marathon medal to their collection left
the course without any runner's high, and not surprisingly, many
asked for refunds, perhaps because a "25.9867424" sticker just
doesn't look as impressive on the back window of a car as a "26.2"
sticker.  Runners were not granted refunds, but instead were
offered free registration for the 2017 Vancouver USA Marathon.

Of course, the 2017 Vancouver USA Marathon never happened.  Race
organizers cited low pre-race registration numbers and a review of
their finances as the cause of cancelation, and communicated that
they planned only to issue partial refunds to those who had
registered because much of the funds had already been used for
"marketing, deposits and operational overhead."  This left many
racers "rungry" for retribution, including our plaintiff,
Cory Bradley.  Mr. Bradley filed suit against Energy Events the
very next day claiming that the defendants' marathon was
"materially under-funded" and "similar to a Ponzi scheme."

The complaint alleges that Energy Events's advertisements, which
stated that runners who paid the registration fee could race in
the 2017 events, were intentionally misleading.  Energy Events
allegedly failed to disclose that the distance blunder of 2016 had
damaged the credibility of the event so much that they knew pre-
race registration numbers would be low, and that the event would
be underfunded.  The complaint further alleges that these facts
were known at the time registration became "live," and Energy
Events knew or should have known that they could not provide their
promised race services.  The plaintiff claimed that these facts
were material to determining whether or not to register for the
2017 Vancouver USA Marathon events in response to the
advertisements.  As a result, the complaint asserts claims under
the Oregon consumer protection statute, based upon the defendant's
alleged unlawful trade practices and false marketing
representations.  The plaintiffs seek various forms of relief,
including actual, statutory and punitive damages, interest and
reimbursement of fees and costs, which the complaint argues
resulted from the hastily canceled event and the lack of full
refunds issued to registrants.

It remains to be seen whether this litigation will be successful
in reaching the finish line, or whether it will hit the wall
before mile 20.  It's also unclear if the runners will ever win a
recoverable judgment -- the complaint notes that defendant and
sole operator of Energy Events recently filed for personal Chapter
7 bankruptcy.  Whatever happens, whether continued litigation or
future runs, the plaintiffs have a long road ahead of them and
should be sure to pack their endurance chews. [GN]


ENVISION HEALTHCARE: Faces Class Action Over Inflated Stock Price
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Shareholder rights law firm Robbins Arroyo LLP on Oct. 16
disclosed that a class action complaint was filed against Envision
Healthcare Corporation (NYSE: EVHC).  The complaint is brought on
behalf of all purchasers of Envision securities between March 2,
2015 and September 18, 2017, for alleged violations of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 by Envision's officers and
directors.  Envision, through its subsidiaries, provides various
healthcare services in the United States.

Envision Accused of Engaging in Illicit Business Practices

According to the complaint, Envision's senior executives engaged
in a fraudulent scheme to artificially inflate the company's stock
price by ordering tests that were medically unnecessary, admitting
patients from the emergency room into a hospital for financial
reasons, and billing for the most expensive level of care in
unwarranted situations.  Further, patients who sought treatment at
in-network facilities were treated by out-of-network physicians
and subsequently billed at higher rates.  On July 24, 2017, The
New York Times reported that Envision misrepresented the source of
its revenues, emergency room and billing procedures, legal
compliance, patient safety measures, and internal controls.  In
reaction to the article, Envision's stock fell 3.72% to close at
$60.28 per share on July 24, 2017.  Then, on September 18, 2017,
Envision announced the retirement of its Chief Financial Officer
and the resignation of the President of Physician Services,
causing Envision's stock to drop approximately 10% to a close of
$43.11 per share on September 19, 2017.

Envision Shareholders Have Legal Options

Concerned shareholders who would like more information about their
rights and potential remedies can contact attorney Leonid Kandinov
at (800) 350-6003, LKandinov@robbinsarroyo.com, or via the
shareholder information form on the firm's website.

Robbins Arroyo LLP -- http://www.robbinsarroyo.com-- is a
shareholder rights law firm.  The firm represents individual and
institutional investors in shareholder derivative and securities
class action lawsuits, and has helped its clients realize more
than $1 billion of value for themselves and the companies in which
they have invested. [GN]


EQUIFAX INC: "Coade-Wingate" Suit Alleges FCRA Violations
---------------------------------------------------------
Mona Coade-Wingate, and all others similarly-situated v. Equifax
Inc. and Equifax Information Services LLC, Case No. 1:17-cv-01136
(N.D. N.Y., October 12, 2017), is brought against the Defendants
for violations of the Fair Credit Reporting Act.

The Plaintiff brings this action to redress the Defendants'
failure to safeguard Confidential Personal Information of the
Plaintiff and other class members as a result of its data security
breaches.

Plaintiff Mona Coade-Wingate is a citizen of the State of New
York, County of Columbia.

Defendant Equifax Inc. is a global consumer credit reporting
agency incorporated in Georgia, with its principal place of
business at 1500 Peachtree Street NW, Atlanta, Georgia.

Defendant Equifax Information Services LLC operates as a
subsidiary of Equifax Inc. and collects and reports consumer
information to financial institutions. Equifax Information
Services LLC is incorporated in Georgia with its principal place
of business at 1500 Peachtree Street NW, Atlanta, Georgia. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Rodney M. Zerbe, Esq.
      HELLMUTH & JOHNSON, PLLC
      The Woolworth Building 233 Broadway
      Suite 2208
      New York, NY 10279
      Tel: (212) 966-4949
      Fax: (212) 571-9149
      E-mail: rzerbe@hjlawfirm.com


EQUIFAX INC: Credit Unions File Data Breach Class Action
--------------------------------------------------------
Chris Lange, writing for 24/wallst., reports that about every six
months a massive hack puts millions of consumers and average
citizens at risk as cyber thieves look to get their hands on
private data. Equifax Inc. (NYSE: EFX) was the most recent target,
and the breach could affect over 145 million Americans.

Needless to say, everyone was not pleased with how Equifax handled
the breach, must less the "forced arbitration" clauses posed by
the firm. But there might be a way around this.

The immediate ramifications for consumers are apparent and the
fallout within Equifax was catastrophic, but now small financial
institutions are entering the fray.  Class action lawsuits against
Equifax are now popping up across the country from these small
firms to recover financial harms related to the breach.

The first lawsuit, led by Summit Credit Union, highlights the
significant financial costs that will be incurred by small
financial institutions due to the Equifax breach.  The second
lawsuit, led by Bank of Louisiana, Aventa Credit Union and First
Choice Federal Credit Union, alleges that Equifax violated federal
law.

Small financial institutions regularly group together to recoup
losses from massive data breaches.  A couple examples from recent
hacks include banks that filed class action lawsuits against
Target and Home Depot.  However, when consumers seek to take on
large financial companies like Equifax as a group, those companies
exercise "forced arbitration" clauses that eliminate a consumer's
choice about how to resolve their claim.

Under a new rule finalized by the Consumer Financial Protection
Bureau (CFPB), consumers can still be subject to forced
arbitration, but they cannot be restricted from joining together
with other consumers in group claims, including class action
lawsuits.

According to data from the CFPB, 97% of credit unions do not force
consumers into arbitration in their credit card agreements, while
60% of large banks did.  The organization also wrote to Congress
that making arbitration voluntary leads to the best results.

Large banks are currently pressuring Congress to overturn the
CFPB's new rule that restores choice to consumers.  Just as small
credit unions should have the right to group together to recover
losses from Equifax, advocates for consumers and military families
across the country believe that every
American deserves these rights, as well. [GN]


FACEBOOK INC: Drops Plan to Create New Class of Shares After Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Richard Groettheim, the chief executive of Sjunde AP-Fonden (AP7),
a Swedish national pension fund with SKr376 billion ($47 billion)
in assets under management, in article for The Financial Times,
reports that faced with an investor lawsuit, Facebook recently
retreated from its plan to create a new class of shares for the
social media group, resulting in a victory for shareholder rights.

Facebook's chief executive, Mark Zuckerberg, last year announced a
share reclassification plan designed to allow him to sell a
significant amount of stock to fund his charitable activities
while still retaining control of the company.  Under the scheme,
shareholders would have received two new non-voting C-shares for
each A and B-share.

Mr Zuckerberg owns the majority of Facebook's B-shares, which are
worth 10 votes each (A-shares have a single vote), and thus
controls 60 per cent of the voting power.  The change would have
allowed him to sell his non-voting C-shares without giving up any
of his B-shares.

AP7, a Swedish state pension fund and Facebook investor, opposed
the reclassification and in May 2016 Kessler Topaz Meltzer &
Check, the law firm, initiated a legal case against the company on
our behalf.  Other shareholders sued as well, and the case became
a class action. We were named co-lead plaintiffs.

"We opposed the scheme for several reasons. First, being forced to
accept non-voting shares would have diluted the value of our
stock. Facebook is AP7's sixth-largest position, with our A-shares
currently worth approximately SKr3.2bn ($340m), and our savers
stood to suffer potentially significant losses,"
Mr. Groettheim said.

"We estimate that the plan would have led to a collective
investment loss of $10bn for public shareholders, due to stock
depreciation.

"Second, we took issue with the process. Our interests were not
properly represented when the board approved the scheme. Eighty
per cent of Facebook's public shareholders voted against the
proposal, but Mr Zuckerberg's vote pushed it through. We believe
the board breached its fiduciary duty by not offering to
compensate shareholders for the dilution resulting from the
reclassification."

"Finally, the plan would have been harmful from a broader
corporate governance stance. With one person controlling so many
votes via so few shares, it would have been difficult for us to
protect the rights of our savers over the long term.

"Just two days before the trial was scheduled to begin,
Mr Zuckerberg abandoned the reclassification.  We were suing to
block the scheme's implementation, and his retreat was a total
victory."

"The issuance of multiple classes of shares has risen in recent
years, especially in the tech sector.  Though supporters say
giving founders and other insiders greater voting rights allows
them to focus on the long term (the argument Mr Zuckerberg used),
opponents believe it contravenes the basic principle that those
who provide the capital should have an equal say in how the
company is run.

"Issuing non-voting shares after investors have already bought in
is more problematic.  While we applaud Mr Zuckerberg's
philanthropy, good intentions do not justify abusing minority
shareholders. If Mr Zuckerberg wishes to sell his shares, he
should sell them, without expecting to retain disproportionate
control, especially as his attention will probably drift from
Facebook and towards his philanthropy.

"We do not know what Facebook plans to do next, but we will
continue to fight for our savers' interests and the interests of
other minority investors.

"Lawsuits are a last resort, of course, and we hope the Facebook
case will discourage other companies from attempting to implement
similar schemes against the wishes of their public shareholders."
[GN]


FAIR RATE: Faces Class Action Over Unsolicited Faxes
----------------------------------------------------
Hannah Meisel, writing for Law360, reports that two New Jersey
companies violated the Telephone Consumer Protection Act by
sending unsolicited faxes to Chicago personal injury firm Grazian
& Volpe PC, the practice alleged in a proposed class action filed
in Illinois federal court on Oct. 16.

The firm alleged that Fair Rate Legal Funding Partnership LP and
Amex Legal Funding LLC, which offer cash advances on pending
lawsuits and are owned by the same person, sent the firm and the
members of the proposed class faxes they never signed up for and
did not want, therefore depriving them of paper, ink, toner and
time. The suit also targets an unspecified number of unknown
defendants.

The ads were part of a "mass broadcasting" of faxes in the summer
of 2016 that unfairly placed the cost on the fax receivers, the
complaint says.  The firm alleged that by doing so, Fair Rate and
Amex Legal Funding had an unfair competitive advantage over
businesses that advertise by direct mail or other legal ways.

"For example, an advertising campaign targeting one million
recipients would cost $500,000 if sent by U.S. mail but only
$20,000 if done by fax broadcasting," the complaint said.  "The
reason is that instead of spending $480,000 on printing and
mailing his ad, the fax broadcaster misappropriates the
recipients' paper and ink."

The firm went on to quote then-congressman, now Sen. Edward
Markey, D-Mass., on the floor of the House in a hearing about fax
advertising in 1989: "Receiving a junk fax is like getting junk
mail with the postage due."

Grazian & Volpe asked the court to certify the proposed class,
which would include anyone with a fax number who had received
promotional faxes from Fair Rate or Amex Legal Funding in the past
four years who did not have a prior relationship with the
companies or did not give their consent to receive the faxes.  The
firm believes the faxes were sent to at least 40 other people in
Illinois, the complaint says.

The four-count suit includes allegations that Fair Rate and Amex
Legal Funding violated both the TCPA and the Illinois Consumer
Fraud Act, in addition to converting the costs for advertising to
the recipients of the faxes.  Grazian & Volpe also complained that
the faxes contained no directions on how to opt out.

Much of the suit focuses on the resources the unsolicited faxes
wasted at the cost of the recipients, including the time it takes
to figure out who was sending the faxes.

"Immediately prior to the sending of the unsolicited faxes,
plaintiff and the class members owned and had an unqualified and
immediate right to the possession of the paper and ink or toner
used to print the faxes," the complaint said.  "By sending the
unsolicited faxes, defendant appropriated to their own use the
paper and ink or toner used to print the faxes and used them in
such manner as to make them unusable. Such appropriation was
wrongful and without authorization."

The complaint also said that there is "no reasonable means" to
prevent receiving junk faces, especially for businesses.

"Fax machines must be left on and ready to receive the urgent
communications authorized by their owners," the complaint said.

None of the parties involved could be reached for comment on
Oct. 17.

Grazian & Volpe is represented by Daniel Edelman, Cathleen Combs,
James Latturner and Heather Kolbus of Edelman Combs Latturner &
Goodwin LLC.

Counsel information for Fair Rate Legal Funding Partnership LP,
Amex Legal Funding LLC and the unknown defendants could not be
determined on Oct. 17.

The case is Grazian & Volpe PC v. Fair Rate Legal Funding
Partnership LP et al., Case No. 1:17-cv-07451 (N.D. Ill.).  The
case is assigned to Judge Honorable Robert W. Gettleman.  The case
was filed October 16, 2017. [GN]


FANDUEL LTD: Posts Huge Losses, Continues to Defend Class Suits
---------------------------------------------------------------
Scott McCulloch, writing for insider.co.uk, reports that fantasy
sports operator FanDuel Ltd has reported huge losses for the six
months to December 2015 on lower than expected revenues and higher
finance, legal and marketing costs.

Pre-tax losses for the six months totalled $186.1 million
(GBP139.9 million), up from a loss of $102.7 million for the 18-
month 2015 financial period.

Revenues for the six months totalled $64.4 million (GBP48.4
million) compared with $87.7 million (GBP65.9 million for the
prior 18-month period.

The 2015 audited accounts, filed late with Companies House, show
FanDuel operated in 40 US states in the period, down from 45 in
2014, which along with regulatory issues, finance costs and
investment in marketing, saw losses widen.

Companies House records show FanDuel's accounts for the 2016 year
to December are also now overdue having missed the 30 September
deadline to file.

FanDuel notes in the 2015 accounts, gross profit for the period
totalled $49.8 million (GBP37.4 million) which was swamped by
administrative expenses of $336.3 million (GBP252.9 million) and
operating losses widened to $286.4 million (GBP215.3 million), up
from $77.7 million (GBP58.4 million) for the previous 18-month
financial period.

Fanduel notes for the 2016 year and to the date of 2015 accounts
sign off on 29 September of this year, it has continued to incur
losses though "on a smaller scale than 2015".

The company notes the losses booked in 2015 had also "exceeded
those forecast in its operating plan" and actions were taken in
the 2016 year to reduce operating costs, including 60 job cuts and
"curtailment of discretionary expenditures".

Fanduel, which originally launched in Edinburgh before moving the
bulk of its operations to the United States, announced in August
it had closed its UK gaming site to focus on its US business.

The company notes in the 2015 accounts it funded losses in the
2016 year from a $20 million financing arrangement and from
issuing new convertible loan notes valued at $62.5 million.

However Fanduel warns further financing will be required to
"successfully implement its operating plans", which will incur
further losses.

Earlier in the year Fanduel and its main rival DraftKings were
forced to abandon a merger plan after the US Federal Trade
Commission secured a court order effectively blocking the merger
believing it would create a "near-monopoly" in the market for
prize-led daily fantasy sports (DFS) contests.

The collapse of the deal triggered equity release clauses which
gave greater control to its private equity investors.

Fanduel notes finance costs in the six-month of 2015 jumped to
$100.3 million, up from $24.9 million for the 18-month 2014
reporting period.

Net cash used in operating activities totalled $213.8 million,
which dwarfed what were "record" revenues of $64.4 million for the
six-month 2015 reporting period.

Fanduel notes in September of this year it authorised a $30
million fixed-rate unsecured convertible loan and issued further
notes valued at $26.4 million, all redeemable within three years,
though it admits these loans "will not fully bridge the potential
funding gap".

The directors have indicated they may take "further measures" to
reduce costs if they are unable to access additional financing,
and as such the funding position presents "a material uncertainty
that casts a significant doubt on the group's ability to continue
as a going concern".

However management notes it remains "confident" additional equity
financing will be raised.

Fanduel's auditors have again included a going concern warning in
the 2015 accounts.

Earlier this year Fanduel shelved plans to move to a new 58,500 sq
ft office at Edinburgh's Quartermile 4 development in April of
this year, having signed a 15-year lease for the offices in 2015
in what was the largest single pre-let in the capital in a decade.

The Quartermile 4 offices were re-assigned to Cirrus Logis and
Bank of Montreal.

The company notes in accounts the 2015, an Edinburgh office lease
deal was rent free through to August 2015 and includes an
"escalation" clause for rent paid after January 2018 and again
after June 2020, which is the first opportunity to cancel the
lease.

Another office lease in Edinburgh stemming from September 2014,
expires in October 2022.

Fanduel notes it is named in a number of class action lawsuits and
regulatory inquiries in the United States, a number of which are
classified as a "contingent liability" while the outcome of
regulatory investigations could have a "significant impact".

The law suits allege breach of contract and unfair or deceptive
business practices, breaching eight US patent laws and negligence,
fraud and misrepresentation in violation of US consumer protection
statutes. [GN]


FERRARA CANDY: 8th Cir. Remands "Waters" MMPA Suit to State Court
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case captioned Jaclyn Waters, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated in Missouri, Plaintiff-Appellee, v.
Ferrara Candy Co., Defendant-Appellant, Case No. 17-2812 (8th
Cir.), the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit affirmed
the district court's order remanding the putative class action
back to the state court from which it was removed.

Plaintiff Waters filed the putative class action in the Circuit
Court for the City of St. Louis, Missouri, alleging that Ferrara
had engaged in false, deceptive, and misleading conduct by selling
substantially under-filled or slack-filled cardboard boxes of Red
Hot candies.  In her petition, Waters claimed that Ferrara's
conduct violated the Missouri Merchandising Practices Act
("MMPA"), and that Ferrara has been unjustly enriched by its
deception of Waters and other similarly situated Red Hots
consumers in Missouri.  She sought compensatory damages,
disgorgement, restitution, and unspecified injunctive relief on
behalf of herself and others who had purchased slack-filled boxes
of Red Hots in Missouri within the five-year period preceding the
lawsuit.

Ferrara removed the action to federal court, seeking to invoke the
district court's jurisdiction under the Class Action Fairness Act
("CAFA").  Waters thereafter moved to remand the case back to
state court, arguing that the amount in controversy in this matter
falls below the $5 million threshold necessary for federal
jurisdiction under CAFA.  The district court entered an order
granting the motion and remanding the case to the state court.

The Appellate Court granted Ferrara permission to appeal the
remand order, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Section 1453(c).  The issue
now before the Court is whether the amount in controversy in the
putative class action exceeds $5 million, exclusive of interest
and costs, as is required to invoke the district court's
jurisdiction under CAFA.

Ferrara argues that the district court erred by applying the
Plaintiffs' viewpoint rule when it calculated the amount in
controversy.  It submitted two affidavits in support of its
contention that the amount in controversy in the case exceeds $5
million.

In the first affidavit, a Ferrara vice president attested, inter
alia, that from 2012 to 2016, Ferrara's sales of Red Hots packaged
in cardboard boxes totaled $27,592,167, of which $464,903 was from
sales in the City of St. Louis and the Kansas City metropolitan
area.  In its second affidavit, a Ferrara executive averred that,
based on his knowledge of Ferrara's packing processes and his
investigation into the costs of upgrading its packaging equipment,
necessary changes to Ferrara's production capital equipment, which
could result from an injunction requiring a material increase in
the percentage fill of Red Hots candy in the cardboard boxes,
would exceed $6,000,000.  In Ferrara's view, these affidavits
establish that the amount in controversy in this case exceeds $5
million.

The Court concludes that it needs not resolve the issue of whether
courts should apply the Plaintiffs' viewpoint rule or the either
viewpoint rule when determining the amount in controversy under
CAFA because Ferrara did not meet its burden under either rule.
If the Plaintiffs prevail in the case, they will be entitled to
monetary relief and attorney's fees well below $5 million,
regardless of whether the monetary relief comes in the form of
compensatory damages, restitution, or disgorgement.  Punitive
damages are not in controversy because the petition does not seek
them.  Moreover, Ferrara's affidavits are insufficient to
quantify, beyond mere speculation, the costs it would incur in
complying with an award of injunctive relief in the case.
Accordingly, the Court affirmed.

A full-text copy of the Eighth Circuit's Oct. 13, 2017 Order is
available at https://is.gd/ZRcFkE from Leagle.com.

Matthew Hall Armstrong -- matt@mattarmstronglaw.com -- for
Plaintiff-Appellee.

Scott A. Kamber -- skamber@kamberlaw.com -- for Plaintiff-
Appellee.

Troy Bozarth -- tbozarth@heplerbroom.com -- for Defendant-
Appellant.

Charles Noah Insler -- cni@heplerbroom.com -- for Defendant-
Appellant.

Eugene Alexis Sokoloff -- eugene.sokoloff@hoganlovells.com -- for
Defendant-Appellant.

Deborah Kravitz, for Plaintiff-Appellee.

Naomi B. Spector -- nspector@kamberlaw.com -- for Plaintiff-
Appellee.

David J. Robbins -- david.robbins@hoganlovells.com -- for
Defendant-Appellant.

Robert B. Hawk -- robert.hawk@hoganlovells.com -- for Defendant-
Appellant.

Reedy C. Swanson, for Defendant-Appellant.


FORCEFIELD ENERGY: February 8 Settlement Fairness Hearing Set
-------------------------------------------------------------
The Rosen Law Firm, P.A., on Oct. 16 disclosed that the United
States District Court for the Southern District of New York has
approved the following announcement of a proposed class action
settlement that would benefit purchasers of common stock of
ForceField Energy, Inc. (OTCMKS:FNRG):

SUMMARY NOTICE OF PENDENCY AND PROPOSED CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT

TO: ALL PERSONS WHO PURCHASED OR OTHERWISE ACQUIRED FORCEFIELD
ENERGY, INC. COMMON STOCK FROM AUGUST 20, 2013 TO APRIL 20, 2015,
INCLUSIVE.

YOU ARE HEREBY NOTIFIED, pursuant to an Order of the United States
District Court for the Southern District of New York, that a
hearing will be held on February 8, 2018, at 11:00 a.m. before the
Honorable Naomi Reice Buchwald, United States District Judge of
the Southern District of New York, Daniel Patrick Moynihan United
States Courthouse, 500 Pearl Street, Court Room 21A, New York, New
York 10007, for the purpose of determining: (1) whether the
proposed Settlement of the claims in the above-captioned Action
for consideration including the sum of $414,500, plus the amount
left in the Additional Settlement Amount, which, if monies remain
in the Additional Settlement Amount, will be distributed at a
later date, should be approved by the Court as fair, reasonable,
and adequate; (2) whether the proposed plan to distribute the
Settlement proceeds is fair, reasonable, and adequate; (3) whether
the application of Lead Counsel for an award of attorneys" fees of
up to one-third of the Settlement Amount, plus up to one-third of
the Additional Settlement Amount, if applicable, reimbursement of
expenses of not more than $25,000, and an incentive payment of no
more than $1,000 in aggregate, should be approved; and (4) whether
this Action should be dismissed with prejudice as set forth in the
Stipulation and Agreement of Settlement dated July 26, 2017 (the
"Settlement Stipulation").

If you purchased ForceField Energy, Inc. ("ForceField") common
stock during the period from August 20, 2013 and April 20, 2015,
both dates inclusive (the "Settlement Class Period"), your rights
may be affected by this Settlement, including the release and
extinguishment of claims you may possess relating to your
ownership interest in ForceField common stock.  If you have not
received a detailed Notice of Pendency and Proposed Settlement of
Class Action ("Notice") and a copy of the Proof of Claim and
Release Form, you may obtain copies by writing to or calling the
Claims Administrator: ForceField Energy Inc. Litigation, c/o
Strategic Claims Services, P.O. Box 230, 600 N. Jackson St., Ste.
3, Media, PA 19063; (Tel) (866) 274-4004; (Fax) (610) 565-7985;
info@strategicclaims.net, or going to the website,
www.strategicclaims.net.  If you are a member of the Settlement
Class, in order to share in the distribution of the Net Settlement
Fund, you must submit a Proof of Claim and Release Form postmarked
no later than December 5, 2017 to the Claims Administrator,
establishing that you are entitled to recovery. Unless you submit
a written exclusion request, you will be bound by any judgment
rendered in the Action whether or not you make a claim.

If you desire to be excluded from the Settlement Class, you must
submit to the Claims Administrator a request for exclusion so that
it is received no later than January 18, 2018, in the manner and
form explained in the Notice.  All members of the Settlement Class
who have not requested exclusion from the Settlement Class will be
bound by any judgment entered in the Action pursuant to the
Settlement Stipulation.

Any objection to the Settlement, Plan of Allocation, or Lead
Counsel's request for an award of attorneys" fees and
reimbursement of expenses and award to Plaintiffs must be in the
manner and form explained in the detailed Notice and received no
later than January 18, 2018, by each of the following:

Clerk of the Court
United States District Court
Southern District of New York
500 Pearl Street
New York, NY 10007

LEAD COUNSEL:

Jacob A. Goldberg, Esq.
Gonen Haklay, Esq.
THE ROSEN LAW FIRM, P.A.
101 Greenwood, Suite 440
Jenkintown, Pennsylvania 19046

COUNSEL FOR DEFENDANTS FORCEFIELD ENERGY, INC., DAVID NATAN, AND
JASON WILLIAMS:

Martin H. Kaplan, Esq.
GUSRAE KAPLAN NUSBAUM PLLC
120 Wall Street, 25th Floor
New York, New York 10005

COUNSEL FOR DEFENDANTS DREAMTEAMGROUP AND MISSIONIR:

Jacob S. Frenkel, Esq.
DICKINSON WRIGHT PLLC
1825 Eye Street, Suite 900
Washington, C.C. 20006

COUNSEL FOR DEFENDANTS ROBERT GOLDMAN AND GOLDMAN SMALL CAP
RESEARCH:

William S. Heyman, Esq.
LAW OFFICE OF WILLIAM S. HEYMAN
201 N. Charles Street, Suite 500
Baltimore, MD 21201

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

Jacob A. Goldberg, Esq.
Gonen Haklay, Esq.
THE ROSEN LAW FIRM, P.A.
101 Greenwood, Suite 440
Jenkintown, Pennsylvania 190466
Tel.: 215-600-2817

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

Dated: September 26, 2017

BY ORDER OF THE UNITED STATES
DISTRICT COURT FOR THE
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
[GN]


FORD MOTOR: JND Named Notice Administrator in MyFord Touch Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the case captioned IN RE MYFORD TOUCH CONSUMER LITIGATION, Case
No. 3:13-cv-03072-EMC (N.D. Cal.), Judge Edward M. Chen of the
U.S.  District Court for the Northern District of California, San
Francisco Division, approved the protocol for disseminating
notification to the certified classes, and appointed JND Legal
Administration Group as the notice administrator.

The Parties and with the proposed notice administrator, JND,
submit the following notice protocol for approval by the Court:

     1. The Plaintiffs will obtain, from two databases previously
provided by Ford in discovery, a total of 1,342,092 VIN numbers
for class vehicles purchased or leased in the United States ("VIN
List").  They, through the notice administrator, will run the VIN
List through the Departments of Motor Vehicles ("DMV") in each of
the eight class states to identify all original and subsequent
llessees/purchasers in those states.

     2. The Plaintiffs will give the VIN List to the notice
administrator, who will work with the relevant DMVs to cross check
those 1,342,092 VINs for all original and subsequent vehicle
transactions made in each of the eight class states before Aug. 9,
2013.  This Court entered an order on Sept. 14, 2017 authorizing
the notice administrator to receive this information back from the
DMVs for the purpose of effectuating notice.

     3. Before mailing the postcard notice, the notice
administrator will first update the addresses it receives from the
DMVs by running them through a national change of address
database.  It will then mail the Court-approved postcard notice to
all of these addresses.

     4. The notice administrator will also provide the information
it receives back from the state DMVs to Ford so that it can
provide any e-mail addresses it has that are associated with those
purchasers/lessees.  Any such e-mail addresses will then be
provided by Ford to JND, which will send the Court-approved e-mail
notice to these addresses.

     5. The notice administrator will establish and maintain a
dedicated website that will contain the information in the Long
Form Notice that was approved by the Court.

     6. Any timely submitted opt-out or exclusion forms will be
collected by the notice administrator.  Shortly after the deadline
for opt-outs (Jan. 29, 2018), the notice administrator will file a
declaration with the Court confirming that the steps were
undertaken, and identifying any class members who timely elect to
exclude themselves.

The Plaintiffs respectfully request that the Court approve their
selection of JND as the notice administrator.  JND has extensive
experience administrating complex class action lawsuits, both in
the context of settlements and litigation classes.  The Counsel
for Ford has reviewed and is not opposed to any of the foregoing.

Having reviewed the foregoing, Judge Chen approved (i) the notice
protocol described and (ii) the Plaintiffs' selection of JND as
the notice administrator.

A full-text copy of the Court's Oct. 13, 2017 Order is available
at https://is.gd/cVuyVp from Leagle.com.

Jennifer Whalen, Plaintiff, represented by Adam J. Levitt --
alevitt@gelaw.com -- DiCello Levitt & Casey LLC.

Jennifer Whalen, et al. are represented by Cory Steven Fein,
Attorney at Law, Craig Ripley Spiegel, Esq. -- craigs@hbsslaw.com
-- Jason Allen Zweig, Esq. -- jasonz@hbsslaw.com -- Catherine
Gannon, Esq. -- catherineg@hbsslaw.com -- Jeff D. Friedman, Esq. -
- jefff@hbsslaw.com -- Jeniphr A.E. Breckenridge, Esq. --
jeniphr@hbsslaw.com -- Shelby Smith, Esq. -- shelby@hbsslaw.com --
Steve W. Berman, Esq. -- steve@hbsslaw.com -- and -- Tyler S.
Weaver, Esq. -- tyler@hbsslaw.com -- HAGENS BERMAN SOBOL SHAPIRO
LLP -- Cynthia B. Chapman, Esq. -- cbc@caddellchapman.com -- and -
- Michael A. Caddell, Esq. -- mac@cadellchapman.com -- CADDELL &
CHAPMAN -- Benjamin F. Johns, Esq. -- BenJohns@chimicles.com --
CHIMICLES & TIKELLIS LLP -- Jeffrey Scott Goldenberg, Esq. --
jgoldenberg@gs-legal.com -- GOLDENBERG SCHNEIDER, LPA -- Joseph
Bryce Kenney, Esq. -- jbk@mccunewright.com -- and -- Joseph G.
Sauder, Esq. -- jgs@mccunewright.com -- MCCUNEWRIGHT, LLP --
Vincent Louis DiTommaso, Esq. -- vdt@ditommasolaw.com -- DITOMMASO
LUBIN, P.C.

Thomas Mitchell, Plaintiff, represented by Craig Ripley Spiegel,
Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP, Benjamin F. Johns, Chimicles &
Tikellis LLP, pro hac vice, Jeff D. Friedman, Hagens Berman Sobol
Shapiro LLP, Joseph B. Kennedy, One Harverford Centre, pro hac
vice, Mark Philip Pifko, Baron & Budd, P.C., Nicholas E.
Chimicles, Chimicles and Tikellis LLP, pro hac vice, Roland K.
Tellis, Baron Budd, P.C., Stephanie Elena Saunders, Chimicles and
Tikellis LLP, pro hac vice, Steve W. Berman, Hagens Berman Sobol
Shapiro LLP, pro hac vice & Vincent Louis DiTommaso, DiTommaso
Lubin, P.C..

Joe D'Aguanno, Plaintiff, represented by Adam J. Levitt, DiCello
Levitt & Casey LLC, Craig Ripley Spiegel, Hagens Berman Sobol
Shapiro LLP, Shana E. Scarlett, Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP,
Benjamin F. Johns, Chimicles & Tikellis LLP, pro hac vice, Gregory
Michael Travalio, Isaac, Wiles, Burkholder Teetor, LLC, pro hac
vice, Jason Allen Zweig, Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP, Jeff D.
Friedman, Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP, Joseph B. Kennedy, One
Harverford Centre, pro hac vice, Mark Philip Pifko, Baron & Budd,
P.C., Nicholas E. Chimicles, Chimicles and Tikellis LLP, pro hac
vice, Roland K. Tellis, Baron Budd, P.C., Shelby Smith, Hagens
Berman, pro hac vice, Stephanie Elena Saunders, Chimicles and
Tikellis LLP, pro hac vice, Steve W. Berman, Hagens Berman Sobol
Shapiro LLP, pro hac vice & Vincent Louis DiTommaso, DiTommaso
Lubin, P.C..

Deb Makowski, Plaintiff, represented by Adam J. Levitt, DiCello
Levitt & Casey LLC, Craig Ripley Spiegel, Hagens Berman Sobol
Shapiro LLP, Shana E. Scarlett, Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP,
Benjamin F. Johns, Chimicles & Tikellis LLP, pro hac vice, Gregory
Michael Travalio, Isaac, Wiles, Burkholder Teetor, LLC, pro hac
vice, Jason Allen Zweig, Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP, Jeff D.
Friedman, Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP, Joseph B. Kennedy, One
Harverford Centre, pro hac vice, Mark Philip Pifko, Baron & Budd,
P.C., Nicholas E. Chimicles, Chimicles and Tikellis LLP, pro hac
vice, Roland K. Tellis, Baron Budd, P.C., Shelby Smith, Hagens
Berman, pro hac vice, Stephanie Elena Saunders, Chimicles and
Tikellis LLP, pro hac vice, Steve W. Berman, Hagens Berman Sobol
Shapiro LLP, pro hac vice & Vincent Louis DiTommaso, DiTommaso
Lubin, P.C ..

Jose Randy Rodriguez, Plaintiff, represented by Adam J. Levitt,
DiCello Levitt & Casey LLC, Craig Ripley Spiegel, Hagens Berman
Sobol Shapiro LLP, Shana E. Scarlett, Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro
LLP, Benjamin F. Johns, Chimicles & Tikellis LLP, pro hac vice,
Gregory Michael Travalio, Isaac, Wiles, Burkholder Teetor, LLC,
pro hac vice, Jason Allen Zweig, Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP,
Jeff D. Friedman, Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP, Joseph B.
Kennedy, One Harverford Centre, pro hac vice, Mark Philip Pifko,
Baron & Budd, P.C., Nicholas E. Chimicles, Chimicles and Tikellis
LLP, pro hac vice, Roland K. Tellis, Baron Budd, P.C., Shelby
Smith, Hagens Berman, pro hac vice, Stephanie Elena Saunders,
Chimicles and Tikellis LLP, pro hac vice, Steve W. Berman, Hagens
Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP, pro hac vice & Vincent Louis DiTommaso,
DiTommaso Lubin, P.C..

Michael Ervin, Plaintiff, represented by Adam J. Levitt, DiCello
Levitt & Casey LLC, Craig Ripley Spiegel, Hagens Berman Sobol
Shapiro LLP, Shana E. Scarlett, Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP,
Benjamin F. Johns, Chimicles & Tikellis LLP, pro hac vice, Gregory
Michael Travalio, Isaac, Wiles, Burkholder Teetor, LLC, pro hac
vice, Jason Allen Zweig, Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP, Jeff D.
Friedman, Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP, Joseph B. Kennedy, One
Harverford Centre, pro hac vice, Mark Philip Pifko, Baron & Budd,
P.C., Nicholas E. Chimicles, Chimicles and Tikellis LLP, pro hac
vice, Roland K. Tellis, Baron Budd, P.C., Shelby Smith, Hagens
Berman, pro hac vice, Stephanie Elena Saunders, Chimicles and
Tikellis LLP, pro hac vice, Steve W. Berman, Hagens Berman Sobol
Shapiro LLP, pro hac vice & Vincent Louis DiTommaso, DiTommaso
Lubin, P.C..

Ford Motor Company is represented by Randall W. Edwards, Esq. --
redwards@omm.com -- Brian Christopher Anderson, Esq. --
banderson@omm.com -- David Richard Dorey, Esq. -- ddorey@omm.com -
- Edmundo Clay Marquez, Esq. -- emarquez@omm.com -- and -- Scott
M. Hammack, Esq. -- shammack@omm.com -- O'MELVENY AND MYERS --
Janet L. Conigliaro, Esq. -- jconigliaro@dykema.com -- DYKEMA --
Warren Earl Platt, Esq. -- wplatt@swlaw.com -- SNELL AND WILMER
LLP.


G&H DAIRY: "Guzman-Padilla" Class Settlement Has Final Approval
---------------------------------------------------------------
Magistrate Judge Kendall J. Newman of the U.S. District Court for
the Eastern District of California granted the Plaintiffs'
unopposed Motion for Final Approval of Class Action Settlement and
entirety of Consent Decree in the case captioned HERNAN GUZMAN-
PADILLA, CIPRIANO BENITEZ, CARLOS FABIAN TORRES PEREZ, and
GUILLERMO BENITEZ SANTOYO individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. GERARD VAN DE POL; HENRY VAN DE
POL; AND GERARD VAN DE POL AND HENRY VAN DE POL d/b/a/G&H DAIRY,
Defendant, Case No. 2:17-cv-00196-KJN (E.D. Cal.).

The Plaintiffs' unopposed Motion for Final Approval came before
the Court on Oct. 12, 2017.  The proposed settlement in the case
was preliminarily approved by the Court on Aug. 16, 2017.
Pursuant to the Court's Preliminary Approval Order and the Notice
provided to the Class, the Court conducted a final fairness
hearing as required by Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(e).  The
Court has reviewed the materials submitted by the parties and has
heard arguments presented by counsel at the hearing.

Magistrate Judge Newman granted final approval of the Class
Settlement based upon the terms set forth in the Consent Decree
filed by the parties.  The Settlement Fund will be dispersed in
accordance with the Consent Decree as detailed in the Consent
Decree.  The Magistrate Judge will enter the Consent Decree as its
order.  He also approved the Settlement of the Plaintiffs' PAGA
claims as required by Cal. Lab. Code Section 2699(I)(2).

Magistrate Judge Newman dismissed with prejudice the action, with
each party to bear his, her, or its own costs, except as set
forth, and with the Court retaining exclusive jurisdiction to
enforce the Consent Decree, including over disbursement of the
Settlement Fund.  If for any reason, the Settlement ultimately
does not become final, the Final Approval Order will be vacated,
the Parties will return to their respective positions in this
action as those positions existed immediately before the Parties
executed the Settlement.

A full-text copy of the Court's Oct. 13, 2017 Order is available
at https://is.gd/up8WND from Leagle.com.

Hernan Guzman-Padilla, Plaintiff, represented by James M. Finberg
-- jfinberg@altshulerberzon.com -- Altshuler Berzon LLP.

Hernan Guzman-Padilla, Plaintiff, represented by Rosa Erandi
Zamora, California Rural Legal Assistance Foundation, Alexandra
Thompson Revelas, California Rural Legal Assistance Foundation,
Dawson McKinnon Morton, California Rural Legal Aid Foundation, Eve
H. Cervantez -- ecervantez@altshulerberzon.com -- Altshuler Berzon
LLP & Robert Joshua Wasserman, Mayall Hurley P.C..

Cipriano Benites, Plaintiff, represented by James M. Finberg,
Altshuler Berzon LLP, Rosa Erandi Zamora, California Rural Legal
Assistance Foundation, Alexandra Thompson Revelas, California
Rural Legal Assistance Foundation, Dawson McKinnon Morton,
California Rural Legal Aid Foundation, Eve H. Cervantez, Altshuler
Berzon LLP & Robert Joshua Wasserman -- rwasserman@mayallaw.com --
Mayall Hurley P.C..

Guillermo Benitez Santiago, Plaintiff, represented by Dawson
McKinnon Morton, California Rural Legal Aid Foundation & James M.
Finberg, Altshuler Berzon LLP.

Fabian Torres Perez, Plaintiff, represented by Robert Joshua
Wasserman, Mayall Hurley P.C., Dawson McKinnon Morton, California
Rural Legal Aid Foundation & James M. Finberg, Altshuler Berzon
LLP.

Gerard Van de Pol, Defendant, represented by Stacy L. Henderson --
shenderson@thtlaw.com -- Terpstra Henderson, APC.

Henry Van de Pol, Defendant, represented by Stacy L. Henderson,
Terpstra Henderson, APC.


G&H DAIRY: Court Awards $2,000 to "Guzman-Padilla" Class Reps
-------------------------------------------------------------
Magistrate Judge Kendall J. Newman of the U.S. District Court for
the Eastern District of California granted the Plaintiffs' Motion
for Approval of Service Payments in the case captioned HERNAN
GUZMAN-PADILLA, CIPRIANO BENITEZ, CARLOS FABIAN TORRES PEREZ, and
GUILLERMO BENITEZ SANTOYO individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. GERARD VAN DE POL; HENRY VAN DE
POL; AND GERARD VAN DE POL AND HENRY VAN DE POL d/b/a/G&H DAIRY,
Defendant, Case No. 2:17-cv-00196-KJN (E.D. Cal.).

The Plaintiffs' Motion came on for hearing before the Court on
Oct. 12, 2017.  Having considered the arguments and evidence,
Magistrate Judge Newman granted it.  He awarded the class
representative service payments of $500 to each of the four Named
Plaintiffs (Guzman-Padilla, Benitez, Torres Perez, and Benitez
Santoyo), for a total of $2,000, as is authorized under the terms
of the Consent Decree.

A full-text copy of the Court's Oct. 13, 2017 Order is available
at https://is.gd/riBJYK from Leagle.com.

Hernan Guzman-Padilla, Plaintiff, represented by James M. Finberg
-- jfinberg@altshulerberzon.com -- Altshuler Berzon LLP.

Hernan Guzman-Padilla, Plaintiff, represented by Rosa Erandi
Zamora, California Rural Legal Assistance Foundation, Alexandra
Thompson Revelas, California Rural Legal Assistance Foundation,
Dawson McKinnon Morton, California Rural Legal Aid Foundation, Eve
H. Cervantez -- ecervantez@altshulerberzon.com -- Altshuler Berzon
LLP & Robert Joshua Wasserman, Mayall Hurley P.C..

Cipriano Benites, Plaintiff, represented by James M. Finberg,
Altshuler Berzon LLP, Rosa Erandi Zamora, California Rural Legal
Assistance Foundation, Alexandra Thompson Revelas, California
Rural Legal Assistance Foundation, Dawson McKinnon Morton,
California Rural Legal Aid Foundation, Eve H. Cervantez, Altshuler
Berzon LLP & Robert Joshua Wasserman -- rwasserman@mayallaw.coms -
- Mayall Hurley P.C..

Guillermo Benitez Santiago, Plaintiff, represented by Dawson
McKinnon Morton, California Rural Legal Aid Foundation & James M.
Finberg, Altshuler Berzon LLP.

Fabian Torres Perez, Plaintiff, represented by Robert Joshua
Wasserman, Mayall Hurley P.C., Dawson McKinnon Morton, California
Rural Legal Aid Foundation & James M. Finberg, Altshuler Berzon
LLP.

Gerard Van de Pol, Defendant, represented by Stacy L. Henderson --
shenderson@thtlaw.com -- Terpstra Henderson, APC.

Henry Van de Pol, Defendant, represented by Stacy L. Henderson,
Terpstra Henderson, APC.


GCA SERVICES: Court Certifies Class in "Jama" Minimum Wage Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Robert S. Lasnik of the U.S. District Court for the District
of Washington, Seattle, granted the Plaintiffs' Motion for Class
Certification, Appointment of Class Counsel and Appointment of
Class Representative in the case captioned ABDIKHADAR JAMA, et
al., Plaintiffs, v. GCA SERVICES GROUP, INC., AVIS BUDGET GROUP,
INC., and AVIS RENT A CAR SYSTEM, LLC, Defendants, Case No. C16-
0331RSL (W.D. Wash.).

The Plaintiffs initially filed the suit against GCA Services,
alleging that GCA Services had failed to pay the minimum wage
required by SeaTac Municipal Code Section 7.45 ("Ordinance") and
seeking back pay.  The Court found, however, that GCA Services
does not fall within the definition of "Transportation Employer"
and was not subject to the ordinance.

The Plaintiffs requested and were granted leave to amend their
complaint to add claims against a different entity, Avis Budget
Car Rental, LLC, on the ground that it was also their employer
under the economic realities test set forth in Becerra v. Expert
Janitorial, LLC.  On Jan. 18, 2017, the Plaintiffs filed an
amended complaint restating their claims against GCA Services and
adding Avis Budget Group, Inc., and Avis Rent a Car System, LLC
("Avis-Budget") as the Defendants.  The claims against GCA
Services were subsequently dismissed by stipulation of the
parties.

The Plaintiffs seek to certify a class comprised of all employees
of GCA Services jointly employed by Avis-Budget who have been
either Hospitality Workers or Transportation Workers and who
worked one or more hours within the City of SeaTac at any time
during the time period between Jan. 1, 2014, to April 2016, who
were paid less than the prevailing minimum wage prescribed by City
of SeaTac Ordinance 7.45.050, and who have not released fully
their claims arising under that statute.

The Avis-Budget Defendants oppose class certification on a number
of grounds, many of which are based on the assertion that the
Plaintiffs have named the wrong Avis-Budget entities as the
Defendants.  It also argues that some or all of the Named
Plaintiffs are atypical/unrepresentative of the class and objects
to the proposed class definition on the ground that it would
create an impermissible "failsafe" class.  While not conceding
that the "fail-safe" argument has merit, the Plaintiffs note in
reply that any unknowns can be avoided by amending the class
definition to remove the reference to "jointly employed by Avis-
Budget" and to insert "as part of GCA Services' contract to
provide labor services to Avis-Budget."

Judge Lasnik finds that under the revised class definition, an
employee of GCA Services who worked as part of the contract
between GCA Services and Avis-Budget, is a class member.  These
are existing, objective criteria that avoid the fail-safe problem
the Defendants identified without changing the nature or intent of
the class definition.  The Judge accepts the amended definition.

The Judge finds that both the Named Plaintiffs and the Plaintiffs'
counsel have demonstrated a commitment to vigorously prosecuting
the action on behalf of the class and will do so in an adequate
manner.

Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(a) and 23(b)(3), Judge Lasnik
certified class of all employees of GCA Services who have been
either Hospitality Workers or Transportation Workers and who
worked one or more hours in the City of SeaTac as part of GCA
Services' contract to provide labor services to Avis-Budget at any
time during the time period between Jan. 1, 2014, to March 31,
2016, who were paid less than the prevailing minimum wage
prescribed by City of SeaTac Ordinance 7.45.050, and who have not
released fully their claims arising under that statute.

The Judge appointed Abdikhadar Jama, Aneb Abdino Hirey, Rogiya
Digale, Abdisalam Mohamed, Jashir Grewal, Udham Singh, Sukdev
Singh Basra, Khalif Mahamad, Jama Diria, Ahmed F. Gelle, and Lul
Salad as the representatives of the class; and the Plaintiffs'
counsel as the counsel for the class.

A full-text copy of the Court's Oct. 20, 2017 Order is available
at https://is.gd/AHBFbH from Leagle.com.

Abdikhadar Jama, Plaintiff, represented by Daniel R. Whitmore --
amber@whitmorelawfirm.com.

Abdikhadar Jama, Plaintiff, represented by Duncan Calvert Turner -
- dturner@badgleymullins.com -- BADGLEY MULLINS TURNER PLLC.

Aneb Abdinor Hirey, Plaintiff, represented by Daniel R. Whitmore &
Duncan Calvert Turner, BADGLEY MULLINS TURNER PLLC.

Rogiya Digale, Plaintiff, represented by Daniel R. Whitmore &
Duncan Calvert Turner, BADGLEY MULLINS TURNER PLLC.

Abdisalam Mohamed, Plaintiff, represented by Daniel R. Whitmore &
Duncan Calvert Turner, BADGLEY MULLINS TURNER PLLC.

Jashir Grewal, Plaintiff, represented by Daniel R. Whitmore &
Duncan Calvert Turner, BADGLEY MULLINS TURNER PLLC.

Udham Singh, Plaintiff, represented by Daniel R. Whitmore

Udham Singh, Plaintiff, represented by Duncan Calvert Turner,
BADGLEY MULLINS TURNER PLLC.

Sukdev Singh Basra, Plaintiff, represented by Daniel R. Whitmore &
Duncan Calvert Turner, BADGLEY MULLINS TURNER PLLC.

Khalif Mahamad, Plaintiff, represented by Daniel R. Whitmore &
Duncan Calvert Turner, BADGLEY MULLINS TURNER PLLC.

Avis Budget Group Inc, Defendant, represented by Elliot Watson,
K&L GATES LLP, Mark Stephen Filipini, K&L GATES LLP, Patrick M.
Madden, K&L GATES LLP, Ryan J. Groshong, K&L GATES LLP & Daniel P.
Hurley, K&L GATES LLP.

Avis Rent A Car System LLC, Defendant, represented by Elliot
Watson -- elliot.watson@klgates.com -- K&L GATES LLP & Mark
Stephen Filipini -- mark.filipini@klgates.com -- K&L GATES LLP.

Avis Rent A Car System LLC, Defendant, represented by Patrick M.
Madden -- patrick.madden@klgates.com -- K&L GATES LLP.

Avis Rent A Car System LLC, Defendant, represented by Ryan J.
Groshong -- ryan.groshong@klgates.com -- K&L GATES LLP & Daniel P.
Hurley -- daniel.hurley@klgates.com -- K&L GATES LLP.


GE HEALTHCARE: Iraq War Victims Sue Over Alleged Bribery Scheme
---------------------------------------------------------------
Aamer Madhani, writing for USA TODAY, reports that the families of
dozens of U.S. troops killed or injured during the war in Iraq
filed a federal lawsuit on Oct. 17 against several U.S. and
European pharmaceutical and medical supply companies, alleging
that the corporations knowingly financed the anti-American militia
Mahdi Army through bribes and kickbacks to officials at a
government ministry controlled by the group.

The lawsuit in U.S. District Court in Washington, D.C., against
some of the biggest names in the industry -- including GE
Healthcare, Johnson & Johnson, Pfizer, AstraZeneca and Roche
Holdings -- claims that the companies regularly paid kickbacks to
officials in Iraq's Ministry of Health through their local agents.

Officials at the ministry in turn used the proceeds to help fund
the militia that carried out attacks against U.S. troops in Iraq,
the suit alleges.

In the aftermath of the 2003 invasion, Iraq's health care spending
surged, and the Health Ministry's budget ballooned from $16
million during Saddam Hussein's final year in power to about $1
billion in 2004.

Western companies looking to break into the Iraq market were
willing to pay kickbacks -- billed as "commissions" or "free
goods" -- that amounted to as much as 20% of the value of a
contract to ministry officials, the lawsuit alleges.

Another way the defendants allegedly made the illegal payments was
by including language in the contracts promising after-sales
support and other services related to the product they sold and
funded those services by giving money to their local agents.

"In reality, such services were illusory and functioned merely to
create a slush fund the local agents could use to pass on
'commissions to corrupt (ministry) officials,'" the lawsuit
alleges.

The plaintiffs charge that through the transactions the companies
aided and abetted the militants, violating the U.S. anti-terrorism
act.

Pfizer responded to the lawsuit in a statement, saying the company
"categorically denies any wrongdoing," while GE said in a
statement it was "thoroughly reviewing the allegations."  A
spokeswoman for Roche said the company had not yet been served
with the lawsuit and declined comment.

Representatives from AstraZeneca and Johnson & Johnson did not
respond to requests for comment.

By 2005, the ministry came under the control of loyalists of
Muqtada al-Sadr, an Iranian-backed cleric.  Al-Sadr's political
clout grew amid dissatisfaction among some Iraqis over the U.S.
military presence and sectarian fighting among the country's
majority Shiite and minority Sunnis populations.

Backers of al-Sadr in the Mahdi Army -- also known as Jaysh al-
Mahdi and JAM -- killed and injured hundreds of American troops in
the years-long insurgency in the aftermath of the invasion.

"Defendants did not intend for the 'free goods' provided to Kadima
(health ministry's pharmaceutical importing agency) to serve any
legitimate charitable or medicinal purpose," the lawsuit alleges.
"It was widely understood in Iraq that MOH (Ministry of Health)
operated more like a terrorist organization than a legitimate
health entity, and no rational company would have viewed MOH as a
suitable object for charity."

U.S. officials in Iraq expressed concern that the Health Ministry
was beset by corruption and had become a Sadr fiefdom.  News
reports about pharmaceuticals flooding the black market suggested
that Sadr backers were using the ministry to bankroll the Mahdi
Army.

By late August 2007, a draft of an alarming U.S Embassy Baghdad
report had become public that accused the ministry of "operating a
pharmaceutical diversion scheme" and of being "openly under the
control of the Mahdi Army."

Months before the embassy report, the global intelligence company
Stratfor -- which provided advisory reports to senior executives
at several of the companies named as defendants in the suit --
noted in a briefing for its subscribers that U.S.-led forces in
Iraq had arrested the then-deputy health minister for "selling
health services and equipment in return for millions of dollars
that he later funneled to Shiite militias."

The Iraq war victims' lawsuit comes amid greater scrutiny of
global brands' efforts to win favor with politicians and
policymakers.

In August, Lee Jae-yong, the third-generation heir to the Samsung
empire, was sentenced to five years in prison for paying nearly $8
million in bribes to win the support of South Korean President
Park Geun-hye for a complex corporate deal.  Wal-Mart is still
dealing with the fallout of a 2012 New York Times report that it
paid millions of dollars in suspect payments to government
officials in Mexico to help speed up construction of stores there.

In September, a federal judge in Arkansas ruled that a class-
action lawsuit brought by a Michigan pension fund alleging that
shareholders were defrauded by company executives could move
forward. The City of Pontiac Employees' Retirement System argues
that Wal-Mart officials failed to properly investigate bribery
claims that they were first reportedly made aware of in 2005.

Al-Sadr was born into a family of Shiite scholars, the son of the
Grand Ayatollah Mohammad Sadaq al-Sadr, a highly influential
cleric who was assassinated along with two of his sons in 1999
during Saddam's rule.  Muqtada al-Sadr went into hiding until the
U.S. invasion and later drew much of his power from those living
in the slums of Baghdad, Sadr City, which was named for his
father.

Posters of the younger al-Sadr and his martyred father lined the
walls of the Health Ministry.  The younger cleric drew tens of
thousands to his rallies and Friday sermons in which he spoke out
against the U.S. presence in Iraq after Saddam's ouster.

Attorneys for the plaintiffs from the Washington, D.C.-based law
firms of Sparacino & Andreson and Kellogg, Hansen, Todd, Figel &
Frederick said they spent thousands of hours investigating and
analyzed hundreds of transactions between the defendants and
Health Ministry between 2004 and 2013.

Ami Neiberger-Miller,  a plaintiff whose 22-year-old brother, Army
Spc. Christopher Neiberger, was killed in a roadside bombing
allegedly carried out by the Mahdi Army in Baghdad in August 2007,
said her family wants the companies to be held accountable.

"I had always pictured by brother's killers as faceless," said
Neiberger-Miller, who recalled her younger brother as funny and a
good friend.  "I wouldn't have thought U.S. companies would have
anything to do with his death.  Those funds went directly from
those companies to terrorists who had a mission to kill U.S.
troops like my brother.  They should be held accountable.
Companies should know what is done in their name.

The plaintiffs' attorneys said the alleged bribery scheme was a
continuation of how some of the companies and their affiliates
named in the suit conducted business during the final years of
Saddam's rule.

Hundreds of multinational companies are alleged to have funneled
more than $1.7 billion into Saddam's regime, skirting sanctions by
abusing the U.N. Oil-for-Food program that was designed to soften
the impact on the Iraqi people by allowing the supervised sale of
some Iraqi oil for food, medicine and other necessities.

In 2010, GE resolved a Foreign Corrupt Practices Act charge
brought by the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission by paying
almost $23 million in fines.  Two GE subsidiaries were alleged to
have obtained at least four medical-goods contracts between 2000
and 2003 by agreeing to "pay illegal kickbacks in the form of
computer equipment, medical supplies and services" to the Kimadia,
the Health Ministry's purchasing agency, the lawsuit notes.

AstraZeneca AB, the pharmaceutical behemoth's UK-affiliate, paid
at least $162,000 in kickbacks as part of the sale of $1.7 million
of drugs under the sanctions relief program, according to the
Volcker Committee, the panel that investigated the alleged
corruption in the Oil-for-Food program.

"We believe that the evidence will show that when Jaysh al-Mahdi
seized the Iraqi Health Ministry, the defendants continued paying
the same bribes they provided under Saddam -- except in far
greater amounts," said Ryan Sparacino, one of the attorneys
representing plaintiffs in the lawsuit. [GN]


GENERAL ELECTRIC: Faces Class Action in Calif. Over 401(k) Plan
---------------------------------------------------------------
Michael Hiltzik, writing for Los Angeles Times, reports that can
your employer be trusted to manage your retirement fund
exclusively for your own benefit? That's the question raised by a
lawsuit recently brought against General Electric Co., stating
that the answer is a resounding no.

The case, filed Sept. 26 in San Diego federal court, concerns GE's
401(k) plan, one of those defined-contribution plans that have
increasingly supplanted traditional pensions for American workers.
It alleges that GE managed the plan for its own benefit by loading
it with mutual funds owned by its own subsidiary.  The funds
charged high fees while also underperforming the investment
markets, a double-barreled drawback that cost employees millions
in potential gains.

The lawsuit seeks class-action status to represent about 250,000
employees who were members of the 401(k) from 2011 through mid-
2016, when GE sold the investment subsidiary that ran the mutual
funds.

Of the retirement plan's $28.5 billion in assets as of the end of
2015, the lawsuit asserts, about half was invested in mutual
funds.  Of the mutual fund assets, about 56% were invested in five
GE-owned funds -- all but one of which underperformed its
benchmark investment index.

GE profited from this arrangement in two ways, according to the
lawsuit.  The company pocketed the investment management fees paid
by its own employees, and it exploited its employees as a customer
base for the funds -- the 401(k) plan accounted for more than 70%
of the ownership of all five funds and 90% of one, an
international equity fund.  The value that ownership gave the
funds contributed to the $485 million GE pocketed when it sold its
investment subsidiary, GE Asset Management, to State Street in
mid-2016, the lawsuit implies.

These factors presented an inevitable conflict of interest in GE's
management of the retirement program.  "GE selected its
proprietary funds not based on their merits as investments," the
lawsuit states, "but because these products provided significant
revenues and profits to GE."

"The employer is a fiduciary to the plan and every man, woman and
child in that plan," says Charles Field, the San Diego lawyer who
brought the suit.  "Fiduciary duty is the highest duty known in
the law, and it's a duty of prudence, loyalty and of the highest
good faith."

Mr. Field also is representing members of a retirement plan at the
investment firm Morgan Stanley in a lawsuit filed in federal court
in New York.  Morgan Stanley has moved to dismiss the case. GE
hasn't responded formally in court to the lawsuit.  A spokeswoman
says the company has no comment on the lawsuit, but added, "We
intend to fully defend the case."

The GE lawsuit underscores a fundamental flaw in the 401(k)
system, which offers employees the option to contribute a
percentage of their wages into a retirement fund, tax free -- but
leaves the investment options in the hands of employers.

Since their introduction in 1979, 401(k) plans and other such
defined-contribution arrangements have grown to become the most
important source of retirement income for Americans outside of
Social Security.  Their rise has given employers a rationale to
scrap traditional defined-benefit pensions, in which payouts are
based on the worker's longevity and wage record with an employer.
They may be more suitable for workers in an economy in which
job-hopping is more common than before, but they also impose
market risk on the workers and give them the complicated
responsibility of managing large nest eggs without much
professional help.

The old corporate habit of steering employees to invest in their
own stock has faded, but too many 401(k) plans still offer unduly
limited options. (There's a converse problem: Too many choices may
confuse participants, discouraging some from investing at all and
leading others to make imprudent choices. This is a consequence of
asking workers without professional training to manage the risk in
their own retirement accounts.)

The GE case is one of a string of lawsuits in recent years
targeting corporate management of 401(k) plans.  Most commonly,
the lawsuits allege that companies have allowed excessive fees to
be charged to their employees' accounts by their hand-picked
investment managers, or have loaded the 401(k) choices with self-
interested options such as their own proprietary mutual funds or
funds owned by crony investment companies.

The consequences for employees can be immense.  From 2011 through
mid-2016, the lawsuit says, a $1-billion investment in Fidelity's
Overseas fund would have grown to $1.57 billion.  The same
investment in GE's International Fund, 90% of which was owned by
GE's 401(k), grew to only $1.22 billion, a relative shortfall of
more than $300 million. Fidelity's fund wasn't offered to GE
workers.

This area of employment law was turbocharged by two events in
2015.  The first was Lockheed Martin's landmark $62-million
settlement of allegations that its fund choices imposed excessive
fees and that too much of the workers' investments were held in
low-yielding money market funds operated by State Street Bank &
Trust, with which Lockheed had a business relationship. The
settlement covered more than 100,000 beneficiaries of the
company's $28-billion 401(k) fund.

The second event was a ruling by the Supreme Court in a case
involving Edison International, the parent of Southern California
Edison.  The court ruled that a plan sponsor's fiduciary
responsibility to its workers was ongoing.  It wasn't enough to
choose investment options once and forget about them; the company
had to keep an eye on the options continually and remove those
that were underperforming or inappropriate.

The decision not only spelled out a company's fiduciary duties
under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act in greater
detail than before, but effectively eliminated the six-year
statute of limitations on filing objections to a plan's
management.

The litigation generally has resulted in improved behavior by
companies, Mr. Field says.  "It looks like there's been a change
in behavior," he told me.  More plans offer a broader combination
of actively managed investments and passive investments such as
index funds, for example.  "But there still are some outliers."

Litigation dockets suggest that companies that own investment
management subsidiaries tend to be a trouble spot.  Mr. Field says
that it's not always the case that a company's proprietary
investment funds or funds with relatively high fees are bad
investments, but when they also underperform the market, there are
grounds to ask why they're on the menu.

The GE lawsuit alleges that was manifestly the case with its
401(k) offerings. Its international equity fund, of which 90% was
owned by the 401(k) plan, consistently performed worse than more
than 70% of competing international stock funds, the lawsuit says.
The GE fund suffered "massive redemptions" from outside investors
during these years, according to the lawsuit.

"GE would likely have had to scour the market to find an offering
as poor-performing as the International Fund," it says.  "However,
GE had business and financial incentives to select and maintain
the International Fund in the [401(k)] plan."

Another underperformer was the GE Strategic Fund, which invested
in a balanced mix of stock, bonds and cash.  About 75% of the
fund's assets belonged to GE 401(k) members.  The fund returned a
cumulative 36.29% gain from 2011 through mid-2016, while its rival
Vanguard/Wellington Fund returned 57.71%.  Despite that, the GE
fund's fees were twice those of the Wellington Fund.

"A prudent fiduciary . . . would not have offered the plan's
participants the Strategic Fund," the lawsuits says.  "But GE did
just that." [GN]


GENERAL MOTORS: "Jenkins" Suit Alleges Breach of Implied Warranty
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Ryan Jenkins and Yamet Garcia, and all others similarly-situated
v. General Motors Company, Case No. 3:17-cv-05864 (N.D. Calif.,
October 12, 2017), is brought against the Defendant for violations
of the California Consumer Legal Remedies Act, violations of the
California Unfair Competition Law, breach of implied warranty
pursuant to Song-Beverly Consumer Warranty and breach of implied
warranty pursuant to the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act.

Plaintiffs Ryan Jenkins and Yamet Garcia are resident of
California. Both Plaintiffs purchased vehicles manufactured by
General Motors.

Defendant General Motors Company is engaged in the business of
designing, manufacturing, marketing, warranting, distributing,
selling, leasing, and servicing automobiles, in California and
throughout the United States. Defendant is a Delaware corporation,
which has its principal place of business in the State of
Michigan, and is a citizen of the States of Delaware and Michigan.
[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

      Jonathan D. Selbin, Esq.
      LIEFF CABRASER HEIMANN &
      BERNSTEIN, LLP
      275 Battery Street, 29th Floor
      San Francisco, CA 94111
      Tel: (415) 956-1000
      Fax: (415) 956-1008
      E-mail: jselbin@lchb.com

          - and -

      Patrick Newsom, Esq.
      BRUNO NEWSOM PLLC
      40 Music Square E.
      Nashville, TN 37203
      Tel: (615) 251-9500
      Fax: (615) 345-4188
      E-mail: patrick@brunonewsom.com


GENERAL WIRELESS: Class Action Plaintiffs Object to Plan
--------------------------------------------------------
Ryan Boysen and Vince Sullivan, writing for Law360, report that a
group of former employees suing defunct RadioShack over botched
mass layoffs urged a Delaware bankruptcy court on Oct. 16 to shoot
down the electronic retailer's proposed Chapter 11 plan, saying it
provides no information on how RadioShack will pay for the
proposed class action if the laid-off workers prevail.

RadioShack's proposed Chapter 11 plan seeks to reorganize the
bankrupt electronics retailer's debt structure and to shift its
operational focus to its e-commerce assets.  But lead plaintiffs
Calvin Hoskison and Eric Vanderlip say it barely addresses their
proposed class action, which alleges RadioShack violated wage
theft laws and the Worker Adjustment and Retraining Notification
Act when the retailer hastily laid off thousands of employees
during its most recent bankruptcy.

"The disclosure statement fails to disclose any contingency for
the putative WARN class prevailing with respect to its class claim
and/or class complaint," the former employees said in their
objection to RadioShack's Chapter 11 plan.  "Such an eventuality
would have a direct bearing upon debtor's plan and its
feasibility, and should be addressed in the disclosure statement."

A hearing on final approval of the disclosure statement and
confirmation of the plan is scheduled for Oct. 25 before U.S.
Bankruptcy Judge Brendan L. Shannon.

Messrs. Hoskison and Vanderlip filed their proposed class action
in early September, alleging RadioShack violated the WARN act by
terminating workers on short notice.  The WARN act requires
certain large employers to give workers 60 days notice in the
event of large layoffs, and the complaint alleges RadioShack's
CEO, chairman and others never provided that notice.

The complaint also says the layoffs ran afoul of California laws
against wage theft, which can constitute a criminal offense.

While RadioShack's alleged liability isn't clearly spelled out in
the complaint, Messrs. Hoskison and Vanderlip say it's enough to
scuttle the existing Chapter 11 plan if the suit does play out in
their favor.

"The plan could be rendered infeasible in the event of a
determination of significant liability in favor of the putative
WARN class," the former employees said in the objection.
"Confirmation of the plan should not be granted, therefore, as
potentially, it could be rendered infeasible and followed by a
need for further liquidation or reorganization proceedings."

RadioShack's unsecured creditors have also filed an objection to
the plan, saying it's light on details that could shed light on
whether or not Standard General is holding onto its equity stake
in RadioShack in exchange for putting almost nothing into the
reorganization.

Standard General owns General Wireless Operations Inc., which
acquired the assets of RadioShack in a previous bankruptcy sale.

General Wireless filed for Chapter 11 in March after the retail
co-branding plan with Sprint failed to garner expected revenues. A
significant drop in Sprint's smartphone sales had an impact on
commission payments due to the debtor under the strategic
alliance. Those payments, which were set to kick in after Sprint
made $60 million in sales, were delayed from an expected date in
2016 to late 2018.

The Chapter 11 filing came amid a crumbling retail sector hit hard
by the growing shift to online shopping and consumers' changing
tastes, which RadioShack was believed to have narrowly ducked when
a bankruptcy judge approved the company's sale deal in 2015.

The debtor has shuttered all but 30 of its 1,500 retail locations
but is still operating its online division.  It recently received
court approval for a $15 million credit bid sale of the company's
intellectual property to creditor Kensington Technology Holdings
LLC.  The first-lien facility of General Wireless has been repaid
in full since the debtor filed for bankruptcy.

None of the parties involved responded to requests for comment on
Oct. 16.

The proposed class is represented by Julia B. Klein of Klein LLC,
Douglas N. Silverstein and Mia Munro of Kesluk Silverstein & Jacob
PC and Daniel I. Barness of Barness & Barness LLP.

General Wireless is represented by David M. Fournier --
fournierd@pepperlaw.com -- and Michael J. Custer --
custerm@pepperlaw.com -- of Pepper Hamilton LLP and Scott J.
Greenberg -- sgreenberg@jonesday.com -- and Mark A. Cody --
macody@jonesday.com -- of Jones Day.

The objecting creditors are represented by Jeffrey R. Waxman --
jwaxman@morrisjames.com -- and Eric J. Monzo --
emonzo@morrisjames.com -- of Morris James LLP and Joseph R. Sgroi
-- jsgroi@honigman.com -- and Glenn S. Walter --
gwalter@honigman.com -- of Honigman Miller Schwartz & Cohn LLP.

The case is In re: General Wireless Operations Inc. et al., case
number 1:17-bk-10506, in the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the
District of Delaware.

The adversary proceeding is Hoskison et al. v. General Wireless
Operations Inc. et al., Case No. 1:17-ap-51043, in the U.S.
Bankruptcy Court for the District of Delaware. [GN]


GEO GROUP: Fact Discovery in Class Suit Yet to Begin
----------------------------------------------------
The GEO Group, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended
June 30, 2017, that fact discovery in the case has not yet begun
in a class action lawsuit.

On October 22, 2014, nine current and former civil immigration
detainees who were detained at the Aurora Immigration Detention
Center filed a purported class action lawsuit against the Company
in the United States District Court for the District of Colorado
(the "Court"). The complaint alleged that the Company was in
violation of the Colorado Minimum Wages of Workers Act and the
Trafficking Victims Protection Act, and claimed that the Company
was unjustly enriched as a result of the level of payment that the
detainees received for work performed at the facility, even though
the voluntary work program as well as the wage rates and standards
associated with the program that are at issue in this case are
authorized by the Federal government under guidelines approved by
the United States Congress.

On July 6, 2015, the Court granted the Company's motion to dismiss
the claim against the Company under the Colorado Minimum Wages of
Workers Act but otherwise denied the Company's motion to dismiss.
On February 27, 2017, the Court granted the plaintiffs' motion for
class certification. The Court ordered the parties to file a
revised Proposed Stipulated Scheduling and Discovery Order by
March 27, 2017 to proceed with the case. On March 13, 2017, GEO
filed for permission to appeal this class certification order
directly to the 10th Circuit Court of Appeal. On April 11, 2017,
the 10th Circuit Court of Appeal granted GEO's petition to hear
the case. As a result, GEO has filed a motion to stay the
proceedings in the trial court. Fact discovery in the case has not
yet begun.

The plaintiffs seek actual damages, compensatory damages,
exemplary damages, punitive damages, restitution, attorneys' fees
and costs, and such other relief as the Court may deem proper. The
Company intends to take all necessary steps to vigorously defend
itself and has consistently refuted the allegations and claims in
the lawsuit. The Company has not recorded an accrual relating to
this matter at this time, as a loss is not considered probable nor
reasonably estimable at this state of the lawsuit. If the Company
had to change the level of compensation under the voluntary work
program, or to substitute employee work for voluntary work, this
could increase costs of operating these facilities.

The nature of the Company's business exposes it to various types
of third-party legal claims or litigation against the Company,
including, but not limited to, civil rights claims relating to
conditions of confinement and/or mistreatment, sexual misconduct
claims brought by prisoners or detainees, medical malpractice
claims, product liability claims, intellectual property
infringement claims, claims relating to employment matters
(including, but not limited to, employment discrimination claims,
union grievances and wage and hour claims), property loss claims,
environmental claims, automobile liability claims, indemnification
claims by its customers and other third parties, contractual
claims and claims for personal injury or other damages resulting
from contact with the Company's facilities, programs, electronic
monitoring products, personnel or prisoners, including damages
arising from a prisoner's escape or from a disturbance or riot at
a facility. The Company does not expect the outcome of any pending
claims or legal proceedings to have a material adverse effect on
its financial condition, results of operations or cash flows.

The GEO Group, Inc., a Florida corporation, and subsidiaries (the
"Company" or "GEO") is a fully-integrated real estate investment
trust ("REIT") specializing in the ownership, leasing and
management of correctional, detention and reentry facilities and
the provision of community-based services and youth services in
the United States, Australia, South Africa and the United Kingdom.


GHIRARDELLI CHOCOLATE: Faces Suit Over Consumers Act Violations
---------------------------------------------------------------
Joseph Brungard, and all others similarly-situated v. Ghirardelli
Chocolate Company and Does 1 through 100, Case No. 4:17-cv-05873
(N.D. Calif., October 12, 2017), is brought against the Defendants
for unfair business practices, violations of the California
Consumers Legal Remedies Act, and violation of the California
False Advertising Law.

The Plaintiff alleges that Defendant markets bags of its
individually-wrapped, uniformly-shaped, single-serving chocolates
to consumers, and claims that each bag contains a certain number
of chocolates, but those bags contain less squares than
advertised.

Plaintiff Joseph Brungard is a resident of the county of San
Diego, California and is an aggrieved customer of Defendant.

Defendant Ghirardelli Chocolate Company is headquartered in San
Leandro, California.  Defendant manufactures various flavors of
uniformly-shaped, individually-wrapped, single-serving chocolate
squares. It sells these chocolate squares in packs containing
multiples of the same flavor and in packs containing a variety of
flavors. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Craig M. Nicholas, Esq.
      Alex Tomasevic, Esq.
      David G. Greco, Esq.
      NICHOLAS & TOMASEVIC, LLP
      225 Broadway, 19th Floor
      San Diego, CA 92101
      Tel: (619) 325-0492
      Fax: (619) 325-0496
      E-mail: cnicholas@nicholaslaw.org
              atomasevic@nicholaslaw.org
              dgreco@nicholaslaw.org

          - and -

      Eric A. LaGuardia, Esq.
      LAGUARDIA LAW
      402 West Broadway, Suite 800
      San Diego, CA 92101
      Tel: (619) 655-4322
      Fax: (619) 655-4344
      E-mail: eal@laguardialaw.com


GLOBAL LEARNING: Faces Class Action Over Donation Tax Scheme
------------------------------------------------------------
The law firms of Waddell Phillips Professional Corporation and
Landy Marr Kats LLP on Oct. 16 announced the commencement of a
proposed $800 million class action lawsuit against Global Learning
Group Inc. (GLGI), and other individuals and entities involved in
the development, structuring, creation, promotion and operation of
the Global Learning Gifting Initiative Charitable Donation Program
(the Gift Program), a complex leveraged charitable donation tax
scheme that operated from 2004 to 2014. As well as GLGI, the
defendants include several law firms and accounting firms and the
promoters of the Gift Program.  The proposed class action is
brought on behalf of Canadian taxpayers who participated in the
Gift Program, excluding the defendants, their affiliates and those
who sold the Gift Program.

The Claim alleges that GLGI led the participating taxpayers to
believe that the Gift Program was a legitimate charitable
enterprise and that their donations to the Gift Program would
ultimately result in gifts of cash and valuable software licenses
to designated bona fide charities.  Participants were told that
they would receive charitable tax receipts exceeding their cash
donations by many multiples based on the value of the software
licenses and that they could then claim charitable tax credits on
their tax returns.  About 60,000 Canadians participated in this
charitable donation tax scheme.

In the mid-2000's the Canada Revenue Agency (CRA) began
reassessing the tax returns of those who participated in the Gift
Program.  It has disallowed the claimed tax credits and charged
the tax payers penalties and interest.

In 2015, the Tax Court of Canada found that the Gift Program was a
'sham' perpetrated by GLGI.  GLGI and its accomplices received
approximately 90% of the cash donations made by the taxpayers. The
Tax Court also concluded that the software license valuations
obtained by GLGI to support the value of the charitable tax
receipts vastly overestimated the actual value of the software
licenses, which were actually worth only $0.13-$0.26 each, and
that the trust structure of the Gift Program was invalid.

The statement of claim alleges that there was no genuine
charitable purpose to the Gift Program, but rather the primary
purpose of the Gift Program was to enrich GLGI and associated
companies and their principles to the detriment of the class
members.  The plaintiffs seek damages equivalent to all the cash
donations to the Gift Program plus the interest and penalties
charged by the CRA.

The plaintiffs have brought a motion to have a receiver appointed
over GLGI, which has ceased operations.  The receivership motion
will be heard in Toronto on November 14, 2017 at the Commercial
Court, 330 University Avenue.

Additional information about this case is available at
www.glgiclassaction.com

For further information: Margaret L. Waddell, Tel: (647) 261-4486,
reception@waddellphillips.ca, www.waddellphillips.ca; Samuel S.
Marr, Tel: (416) 221-9343, www.thetorontolawyers.ca
[GN]


GROGG'S HEATING: Faubel Moves for Class Certification Under FLSA
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Plaintiffs in the lawsuit styled ERIC FAUBEL, DEVEON SMITH and
TRINITY UPPOLE, individually and on behalf of all other similarly
situated individuals v. GROGG'S HEATING & AIR CONDITIONING, INC.,
Case No. 2:17-cv-02410 (S.D.W. Va.), move the Court to:

   (1) authorize their FLSA claims to conditionally proceed as a
       collective action pursuant to Section 216(b) of the Fair
       Labor Standards Act;

   (2) direct the Defendant to furnish on an expedited basis the
       names and last known addresses of all individuals in the
       putative collective action; and

   (3) authorize the sending of Notice and a "Consent to Join
       FLSA Action", i.e., "Opt-In" form, to all individuals in
       the putative FLSA collective action.

A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=veaZH9Iw

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Kera L. Paoff, Esq.
          WIDMAN & FRANKLIN, LLC
          405 Madison Avenue, Suite 1550
          Toledo, OH 43604
          Telephone: (419) 243-9005
          Facsimile: (419) 243-9404
          E-mail: kera@wflaw.com


HSBC CANADA: Ponzi Scheme Victims File Class Action
---------------------------------------------------
Business Vancouver reports that investors burned in a $30 million
Ponzi scheme are suing HSBC Bank Canada in a class action,
claiming the bank failed to investigate and warn them about
fraudster Virginia Tan's use of HSBC accounts to further the
scheme.

Jastram Properties Ltd. filed a notice of civil claim under the
Class Proceedings Act in BC Supreme Court on September 29.  The
company claims it was introduced to Ms. Tan, a West Vancouver
businesswoman, through a contract employee and friend of the
company's owners, Peter and Lale Doetsch, in May 2012.  Ms. Tan's
scheme, which fell apart in early 2016, promised investors returns
of 12% to 24% on promissory notes purportedly for bridge financing
deals.

According to the lawsuit, Jastram invested more than $2.9 million
in the scheme between May 2012 and March 2013, and some of the
money was allegedly deposited and paid out through Ms. Tan's HSBC
accounts. The company invested another $3.45 million in the scheme
between April 2013 and March 2015, with interest payments
totalling $1,798,566 paid out before Tan's fraud collapsed.

"By 2011, Tan was making cumulative deposits to the HSBC Tan
accounts of approximately $1 million per month, and was making
cumulative withdrawals from the HSBC Tan account of approximately
$1 million per month," the claim states.  "Most of the deposits in
the HSBC Tan accounts were large amount [sic] in round numbers,
and most of the withdrawals were cheques written to individuals
for smaller round number amounts.  These kinds of transactions are
hallmarks of a Ponzi scheme."

Jastram claims HSBC "became concerned" about Tan's account
activity in early 2013 and by then the bank "knew, or concluded
that it was reasonably likely, that Tan was using the HSBC Tan
accounts for fraudulent purposes."  Ms. Tan stopped using the
accounts in March 2013 and began routing funds through accounts at
three other financial institutions before the fraud was exposed.

"At no time did HSBC take any steps to notify the proper
authorities, or to warn other financial institutions, whose
customers' funds had been deposited into the HSBC Tan accounts . .
. about the circumstances relating to the cessation of activity in
the HSBC Tan accounts," the claim states.

Jastram Properties seeks unspecified damages for failure to
investigate and warn of the fraud on behalf of all persons who
invested with Tan and her companies and lost money when the scheme
ceased.

The allegations have not been tested or proven in court, and HSBC
had not responded to the claim by press time.  [GN]


IC SYSTEM: Court Stays Loveland's Motion for Class Certification
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Hon. Lynn Adelman granted the Plaintiff's motions to stay the
class certification motion and for relief from the local rules
filed in the lawsuit captioned PETER LOVELAND v. I.C. SYSTEM INC.,
Case No. 2:17-cv-01054-LA (E.D. Wisc.).

Judge Adelman stayed the Plaintiff's motion for class
certification.

The Plaintiff brings the putative class action, alleging
violations of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act.  To prevent
the Defendant from mooting the action, the Plaintiff moved for
class certification and to stay that motion.  See Damasco v.
Clearwire Corp., 662 F.3d 891, 896 (7th Cir. 2011), overruled on
other grounds by Chapman v. First Index, Inc., 796 F.3d 783 (7th
Cir. 2015); see also Campbell-Ewald Co. v. Gomez, 136 S. Ct. 663,
672 (2016).

A copy of the Order is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=sRQEja2B


IKO MANUFACTURING: Class Cert. Sought in Roofing Shingle MDL
------------------------------------------------------------
Dr. Christopher Pauly, Belinda Curler, Vincent Dion, Daniel
Trongone, Debra Zanetti, Michael Augustine, Michael Hight and
David Greenough, Plaintiffs in the multidistrict litigation
entitled In re: IKO Roofing Shingle Products Liability Litigation,
MDL No. 2:09-md-02104-JES (C.D. Ill.), file with the Court their
consolidated motion for class certification and for appointment of
their counsel as class counsel.

The class is defined as:

     All persons who own or who have owned structures located in
     Illinois, Iowa, Massachusetts, Michigan, New Jersey, New
     York, Ohio or Vermont and who, from 1979 until present, have
     installed IKO organic mat shingles.

The Defendants in the MDL include IKO Manufacturing, Inc., IKO
Chicago, Inc., and IKO Pacific, Inc.

All actions in the MDL share factual questions concerning alleged
defects in roofing shingles manufactured and sold by IKO.
Specifically, the Plaintiffs allege that the shingles fail
prematurely due to moisture invasion, cracking, curling,
blistering, deteriorating, blowing off the roof, or otherwise not
performing within reasonable expectations.

The Plaintiffs also ask the Court to order judicial notice to the
class members and to order the Defendants to produce a list of
putative class members, including necessary information to send
notice.

A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=AAiF2Ks5

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Jon D. Robinson, Esq.
          Christopher M. Ellis, Esq.
          BOLEN ROBINSON & ELLIS LLP
          202 South Franklin, 2nd Floor
          Decatur, IL 62523
          Telephone: (217) 429-4296
          Facsimile: (217) 329-0034
          E-mail: jrobinson@brelaw.com
                  cellis@brelaw.com

               - and -

          Robert K. Shelquist, Esq.
          Scott Moriarity, Esq.
          LOCKRIDGE GRINDAL NAUEN PLLP
          100 Washington Avenue S, Suite 2200
          Minneapolis, MN 55401
          Telephone: (612) 339-6900
          Facsimile: (612) 339-0981
          E-mail: rkshelquist@locklaw.com
                  samoriarity@locklaw.com

               - and -

          Clayton D. Halunen, Esq.
          HALUNEN & ASSOCIATES
          1650 IDS Center
          80 South Eighth Street
          Minneapolis, MN 55402
          Telephone: (612) 605-4098
          Facsimile: (612) 605-4099
          E-mail: halunen@halunenlaw.com

               - and -

          Charles E. Schaffer, Esq.
          LEVIN FISHBEIN SEDRAN & BERMAN
          510 Walnut Street, Suite 500
          Philadelphia, PA 19106
          Telephone: (215) 592-1500
          Facsimile: (215) 592-4663
          E-mail: cschaffer@lfsblaw.com

               - and -

          Michael A. McShane, Esq.
          AUDET & PARTNERS, LLP
          221 Main Street, Suite 1460
          San Francisco, CA 94105
          Telephone: (415) 568-2555
          Facsimile: (415) 576-1776
          E-mail: mmcshane@audetlaw.com

               - and -

          Charles J. LaDuca, Esq.
          Michael J. Flannery, Esq.
          Brendan S. Thompson, Esq.
          CUNEO GILBERT & LADUCA, LLP
          507 C Street, NE
          Washington, DC 20002
          Telephone: (202) 789-3960
          Facsimile: (202) 789-1813
          E-mail: charles@cuneolaw.com
                  mflannery@cuneolaw.com
                  brendant@cuneolaw.com

               - and -

          Shawn J. Wanta, Esq.
          BAILLON THOME JOZWIAK & WANTA LLP
          100 South Fifth, Suite 1200
          Minneapolis, MN 55402
          Telephone: (612) 252-3570
          Facsimile: (612) 252-3571
          E-mail: sjwanta@baillonthome.com

               - and -

          Kim D. Stephens, Esq.
          TOUSLEY BRAIN STEPHENS PLLC
          1700 Seventh Avenue - Suite 2200
          Seattle, WA 98101
          Telephone: (206) 682-5600
          Facsimile: (206) 682-2992
          E-mail: kstephens@tousley.com


ILLINOIS: Case Management Order Entered in "Bentz" Suit
-------------------------------------------------------
Judge Michael J. Reagan of the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of Illinois issued a Memorandum and Order for
Case Management in the case captioned DAVID ROBERT BENTZ, et al.,
Plaintiffs, v. SALVADOR GODINEZ, et al., Defendants, Case No. 17-
cv-315-MJR (S.D. Ill.)

On Aug. 8, 2017, the Court issued an Order dismissing several
Plaintiffs from this action for various reasons.  Dismissed
Plaintiffs Reed, Nelson, and Perez filed responses to the Court's
Order indicating they had not signed any complaint or other
document in this action, despite the appearance of their
signatures on one or more documents, and seeking absolution from
responsibility for paying the filing fee in this action because of
this.  The Court ordered them to file affidavits under penalty of
perjury attesting that they had not signed the filings in this
case or were not aware that documents they signed would be filed
in a lawsuit.  They were warned that failure to comply would
result in their obligation to pay the filing fee in this case.

The deadlines for responses to this Court's Orders have long
passed. Plaintiff Nelson did not respond to the Order, so he will
remain obligated to pay the filing fee in this action, per this
Court's Order.  Plaintiffs Reed and Perez filed satisfactory
responses to this Court's Orders, so they will no longer be
responsible for paying the filing fee in this action.

Because Plaintiffs Crenshaw and Elias Diaz filed multiple
complaints in this action on their own behalves, the Court ordered
them to sign and return the operative First Amended Complaint.
They did so, and the Court now considers them to be in compliance
with Rule 11.  No further action on their part is required at this
time.

Plaintiff Jeffrey Blaney filed a Response and Consolidated Motions
for Extension of Time and to Sever, or, Alternatively, Motion to
Withdraw from the Potential Class Action.  Judge Reagan granted
it.  Blaney will be dismissed from this action, a new action will
be opened in his name, he will be given 30 days within which to
file an amended complaint, and the Clerk will be directed to send
him a blank Motion to Proceed In Forma Pauperis.

Because Reed is no longer responsible for paying the filing fee in
this action, the Judge denied as moot his Motion for Leave to
Proceed In Forma Pauperis.

Plaintiff Bentz filed a Motion to Supplement Exhibit to Complaint,
which the Judge struck.  In his Motion, Plaintiff Bentz requests
that the Court considers certain documents to be exhibits to the
operative complaint.  Plaintiff Bentz is the only individual to
have signed the Motion, however, and the Court has issued multiple
warnings, that such group filings would be stricken because each
Plaintiff must sign documents for himself or herself and a non-
attorney cannot file or sign papers for another litigant.
Furthermore, the Court does not accept piecemeal amendments to a
complaint, which is what this supplement would be.

For the same reasons, Judge Reagan also struck the Plaintiff
Crenshaw's Motion to Amend/Correct Amended Complaint.  Plaintiffs
Crenshaw and Bentz are the only Plaintiffs to have signed the
Motion, and the Motion would act as yet another piecemeal
amendment to the First Amended Complaint.  Because Plaintiff Bentz
is the only Plaintiff to have signed his Motion to Identify Jane
Doe Defendant, the Judge also struck it.

Judge Reagan denied Plaintiff Bentz has also filed a Second Motion
(Request) for Video Conference.  He says that the Plaintiff cites
bad communication issues and conflicting court orders as reasons
for the need for a video conference but does not explain why
written motions to reconsider any orders of the Court he takes
issue with would be inferior to a video conference.  Furthermore,
the Court has yet to conduct its threshold review pursuant to 28
U.S.C. Seciton 1915A, and no Defendants have been served in this
action, so any video conference in this matter would be premature
and inappropriate.

The Judge will address in separate orders of the Court the Motions
for Leave to Proceed In Forma Pauperis, Motions to Appoint
Counsel, and Motion for Service of Process at Government Expense.

Based on the foregoing, Judge Reagan ordered that Reed and Perez
are absolved of the obligation of Reed and Perez to pay the filing
fee in the action.  Nelson, however, remains obligated to pay the
fee, pursuant to the Courts Order.  All three of these individuals
remain dismissed from this action with prejudice.

The Judge terminated Blaney from the action.  The Clerk is
directed to open a new case for Blaney, captioned JEFFREY BLANEY,
Plaintiff v. SALVADOR GODINEZ, DONALD STOLWORTHY, GLADYSE TAYLOR,
MICHAEL RANDLE, TY BATES, HENRY BAYER, JOHN R. BALDWIN, KIMBERLY
BUTLER, RICK HARRINGTON, MICHAEL ATCHINSON, SHANNIS STOCK, ALEX
JONES, TODD BROOKS, ANTHONY WILLIAMS, JACQUELINE A. LASHBROOK,
DOUG LYERLA, WILLIAM REES, BRAD THOMAS, TONY FERRANTO, KEVIN
HIRSCH, RICHARD PAUTLER, JAMES R. BROWN, JOSPEH OWAN, CHAD E.
HASEMEYER, PAGE, RICHARD D. MOORE, PAUL OLSON, BRIAN THOMAS, BILL
WESTFALL, ROBERT DILDAY, EOVALDI, ROBERT HUGHS, RAYMOND ALLEN, JAY
ZIEGLER, JAMES  BEST, LT. WHITELY, CLINT MAYER, KENT BROOKMAN,
MICHAEL SAMUEL, TORVILLE, WILLIAM QUALLS, JAMES A. HOPPENSTED,
FRICKY, ROGER SHURTZ, JOSHUA BERNER, DANIEL DUNN, HARRIS, ANTHONY
WILLS, SIMMONS, McDANIELS, SPILLER, DONALD LINDENBERG, VERGIL
SMITH, KARUSE, REBECCA CREASON, DR. BAIG, MISS GREATHOUSE, MISS
WHITESIDE, DR. HILLERMAN, MISS DELONG, DR. KEWLKOWSK, SGT. GRAW,
SGT. McCLURE, GAIL WALLS, TONYA KNUST, BRAD BRAMLET, MISS NEW,
SHANE GREGSON, JENNIFER CLENDENIN, MORGAN TEAS, DIA RODELY, KELLIE
S. ELLIS, RODNEY ROY, LAFONE, CARLA DRAVES, VERGIL SMITH, SUSAN
HILL, MARK PHONIX, J. COWAN, K. ALLSUP, BETSY SPILLER, JEANETTE
COWAN, LORI OAKLEY, LINDA CARTER, MARVIN BOCHANTIN, KELLY PIERCE,
SHERRY BENTON, TERRI ANDERSON, SARA JOHNSON, JAMI WELBORN, HURST,
RAKERS, McNEW, M. PRANGE, BRINKLEY, SIMPSON, OBUCINA, FISCHER, B.
SMITH, JEFF HUCHINSON, BRUCE RAUNER, MICHAEL MONJIE, J. WHITLEY,
ELLIS, THE ILLINOIS DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, MENARD CORRECTIONAL
CENTER, WEXFORD HEALTH SERVICES, INC., UNIDENTIFIED JOHN AND JANE
DOES, and A.F.S.C.M.E. UNION LOCAL 1175 COUNSEL 31 MEMBERS,
Defendants.

He further directed the Clerk to file the following documents in
the newly opened case: (i) this Memorandum and Order and (ii) the
First Amended Complaint.  He further directed the Clerk to change
the caption of this case to remove Blaney as a Plaintiff, as he
will not proceed in the action along with the remaining
Plaintiffs.

Judge Reagan granted Blaney leave to file a "Second Amended
Complaint" in the case opened in his name on or before Nov. 13,
2017.  Should he fail to file his Second Amended Complaint within
the allotted time or consistent with the instructions set forth in
the Order, the Court will still review the First Amendment
Complaint, as it applies to him, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Section
1915A.

When Plaintiff Blaney prepares his Second Amended Complaint, the
Judge strongly recommended that he use the forms designed for use
in this District for such actions.  He should label the form,
"Second Amended Complaint," and he should use the case number for
the action opened in his name.  Only the remaining Plaintiffs in
the action, Bentz, Fields, Diaz, and Crenshaw, should use the case
number.

Plaintiff Blaney's pleading will present each claim in a separate
count, and each count will specify, by name, each Defendant
alleged to be liable under the count, as well as the actions
alleged to have been taken by that Defendant.  He should attempt
to include the facts of his case in chronological order, inserting
any Defendant's name where necessary to identify the actors.  He
should refrain from filing unnecessary exhibits.

Plaintiff Blaney should include only related claims in his new
complaint.  Claims found to be unrelated to one another will be
severed into new cases, new case numbers will be assigned, and
additional filing fees will be assessed.  To enable him to comply
with this order, the Judge directed the Clerk to mail Blaney a
blank civil rights complaint form and a blank motion to proceed in
forma pauperis form.

An amended complaint supersedes and replaces the original
complaint, rendering the original complaint void.  Judge Reagan
will not accept piecemeal amendments to the original complaint.
Thus, the Second Amended Complaint must stand on its own, without
reference to any previous pleading, and Plaintiff Blaney must re-
file any exhibits he wishes the Court to consider along with the
Second Amended Complaint.

Plaintiff Blaney is advised that his obligation to pay the filing
fee was incurred at the time this action was filed, thus the
filing fee remains due and payable, regardless of whether the
Plaintiff elects to file an amended complaint in his case.
Plaintiffs Bentz, Fields, Diaz, and Crenshaw will be assessed a
filing fee in the action.  Plaintiff Blaney will be assessed a
filing fee in his new case.

Judge Reagan further directed the CLERK to send a copy of this
Order to Plaintiffs Blaney, Bentz, Fields, Diaz, and Crenshaw.
The Plaintiffs are advised that both cases are still subject to
preliminary review pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Section 1915A.  No
service will be ordered in the present case or the severed case
until the Section 1915A review is completed.

The Judge further advised the Plaintiffs that each of them is
under a continuing obligation to keep the Clerk of Court and each
opposing party informed of any change in his or her address; the
Judge will not independently investigate a Plaintiff's
whereabouts.  This will be done in writing and not later than
seven days after a transfer or other change in address occurs.
Failure to comply with this order will cause a delay in the
transmission of court documents and may result in dismissal of the
action for want of prosecution as to any Plaintiff that fails to
comply.

A full-text copy of the Court's Oct. 13, 2017 Memorandum and Order
is available at https://is.gd/xeEPkT from Leagle.com.

Jeffrey Blaney, Plaintiff, Pro Se


INDIANA: Mandated Sex Offender Classes Unconstitutional
-------------------------------------------------------
Fatima Hussein, writing for IndyStar, reports that a federal judge
has ruled that Indiana's mandated sex offender classes for
prisoners who oppose them violates the constitutional right to be
free from self-incrimination.

The Sept. 28 ruling in the class-action lawsuit filed in the
Southern District of Indiana will affect all convicted,
incarcerated sex offenders who opt out of the Indiana Sex Offender
Monitoring and Management, or SOMM, program.  Three of the
plaintiffs will be eligible for release from prison.

The Indiana attorney general's office has filed an emergency
request to temporarily halt the case pending an appeal, saying the
decision could put the public at risk by putting convicted sex
offenders back on the streets.

A spokesman for Attorney General Curtis Hill confirmed that the
office will file an appeal by the Oct. 30 deadline.

The ruling in the four-year-old case overrules an Indiana Supreme
Court decision from 2014 that found the classes to be
constitutional.

The dispute hinges on what the classes require.

In May 2013 Donald Lacy, Lawrence Greer-Bey, Frederick Holmes-Bey
and Allan Kirkley filed a lawsuit against the state, then-governor
Mike Pence, the Indiana Department of Correction and officials at
the Plainfield and New Castle correctional facilities in Indiana.

The plaintiffs, all convicted of sex crimes, argued that since
they pleaded not guilty to the crimes they were convicted of, they
should not be forced to attend the SOMM program.

The program, instituted by the Indiana Department of Correction in
1999, forces participants to confess guilt in the crimes for which
they are charged, give written consent to disclosure of confession
and submit to a polygraph test.

Specifically, the program requires participants to disclose the
details of the crimes for which they were convicted and confess to
any past acts of sexual violence.

Jeff Cardella, a criminal law professor at Indiana University's
Robert H. McKinney School of Law, says the requirement to confess
other crimes for which they were not adjudicated or convicted is a
clear violation of the Fifth Amendment.

"The criminal defendant could potentially face additional charges
as a result of that confession," he says.  "They're being ordered
to confess to crimes the state might otherwise not be aware of,"
he told IndyStar.

If prisoners do not participate in the program, they could stay in
prison longer than they otherwise might.

Punishment for not participating in the classes includes loss of
good-time credit, loss of credit-earning class time and loss of
"life, liberties and freedom for refusing to admit to an act they
denied at trial," plaintiffs allege in the original complaint.

U.S. District Court Judge Richard Young ultimately sided with the
prisoners.

"It is undeniable that prison authorities may, in the interest of
rehabilitation, impose penalties for failing to participate in sex
offender treatment programs," Judge Young wrote in his opinion.
"But the SOMM program at issue in this case provides significant
penalties, in the form of lost earned food time credits and
demotion in credit class, or choosing to remain silent."

He added that prisoners should be able to earn credit toward their
sentences without incriminating themselves, "like any other
convicted prisoner."

Representatives from New Castle and Plainfield correctional
facilities declined to comment on the lawsuit.

An attorney for the Indiana attorney general's office filed a
motion to stay, pending an appeal of the case.

"In the absence of a stay pending appeal, unquestionable and
irrevocable harm to government actors, as well as the citizenry of
Indiana will be sustained, the consequence of which greatly
outweighs the harm to the limited persons affected by the
Judgment," wrote Jonathan P. Nagy, deputy attorney general.

"If the Court's Judgment is not stayed pending appeal, various
convicted sex offenders, including three of the class
representatives, are eligible for immediate release."

The case is expected to be appealed to the 7th District Court of
Appeals in Chicago. [GN]


INVESTMENT TECHNOLOGY: Class Suit over AlterNet Underway
--------------------------------------------------------
Investment Technology Group, Inc. continues to defend a class
action lawsuit related to AlterNet, according to its Form 10-Q
Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2017.

On August 12, 2015, the Company reached a final settlement with
the SEC in connection with the SEC's investigation into a
proprietary trading pilot operated within AlterNet for sixteen
months in 2010 through mid-2011. The investigation was focused on
customer disclosures, Form ATS regulatory filings and customer
information controls relating to the pilot's trading activity,
which included (a) crossing against sell-side clients in POSIT and
(b) violations of Company policy and procedures by a former
employee. These violations principally involved information
breaches for a period of several months in 2010 regarding sell-
side parent orders flowing into ITG's algorithms and executions by
all customers in non-POSIT markets that were not otherwise
available to ITG clients.  According to the terms of the
settlement, the Company paid an aggregate amount of $20.3 million,
representing a civil penalty of $18 million, disgorgement of
approximately $2.1 million in trading revenues and prejudgment
interest of approximately $0.25 million.

In connection with the announcement of the SEC investigation
regarding AlterNet, two putative class action lawsuits were filed
with respect to the Company and certain of its current and former
executives and have since been consolidated into a single action
captioned In re Investment Technology Group, Inc. Securities
Litigation before the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of New York. The complaint alleges, among other things,
that the defendants made material misrepresentations or omitted to
disclose material facts concerning, among other subjects, the
matters that were the subject of the SEC settlement regarding
AlterNet and the SEC investigation that led to the SEC settlement.
The complaint seeks an unspecified amount of damages under the
federal securities laws.

On April 26, 2017, the court granted in part and denied in part
the Company's motion to dismiss the complaint and granted the
plaintiff leave to file a motion to amend its complaint. On June
12, 2017, the plaintiff filed a motion to amend its complaint
against certain of the individual defendants who were dismissed
from the case in the court's April opinion.

ITG is a global financial technology company that helps leading
brokers and asset managers improve returns for investors around
the world.


J. JILL INC: December 12 Lead Plaintiff Motion Deadline Set
-----------------------------------------------------------
Bronstein, Gewirtz & Grossman, LLC, on Oct. 16 notified investors
that a class action lawsuit has been filed on behalf of purchasers
of securities of J. Jill, Inc. ("J. Jill" or the "Company") (NYSE:
JILL) in or traceable to the Company's March 9, 2017 initial
public offering (the "IPO").  Such investors are encouraged to
join this case by visiting the firm's site:
http://www.bgandg.com/jill.

This class action seeks to recover damages against Defendants for
alleged violations of the federal securities laws under the
Securities Exchange Act of 1933.

On October 11, 2017, J.Jill disclosed a downgraded guidance for Q3
2017 relating to total company comparable sales and gross margin.
However, in its Registration Statement filed in conjunction with
its March 9, 2017 IPO, the Company touted its unique business
strategy as one that was expected to insulate the Company from
adverse industry trends and allow for continued growth in gross
profits.  Following this news on October 12, 2017, the Company's
shares closed at $4.86 per share -- more than 62% below its IPO
price.

A class action lawsuit has already been filed.  If you wish to
review a copy of the Complaint you can visit the firm's site:
http://www.bgandg.com/jillor you may contact Peretz Bronstein,
Esq. or his Investor Relations Analyst, Yael Hurwitz of Bronstein,
Gewirtz & Grossman, LLC at 212-697-6484.  If you suffered a loss
in J. Jill you have until December 12, 2017 to request that the
Court appoint you as lead plaintiff.  Your ability to share in any
recovery doesn't require that you serve as a lead plaintiff.

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


KELLY'S BREW: "Atyani" Labor Suit Remanded to State Court
---------------------------------------------------------
Judge William P. Johnson of the U.S. District Court for the
District of New Mexico granted the Plaintiffs' Motion for Remand
to State Court the case captioned HAILEY ATYANI, NICOLE CDE BACA,
BIANCA GARCIA, HANNAH JIRON, CESELIA MERRYMAN, ANDREA VARELA,
WHITNEY WHITSON, JAEDA CHAVEZ, JENNA ESPINOZA, SAMANTHA HAWLEY,
KRISTEN HERRERA, EMILEE JEPHSON, GENEVIEVE REILLY, KELSI SHARP,
SARA SCANNAPIECO, and ALLYNA BOWSHER, on behalf of themselves and
all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. DENNIS BONFANTINE,
JANICE BONFANTINE, D.B. KELLY, INC., d/b/a KELLY'S BREW PUB AND
RESTAURANT, and DB BREWERY LLC, Defendants, Case No. 17-CV-837WJ-
JHR (D. N.M.), and granted the Plaintiffs' request for sanctions
in the form of attorney fees and costs incurred as a result of the
Defendants' removal, subject to the proper filing submissions.

The Plaintiffs are servers at Kelly's Brew Pub & Restaurant in
Albuquerque, New Mexico and are suing their employer for work
performed off-the-clock and enforcing an illegal tip-out policy.
This is a putative class action case under NMRA Rule 1-023(A).
The Plaintiffs filed this lawsuit on Nov. 11, 2016 in the Second
Judicial District Court, County of Bernalillo; and the Defendants
removed the case to federal court on Aug. 16, 2017.

The Plaintiffs seek to remand the case on the ground that there
was no objectively reasonable basis for federal removal because it
is clear from the complaint and other pleadings that this case
does not allege a federal claim.  The Defendants contend that
words used by the Plaintiffs' counsel in other pleadings in this
case indicate that they seek to engraft the remedies under the
Fair Labor Standards Act-lock, stock and barrel--into this case,
establishing federal question jurisdiction.

In sum, Judge Johnson finds and concludes that the Defendants have
fallen abysmally short of showing that a federal question has been
presented on the face of the Plaintiffs' operative complaint in
this case, and as a result, he granted the Plaintiffs' Motion to
Remand.  The Judge says there is no need to address the
Plaintiffs' alternative argument regarding the untimeliness of
removal, in light of the Court's jurisdictional ruling.  He also
finds and concludes that the Defendants' removal lacked an
objectively reasonable basis; therefore, the Plaintiffs are
entitled to sanctions against Defendants in the form of attorney
fees and costs associated with the filing of the motion to remand.

Therefore, Judge Thompson granted the Plaintiffs' Motion for
Remand to State Court and for Sanctions and granted their request
for sanctions.  In connection with the award of sanctions, the
Plaintiffs will file with the Court a short, itemized request for
attorney fees and costs, with supporting affidavits and time
records, within 14 days of the filing of the Order.  The
Defendants have the opportunity to respond within 14 days after
the filing of the Plaintiffs' submission.

If either the Defendants or the Plaintiffs wish for the Court to
conduct a hearing on the amount of attorney fees and costs to be
awarded the Plaintiffs, then a request for such a hearing needs to
be made to the Court in writing.  Judge Thompson ordered the Clerk
of Court to take the necessary action to have this case remanded
to the Second Judicial District Court, State of New Mexico, County
of Bernalillo.

A full-text copy of the Court's Oct. 13, 2017 Memorandum Opinion
and Order is available at https://is.gd/EuGxsT from Leagle.com.

Hailey Atyani, Plaintiff, represented by Gail J. Evans --
gail@nmpovertylaw.org -- NM Center on Law and Poverty.

Hailey Atyani, Plaintiff, represented by James A. Montalbano --
info@youtzvaldez.com -- Youtz & Valdez, PC, Shane C. Youtz, Youtz
& Valdez PC & Stephen Curtice, Youtz & Valdez, PC.

Nicole C de Baca, Plaintiff, represented by Gail J. Evans, NM
Center on Law and Poverty, James A. Montalbano, Youtz & Valdez,
PC, Shane C. Youtz, Youtz & Valdez PC & Stephen Curtice, Youtz &
Valdez, PC.

Bianca Garcia, Plaintiff, represented by Gail J. Evans, NM Center
on Law and Poverty, James A. Montalbano, Youtz & Valdez, PC, Shane
C. Youtz, Youtz & Valdez PC & Stephen Curtice, Youtz & Valdez, PC.

Hannah Jiron, Plaintiff, represented by Gail J. Evans, NM Center
on Law and Poverty, James A. Montalbano, Youtz & Valdez, PC, Shane
C. Youtz, Youtz & Valdez PC & Stephen Curtice, Youtz & Valdez, PC.

Ceselia Merryman, Plaintiff, represented by Gail J. Evans, NM
Center on Law and Poverty, James A. Montalbano, Youtz & Valdez,
PC, Shane C. Youtz, Youtz & Valdez PC & Stephen Curtice, Youtz &
Valdez, PC.

Andrea Varela, Plaintiff, represented by Gail J. Evans, NM Center
on Law and Poverty, James A. Montalbano, Youtz & Valdez, PC, Shane
C. Youtz, Youtz & Valdez PC & Stephen Curtice, Youtz & Valdez, PC.

Whitney Whitson, Plaintiff, represented by Gail J. Evans, NM
Center on Law and Poverty, James A. Montalbano, Youtz & Valdez,
PC, Shane C. Youtz, Youtz & Valdez PC & Stephen Curtice, Youtz &
Valdez, PC.

Jaeda Chavez, Plaintiff, represented by Gail J. Evans, NM Center
on Law and Poverty, James A. Montalbano, Youtz & Valdez, PC, Shane
C. Youtz, Youtz & Valdez PC & Stephen Curtice, Youtz & Valdez, PC.

Jenna Espinoza, Plaintiff, represented by Gail J. Evans, NM Center
on Law and Poverty, James A. Montalbano, Youtz & Valdez, PC, Shane
C. Youtz, Youtz & Valdez PC & Stephen Curtice, Youtz & Valdez, PC.

Dennis Bonfantine, Defendant, represented by Lexi W. Jones, Foster
Rieder Jackson PC, Meghan Dimond Stanford, Foster, Rieder &
Jackson, PC & Geoffrey D. Rieder -- geoff@frjlaw.com -- Foster
Rieder & Jackson PC.

Janice Bonfantine, Defendant, represented by Lexi W. Jones, Foster
Rieder Jackson PC, Meghan Dimond Stanford, Foster, Rieder &
Jackson, PC & Geoffrey D. Rieder, Foster Rieder & Jackson PC.

D.B. Kelly, Inc., Defendant, represented by Lexi W. Jones, Foster
Rieder Jackson PC, Meghan Dimond Stanford, Foster, Rieder &
Jackson, PC & Geoffrey D. Rieder, Foster Rieder & Jackson PC.

DB Brewery LLC, Defendant, represented by Lexi W. Jones, Foster
Rieder Jackson PC, Meghan Dimond Stanford, Foster, Rieder &
Jackson, PC & Geoffrey D. Rieder, Foster Rieder & Jackson PC.


KIMBERLY-CLARK: 9th Cir. Reverses Ruling in "Davidson" Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------
In the case captioned JENNIFER DAVIDSON, an individual on behalf
of herself, the general public and those similarly situated,
Plaintiff-Appellant, v. KIMBERLY-CLARK CORPORATION; KIMBERLY-CLARK
WORLDWIDE, INC.; KIMBERLY-CLARK GLOBAL SALES, LLC, Defendants-
Appellees, Case No. 15-16173 (9th Cir.), Judge Mary H. Murguia of
the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit reversed the
district court's denial to reconsider the dismissal of Davidson's
First Amended Complaint ("FAC") and remanded the case for further
proceedings.

Davidson paid extra for wipes labeled as "flushable" because she
believed that flushable wipes would be better for the environment,
and more sanitary, than non-flushable wipes.  Davidson alleges
that the wipes she purchased, which were manufactured and marketed
by Kimberly-Clark, were not, in fact, flushable.  Davidson seeks
to recover the premium she paid for the allegedly flushable wipes,
as well as an order requiring Kimberly-Clark to stop marketing
their wipes as "flushable."  Davidson has plausibly alleged that
Kimberly-Clark engaged in false advertising.  She has also
plausibly alleged that she will suffer further harm in the absence
of an injunction.

Davidson initially filed the case in state court, but Kimberly-
Clark removed it to federal court pursuant to the Class Action
Fairness Act.  The district court denied in part and granted in
part Kimberly-Clark's motion to dismiss the original complaint.
In response, Davidson filed the operative FAC.  Kimberly-Clark
moved to dismiss the FAC, and the district court granted the
motion, this time with prejudice.

First, the district court granted Kimberly-Clark's Federal Rule of
Civil Procedure 12(b)(1) motion to dismiss Davidson's injunctive
relief claims, finding that Davidson lacked standing to seek
injunctive relief because she was unlikely to purchase Kimberly-
Clark's flushable wipes in the future.  Second, the district court
granted Kimberly-Clark's motion to dismiss the FAC pursuant to
Rules 9(b) and 12(b)(6), concluding that Davidson had failed to
adequately allege why the representation "flushable" on the
package was false.  Finally, the district court concluded that
Davidson failed to allege damage under the UCL/FAL/CLRA or common
law fraud causes of action, because Davidson had not alleged that
she suffered any harm due to her use of the Scott Wipes.

Davidson filed a motion for reconsideration under Rules 59(e) and
60(b), which the district court denied.  First, the district court
rejected Davidson's argument that it should have remanded the
injunctive relief claims to state court.  Second, the district
court rejected Davidson's argument that it should have dismissed
the FAC without prejudice so that Davidson could file a second
amended complaint curing the alleged defects in the FAC.  Third,
the district court rejected Davidson's argument that the district
court erred by ruling that Davidson had not adequately pled
damages.  Davidson timely appealed.

Davidson appeals six of the district court's rulings.  First,
Davidson argues that the district court erred by dismissing the
FAC pursuant to Rule 9(b) for failure to adequately allege why the
representation "flushable" was false.  Second, Davidson argues
that the district court erred by dismissing the FAC pursuant to
Rule 12(b)(6) on the basis that Davidson had not suffered any
damages.  Third, Davidson argues that the district court erred by
dismissing the original complaint pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6) for
failing to plead how she came to believe the wipes were not
flushable.  Fourth, Davidson argues that the district court abused
its discretion in striking, pursuant to Rule 12(f), references to
newspaper reports in the original complaint.  Fifth, Davidson
argues that the district court abused its discretion by denying
Davidson leave to amend her FAC.  Finally, Davidson argues that
the district court erred by dismissing her injunctive relief
claims pursuant to Rule 12(b)(1) for lack of standing.

Judge Murguia holds that the FAC adequately alleges that Kimberly-
Clark's use of the word "flushable" was false because the Scott
Wipes that Davidson purchased did not adequately disperse as a
truly flushable product would have.  The district court erred in
concluding that Davidson failed to allege harm and how she came to
believe the wipes were not flushable.  Finally, because Davidson's
allegations sufficiently identified a certainly impending risk of
her being subjected to Kimberly-Clark's allegedly false
advertising, Davidson had standing to pursue injunctive relief.
The Judge therefore reversed and remanded.

A full-text copy of the Ninth Circuit's Oct. 20, 2017 Opinion is
available at https://is.gd/co4yIw from Leagle.com.

Matthew T. McCrary -- marie@gutridesafier.com -- (argued), Kristen
G. Simplicio -- kristen@gutridesafier.com -- Seth A. Safier --
seth@gutridesafier.com -- and Adam J. Gutride --
adam@gutridesafier.com -- Gutride Safier LLP, San Francisco,
California, for Plaintiff-Appellant.

Constantine L. Trela, Jr. -- CTRELA@SIDLEY.COM --(argued), Sidley
Austin LLP, Chicago, Illinois; Michelle Goodman and Amy Lally --
alally@sidley.com -- Sidley Austin LLP, Los Angeles, California;
Naomi Igra -- nigra@sidley.com -- Sidley Austin LLP, San
Francisco, California; for Defendants-Appellees.


KRISPY KREME: Faces Another Class Action Over Nutritional Labels
----------------------------------------------------------------
Richard Craver, writing for Winston-Salem Journal, reports that
Krispy Kreme Doughnuts Inc. is facing another attempt at a class-
action lawsuit in California targeting its delicacies, this time
being accused of having misleading nutritional labels.

The complaint was filed on Oct. 12 in the Central District of
California with a request for a jury trial.

Krispy Kreme spokeswoman Sarah Roof said on Oct. 16 the company
has a policy of not commenting on active litigation.  Also being
sued is franchisee Great Circle Family Foods LLC.

Plaintiff Jacqueline Salem of Beverly Hills accused the companies
of "feeding false information to consumers in order to deceive
them into making purchases that they would otherwise not make to
obtain an unfair and unjust benefit."

California law is considered to have a low bar for proving
violations of the business and professions code, as well as false
advertising and breach of contract.

Ms. Salem said she ate an apple fritter "on a reoccurring basis"
at Krispy Kreme shops from 2013 through this month.  She claims to
have used a company nutritional guide in making her purchase.  The
guide was presented as an exhibit in her complaint.

Krispy Kreme advertises that its apple fritter "is brimming with
cinnamon flavor and contains bite-size chunks of real apple.  And,
of course, our signature glaze adds a satisfying finishing touch."

Ms. Salem said she specifically chose an apple fritter because the
nutritional chart listed it as having 4 grams of sugar and 210
calories.  The same chart listed an original glazed doughnut with
10 grams of sugar and 190 calories. Most regular-sized specialty
doughnuts ranged from seven to 34 grams of sugar, and from 190 to
400 calories

Krispy Kreme's website lists 28 grams of sugar and 390 calories
for the apple fritter, with a caloric breakdown of 47 percent fat,
49 percent carbs and 4 percent protein.

Ms. Salem accuses the companies of trying "to take advantage of
consumers who are actively trying to make healthier and more
conscientious decisions about what they consume."

Ms. Salem is requesting restitution for herself and potential
class-action members, as well a court order for Krispy Kreme to
change its nutritional listings.  Krispy Kreme apple fritters
typically cost between $1.09 and $1.29 each.

Ms. Salem's counsel could not be reached on Oct. 16 to determine
how many apple fritters that Salem bought per week or per month.

Ms. Salem said she would not have chosen the apple fritter if not
for the sugar and caloric nutritional listing.

Ms. Salem said in August she was told by a manager at a Krispy
Kreme shop that the sugar and caloric totals for the apple fritter
were incorrect.  She said she found out on Krispy Kreme's website
that the apple fritter had 26 grams of sugar and 350 calories.

"Plaintiff was shocked and disturbed at hearing this information,"
according to the lawsuit.

"Specifically, defendants have been purposefully, intentionally
and willfully misleading their consumers into believing that two
of the most important nutritional components of their doughnuts
(sugar and calories) are a fraction of what they are" for the
apple fritter.

The Salem lawsuit comes six months after the voluntary dismissal
in April of another class-action attempt against Krispy Kreme in
the same California court.

The complaint filed Nov. 9 by Jason Saidian focused on his claim
that he purchased Krispy Kreme's chocolate-iced raspberry-filled,
glazed raspberry-filled, maple-iced glazed, maple bar, glazed
blueberry cake and donut holes as a healthy dietary choice.

The voluntary dismissal was filed without prejudice, which means
it could be refiled.  The motion preserves the ability to pursue
class-action claims if submitted and approved by the court. [GN]


KRISPY KREME: Plaintiff Withdraws Suit Over Apple Fritters Label
----------------------------------------------------------------
Richard Craver, writing for Winston-Salem Journal, reports that a
California plaintiff has voluntarily withdrawn her proposed class-
action lawsuit against Krispy Kreme Doughnuts Inc. over what she
claimed were misleading nutritional labels.

The complaint from Jacqueline Salem of Beverly Hills was filed on
Oct. 12 in the Central District of California with a request for a
jury trial.

Ms. Salem's lead attorney, Todd Friedman, submitted a one-page
motion on Oct. 13 addressing her dismissal.  The motion appeared
on Oct. 17 on the Pacer website that contains federal legal
filings.

Mr. Friedman said the dismissal was being made without prejudice,
meaning it could be filed again.

The filing and withdrawal of the complaint occurred before Krispy
Kreme could answer the complaint or file a motion for summary
judgment.

Krispy Kreme spokeswoman Sarah Roof said on Oct. 16 that the
company has a policy of not commenting on active litigation.  Also
being sued was franchisee Great Circle Family Foods LLC.

Salem accused the companies of "feeding false information to
consumers in order to deceive them into making purchases that they
would otherwise not make to obtain an unfair and unjust benefit."

California law is considered to have a low bar for proving
violations of the business and professions code, as well as false
advertising and breach of contract.

Ms. Salem said she ate apple fritters "on a reoccurring basis" at
Krispy Kreme shops from 2013 through October.  She claimed to have
used a company nutritional guide in making her purchase.  The
guide was presented as an exhibit in her complaint.

Mr. Friedman could not be reached to determine how many apple
fritters Ms. Salem bought each week or month.

Krispy Kreme advertises that its apple fritter "is brimming with
cinnamon flavor and contains bite-size chunks of real apple.  And,
of course, our signature glaze adds a satisfying finishing touch."

Ms. Salem said she specifically chose an apple fritter because the
nutritional chart listed it as having 4 grams of sugar and 210
calories.  The same chart listed the company's original glazed
doughnut as having 10 grams of sugar and 190 calories. Most
regular-size specialty doughnuts ranged from 7 to 34 grams of
sugar, and from 190 to 400 calories

Krispy Kreme's website lists 28 grams of sugar and 390 calories
for the apple fritter, with a caloric breakdown of 47 percent fat,
49 percent carbohydrates and 4 percent protein.

Ms. Salem accused the companies of trying "to take advantage of
consumers who are actively trying to make healthier and more
conscientious decisions about what they consume."

Ms. Salem requested restitution for herself and potential class-
action members, as well a court order for Krispy Kreme to change
its nutritional listings.  Krispy Kreme apple fritters typically
cost between $1.09 and $1.29 each. [GN]


LA QUINTA: Motion to Dismiss Class Suit Pending
-----------------------------------------------
La Quinta Holdings Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period
ended June 30, 2017, that defendants' motion to dismiss a class
action complaint remains pending.

On April 25, 2016, a purported stockholder class action lawsuit,
captioned Beisel v. La Quinta Holdings Inc. et al., was filed in
the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York. On
July 22, 2016, the court appointed lead plaintiff ("plaintiff"),
and, on December 30, 2016, plaintiff filed the operative complaint
on behalf of purchasers of the Company's common stock from
November 19, 2014 through February 24, 2016 (the "Class Period")
and on behalf of a subclass who purchased the Company's common
stock pursuant to the Company's March 24, 2015 secondary public
offering (the "March Secondary Offering").   The complaint
alleges, among other things, that, in violation of the federal
securities laws, the registration statement and prospectus filed
in connection with the March Secondary Offering contained
materially false and misleading information or omissions and that
the Company as well as certain current and former officers made
false and misleading statements in earnings releases and to
analysts during the Class Period.  Plaintiff seeks unspecified
compensatory damages and other relief.

On February 10, 2017, defendants filed a motion to dismiss the
complaint, which is now fully briefed.  The Company believes that
the putative class action lawsuit is without merit and intends to
defend the lawsuit vigorously; however, there can be no assurance
regarding the ultimate outcome of this lawsuit.

The Company is an owner, operator and franchisor of select-service
hotels primarily serving the midscale and upper-midscale segments
under the La Quinta brand.


LEE COUNTY, FL: Class Action Mulled Over Ten Mile Canal Failure
---------------------------------------------------------------
Patricia Borns and Casey Logan, writing for The News-Press, report
that the floodwaters of a back-to-back tropical depression and a
Category 2 hurricane may have receded, but the anger of some
residents and business owners in south Lee County over the failure
of Ten Mile Canal is on the rise.

With no satisfying answers from Lee County, they say -- other than
'we're looking at it' -- residents and business owners are
organizing, doing their own detective work and courting legal
counsel.

At least two groups, Island Park Property Owners Initiative and
Island Park Citizens, a political action committee, have formed;
each with ideas and all seeking political leverage to fix a
flooding problem likely caused not by one but many sources.

Among the Ten Mile flood suspects:

   -- The amount of development adding volumes of water to the
canal.
   -- A weir at the end of Old 41.
   -- A newish development by KB Homes on Island Park Road.
   -- Dikes that used to protect Island Park Road that seem to
have disappeared.

Lee County insists Ten Mile Canal, which drains an area from Fort
Myers south into Estero Bay, performed as it was supposed to --
it's just that the rains of late August and Hurricane Irma two
weeks later dumped more water than two 100-year events combined.

"The amount of rainfall has everything to do with the amount of
flooding.  Lee County Natural Resources Director Roland Ottolini
said.  "Statistically, the recurrence level of that happening
again is well greater than once in 100 years."

But independent experts say the county is overlooking real
problems with Ten Mile Canal: a ditch built in the 1920s to drain
south Lee lands for gladiolus farming, that now collects runoff
from over 600,000 households, businesses and industries for 68
square miles.

"I think the cumulative effect of the development has exceeded the
ability of the infrastructure to handle it," said Calusa
Waterkeeper John Cassani, whose non-profit protects Southwest
Florida waters.

Flood victims agree.

Tidewater Island resident Ted Ehrlich in the Island Park Property
Owners Initiative likens the Ten Mile situation to "trying to pump
10 gallons of water into a one-gallon funnel."

And on Old 41, "I had never gotten a drop in my building in almost
30 years," said Anita King of Cambird Auto Body, whose office
filled with enough water to take out the computers.

The Kings along with neighboring businesses may hire counsel or
join the HOAs to focus the county on their problem.

"How do we fix this? It needs to be done now," King's frustration
echoes throughout South Lee.  "We can't afford to clean up from
another flood."

A game of smoke and mirrors

Lee Commissioner Larry Kiker sympathizes with her and other flood
victims.

"They have every right to be concerned, and so should we all,"
said Mr. Kiker, who helicoptered with the Emergency Operations
Center over the post-Irma floods.

The aerial view blew him away.

"It was just a lake of water with no boundaries," he said,
worsening as he flew downstream.

Mr. Kiker blamed the conditions that precipitated the epic floods
on developments of the past 20 years; projects he says would not
be approved today.

"It was perhaps 10 years ago," he said, "that developers were
forced to raise their sites to accommodate a 25-year storm event.
Now folks are made to build to a 100-year event.  We've learned
more and more as we've gone."

(South Florida Water Management District continues to permit
stormwater plans for a 25-year, three-day event, according to
county spokesman Tim Engstrom.  It's the house elevation that must
be built to the 100-year level; a requirement that's been in place
for 40 years.)

To meet the stormwater standard, a development must control the
rate of runoff from its property to be no greater than if it
wasn't there.

It's modeled on computers, creating the illusion that no matter
how much you develop, the net stormwater effect will be zero.

In reality, experts say, calculating risk this way is a house of
cards, because:

   -- Rainfall statistics change over time, but the data hasn't
been updated for decades.
   -- Even if each development releases runoff at the same rate,
the cumulative effect of the runoff from all the developments
changes the result," Cassini says.
   -- If vegetation and silt clog Ten Mile Canal, the best-laid
stormwater plans will go awry.

A 2008 county study by Boyle Engineering, costing taxpayers
$180,000, had already found the canal wasn't up to par.  Among the
study's recommendations not taken by the county was a bypass canal
to off-load some of the drainage.

A county stormwater utility that would have helped with canal
improvements was approved in the same timeframe but never funded.

"A lot of federal funding that would benefit Ten Mile Canal is
contingent on having the stormwater utility," Southwest Florida
Watershed Council Director Mary Rawl said.

Ehrlich's group has clear ideas about what it wants to see, among
them:

   -- Dredge and deepen 10 Mile from Old 41 to and including
Mullock Creek.
   -- Complete development of 10 Mile never finished from the
1970s.
   -- Keep controllable weirs to maximum height, or have the
heights increased.
   -- Create more large water retention ponds throughout the 10
Mile Canal water management area.

The case of The Coves

The Coves at Estero Bay met the 25-year, three-day storm event
standard, say its builder KB Homes and Al Quattrone, whose firm
Quattrone and Associated did the stormwater and site plan.

"I couldn't give away my daughter's condo today."
Judy Stead, Realtor, has a daughter in Royal Woods
Nor have any violations been issued for the 2015 development
located off Island Park Road.

But neighbors blame it for the flooding of their homes, not once
but twice.  Hardest hit was Royal Woods on The Coves' east edge,
sitting at a much lower elevation.

Residents who went through hurricanes Charlie and Wilma in 2004
say the woodland (where The Coves is now) used to soak up part of
the sheet flow from the canal, and their storm drains did the
rest.  This time, The Coves acted like a dam, they say, stopping
the water and pushing it back on their homes.

Now some 200 of them have to be gutted.

"Royal Woods is really sad and really bad," said Judy Stead, a
Realtor who has a daughter in Royal Woods.  "I couldn't give away
my daughter's condo today," Stead said, describing The Coves'
drainage as "pathetic".

Although many factors could have played into the historic flood,
was the development the straw that broke the proverbial camel's
back?

"When an application comes in, they plug in the retention formula
for that development, but are not always looking at the
surrounding situation," said Cassani.

In one similar situation, the Florida Supreme Court ruled, "You
must allow stormwater flow across your property, and you may not
dam your property to cause water to back up and flood your
neighbor/s property," Cape Coral attorney Ralf Brookes noted.

Royal Woods and some other Island Park Road homeowners'
associations are considering a class action with personal injury
firm Morgan and Morgan, Stead said.

The case of the Old 41 weir

Anita King stood beside the weir at the end of Old 41 -- a dam-
like structure whose sluice gates can increase or lessen the
amount of water flowing downstream -- using herself as a measuring
stick to show how high the August floodwaters came

She's a little over 5 feet tall. The water not only covered the
weir, it was a foot higher than she is.

Questions swirl around the weir and its role in the floods,
starting with the fact that the county, in the mid-2000s, added 20
square miles of airport lands to the canal's  drainage load.

"The airport lands have been identified as part of the Six Mile
/Ten Mile Canal watershed as far back as the Johnson Engineering
study in 1979," county spokesman Engstrom said.

But identifying the lands isn't the same as digging a canal to
drain them, which the county later did.

Right behind the weir sits the floodgate for this giant area,
which includes the country club homes of Fiddlesticks as well as
the airport.

During a historic rain event, bringing all that water into the
basin would have affected the peak stages and timing of everything
downstream of the weir, where the worst flooding occurred.

Why wasn't the Old 41 weir modified to accommodate that load, some
residents ask.

Ms. King and Ehrlich say opening the upstream gates for the
airport and Fiddlesticks saved those areas from flooding, but
drowned theirs.

Asked if the Old 41 weir gates were opened for the storm events,
the county replied, "Yes."

Were they opened in a timely fashion, allowing water to exit the
system several days before the big deluges occurred?

Records requested by The News-Press weren't provided before
publication time.

The case of the disappearing dykes

"The flood made it clear there was an issue that had nothing to do
with the hurricane," said Lesley Willard, a resident of Timberwood
Village, which backs up to the canal from Island Park Road.

This was the first time the homes, built in the 1980s, had
flooded, she said.  The water easily shot over the canal bank,
into the ground floor units and out to the street.

Paul Jacobs, who used to own the land Timberwood stands on, thinks
he knows why.

A former Lee planning commissioner whose father developed the
Island Park subdivision in the 1950s, Mr. Jacobs plugged his
property with an 8-foot dike "that a person could not see over,"
he said, because the canal flooded prodigiously in his day, too.

Today, Timberwood offers homeowners "a private boat ramp into Ten
Mile Canal that leads directly into Estero Bay and the Gulf of
Mexico, ideal for the boating enthusiast and for avid fishermen,"
a blurb on greaterftmyers.com says.

"The county either lowered the west side dyke, or allowed the
adjoining land owners to lower the dyke to permit easy canal
access and viewing."

Paul Jacobs, former owner of Timberwood Village property
"If one can drive a boat trailer down to the water there now,
about 5 feet of dike is missing," Mr. Jacobs said.

Similar breeches could exist on the west bank, he believes.

"The county either lowered the west side dike, or allowed the
adjoining land owners . . . to lower the dike to permit easy canal
access and viewing," he said.

A record request to the county for the Timberwood Village dock and
boat launch application couldn't be completed by publication time.

"The county has to make this a navigation channel"

Mr. Kiker wants county staff to do "anything and everything that
has to do with these storm events, whether it's debris, flooding,
you name it," he said.  "If it requires extra funding, it does
become our job to figure that out."

The solution will cost in the millions, he believes, and will be
implemented in short- and long-term stages.

Ultimately, "The county has to make this a navigational canal," he
said, so it can be widened and dredged.

The Island Park Property Owners Initiative agrees not widening,
but dredging, the canal downstream of the Old 41 weir would stop
the flooding south of Fort Myers.

The path for that to happen requires, among many things, a public
facility such as a boat ramp, Mr. Kiker said.  He believes he may
have found a neighborhood that has one.

It would also require approval from the Department of
Environmental Protection, and, ultimately, the public.

Waterkeeper Cassini, for one, thinks, "Turning Ten Mile into an
unregulated navigation channel sidesteps the responsibility. If
you have an unrestricted flow out of Ten Mile, it would defeat the
purpose of pollution mitigation."

That's because everything that goes into the canal winds up in
Estero Bay, the first designated aquatic preserve in the state of
Florida.

"If you want to see the environmental groups' hairs spontaneously
combust, suggest that you would like to introduce more fresh water
and channelize a portion of the bay," said Ron Edenfield of
environmental engineering consulting firm RMEC.

Got drainage problems?

Lee County advises filling out a Request For Action form if you
have a drainage problem.

Find it online or call Lee County DOT Operations at 239-533-9400
Monday through Friday between 7 a.m. and 5 p.m. [GN]


LEIDOS INC: Settles Investor Fraud Class Action
-----------------------------------------------
Jack Newsham and Daniel Wilson, writing for Law360, report that
government contractor Leidos Inc. and a proposed class of
investors who accused it of fraud have settled their proposed
class action just a month before they were set to argue before the
U.S. Supreme Court about a Second Circuit decision that brought
the plaintiffs' case back to life.

In papers filed with the court Oct. 6, the parties said they
"recently reached an agreement in principle to settle this dispute
and . . . are now preparing the settlement documentation."
Details of the settlement weren't available and lawyers for both
sides and representatives for Leidos didn't respond to requests
for comment.

The case centers on the plaintiffs' argument that the science and
technology company's predecessor SAIC Inc. took too long to tell
shareholders about a criminal probe related to its scandal-wracked
CityTime project for New York City's government. Investors contend
that the company violated Item 303 of the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission's Regulation S-K, which requires the
disclosure of "trends and uncertainties," amounting to a form of
fraud that they could sue over under Section 10(b) of the
Securities Exchange Act, a broad anti-fraud law.

A settlement could prevent a closely-watched clash that has drawn
amicus briefs from the federal government, which sided with the
plaintiffs, and some of the biggest business groups in the
country, including the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and the Securities
Industry and Financial Markets Association, which sided with
Leidos.

The parties asked the court to delay arguments, currently
scheduled for Nov. 6, so they can ask a lower judge to approve the
settlement, a process Leidos and the investors said they hope to
complete by the end of May 2018.  If the deal is approved, they
said they would seek dismissal.  If not, the parties said, they
would ask the court to hear the case next fall.

SAIC, the Leidos predecessor, agreed to pay $500 million in March
2012 to end a criminal probe into the CityTime project, a
timekeeping system for municipal employees that ran wildly over
budget.  It has sought to portray the case as an effort by
ravenous plaintiffs' attorneys to bolt Section 10(b), which gives
investors the right to sue companies, to Item 303, which doesn't
explicitly do so.

Prosecutors had said SAIC failed to control an employee who
orchestrated an elaborate kickback scheme that ballooned the
project's budget from $73 million in 2000 to about $620 million by
2011. The shareholder suit followed.

A district court tossed the investors' complaint in January 2014
but the Second Circuit revived it in March 2015 on the grounds
that the Leidos investors had a viable claim that the company
misled the public through omissions in its 2011 financial
statements.

Leidos petitioned the high court in October 2016, arguing that
Item 303 should not be construed to create a disclosure duty that
is privately enforceable by investors or public companies will be
forced to "make defensive and over-inclusive disclosures for any
conceivable trend or uncertainty."

The company and amici who sided with it also said that the Second
Circuit's decision clashed with the Ninth Circuit's ruling on the
same issue, creating a split that the Supreme Court should resolve
in their favor.

The government is represented by Robert B. Stebbins, Michael A.
Conley, Jeffrey A. Berger and Rachel M. McKenzie of the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission and Jeffrey B. Wall, Malcolm L.
Stewart and Zachary D. Tripp of the U.S. Solicitor General's
Office.

Leidos is represented by Andrew S. Tulumello --
atulumello@gibsondunn.com -- Mark A. Perry --
mperry@gibsondunn.com -- Jason J. Mendro -- jmendro@gibsondunn.com
-- Joshua D. Dick, Kellam M. Conover, Christopher S. Rigali, John
D. Avila and Monica L. Haymond of Gibson Dunn & Crutcher LLP and
in-house counsel Vincent A. Maffeo and Michele M. Brown.

The investors are represented by Douglas Wilens --
DWilens@rgrdlaw.com -- Joseph Russello -- jrussello@rgrdlaw.com
-- Darren Robbins and Samuel Rudman of Robbins Geller Rudman &
Dowd LLP.

The case is Leidos Inc. v. Indiana Public Retirement System et
al., case number 16-581, in the Supreme Court of the United
States. [GN]


LEIDOS INC: Court Agrees to Remove Case from Argument Calendar
--------------------------------------------------------------
Barbara Leonard, writing for Courthouse News Service, reported
that the Supreme Court agreed to put a pin on Oct. 17 in its
consideration of a class action over what has been called "the
single largest fraud ever perpetrated on the city of New York."

CityTime was a massive boondoggle that rocked the New York at the
end of the Bloomberg administration in 2011, with investigators
finding that crooked vendors had been lining their pockets with
money meant to automate the city's byzantine payroll system.

Bloated with inflated contracts and kickback agreements, the
project initially slated to cost $63 million when it began in 2003
ended up costing the city $760 million.

CityTime ultimately faced a $500 million bill for restitution and
penalties, and indictments swept up top executives for the
project's lead contractor, SAIC, short for Science Applications
International Corp.

Six retirement and pension funds led by the Indiana Public
Retirement System that had invested in SAIC brought the underlying
complaint to show that New York taxpayers were not the only
victims of the con.

They claimed that SAIC and five of its executives misled investors
about the corporation's liabilities for employee fraud, but a
federal judge denied the funds' motions for relief on judgment.

SAIC, which is now known as Leidos, asked the Supreme Court to
intervene after the Second Circuit said in a 2016 partial reversal
that two of SAIC's filings may have been misleading.

On Oct. 17, seven months after taking up the case, the Supreme
Court granted a joint motion by the parties "to remove the case
from the argument calendar and hold in abeyance any further
proceedings."

The order offers no explanation for the motion. Docket records
show that the class is represented by Douglas Wilens, an attorney
with Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd in Boca Raton, Florida.

Leidos is represented by Andrew Tulumello of the Washington firm
Gibson Dunn & Crutcher.

A spokeswoman for the law firm noted previously that Leidos has
cooperated fully in the Justice Department's investigation and
"implemented a first-rate compliance program."

Citing recent Leidos accomplishments, the spokeswoman noted that
it was one of two companies to win the Pentagon's $9 billion
health care modernization contract, as well as several Air Force
contracts. Leidos also received more money than any other single
information-technology vendor on three of the five key IT
contracts within the Defense Health Agency.

The Securities Industry and Financial Markets Association is
represented by Goodwin Procter attorney William Jay, also of
Washington.  The National Association of Manufacturers is
represented by Edward Joseph Fuhr of the Richmond, Virginia, firm
Hunton & Williams.

In 2015, the Second Circuit affirmed 20-year sentences for three
CityTime fraudsters: Mark Mazer, Dimitry Aronshtein and Gerard
Denault.


LENDINGCLUB CORP: Court Certifies Class in Securities Litigation
----------------------------------------------------------------
Judge William Alsup of the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of California granted the Lead Plaintiff's motion for
class certification, denied the Lead Plaintiff's motion for an
injunction, and conditionally granted the State Plaintiffs' motion
to intervene in the case captioned In re LENDINGCLUB SECURITIES
LITIGATION. This Document Relates to: ALL ACTIONS, Nos. C 16-02627
WHA, C 16-02670 WHA, C 16-03072 WHA (Consolidated) (N.D. Cal.).

A number of putative class actions were filed in the district
court on behalf of investors who purchased securities of the
Defendant LendingClub in its initial public offering.  The actions
were consolidated and an order appointed Water and Power
Employees' Retirement, Disability and Death Plan of the City of
Los Angeles ("WPERP") as the Lead Plaintiff.  The remaining
Defendants include LendingClub, Renaud Laplanche (LendingClub's
founder and former CEO), Carrie Dolan (LendingClub's former CFO),
LendingClub directors and former directors, and the financial
firms that underwrote LendingClub's IPO.

On Dec. 11, 2014, LendingClub completed its IPO, selling more than
66.7 million shares of common stock at $15 per share.  WPERP began
purchasing shares of LendingClub stock on May 4, 2015, and by the
time the lock-up period ended on June 9, 2015, it owned 306,620
shares.  WPERP continued thereafter to buy and sell LendingClub
shares, never holding fewer than the 306,620 shares, eventually
acquiring more than 1.7 million shares.

On May 9, 2016, less than 18 months after the IPO and issuance of
the registration form, LendingClub's CEO, Laplanche, resigned
following an internal review of sales of $22 million in near-prime
loans to a single investor, in contravention of the investor's
express instructions as to a non-credit and non-pricing element.
LendingClub also reported that it had discovered that Laplanche
had a financial stake in Cirrix Capital, L.P., a company formed
for the sole purpose of purchasing LendingClub loans.

As these and other revelations of improprieties came to light,
LendingClub's share price went into precipitous decline.  Three
securities actions were filed in federal court in San Francisco in
June 2016.  They were related to Judge Alsup, and later
consolidated with WPERP appointed as the Lead Plaintiff, and
Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP as the Lead Counsel.  The
consolidated complaint asserts claims under Section 11 and Section
15 of the Securities Act of 1933, and Section 10(b), Rule 10b-5,
and Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act of 1934.

The Lead Plaintiff now moves for certification of a class
consisting of all persons and entities who purchased or otherwise
acquired the common stock of LendingClub during the period from
Dec. 11, 2014 through May 6, 2016, inclusive, and were damaged
thereby, including those who purchased LendingClub common stock
traceable to the Registration Statement.  Excluded from the Class
are the Defendants and their families, the officers, directors,
and affiliates of defendants, at all relevant times, members of
their immediate families and their legal representatives, heirs,
successors or assigns, and any entity in which defendants have or
had a controlling interest.

Defendant LendingClub and Director Defendants filed an opposition
to the motion, which the remaining Defendants join.

In February 2016, approximately three-and-a-half months before
this action, a class action complaint was filed against
LendingClub in the Superior Court of the State of California,
County of San Mateo, alleging violations of Sections 11, 15, and
12(a)(2) of the Securities Act of 1933.  Like this action, the
state action alleges LendingClub's registration statement
contained misstatements and omissions concerning, inter alia,
material weaknesses in LendingClub's internal controls,
undisclosed related-party transactions, and the assumption of
undisclosed but material credit and liquidity risks.  The court in
the state action certified a class in June 2017.  The Class
Notice, however, remains unsent.

On Sept. 21, 2017, the date oppositions to class certification
were due in the federal action, the class representatives in the
parallel state action moved to intervene for the limited purpose
of opposing class certification of Sections 11 and 15 claims.
They filed an opposition to class certification as an attachment
to their motion to intervene.  An order set the hearing on their
motions for Oct. 12, 2017, the same date as the hearing on this
motion for class certification.  All parties to both actions
appeared at the Oct. 12 hearing.

The State Plaintiffs move for permissive intervention, and in the
alternative for intervention as of right.

Judge Alsup finds that WPERP satisfied the numerosity,
commonality, typicality and adequacy requirements of FRCP 23(a).
Turning to the requirements of FRCP 23(b), the Judge says WPERP's
proposed method -- using an event study -- is widely accepted for
calculating damages of a class of stockholders.  The Defendants
have not cited any reasons that such a method would be unworkable
here.  WPERP's showing is sufficient to satisfy its burden under
FRCP 23(b)(3).

The State Plaintiffs, who intervened in this action for the sole
purpose of objecting to certification, make additional arguments
for why the state action is superior to this action for
adjudicating Section 11 and 15 claims.  Their primary argument is
that the state case provides for greater recovery than this action
and is, therefore, superior.  Judge Alsup says their argument
falls short.

Unquestionably, the typical value used to measure Section 11
damages is the stock's price on the day a plaintiff files suit,
and in an open market value is ordinarily synonymous with price.
The State Plaintiffs' Section 11 suit was filed on Feb. 26, 2016,
when the closing price of LendingClub's stock was $8.41 per share.
The day the federal suit was filed, May 16, 2016, LendingClub's
stock closed at $3.94 per share.  Using the State Plaintiffs'
experts' own calculations, the State Plaintiffs would still
recover $.39 less per share than WPERP, which amounts to
approximately $26.6 million greater recovery for WPERP.
Accordingly, Judge Alsup concludes that the federal class action
remains the superior forum with respect to maximizing recoverable
damages.

In addition, the State Plaintiffs' suggestion that it would be
more efficient and effective to sever the Section 11 claims from
this action does not hold water.  WPERP has shown that moving
forward with its Section 11 claims as the Lead Plaintiff in the
federal forum is the superior means for resolving this dispute.

The WPERP and the underwriter Defendants seek to include
additional language not previously in the proposed class
definition.  The other Defendants do not object to this
modification.  Judge Alsup accepted this modification.

Accordingly, the class definition is modified as all persons and
entities who purchased or otherwise acquired the common stock of
LendingClub during the period from Dec. 11, 2014 through June 8,
2016, inclusive, and were damaged thereby, including those who
purchased LendingClub common stock traceable to the Registration
Statement.  Excluded from the Class are short sellers who incurred
losses during the class period as a result of their short sales,
defendants and their families, the officers, directors, and
affiliates of defendants, at all relevant times, members of their
immediate families and their legal representatives, heirs,
successors or assigns, and any entity in which defendants have or
had a controlling interest.

Judge Alsup also concludes that no injunction is necessary at this
juncture and therefore WPERP's motion to enjoin the state action
will be denied.  Nevertheless, given the stage of proceedings and
various uncertainties and contingencies, his order is without
prejudice to the future imposition of an injunction or stay of
either the state or federal action should it become necessary.

For the reasons stated, Judge Alsup conditionally granted the
State Plaintiffs' motion to intervene and (ii) granted WPERP's
motion for class certification.  He appointed WPERP as the Lead
Plaintiff, and Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP as the Class
Counsel.  The Judge denied without prejudice to renewal WPERP's
motion for an injunction.

Within 21 calendar days of the date of entry of his Order, the
Judge ordered that all parties to both the state and federal
actions will submit jointly an agreed-upon form of notice, which
must incorporate the information set forth regarding the parallel
actions.  WPERP along with the Defendants must also submit a joint
proposal for dissemination of the notice, and the timeline for
opting out of the action.  The Plaintiff must bear the costs of
the notice, which will include mailing by first-class mail.
Furthermore, all parties (including intervenors) are ordered to
appear before Chief Magistrate Judge Spero for the Nov. 28, 2017
settlement conference.  The Defendants will not negotiate a
settlement with the State Plaintiffs on any claims that are not in
that action.

A full-text copy of the Court's Oct. 20, 2017 Order is available
at https://is.gd/48jRIp from Leagle.com.

Steeve Evellard, Plaintiff, represented by Jeremy A. Lieberman --
jalieberman@pomlaw.com -- Pomerantz Grossman Hufford Dahlstrom &
Gross LLP, pro hac vice.

Steeve Evellard, Plaintiff, represented by Jennifer Pafiti --
jpafiti@pomlaw.com -- Pomerantz LLP.

Nicole Wertz, Plaintiff, represented by Jacob Allen Walker --
jake@blockesq.com -- Block & Leviton LLP & Lesley Elizabeth Weaver
-- lweaver@bfalaw.com -- Bleichmar Fonti & Auld LLP.

LendingClub Corporation, Defendant, represented by David Michael
Grable -- davegrable@quinnemanuel.com -- Quinn Emanuel Urquhart
Sullivan LLP, Joseph Caldwell Sarles --
josephsarles@quinnemanuel.com -- Quinn Emanuel Urquhart Oliver and
Hedges, Diane M. Doolittle -- dianedoolittle@quinnemanuel.com --
Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan, LLP, John Mark Potter --
johnpotter@quinnemanuel.com -- Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan,
LLP, Kyle Kenneth Batter -- kylebatter@quinnemanuel.com -- Quinn
Emanuel Urquhart Sullivan, Robert Patrick Vance, Jr. --
bobbyvance@quinnemanuel.com -- Quinn Emanuel Urquhart and
Sullivan, LLP & Victoria Blohm Parker --
vickiparker@quinnemanuel.com -- Quinn Emanuel Urquhart Sullivan,
LLP.

Renaud LaPlanche, Defendant, represented by Scott Alexander
Edelman, Milbank Tweed, pro hac vice, Adam Joshua Fee, Milbank
Tweed, pro hac vice, Lisa Marie Damm Northrup, Milbank, Tweed,
Hadley and McCloy LLP, Robert John Liubicic, Milbank Tweed & Sarah
L. Rothenberg, Milbank, Tweed, Hadley McCloy LLP.

Carrie L Dolan, Defendant, represented by Charlene Sachi Shimada -
- charlene.shimada@morganlewis.com -- Morgan, Lewis & Bockius LLP,
Lucy Han Wang -- lucy.wang@morganlewis.com -- Morgan, Lewis &
Bockius LLP & Susan Diane Resley -- susan.resley@morganlewis.com -
- Morgan Lewis & Bockius.

Daniel T. Ciporin, Defendant, represented by David Michael Grable,
Quinn Emanuel Urquhart Sullivan LLP, Diane M. Doolittle, Quinn
Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan, LLP, John Mark Potter, Quinn Emanuel
Urquhart & Sullivan, LLP, Joseph Caldwell Sarles, Quinn Emanuel
Urquhart Oliver and Hedges, Kyle Kenneth Batter, Quinn Emanuel
Urquhart Sullivan, Robert Patrick Vance, Jr., Quinn Emanuel
Urquhart and Sullivan, LLP & Victoria Blohm Parker, Quinn Emanuel
Urquhart Sullivan, LLP.

Jeffrey Crowe, Defendant, represented by David Michael Grable,
Quinn Emanuel Urquhart Sullivan LLP, Diane M. Doolittle, Quinn
Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan, LLP, John Mark Potter, Quinn Emanuel
Urquhart & Sullivan, LLP, Joseph Caldwell Sarles, Quinn Emanuel
Urquhart Oliver and Hedges, Kyle Kenneth Batter, Quinn Emanuel
Urquhart Sullivan, Robert Patrick Vance, Jr., Quinn Emanuel
Urquhart and Sullivan, LLP & Victoria Blohm Parker, Quinn Emanuel
Urquhart Sullivan, LLP.

Rebecca Lynn, Defendant, represented by David Michael Grable,
Quinn Emanuel Urquhart Sullivan LLP, Diane M. Doolittle, Quinn
Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan, LLP, John Mark Potter, Quinn Emanuel
Urquhart & Sullivan, LLP, Joseph Caldwell Sarles, Quinn Emanuel
Urquhart Oliver and Hedges, Kyle Kenneth Batter, Quinn Emanuel
Urquhart Sullivan, Robert Patrick Vance, Jr., Quinn Emanuel
Urquhart and Sullivan, LLP & Victoria Blohm Parker, Quinn Emanuel
Urquhart Sullivan, LLP.

John J. Mack, Defendant, represented by David Michael Grable,
Quinn Emanuel Urquhart Sullivan LLP, Diane M. Doolittle, Quinn
Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan, LLP, John Mark Potter, Quinn Emanuel
Urquhart & Sullivan, LLP, Joseph Caldwell Sarles, Quinn Emanuel
Urquhart Oliver and Hedges, Kyle Kenneth Batter, Quinn Emanuel
Urquhart Sullivan, Robert Patrick Vance, Jr., Quinn Emanuel
Urquhart and Sullivan, LLP & Victoria Blohm Parker, Quinn Emanuel
Urquhart Sullivan, LLP.

Mary Meeker, Defendant, represented by David Michael Grable, Quinn
Emanuel Urquhart Sullivan LLP, Diane M. Doolittle, Quinn Emanuel
Urquhart & Sullivan, LLP, John Mark Potter, Quinn Emanuel Urquhart
& Sullivan, LLP, Joseph Caldwell Sarles, Quinn Emanuel Urquhart
Oliver and Hedges, Kyle Kenneth Batter, Quinn Emanuel Urquhart
Sullivan, Robert Patrick Vance, Jr., Quinn Emanuel Urquhart and
Sullivan, LLP & Victoria Blohm Parker, Quinn Emanuel Urquhart
Sullivan, LLP.

John C. (Hans) Morris, Defendant, represented by David Michael
Grable, Quinn Emanuel Urquhart Sullivan LLP, Diane M. Doolittle,
Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan, LLP, John Mark Potter, Quinn
Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan, LLP, Joseph Caldwell Sarles, Quinn
Emanuel Urquhart Oliver and Hedges, Kyle Kenneth Batter, Quinn
Emanuel Urquhart Sullivan, Robert Patrick Vance, Jr., Quinn
Emanuel Urquhart and Sullivan, LLP & Victoria Blohm Parker, Quinn
Emanuel Urquhart Sullivan, LLP.

Lawrence H. Summers, Defendant, represented by David Michael
Grable, Quinn Emanuel Urquhart Sullivan LLP, Diane M. Doolittle,
Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan, LLP, John Mark Potter, Quinn
Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan, LLP, Joseph Caldwell Sarles, Quinn
Emanuel Urquhart Oliver and Hedges, Kyle Kenneth Batter, Quinn
Emanuel Urquhart Sullivan, Robert Patrick Vance, Jr., Quinn
Emanuel Urquhart and Sullivan, LLP & Victoria Blohm Parker, Quinn
Emanuel Urquhart Sullivan, LLP.


LENNY & LARRY'S: Judge Narrows Claims in Label Fraud Class Action
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Rick Archer, writing for Law360, reports that an Illinois federal
judge on Oct. 12 trimmed back a putative class action against a
cookie maker, saying the consumers can't press their allegations
of nutritional label fraud nationwide.

While U.S. District Court Judge Robert Gettleman said Lenny &
Larry's Inc. can't escape the case entirely because the three
plaintiffs didn't say what size cookies they bought or provide
purchase dates, he said they couldn't press claims for cookie
flavors they didn't buy and said conflicting state laws mean they
can't bring claims in 50 states for purchases made in three.

"Defendant argues persuasively that applying the warranty, unjust
enrichment and misrepresentation laws of 50 different states, or
even the five states that comprise the multistate class, is
unmanageable on a classwide basis because those states' laws
conflict in material ways; that is, the 'essential requirements to
establish a claim and the types of relief or remedies available'
vary significantly," he said.

The claims concern the "Complete Cookie" brand manufactured and
sold by Lenny & Larry's, a California-based company.  The three
putative class action plaintiffs argued the cookies' labels
violate the federal Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act and a variety of
state consumer protection laws by understating the calorie,
carbohydrate, fat and sugar content and both overstating the
protein content and miscalculating the percent daily protein
share.

The plaintiffs had sought certification of a national class, a
multistate class for purchasers in California, Illinois, Missouri,
New Jersey and New York, and individual subclasses for the
plaintiffs' home states of Illinois, Michigan and Pennsylvania.

Judge Gettleman, however, dismissed the claims for the national
and multistate classes, saying he was persuaded by defense
arguments -- which included five pages of specific examples --
that dismissal was warranted by conflicting state laws concerning
warranties, unjust enrichment, and misrepresentation.

"It's pretty clear there are significant differences," Robert
Wallan -- robert.wallan@pillsburylaw.com -- of Pillsbury Winthrop
Shaw Pittman LLP, one of the counsel for Lenny & Larry's, said in
a phone interview on Oct. 16.  "There are differences in statute
of limitations, there are differences in reliance."

He said there have been a number of recent dismissals of class
action claims on similar grounds, including a March dismissal his
firm won for toilet-parts maker Fluidmaster.

"This seems to be a trend," he said.

Judge Gettleman also agreed with the defense argument that the
plaintiffs only claimed to have purchased five of the 17 varieties
of cookies sold under the Complete Cookie brand and did not have
standing to make claims on behalf of those who had purchased other
varieties.

"Although it has not spoken directly on the substantial similarity
test, the Seventh Circuit's position that plaintiffs cannot
'piggyback on the injuries of the unnamed class members' in order
to acquire standing 'through the back door of a class action' is
clear," Judge Gettleman said.

However, he rejected the defense argument that the entire pleading
was insufficiently specific under Rule 9(b) -- which stipulates
that fraud claims must "state with particularity the circumstances
constituting fraud or mistake" -- and should be dismissed because
the plaintiffs had only provided the label from a single cookie
flavor as evidence and they had failed to specify which of the
multiple cookie sizes they had purchased or the exact date of
sale.

"The court declines to adopt defendant's hyper-technical
interpretation of Rule 9(b)," he said.

The plaintiffs are represented by Edward A. Wallace and Adam Prom
of Wexler Wallace LLP, Nick Suciu III of Barbat Mansour & Suciu
PLLC and Steven Wasserman, Kathryn S. Marshall and Karin R.
Leavitt of the Wasserman Law Group.

Lenny & Larry's is represented by David M. Schultz --
dschultz@hinshawlaw.com -- Todd P. Stelter --
tstelter@hinshawlaw.com -- and Brittney N. Cato --
bcato@hinshawlaw.com -- of Hinshaw & Culbertson LLP and Robert L.
Wallan, Kimberly L. Buffington and Ryan J. Vanderford
-- ryan.vanderford@pillsburylaw.com -- of Pillsbury Winthrop Shaw
Pittman LLP.

The case is Lori Cowen et. al. v. Lenny & Larry's Inc., Case No.
17-cv-1530 (N.D. Ill.). [GN]


LINEAGE LOGISTICS: $149K "Bailes" Settlement Has Final Approval
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the case captioned BRYAN BAILES, Individually and on Behalf of
All Others, Plaintiff, v. LINEAGE LOGISTICS, LLC, Defendant, Case
No. 15-2457-DDC-TJJ (D. Kan.), Judge Daniel D. Crabtree of the
U.S. District Court for the District of Kansas granted the
parties' Joint Motion for Order for Final Class Certification and
Approval of Class Action Settlement, and the Plaintiff's renewed
Motion for Attorney Fees and Costs.

Plaintiff Bailes brings the lawsuit on behalf of himself and
putative class members alleging that the Defendant violated the
Fair Credit Reporting Act ("FCRA").  The parties met, negotiated,
and agreed to a compromise.  On May 9, 2016, they asked the Court
to approve the result of their efforts: a proposed class
settlement.  On Aug. 19, 2016, the Court denied their motion and
gave the parties time to renegotiate.

The parties met, negotiated, and agreed to a new proposed class
settlement.  On Dec. 15, 2016, the Court approved the new proposed
settlement agreement and certified the settlement class.  It later
approved the parties' proposed notice and notice plan.

The parties filed their Joint Motion for Order for Final Approval
of Class Action Settlement on April 19, 2017, and the Plaintiff
filed a Motion for Attorney Fees and Costs the same day.  The
court held a final fairness hearing on April 25, 2017.  On June 6,
2017, the Court denied both motions without prejudice.

So, on July 28, 2017, the parties filed a Joint Motion for Order
for Final Class Certification and Approval of Class Action
Settlement.  That same day, the Plaintiff filed a renewed Motion
for Attorney Fees and Costs.

Once the Court granted the parties' motion for preliminary
approval, the settlement administrator, Analytics Consulting, LLC,
began sending out the Court-approved notice to potential class
members.  The parties initially expected the class to consist of
3,400 members, but the actual number decreased slightly to 3,356.
After the initial mailing, the settlement administrator ran a skip
trace and re-mailed notices to 694 class members.  The
administrator then ran a second skip trace, and re-mailed notices
to 29 class members.  All told, the parties were unable to locate
425 of the 3,356 class members.  Of the 2,931 members who received
notice, none opted out and none objected.

The parties have agreed to settle the class' claims for a total of
$149,205.  They propose to distribute this sum in this fashion:
attorneys' fees and costs of $49,237 (should the Court approve the
amount); settlement administrator costs of $16,500; a $2,500
incentive award for Bryan Bailes, the Named Plaintiff (should the
Court approve the amount); and then the remainder, $80,968, to be
distributed among the 2,931 class members to whom notice was sent
and not returned as undeliverable.  So, each class member who
received notice will recover about $27.62.  If finally approved,
the settlement agreement requires the administrator to mail
settlement checks to all class members to whom notice was sent and
not returned as undeliverable. Any checks not cashed within 120
days of issuance will pass to Goodwill Industries International,
Inc. as a cy pres beneficiary.

In addition to the monetary considerations detailed, the parties
have agreed not to publicize the settlement.  The Plaintiff and
all class members also have agreed to release all claims they may
have against the Defendant based on the Plaintiff's First Amended
Complaint.

Because he finds the Plaintiff's fee request of 33% of the common
fund reasonable under the percentage-of-the-fund method and the
lodestar method confirms the fee's reasonableness, Judge Crabtree
granted the Plaintiff's Motion for Attorney Fees and Costs.
The Judge also granted the parties' Joint Motion for Order for
Final Approval of Class Action Settlement.  He directed the
parties to implement and consummate the Class Settlement according
to the terms and provisions of the Agreement.  The claims against
the Defendants on behalf of the Settlement Class are dismissed
with prejudice and without costs to any party, except as otherwise
provided in the Order.

A full-text copy of the Court's Oct. 20, 2017 Memorandum and Order
is available at https://is.gd/v49EiJ from Leagle.com.

Bryan Bailes, Plaintiff, represented by Charles Jason Brown --
brown@brownandwatkins.com -- Brown and Watkins LLC.

Bryan Bailes, Plaintiff, represented by Jayson A. Watkins --
watkins@brownandwatkins.com -- Brown and Watkins LLC.

Lineage Logistics, LLC, Defendant, represented by Jeffrey M. Place
--jplace@littler.com -- Littler Mendelson, PC & Uzoamaka Nwonwu --
unwonwu@littler.com -- Littler Mendelson, PC.


LOS ANGELES, CA: Class Certification Sought in "Arellano" Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Peter Arellano and Jose Reza, two of the Plaintiffs in the lawsuit
titled YOUTH JUSTICE COALITION, a non-profit organization; PETER
ARELLANO and JOSE REZA, individuals, for themselves and on behalf
of a class of similarly-situated individuals v. CITY OF LOS
ANGELES; DOES 1 through 10, in their official and individual
capacities, Case No. 2:16-cv-07932-VAP-RAO (C.D. Cal.), move for
an order certifying a class defined as:

     All persons currently, or who are in the future, subject to
     a Los Angeles Gang Injunction who were not named as
     defendants in or otherwise parties to the civil nuisance
     abatement action to obtain that injunction, and who do not
     have contempt proceedings for violation of an injunction
     currently proceeding against them.

The Named Plaintiffs also ask the Court to appoint them as class
representatives and appoint their counsel as class counsel.

The Court will commence a hearing on November 27, 2017, at 2:00
p.m., to consider the Motion.

A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=nn2HfbOG

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Peter Bibring, Esq.
          Melanie P. Ochoa, Esq.
          Aditi Fruitwala, Esq.
          ACLU FOUNDATION OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA
          1313 West Eighth Street
          Los Angeles, CA 90017
          Telephone: (213) 977-9500
          Facsimile: (213) 977-5299
          E-mail: pbibring@aclusocal.org
                  mpochoa@aclusocal.org
                  afruitwala@aclusocal.org

               - and -

          Jacob S. Kreilkamp, Esq.
          Laura D. Smolowe, Esq.
          Maria Jhai, Esq.
          MUNGER, TOLLES & OLSON LLP
          355 South Grand Avenue, Thirty-Fifth Floor
          Los Angeles, CA 90071-1560
          Telephone: (213) 683-9100
          Facsimile: (213) 687-3702
          E-mail: jacob.kreilkamp@mto.com
                  laura.smolowe@mto.com
                  maria.jhai@mto.com

               - and -

          Ankur Mandhania, Esq.
          MUNGER, TOLLES & OLSON LLP
          560 Mission Street, Twenty-Seventh Floor
          San Francisco, CA 94105-2907
          Telephone: (415) 512-4000
          Facsimile: (415) 512-4077
          E-mail: ankur.mandhania@mto.com

               - and -

          Adele M. El-Khouri, Esq.
          MUNGER, TOLLES & OLSON LLP
          1155 F Street, NW, 7th Floor
          Washington, DC 20004
          Telephone: (202) 220-1100
          Facsimile: (202) 220-2300
          E-mail: adele.el-khouri@mto.com

               - and -

          Joshua Green, Esq.
          Sean Garcia-Leys, Esq.
          THE CONNIE RICE INSTITUTE FOR URBAN PEACE
          1910 West Sunset Boulevard, Suite 800
          Los Angeles, CA 90026
          Telephone: (213) 404-0124
          Facsimile: (213) 402-2843
          E-mail: jgreen@urbanpeaceinstitute.org
                  sgarcialeys@urbanpeaceinstitute.org


M&T BANK: Trial in Securities Case to Begin June 2018
-----------------------------------------------------
M&T Bank Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended
June 30, 2017, that trial is scheduled to begin on June 18, 2018,
in the case, In Re Wilmington Trust Securities Litigation (U.S.
District Court, District of Delaware, Case No. 10-CV-0990-SLR).

Beginning on November 18, 2010, a series of parties, purporting to
be class representatives, commenced a putative class action
lawsuit against Wilmington Trust Corporation, alleging that
Wilmington Trust Corporation's financial reporting and securities
filings were in violation of securities laws. The cases were
consolidated and Wilmington Trust Corporation moved to dismiss.
The Court issued an order denying Wilmington Trust Corporation's
motion to dismiss on March 20, 2014. Fact discovery commenced. On
April 13, 2016, the Court issued an order staying fact discovery
in the case pending completion of the trial in U.S. v. Wilmington
Trust Corp., et al. On September 19, 2016, the plaintiffs filed a
motion to modify the stay of discovery in this matter to allow for
additional, limited discovery. On December 19, 2016, the Court
issued an order lifting the existing stay in its entirety. Trial
is scheduled to begin on June 18, 2018.


MAGNACHIP SEMICON: Ct. Denies Prelim. Approval of 2nd Class Deal
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case captioned KEITH THOMAS, et al., Plaintiffs, v.
MAGNACHIP SEMICONDUCTOR CORP., et al., Defendants, Case No. 14-cv-
01160-JST (N.D. Cal.), Judge Jon S. Tigar of the U.S. District
Court for the Northern District of California denied the
Plaintiffs' unopposed motion for preliminary approval of a class
action settlement with Avenue Capital, and granted the parties'
motion to file under seal a confidential supplemental agreement.

Plaintiff Richard Hayes filed the initial complaint in this
action.  The Court later entered an order appointing Plaintiff
Thomas as the Lead Plaintiff, Pomerantz LLP as the Lead
Plaintiff's Counsel, and Glancy Prongay & Murray LLP as the Liason
Counsel.

On June 26, 2015, the Plaintiffs filed the operative Third Amended
Complaint ("TAC").  Five sets of the Defendants filed a motion to
dismiss the Plaintiffs' TAC.

In February 2016, the Plaintiffs settled with all the Defendants
except Avenue Capital ("First Settlement").  The Court granted
final approval of the First Settlement on Nov. 21, 2016.  Under
the First Settlement, the Individual Defendants paid $23.5 million
dollars into the Settlement Fund, a figure that represented 15% of
the Plaintiffs' likely recovery at trial.  In addition to the
distribution to the class, the Settlement provided additional
benefits that assisted the Settlement Class in the ongoing
litigation against Avenue Capital; namely (i) accelerated
production of documents translated from Korean, which otherwise
would have cost the Class several million dollars to translate;
and (ii) continued availability of Settling Defendants (many of
whom are foreign residents) for discovery requests from Plaintiffs
as if they remained parties to the Action.

Following the First Settlement, the Plaintiffs continued to
litigate their case against Avenue Capital, using the discovery
benefits outlined above.  On July 8, 2016, the Plaintiffs moved
for certification of their remaining claims against Avenue
Capital.  On Dec. 22, 2016, the Court granted the motion, but
limited the Class Period to Feb. 1, 2012 to March 11, 2014.  On
Jan. 5, 2017, the Plaintiffs moved to certify a second class of
shareholders who purchased MagnaChip stock during a proposed class
period beginning March 12, 2014 and ending Feb. 12, 2015 with
respect to claims remaining against Avenue Capital.  The Court
struck the Plaintiffs' motion to certify a second class.

Following several full days of mediation, the Plaintiffs and
Avenue Capital reached a settlement ("Second Settlement").  On
July 6, 2017, the Plaintiffs moved for preliminary approval of the
Second Settlement on behalf of the class certified by the Court's
Dec. 22, 2016 Order.

The Second Settlement resolves all claims between Avenue Capital
and the Class, defined as all persons who purchased or otherwise
acquired MagnaChip common stock between Feb. 1, 2012 and March 11,
2014, inclusive.

Under the Settlement, Avenue Capital has agreed to pay $6.2
million dollars into the Settlement Fund within 30 days of the
entry of a preliminary approval order.  The following amounts will
be subtracted from the Settlement Amount: (i) taxes and tax
expenses; (ii) notice costs; (iii) attorneys' fees and expenses;
(iv) service awards to the class representatives; and (v) other
fees and expenses authorized by the Court.

The class members who submit timely claims will receive payments
on a pro rata basis based on the date(s) class members purchased
and sold MagnaChip shares as well as the total number and amount
of claims filed.  No distribution will be made to Authorized
Claimants who would otherwise receive a distribution of less than
$10.  Any Settlement Funds not distributed to the class will be
paid in equal amounts to two cy pres recipients: Bay Area Legal
Aid and the Institute of Law and Economic Policy.  These two
organizations were the cy pres recipients for the First Settlement
as well.

The class members will be informed of the Second Settlement
through the Plaintiffs' Notice Plan, which takes into account that
all Class Members already received notice of the Settlement
website in connection with the First Settlement, and that
thousands of Class members have already provided their
transactional information in connection with that Settlement.  The
class members who have already submitted a valid Proof of Claim to
the Claims Administrator in connection with the First Settlement
need not resubmit a claim form or evidence of their transactions
in MagnaChip stock.  Nevertheless, a Proof of Claim form will be
made available to the class members who have not previously
submitted their transactional data.

The Plaintiffs have also stated they intend to seek attorneys'
fees Attorneys' Fees in an amount not to exceed 25% of the Gross
Settlement Fund, an award of Expenses of no more than $1,100,000,
and an Award to the class representatives not to exceed $2,000
each.

MagnaChip reserves the right to terminate the settlement agreement
if, prior to the Settlement Hearing, the persons who otherwise
would be Settlement Class Members have filed with the Court valid
and timely requests for exclusion from the Settlement Class and
such persons in the aggregate purchased MagnaChip Securities
during the Settlement Class Period in an amount greater than the
amounts specified in a separate Supplemental Agreement between the
Settling Parties ("Supplemental Agreement").

Here, the parties seek to file under seal a confidential
Supplemental Agreement as part of a class action settlement for
which they seek preliminary approval.  They contend that the
conditions under which Avenue Capital may terminate the
settlement, in particular the threshold number of opt-out
exclusions by class members, must remain confidential in order to
avoid enabling one or more stockholders to use this knowledge to
insist on a higher payout for themselves on threat of breaking up
the Settlement.  This same concern motivated a similar motion to
seal in connection with the First Settlement.

Judge Tigar agrees.  There are compelling reasons to keep this
information confidential in order to prevent third parties from
utilizing it for the improper purpose of obstructing the
settlement and obtaining higher payouts.  The parties cite to
several other courts that have reached a similar conclusion.
Accordingly, the Judge granted the Motion to File Under Seal.

Without more detailed information regarding the Plaintiffs'
expected recovery, the Judge is not in the position to assess
whether the settlement falls within the range of possible
approval.  The Plaintiffs have not even attempted to provide
hypothetical scenarios that could produce various expected
recoverable damages to measure against the proposed settlement
amount.  Given the lack of information in the Plaintiffs' motion,
he cannot determine, even preliminarily, whether the amount
offered in settlement is adequate.  Accordingly, Judge Tigar
denied the Plaintiffs' motion for preliminary approval based on an
inability to determine whether the settlement is adequate, and
based on the apparent failure to comply with CAFA's notice
requirements.  A renewed motion for preliminary approval is due by
Nov. 10, 2017.

Because the proposed Notice contains all of the information
required by Rule 23(c)(2)(B), the Judge preliminarily approved the
Notice Plan.  And because the allocation plan properly attempts to
limits administrative costs by using information already obtained
from Class members during the First Settlement, he preliminarily
approved the allocation plan.

A full-text copy of the Court's Oct. 20, 2017 Order is available
at https://is.gd/EglWqz from Leagle.com.

Richard Hayes, Plaintiff, represented by Jeremy A. Lieberman --
jalieberman@pomlaw.com -- Pomerantz LLP, pro hac vice.

Richard Hayes, Keith Thomas, Plaintiffs, represented by Lionel Z.
Glancy -- lglancy@glancylaw.com -- Glancy Prongay & Murray LLP,
Joshua B. Silverman -- jbsilverman@pomlaw.com -- Pomerantz LLP,
pro hac vice, Laurence M. Rosen -- lrosen@rosenlegal.com -- The
Rosen Law Firm, P.A., Lesley F. Portnoy -- lportnoy@glancylaw.com
-- Glancy Prongay & Murray LLP, Marc Ian Gross --
migross@pomlaw.com -- Pomerantz LLP, pro hac vice, Michael J.
Wernke -- mjwernke@pomlaw.com -- Pomerantz LLP, pro hac vice,
Patrick V. Dahlstrom -- pdahlstrom@pomlaw.com -- Pomerantz LLP,
pro hac vice, Phillip C. Kim -- pkim@rosenlegal.com -- The Rosen
Law Firm, P.A., Robert Vincent Prongay -- rprongay@glancylaw.com -
- Glancy Prongay & Murray LLP & Sunny September Sarkis --
ssarkis@rgrdlaw.com -- Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP.

Keith Thomas, Plaintiff, represented by Jeremy A. Lieberman,
Pomerantz LLP, pro hac vice, Lionel Z. Glancy, Glancy Prongay &
Murray LLP, Robert Vincent Prongay, Glancy Prongay & Murray LLP,
Jonathan Stern, Rosen Law Firm, pro hac vice, Joshua B. Silverman,
Pomerantz LLP, pro hac vice, Laurence M. Rosen, The Rosen Law
Firm, P.A., Lesley F. Portnoy, Glancy Prongay & Murray LLP, Louis
C. Ludwig, Pomerantz LLP, pro hac vice, Marc Ian Gross, Pomerantz
LLP, pro hac vice, Michael J. Wernke, Pomerantz LLP, pro hac vice,
Omar Jafri, Pomerantz LLP, pro hac vice, Patrick V. Dahlstrom,
Pomerantz LLP, pro hac vice, Phillip C. Kim, The Rosen Law Firm,
P.A., Sunny S. Sarkis, Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP & Yu Shi,
The Rosen Law Firm PA, pro hac vice.

Herb Smith, Plaintiff, represented by Jeremy A. Lieberman,
Pomerantz LLP, pro hac vice, Lionel Z. Glancy, Glancy Prongay &
Murray LLP, Marc Ian Gross, Pomerantz LLP, pro hac vice, Joshua B.
Silverman, Pomerantz LLP, pro hac vice, Laurence M. Rosen, The
Rosen Law Firm, P.A., Louis C. Ludwig, Pomerantz LLP, pro hac
vice, Michael J. Wernke, Pomerantz LLP, pro hac vice, Omar Jafri,
Pomerantz LLP, pro hac vice, Patrick V. Dahlstrom, Pomerantz LLP,
pro hac vice, Robert Vincent Prongay, Glancy Prongay & Murray LLP,
Sunny S. Sarkis, Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP & Yu Shi, The
Rosen Law Firm PA, pro hac vice.

Magnachip Semiconductor Corp., Defendant, represented by Daniel J.
Kramer -- dkramer@paulweiss.com -- Paul Weiss Rifkind Wharton &
Garrison LLP, pro hac vice, Robert N Kravitz --
rkravitz@paulweiss.com -- Paul Weiss Rifkind Wharton & Garrison
LLP, pro hac vice, Alex Young K. Oh -- aoh@paulweiss.com -- Paul
Weiss Rifkind Wharton & Garrison LLP, pro hac vice, Jacqueline P.
Rubin -- jrubin@paulweiss.com -- Paul Weiss Rifkind Wharton &
Garrison LLP, pro hac vice, John C. Tang -- jctang@jonesday.com --
Jones Day, Kelsey Israel-Trummel -- kitrummel@jonesday.com --
Jones Day & Meredith A. Arfa -- marfa@paulweiss.com -- Paul Weiss
Rifkind Wharton & Garrison LLP, pro hac vice.

Margaret Sakai, Defendant, represented by Kimberly Perrotta Cole -
- kimberly.cole@kobrekim.com -- Kobre & Kim LLP, pro hac vice,
Michael Sangyun Kim --michael.kim@kobrekim.com -- Kobre & Kim LLP,
pro hac vice & Michael Fang Peng -- michael.peng@kobrekim.com --
Kobre & Kim LLP.

R. Douglas Norby, Defendant, represented by Daniel J. Kramer --
dkramer@paulweiss.com -- Paul Weiss Rifkind Wharton & Garrison
LLP, Jacqueline P. Rubin -- jrubin@paulweiss.com -- Paul Weiss
Rifkind Wharton & Garrison LLP, Robert N. Kravitz --
rkravitz@paulweiss.com -- Paul Weiss Rifkind Wharton & Garrison
LLP, Alex Young K. Oh -- aoh@paulweiss.com -- Paul Weiss Rifkind
Wharton & Garrison LLP & Matthew D. Stachel --
mstachel@paulweiss.com -- Paul Weiss Rifkind Wharton and Garrison
LLP.

Ilbok Lee, Defendant, represented by Daniel J. Kramer, Paul Weiss
Rifkind Wharton & Garrison LLP, Jacqueline P. Rubin, Paul Weiss
Rifkind Wharton & Garrison LLP, Robert N. Kravitz, Paul Weiss
Rifkind Wharton & Garrison LLP, Alex Young K. Oh, Paul Weiss
Rifkind Wharton & Garrison LLP & Matthew D. Stachel, Paul Weiss
Rifkind Wharton & Garrison LLP.

Nader Tavakoli, Defendant, represented by Daniel J. Fetterman --
dfetterman@kasowitz.com -- Kasowitz, Benson, Torres & Friedman
LLP, pro hac vice, Jason Takenouchi -- jtakenouchi@kasowitz.com --
Kasowitz, Benson, Torres & Friedman LLP, Brian Choi, Kasowitz
Benson Torres & Friedman LLP, pro hac vice & Trevor Joseph Welch -
- twelch@kasowitz.com -- Kasowitz Benson Torres & Friedman LLP,
pro hac vice.

Randal Klein, Defendant, represented by Ali R. Rabbani --
arabbani@akingump.com -- Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld LLP,
Andrew S. Jick -- ajick@akingump.com -- Akin Gump Strauss Hauer &
Feld LLP, Douglas Maynard -- dmaynard@akingump.com -- Akin Gump
Strauss Hauer & Feld LLP, pro hac vice, John C. Murphy --
jmurphy@akingump.com -- Akin Gump Strauss Hauer Feld LLP, pro hac
vice, Michael Asaro -- masaro@akingump.com -- Akin Gump Strauss
Hauer & Feld LLP, pro hac vice, Neal Ross Marder --
nmarder@akingump.com -- Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld LLP, Peter
Ian Altman -- paltman@akingump.com -- Akin Gump Strauss Hauer &
Feld LLP, Stephen Michael Baldini -- sbaldini@akingump.com -- Akin
Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld LLP, pro hac vice & Sydney Spector --
sspector@akingump.com -- Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld LLP, pro
hac vice.

Michael Elkins, Defendant, represented by Ali R. Rabbani, Akin
Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld LLP, Andrew S. Jick, Akin Gump Strauss
Hauer & Feld LLP, Douglas Maynard, Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld
LLP, pro hac vice, John C. Murphy, Akin Gump Strauss Hauer Feld
LLP, pro hac vice, Michael Asaro, Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld
LLP, pro hac vice, Neal Ross Marder, Akin Gump Strauss Hauer &
Feld LLP, Peter Ian Altman, Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld LLP,
Stephen Michael Baldini, Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld LLP, pro
hac vice & Sydney Spector, Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld LLP, pro
hac vice.

Avenue Capital Management II, L.P., Defendant, represented by Ali
R. Rabbani, Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld LLP, Andrew S. Jick,
Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld LLP, Douglas Maynard, Akin Gump
Strauss Hauer & Feld LLP, pro hac vice, John C. Murphy, Akin Gump
Strauss Hauer Feld LLP, pro hac vice, Michael Asaro, Akin Gump
Strauss Hauer & Feld LLP, pro hac vice, Neal Ross Marder, Akin
Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld LLP, Peter Ian Altman, Akin Gump Strauss
Hauer & Feld LLP, Stephen Michael Baldini, Akin Gump Strauss Hauer
& Feld LLP, pro hac vice & Sydney Spector, Akin Gump Strauss Hauer
& Feld LLP, pro hac vice.

Barclays Capital Inc., Defendant, represented by Matthew Rawlinson
-- matt.rawlinson@lw.com -- Latham & Watkins LLP, James E. Brandt
-- james.brandt@lw.com -- Latham & Watkins LLP, pro hac vice &
Jason C. Hegt -- jason.hegt@lw.com -- Latham & Watkins LLP, pro
hac vice.

Deutsche Bank Securities Inc., Defendant, represented by Matthew
Rawlinson, Latham & Watkins LLP, James E. Brandt, Latham & Watkins
LLP, pro hac vice & Jason C. Hegt, Latham & Watkins LLP, pro hac
vice.


MANNKIND CORPORATION: Continues to Defend Class Suit in Israel
--------------------------------------------------------------
One class action lawsuit is pending against MannKind Corporation
in Israel, according to the Company's Form 10-Q Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period
ended June 30, 2017.

Following the public announcement of Sanofi's election to
terminate the Sanofi License Agreement and the subsequent decline
in our stock price, two motions were submitted to the district
court at Tel Aviv, Economic Department for the certification of a
class action against MannKind and certain of our officers and
directors. In general, the complaints alleged that MannKind and
certain of our officers and directors violated Israeli and U.S.
securities laws by making materially false and misleading
statements regarding the prospects for Afrezza, thereby
artificially inflating the price of its common stock. The
plaintiffs are seeking monetary damages. In November 2016, the
district court dismissed one of the actions without prejudice. In
the remaining action, the district court has been asked to
determine whether Israeli or U.S. law is applicable before the
case can be certified as a class action but has not yet ruled on
this issue. We will vigorously defend against the claims advanced.

MannKind is a biopharmaceutical company focused on the discovery,
development, and commercialization of therapeutic products for
diseases such as diabetes.


MDL 1720: Class Counsel Order in Antitrust Suit Affirmed
--------------------------------------------------------
In the case captioned IN RE PAYMENT CARD INTERCHANGE FEE AND
MERCHANT DISCOUNT ANTITRUST LITIGATION. This document refers to:
ALL ACTIONS, No. 05-MD-1720 (MKB) (JO) (E.D. N.Y.), Judge Margo K.
Brodie of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New
York affirmed Magistrate Judge James Orenstein's April 2017 Order
denying the Direct Action Plaintiffs' motion to amend the Class
Counsel Order.

A putative class of over 12 million merchants brought antitrust
actions under the Sherman Act, 15 U.S.C. Sections 1 and 2 and
state antitrust laws against Defendants Visa and MasterCard, as
well as various issuing and acquiring banks.  The Plaintiffs
alleged that the Defendants harmed competition and charged
merchants supracompetitive prices by creating unlawful contracts
and engaging in unlawful conspiracies.  In addition, a number of
groups of some of the largest merchants brought individual actions
against the Defendants, which were consolidated together with the
class actions into a multi-district litigation ("MDL") in 2005.
After years of litigation, former District Judge John Gleeson
approved a settlement of the class action.

On June 30, 2016, the Second Circuit vacated the class
certification and settlement of the action, noting the inherent
conflict of interest in the appointment of a single set of counsel
to represent both classes certified for settlement purposes under
the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 23(b)(2) and 23(b)(3).
Following remand, Magistrate Judge Orenstein appointed two sets of
Interim Class Counsel, one each for the putative class under Rule
23(b)(2) and Rule 23(b)(3) ("Class Counsel Order").

On April 5, 2017, the Direct Action Plaintiffs sought to amend the
Class Counsel Order to exclude the Direct Action Plaintiffs from
the proposed (b)(2) class and sought a declaration from the Court
that the Interim Class Counsel has no authority to act on behalf
of the Direct Action Plaintiffs or discuss or negotiate any
settlement on their behalf in a manner that would bind the Direct
Action Plaintiffs.  On April 20, 2017, Magistrate Judge Orenstein
denied Direct Action Plaintiffs' motion to amend the Class Counsel
Order, finding that it was "belated" as a motion for
reconsideration and "premature" if it is seeking relief other than
reconsideration of the Class Counsel Order.

On May 4, 2017, the Direct Action Plaintiffs appealed Magistrate
Judge Orenstein's April 2017 Order denying their motion to amend
the Class Counsel Order.  On appeal, the Direct Action Plaintiffs
repeat the arguments made in their motion to amend the Class
Counsel Order.

They argue that: (1) they have a right to have the attorney of
their choice to represent their interests;(2) the Court should
limit the authority of the Interim Class Counsel pursuant to Rule
23(g)(1)(E) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure to ensure that
they do not represent the Direct Action Plaintiffs; (3) it is
common practice for the individual claims to be pursued alongside
class claims" and there is case law defining classes so as to
exclude entities who were actively pursuing their individual
claims; (4) no court has authorized interim class counsel to
represent individual plaintiffs against their will; and (5) if the
motion is not granted, the Direct Action Plaintiffs' only recourse
would be to oppose a potential settlement down the line, and it is
a waste of resources to deal with an improperly negotiated class
settlement only after the settlement is reached.

Judge Brodie finds that the Direct Action Plaintiffs' motion to
Judge Orenstein to amend the Class Counsel Order was a motion to
reconsider the Class Counsel Order.  Because the motion was made
four months after the Class Counsel Order was issued, instead of
within 14 days as required, the motion is untimely.

Even assuming that the Interim Class Counsel had discretion to
freely define the class, on its face the Class Counsel Order is
inclusive of all potential members of the putative (b)(2) class,
the Judge adds.  Moreover, although the Court commends the Direct
Action Plaintiffs for first trying to resolve the issue with the
Interim Class Counsel before seeking the Court's intervention, as
sophisticated entities, the Direct Action Plaintiffs should have
at least taken steps to preserve their ability to appeal the Class
Counsel Order by notifying the Court of their intent or by seeking
an extension of time to do so, while they attempted to convince
the Interim Class Counsel to exclude them from the (b)(2) class.

Accordingly, Judge Brodie affirmed Judge Orenstein's decision
denying the Direct Action Plaintiffs' motion to amend the Class
Counsel Order as an untimely motion for reconsideration.

A full-text copy of the Court's Oct. 13, 2017 Memorandum and Order
is available at https://is.gd/IJ8L1N from Leagle.com.

In re Payment Card Interchange Fee and Merchant Discount Antitrust
Litigation, represented by Linda P. Nussbaum --
lnussbaum@nussbaumpc.com -- Nussbaum Law Group, PC.

In re Payment Card Interchange Fee and Merchant Discount Antitrust
Litigation, represented by Alexandra S. Bernay -- xanb@rgrdlaw.com
-- Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman & Robbins LLP, pro hac vice,
Benjamin R. Nagin -- BNAGIN@SIDLEY.COM -- Sidley Austin LLP,
Carmen A. Medici -- cmedici@rgrdlaw.com -- Coughlin Stoia Geller
Rudman & Robbins LLP, pro hac vice, D. Cameron Baker, Coughlin
Stoia Geller Rudman & Robbins LLP, David W. Mitchell --
davidm@rgrdlaw.com -- Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman & Robbins LLP,
pro hac vice, Dennis Stewart -- dstewart@hulettharper.com --
Hulett Harper Stewart LLP, Eric H. Grush, Sidley Austin LLP, Gary
R. Carney, Jr. -- gcarney@paulweiss.com -- Paul, Weiss, Rifkind,
Wharton & Garison, LLP, H. Laddie Montague -- hlmontague@bm.net --
Berger & Montague, P.C., Jonah H. Goldstein -- jonahg@rgrdlaw.com
-- Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP, pro hac vice, K. Craig
Wildfang -- KCWildfang@RobinsKaplan.com -- Robins Kaplan L.L.P.,
Merrill G. Davidoff -- mdavidoff@bm.net -- Beger & Montague, P.C.,
Patrick Joseph Coughlin -- patc@rgrdlaw.com -- Robbins Geller,
Ryan W. Marth -- RMarth@RobinsKaplan.com -- Robins Kaplan LLP, pro
hac vice, Stacey Slaughter -- SSlaughter@RobinsKaplan.com --
Robins, Kaplan, Miller & Ciresi L.L.P. & Thomas J. Undlin --
TUndlin@RobinsKaplan.com -- Robins Kaplan, L.L.P..

Mr Gary Friedman, Movant, represented by Gary B. Friedman,
Friedman Law Group LLP.

Eastern Watch Co., Movant, represented by David S. Preminger --
dpreminger@kellerrohrback.com -- Keller Rohrback LLP.

Robert Gardner, Movant, represented by David S. Preminger, Keller
Rohrback LLP.

Karla F. Solis, D.D.S., Inc. d/b/a LA Holistic Dentistry, Movant,
represented by David S. Preminger, Keller Rohrback LLP.

The Perfect Sidekick, LLC, Movant, represented by David S.
Preminger, Keller Rohrback LLP.

Plaintiffs in civil action Jetro Holding, Inc. et al v. Visa
U.S.A., Inc. et al 05-cv-4520 JG-JO, Plaintiff, represented by K.
Craig Wildfang, Robins Kaplan L.L.P., Jeffrey Isaac Shinder --
jshinder@constantinecannon.com -- Constantine Cannon LLP, Richard
J. Kilsheimer -- rkilsheimer@kaplanfox.com -- Kaplan Fox &
Kilsheimer LLP, Thomas M. Campbell -- tcampbell@tmc-law.com --
Smith Campbell, LLP & William Jay Blechman -- wblechman@knpa.com -
- Kenny Nachwalter, P.A., pro hac vice.

Plaintiffs in civil action National Association of Convenience
Stores et al v. Visa U.S.A., Inc. et al 05-cv-4521 JG-JO,
Plaintiff, represented by Jeffrey Isaac Shinder, Constantine
Cannon LLP, Richard J. Kilsheimer, Kaplan Fox & Kilsheimer LLP,
Thomas M. Campbell, Smith Campbell, LLP & William Jay Blechman,
Kenny Nachwalter, P.A., pro hac vice.

Plaintiffs in civil action Supervalu Inc. v. Visa U.S.A. Inc. et
al 05-cv-4650 JG-JO, Plaintiff, represented by Thomas M. Campbell,
Smith Campbell, LLP, David P. Germaine -- dgermaine@vaneklaw.com -
- Vanek Vickers & Masini, P.C., pro hac vice, Joseph Michael Vanek
-- jvanek@vaneklaw.com -- Vanek, Vickers & Masini, P.C., pro hac
vice, Paul E. Slater -- pes@sperling-law.com -- Sperling Slater &
Spitz, Richard J. Kilsheimer, Kaplan Fox & Kilsheimer LLP, Robert
C. Mason -- robert.mason@apks.com -- Arnold & Porter Kaye Scholer
LLP & William Jay Blechman, Kenny Nachwalter, P.A., pro hac vice.

Defendants in civil action Jetro Holding, Inc. et al v. Visa
U.S.A., Inc. et al 05-cv-4520 JG-JO, Defendant, represented by
Mark E. Tully --  mtully@goodwinlaw.com -- Goodwin Procter, LLP,
Peter Edward Greene -- peter.greene@skadden.com -- Skadden, Arps,
Slate, Meagher & Flom LLP, William Harry Rooney --
wrooney@willkie.com -- Willkie Farr & Gallagher LLP, Andrew J.
McDonald, Pullman & Comley, LLC, Brian A. Herman --
brian.herman@morganlewis.com -- Morgan, Lewis & Bockuis, LLP,
David Sapir Lesser -- david.lesser@wilmerhale.com -- Wilmer Cutler
Pickering Hale & Dorr, LLP, Douglas Melamed, Eric H. Grush --
EHAUETER@SIDLEY.COM -- Sidley Austin LLP, Erica Fenby, Alston &
Bird LLP, pro hac vice, Gary R. Carney, Jr. --
gcarney@paulweiss.com -- Paul, Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton & Garison,
LLP, James T. Shearin -- jtshearin@pullcom.com -- Pullman &
Comley, LLC, James M. Sulentic -- James.Sulentic@KutakRock.com --
Kutak Rock LLP, John P. Passarelli --
John.Passarelli@KutakRock.com -- Kutak Rock LLP, Jonathan B.
Orleans -- jborleans@pullcom.com -- Pullman & Comley LLC, Joseph
W. Clark, Jones Day, Kara Kennedy -- kara.kennedy@alston.com --
Alston & Bird LLP, Kenneth A. Gallo -- kgallo@paulweiss.com --
Paul, Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton & Garrison, LLP, pro hac vice, Lisl
J. Dunlop -- ldunlop@manatt.com -- Shearman & Sterling, Mark P.
Ladner -- mladner@mofo.com -- Morrison & Foerster, Michael Edward
Johnson, Alston & Bird LLP, Michael B. Miller -- mbmiller@mofo.com
-- Morrison & Foerster LLP, Nicolas W. Steenland --
nicolas.steenland@alston.com -- Alston & Bird LLP, Peter S. Julian
-- peter.julian@skadden.com -- Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher &
Flom LLP, Robert Donald Carroll --  rcarroll@goodwinlaw.com --
Goodwin Procter LLP, Robert C. Mason -- robert.mason@apks.com --
Arnold & Porter Kaye Scholer LLP, Teresa T. Bonder --
teresa.bonder@alston.com -- Alston & Bird, LLP, Valerie C.
Williams -- valarie.williams@alston.com -- ALSTON & BIRD LLP &
William Kolasky.

Defendants in civil actionNational Association of Convenience
Stores et al v. Visa U.S.A., Inc. et al 05-cv-4521 JG-JO,
Defendant, represented by Mark E. Tully, Goodwin Procter, LLP,
William Harry Rooney, Willkie Farr & Gallagher LLP, Andrew J.
McDonald, Pullman & Comley, LLC, Brian A. Herman, Morgan, Lewis &
Bockuis, LLP, David Sapir Lesser, Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale &
Dorr, LLP, Douglas Melamed, Eric H. Grush, Sidley Austin LLP,
Erica Fenby, Alston & Bird LLP, pro hac vice, Gary R. Carney, Jr.,
Paul, Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton & Garison, LLP, James T. Shearin,
Pullman & Comley, LLC, James M. Sulentic, Kutak Rock LLP, John P.
Passarelli, Kutak Rock LLP, Jonathan B. Orleans, Pullman & Comley
LLC, Joseph W. Clark, Jones Day, Kara Kennedy, Alston & Bird LLP,
Lisl J. Dunlop, Shearman & Sterling, Mark P. Ladner, Morrison &
Foerster, Michael Edward Johnson, Alston & Bird LLP, Michael B.
Miller, Morrison & Foerster LLP, Nicolas W. Steenland, Alston &
Bird LLP, Peter Edward Greene, Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher &
Flom LLP, Peter S. Julian, Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom
LLP, Robert Donald Carroll, Goodwin Procter LLP, Robert C. Mason,
Arnold & Porter Kaye Scholer LLP, Teresa T. Bonder, Alston & Bird,
LLP, Valerie C. Williams, ALSTON & BIRD LLP & William Kolasky.

Defendants in civil action Supervalu Inc. v. Visa U.S.A. Inc. et
al 05-cv-4650 JG-JO, Defendant, represented by Peter Edward
Greene, Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom LLP, Gary R. Carney,
Jr., Paul, Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton & Garison, LLP, Kenneth A.
Gallo, Paul, Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton & Garrison, LLP, pro hac vice
& Robert C. Mason, Arnold & Porter Kaye Scholer LLP.

Defendants in civil action Publix Supermarkets, Inc. v. Visa
U.S.A. Inc. et al 05-cv-4677-JG-JO, Defendant, represented by
Peter Edward Greene, Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom LLP,
Gary R. Carney, Jr., Paul, Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton & Garison, LLP,
Kenneth A. Gallo, Paul, Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton & Garrison, LLP,
pro hac vice & Robert C. Mason, Arnold & Porter Kaye Scholer LLP.

Defendants in civil action Seaway Gas & Petroleum, Inc. v. Visa
U.S.A., Inc. et al 05--cv-4728 JG-JO, Defendant, represented by
Peter Edward Greene, Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom LLP,
Gary R. Carney, Jr., Paul, Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton & Garison, LLP,
Kenneth A. Gallo, Paul, Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton & Garrison, LLP,
pro hac vice & Robert C. Mason, Arnold & Porter Kaye Scholer LLP.

Defendants in civil action Raley's v. Visa U.S.A. Inc. et al 05-
cv-4799- JG-JO, Defendant, represented by Peter Edward Greene,
Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom LLP, Gary R. Carney, Jr.,
Paul, Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton & Garison, LLP, Kenneth A. Gallo,
Paul, Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton & Garrison, LLP, pro hac vice &
Robert C. Mason, Arnold & Porter Kaye Scholer LLP.

Defendants in civil action East Goshen Pharmacy, Inc. v. Visa
U.S.A., Inc 05-cv-5073-JG-JO, Defendant, represented by Peter
Edward Greene, Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom LLP, Gary R.
Carney, Jr., Paul, Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton & Garison, LLP & Robert
C. Mason, Arnold & Porter Kaye Scholer LLP.

Defendants in civil action National Grocers Association et al v.
Visa U.S.A., Inc. et al 05-cv- 5207 JG -JO, Defendant, represented
by Mark E. Tully, Goodwin Procter, LLP, Peter Edward Greene,
Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom LLP, William Harry Rooney,
Willkie Farr & Gallagher LLP, Andrew J. McDonald, Pullman &
Comley, LLC, Brian A. Herman, Morgan, Lewis & Bockuis, LLP, David
Sapir Lesser, Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale & Dorr, LLP, Douglas
Melamed, Eric H. Grush, Sidley Austin LLP, Erica Fenby, Alston &
Bird LLP, pro hac vice, Gary R. Carney, Jr., Paul, Weiss, Rifkind,
Wharton & Garison, LLP, James T. Shearin, Pullman & Comley, LLC,
James M. Sulentic, Kutak Rock LLP, John P. Passarelli, Kutak Rock
LLP, Jonathan B. Orleans, Pullman & Comley LLC, Joseph W. Clark,
Jones Day, Kara Kennedy, Alston & Bird LLP, Kenneth A. Gallo,
Paul, Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton & Garrison, LLP, pro hac vice, Mark
P. Ladner, Morrison & Foerster, Michael Edward Johnson, Alston &
Bird LLP, Michael B. Miller, Morrison & Foerster LLP, Nicolas W.
Steenland, Alston & Bird LLP, Peter S. Julian, Skadden, Arps,
Slate, Meagher & Flom LLP, Robert Donald Carroll, Goodwin Procter
LLP, Robert C. Mason, Arnold & Porter Kaye Scholer LLP, Teresa T.
Bonder, Alston & Bird, LLP, Valerie C. Williams, ALSTON & BIRD LLP
& William Kolasky.

Defendants in civil action American Booksellers Association v.
Visa U.S.A., Inc. et al 05-cv-5319 JG -JO, Defendant, represented
by Mark E. Tully, Goodwin Procter, LLP, Peter Edward Greene,
Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom LLP, William Harry Rooney,
Willkie Farr & Gallagher LLP, Andrew J. McDonald, Pullman &
Comley, LLC, Brian A. Herman, Morgan, Lewis & Bockuis, LLP, David
Sapir Lesser, Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale & Dorr, LLP, Douglas
Melamed, Eric H. Grush, Sidley Austin LLP, Erica Fenby, Alston &
Bird LLP, pro hac vice, Gary R. Carney, Jr., Paul, Weiss, Rifkind,
Wharton & Garison, LLP, James T. Shearin, Pullman & Comley, LLC,
James M. Sulentic, Kutak Rock LLP, John P. Passarelli, Kutak Rock
LLP, Jonathan B. Orleans, Pullman & Comley LLC, Joseph W. Clark,
Jones Day, Kara Kennedy, Alston & Bird LLP, Kenneth A. Gallo,
Paul, Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton & Garrison, LLP, pro hac vice, Mark
P. Ladner, Morrison & Foerster, Michael Edward Johnson, Alston &
Bird LLP, Nicolas W. Steenland, Alston & Bird LLP, Peter S.
Julian, Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom LLP, Robert Donald
Carroll, Goodwin Procter LLP, Robert C. Mason, Arnold & Porter
Kaye Scholer LLP, Teresa T. Bonder, Alston & Bird, LLP, Valerie C.
Williams, ALSTON & BIRD LLP & William Kolasky.

Defendants in civil action Rookies, Inc. v. Visa U.S.A., Inc. 05-
cv-5069-JG-JO, Defendant, represented by Peter Edward Greene,
Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom LLP, Gary R. Carney, Jr.,
Paul, Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton & Garison, LLP & Robert C. Mason,
Arnold & Porter Kaye Scholer LLP.


MDL 2179: BP's Dispositive Bid on Released Claims Partly Granted
----------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Carl Barbier of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern
District of Louisiana granted in part and denied in part BP's
Dispositive Motion as to Released Claims in the case captioned In
Re: Oil Spill by the Oil Rig "Deepwater Horizon" in the Gulf of
Mexico, on April 20, 2010 This Document Relates To: Certain Cases
Remaining in the B1 Pleading Bundle, SECTION: J, Case No. MDL 2179
(E.D. La.).

Pursuant Judge Barbier's instruction in Pretrial Order No. 64, BP
moves to dismiss the claims of 38 Remaining B1 Plaintiffs, urging
that these Plaintiffs have settled and released their claims
through either the Gulf Coast Claims Facility or by virtue of
being a member of the Deepwater Horizon Economic and Property
Damages Settlement Class.

Sixteen of the Plaintiffs targeted by BP's motion did not file
responses.  Consequently, Judge Barbier deems BP's motion to be
unopposed with respect to these Plaintiffs and will dismiss their
claims: (i) Lamulle Construction, L.L.C., 16-cv-04181, GCCF
Release; (ii) Alabama Roll, Inc., 13-cv-02232, E&PD Class Member;
(iii) Cephas Concrete (Patrick D Franklin, Sr.), 16-cv-06003, E&PD
Class Member; (iv) Cutting Horse Yachts, LLC, doing business as
Chittum Skiffs, 16-cv-05831, E&PD Class Member; (v) Barry Gene
Fanguy, 13-cv-01900, E&PD Class Member; (vi) Sidney Rafael Floyd,
Jr., 16-cv-03804, E&PD Class Member; (vii) Fred Gossen Co., LLC
16-cv-07262, E&PD Class Member; (viii) Mitchell Lee Galbreath, 13-
cv-01626, E&PD Class Member; (ix) Harris Builders, LLC, 16-cv-
05451, E&PD Class Member; (x) Ryan C. Harry, 16-cv-03878, E&PD
Class Member; (xi) Kibbe & Co., Inc., 13-cv-02677, E&PD Class
Member; (xii) Samuel Jay Lyons, 16-cv-05770, E&PD Class Member;
(xiii) Nicole Moxey, 16-cv-05906, E&PD Class Member; (xiv) O'Brien
Crab Company (Stacie T. O'Brien), 16-cv-04799, E&PD Class Member;
(xv) Peyton Cottrell Interest, Inc., 13-cv-01829, E&PD Class
Member; and (xvi) RK Turbine Consultants, LLC, 16-cv-06980, E&PD
Class Member.

BP moves to dismiss seven Plaintiffs on the grounds that they
signed a release after settling their claims with the Gulf Coast
Claims Facility ("GCCF").  Six of those seven Plaintiffs filed
oppositions.  The Court also received oppositions from the
Plaintiffs who were not explicitly named in BP's motion.

By way of background, the Oil Pollution Act of 1990 ("OPA")
typically requires claimants to first present claims for "removal
costs" or "damages" to the "responsible party" and wait until that
party denies all liability or until 90 days have passed before the
claimant may commence an action in court or submit the claim to
the Oil Spill Liability Trust Fund, which is administered by the
Coast Guard's National Pollution Funds Center.  BP was designated
by the Coast Guard as a "responsible party" for the Deepwater
Horizon/Macondo Well oil spill.  Within days of the blowout and
explosion, BP established a process to receive and pay claims
arising from the oil spill ("Initial BP Claims Facility").
Between May 3, 2010 and Aug. 22, 2010, the Initial BP Claims
Facility made over 127,000 payments, totaling nearly $400 million,
to over 30,000 claimants.

Following discussions between BP and the U.S. Government, the
White House announced on June 16, 2010, that BP would establish a
$20 billion trust to fulfill BP's legal obligations, which would
be administered by a new claims facility, the Gulf Coast Claims
Facility ("GCCF").  Kenneth Feinberg was selected to administer
the GCCF.  On Aug. 23, 2010, the GCCF replaced the Initial BP
Claims Facility.  During "Phase I," the GCCF processed and paid
only "Emergency Advance Payment" ("EAP") claims.  The GCCF stopped
accepting EAP claims on Nov. 23, 2010, although it continued to
process and pay EAP claims through mid-February, 2011.  The GCCF
paid in excess of $2.5 billion to more than 169,000 claimants
under the EAP process.

In "Phase II" of the GCCF, three types of claims were available:
Interim Payment, Full Review Final Payment, and Quick Payment
Final.  The GCCF ended in 2012 after BP agreed to a class-wide
settlement, the Deepwater Horizon Economic and Property Damages
Settlement ("Economic Settlement"). During its one-and-a-half-year
existence, the GCCF processed over one million claims and paid
over $6.2 billion to approximately 220,000 claimants.  In June
2012, BP instituted a new process to receive and pay claims that
were not covered by the Economic Settlement.

Richard Lee Blick (No. 16-4061), Richard E. Seward, Sr. (No. 16-
4068), and Richard E. Seward, Jr. (No. 16-4072) ("Thiel
Plaintiffs") allege they are fishing guides in Florida who
suffered business losses as a result of the oil spill; they raise
identical arguments in opposition to BP's motion.  The Thiel
Plaintiffs assert that they each received interim payments from
the Initial BP Claims Facility and then $25,000 from the GCCF
under the Quick Payment Final Claim option.  In connection with
the Quick Payment Final Claim, the Thiel Plaintiffs each signed a
release which, if valid, bars their present lawsuits.  The Thiel
Plaintiffs argue the release is invalid because (i) it violates
OPA, (ii) it was misleading, (iii) they were fraudulently induced
into signing it, and (iv) they were under economic duress.

Judge Barbier finds that the GCCF release is valid and enforceable
with respect to the Thiel Plaintiffs. He says their argument that
the releases are void as a matter of law fail; and (ii) that the
release was misleading is without merit.  In addition, the Thiel
Plaintiffs' fraudulent inducement argument fails because, given
the language in the release, they cannot plausibly allege that
they justifiably relied on the alleged statements.  Accordingly,
he will dismiss the Thiel Plaintiffs' claims.

Jelp Barber (No.16-5533) signed a full and final release on Aug.
29, 2011, in exchange for a $25,000 Full Review Final Payment from
the GCCF.  Johnny's Clams, Inc. (No. 16-5441) signed a full and
final release on July 24, 2011 in exchange for a $25,000 Quick
Payment Final.  These Plaintiffs argue that the maritime rule for
a seaman's release announced in Garrett v. Moore-McCormack Co.,
317 U.S. 239 (1942), applies to the releases they signed and,
under that standard, the releases are unenforceable.
Alternatively, they argue that the releases are invalid under
Florida law because they were executed under duress-similar to the
arguments raised by the Thiel Plaintiffs above.

The Judge concludes that Barber's and Johnny's Clams' arguments
concerning Garrett v. Moore-McCormack Co. and the "ward of the
court" doctrine fail.  As to their arguments regarding duress
under Florida law, he rejects those arguments for essentially the
reasons stated with the Thiel Plaintiffs.  He finds that the
releases are valid and will dismiss the claims of Barber and
Johnny's Clams.

Jerry Wayne Tharp filed a claim with the GCCF for his lost wages
relating to oyster work he performed in 2008 for a company called
Bedrock Seafood, Inc. ("Bedrock claim").  Tharp filed another
claim with the GCCF for the losses sustained by Crabco, which
Tharp describes as his sole proprietorship through which he
purchases, processes, and distributes crabs ("Crabco claim").  The
GCCF issued separate claimant numbers for the Bedrock claim and
the Crabco claim.

In June 2011, the GCCF offered Tharp a Full Review Final Payment
of $68,226 on the Bedrock claim.  Tharp accepted the Final Payment
offer and executed the GCCF's full and final release.  In October
2011, the GCCF offered Tharp a Final Payment of $146,676.46 on the
Crabco Claim.  Tharp rejected this offer.  In March 2, 2012, the
GCCF made a second Final Payment offer on the Crabco claim, this
time for $220,014.69.  Tharp declined this offer as well, but he
did accept an Interim Payment in the amount of $90,527.63 without
signing a release.

Shortly thereafter BP and Class Counsel reached agreement on the
Economic Settlement, and the GCCF ceased operations.  In June
2012, the Court Supervised Settlement Program ("CSSP") opened to
administer the Economic Settlement, and BP opened the BP Claims
Program ("BPCP") to receive and process claims not covered by the
Economic Settlement. Tharp filed the Crabco claim with both the
BPCP and the CSSP.  Tharp also filed a claim with the BPCP on
behalf of another entity he owned, Mr. Peeper's Best, LLC.  Tharp
did not file a claim for Peepers with the CSSP.  Tharp/Crabco
ultimately opted out of the Economic Settlement.  In July 2013,
the BPCP denied the Crabco claim on the grounds that Tharp had
executed a release with the GCCF.  The BPCP did not issue a formal
determination on the Peepers claim.

Judge Barbier finds that the documents attached to Tharp's
opposition show that, consistent with the GCCF's alleged
statements, the GCCF twice offered to settle the Crabco claim
after Tharp executed the release.  Furthermore, although Tharp did
not accept either offer of Final Payment on the Crabco claim,
Tharp did accept an Interim Payment of $90,527.83 on the Crabco
claim, which the GCCF paid.  The Judge Court finds that,
notwithstanding any language to the contrary in the release, Tharp
has produced substantiating evidence that both he and the GCCF
intended to settle and release only the Bedrock claim -- not the
Crabco claim or Peeper's claim.  Consequently, he will not dismiss
the claims asserted by Tharp/Crabco and Mr. Peeper's Best, LLC.

Attorney Douglas Lyons filed two oppositions and a motion for
leave to sur-reply on behalf of multiple individuals who executed
a GCCF release.  Except for Jelp Barber and Johnny's Clams, none
of the clients identified in Lyons' filings are targeted in BP's
motion.  Consequently, Judge Barbier does not consider these
filings and will deny the motion for leave to sur-reply.

On Dec. 21, 2012, the Court certified the Economic and Property
Damages Settlement Class ("E&PD class") and approved the Economic
Settlement pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 23.  BP argues that the
Plaintiffs discussed are members of the E&PD class, consequently,
their claims are released pursuant to the class-wide release and
the Order and Judgment of Dec. 21, 2012.

Six Plaintiffs -- Perry Family Properties, LLC, Alton Rockford
Meadows, David K. Edwards, Dach V. Hoang, Tuoi Pham, and DDK
Partners -- oppose BP's motion by arguing that they opted out of
the E&PD Class.  BP concedes in its reply brief that Perry Family
Properties opted out of the E&PD class.  Accordingly, BP withdrew
its motion with respect to Perry Family Properties, LLC.  Judge
Barbier will also grant Perry Family Properties' motion to amend
its sworn statement to correctly identify itself as a Plaintiff
that properly opted out of the E&PD class.

Judge Barbier also finds that Meadows did not opt out of the E&PD
class.  Therefore, he will not dismiss Meadows at this time.
Because Edwards and DDK Partners did not opt out of the E&PD
class, the Judge Court will dismiss their claims.  Because Hoang
and Pham both claim they opted out of the E&PD class, he will
dismiss their claims.

Eight Plaintiffs -- Gulf States Marine Technical Bureau, Inc. (No.
13-1974), Innovation Federal Credit Union (No. 16-6049), Spectrum
Organization, Inc. d/b/a The Victorian Rental Pool (No. 14-0331),
MB Industries, LLC (No. 16-7286), MBI Global, LLC (No. 16-7292),
Deep South Machine, Inc. (No. 16-6384), Finance Motors of Crowley,
LLC (No. 16-6383), and Adams Homes of Northwest Florida, Inc. (No.
13-1494) -- assert that they are E&PD class members, but dismissal
would be premature at this time because their claims are still
pending in the CSSP and it is possible that they ultimately may be
determined to be excluded from the E&PD class.  These Plaintiffs
allegedly filed their lawsuits as a protective measure in the
event that they are determined to be excluded from the E&PD class.

Judge Barbier agrees with the Plaintiffs.  Because it is possible
that these Plaintiffs could be determined to be excluded from the
E&PD Class, the Judge will not dismiss their cases at this time.
Once a claim reaches a final, non-appealable resolution within the
CSSP (other than a determination that the Plaintiff or claim is
excluded from the E&PD Class), then the Plaintiff should promptly
dismiss its protective lawsuit.

Mark Mead (No. 10-3261) opposes dismissal insofar as BP's motion
is directed toward his claims for bodily injuries, emotional
stress, etc. (Rec. Doc. 23164).  Raymond Merchant appears to
oppose dismissal insofar as BP's motion is directed at bodily
injury, moratoria loss, or other claims that are "Expressly
Reserved Claims" under the Economic Settlement.  The Judge will
dismiss their claims only insofar as they assert "Released Claims"
as that term is defined under the Economic Settlement.  Thus, to
the extent Mead or Merchant assert in their lawsuits "Bodily
Injury Claims," "Moratoria Losses," or any other "Expressly
Reserved Claims," those claims are not dismissed.

Finally, given the limited record before the Court, it is unclear
whether Patricia Bailey (No.16-3822), Cornelius Johnson (No. 16-
3828), Gilbert Johnson (No. 16-3831), James March (No. 16-3833),
and Steven Shivers, Sr. (No. 16-6363) are E&PD class members and
whether their claims are subject to the Economic Settlement's
class-wide release.  Accordingly, Judge Barbier will deny without
prejudice BP's motion with respect to these Plaintiffs.

For the reasons set forth, Judge Barbier granted in part and
denied in part BP's Dispositive Motion as to Released Claims and
dismissed with prejudice the following claims: (i) Lamulle
Construction, L.L.C., 16-cv-4181; (ii) Alabama Roll, Inc., 13-cv-
2232; (iii) Cephas Concrete (Patrick D Franklin, Sr.), 16-cv-6003;
(iv) Cutting Horse Yachts, LLC, doing business as Chittum Skiffs,
16-cv-5831; (v) Barry Gene Fanguy, 13-cv-1900; (vi) Sidney Rafael
Floyd, Jr., 16-cv-3804; (vii) Fred Gossen Co., LLC 16-cv-7262;
(viii) Mitchell Lee Galbreath, 13-cv-1626; (ix) Harris Builders,
LLC, 16-cv-5451; (x) Ryan C. Harry, 16-cv-3878; (xi) Kibbe & Co.,
Inc., 13-cv-2677; (xii) Samuel Jay Lyons, 16-cv-5770; (xiii)
Nicole Moxey, 16-cv-5906; (xiv) O'Brien Crab Co. (Stacie T.
O'Brien), 16-cv-4799 ; (xv) Peyton Cottrell Interest, Inc., 13-cv-
1829; (xvi) RK Turbine Consultants, LLC, 16-cv-6980; (xvii)
Richard Lee Blick, 16-cv-4061; (xviii) Richard E. Seward, Sr., 16-
cv-4068; (xix) Richard E. Seward, Jr., 16-cv-4072; (xx) Jelp
Barber, 16-cv-5533; (xxi) Johnny's Clams, Inc., 16-cv-5541; (xxii)
David K. Edwards, 16-cv-6696; (xxiii) Dach V. Hoang, 16-cv-6071;
(xxiv)  Tuoi Pham, 16-cv-6200;a and (xxv) DDK Partners, 16-cv-
7155.

The Judge further ordered that the claims of Mark Mead (No. 10-
3261) and Raymond Merchant (No. 15-4290) are dismissed in part and
only insofar as they assert "Released Claims" as that term is
defined under the Deepwater Horizon Economic and Property Damages
Settlement.  To the extent Mead or Merchant assert "Bodily Injury
Claims," "Moratoria Losses," or any other "Expressly Reserved
Claims," as defined under the Economic Settlement, those claims
are not dismissed.

Judge Barbier granted Perry Family Properties, LLC's Motion to
Amend Sworn Statement.  He instructed the Clerk to file the
amended Sworn Statement in case nos. 16-3748 & 16-3661.

He also granted the motions for leave to file sur-replies by Jelp
Barber and Johnny's Clams, Inc.  He denied the motion for leave to
file sur-reply.

A full-text copy of the Court's Oct. 20, 2017 Order and Reasons is
available at https://is.gd/wce25C from Leagle.com.

Plaintiff, Plaintiff, represented by James P. Roy --
jimr@wrightroy.com -- Domengeaux, Wright, Roy & Edwards.

Plaintiff, Plaintiff, represented by Stephen J. Herman --
sherman@hhklawfirm.com -- Herman, Herman & Katz, LLC.

Marine Spill Response Corporation, Defendant, represented by Alan
Mark Weigel -- AWeigel@BlankRome.com -- Blank Rome LLP.

Airborne Support, Inc., Defendant, represented by Francis Xavier
Neuner, Jr. -- fneuner@neunerpate.com -- NeunerPate, Ben Louis
Mayeaux -- bmayeaux@neunerpate.com -- NeunerPate & Jed M. Mestayer
-- jmestayer@neunerpate.com -- NeunerPate.

Airborne Support International Inc, Defendant, represented by
Francis Xavier Neuner, Jr., NeunerPate, Ben Louis Mayeaux & Jed M.
Mestayer.

Dynamic Aviation Group Inc, Defendant, represented by Leo Raymond
McAloon, III -- lmcaloon@glllaw.com -- Gieger, Laborde &
Laperouse, LLC & Michael D. Cangelosi -- mcangelosi@glllaw.com --
Gieger, Laborde & Laperouse, LLC.

International Air Response Inc, Defendant, represented by Kevin
Richard Tully -- krtully@christovich.com -- Christovich & Kearney,
LLP & Howard Carter Marshall, Christovich & Kearney, LLP.

Lane Aviation, Defendant, represented by George Edmond Crow, Law
Office of George E. Crow.

National Response Corporation, Defendant, represented by Michael
J. Lyle -- mikelyle@quinnemanuel.com -- Quinn Emanuel Urquhart &
Sullivan, LLP, Eric C. Lyttle -- ericlyttle@quinnemanuel.com --
Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan, LLP, Patrick Edward O'Keefe --
pokeefe@couhigpartners.com -- Couhig Partners, LLC, Philip S.
Brooks, Jr. -- pbrooks@gamb.law.com -- Gordon, Arata, Montgomery &
Barnett & Sylvia E. Simson -- sylviasimson@quinnemanuel.com --
Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan, LLP.

DRC Emergency Services, LLC, Defendant, represented by Harold J.
Flanagan -- hflanagan@flanaganpartners.com -- Flanagan Partners,
LLP, Andy Joseph Dupre -- adupre@flanaganpartners.com -- Flanagan
Partners, LLP & Sean Patrick Brady -- sbrady@flanaganpartners.com
-- Flanagan Partners, LLP.

Lynden Inc., Defendant, represented by Howard Carter Marshall &
Kevin Richard Tully.

Tiger Rentals Ltd., Defendant, represented by John Emerson
Galloway, Galloway, Johnson, Tompkins, Burr & Smith & Cherrell
Simms Taplin, City Attorney's Office.

Modern Group GP-SUB Inc., Defendant, represented by John Emerson
Galloway, Galloway, Johnson, Tompkins, Burr & Smith & Cherrell
Simms Taplin.

Modern Group Ltd., Defendant, represented by John Emerson
Galloway, Galloway, Johnson, Tompkins, Burr & Smith & Cherrell
Simms Taplin.

Defendant, Defendant, represented by David J. Beck --
dbeck@beckredden.com -- Beck, Redden & Secrest, LLP, pro hac vice,
Deborah DeRoche Kuchler -- dkuchler@kuchlerpolk.com -- Kuchler
Polk Schell Weiner & Richeson, LLC, Don Keller Haycraft --
dkhaycraft@liskow.com -- Liskow & Lewis, Donald E. Godwin, Godwin
Lewis PC, pro hac vice, J. Andrew Langan --
andrew.langan@kirkland.com -- Kirkland & Ellis, LLP, Kerry J.
Miller -- kjmiller@bakerdonelson.com -- Baker Donelson Bearman
Caldwell & Berkowitz, Michael J. Lyle, Quinn Emanuel Urquhart &
Sullivan, LLP, Phillip A. Wittmann, Stone, Pigman, Walther,
Wittmann, LLC & Thomas Lotterman, Morgan, Lewis & Bockius.

O'Brien's Response Management L.L.C., Defendant, represented by
Michael J. Lyle, Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan, LLP, Eric C.
Lyttle, Patrick Edward O'Keefe, Philip S. Brooks, Jr. & Sylvia E.
Simson.

Federal Government Interests, Interested Party, represented by R.
Michael Underhill, U. S. Department of Justice.

State Interests, Interested Party, represented by Luther J.
Strange, III, Attorney General's Office.

Lynn C Greer, Interested Party, represented by Lynn C. Greer --
LGreer@browngreer.com -- BrownGreer PLC.


MEDICAL TRANSPORTATION: Harris Seeks Certification Under FLSA
-------------------------------------------------------------
Isaac Harris, Darnell Frye and Leo Franklin, Plaintiffs in the
lawsuit captioned ISAAC HARRIS, et al. v. MEDICAL TRANSPORTATION
MANAGEMENT, INC., Case No. 1:17-cv-01371-APM (D.D.C.), move the
Court to conditionally certify the case as a collective action
under the Fair Labor Standards Act and to facilitate the issuance
of notice to potential collective members.

The Plaintiffs seek certification of this collective:

     All individuals who worked under the non-emergency medical
     transportation (NEMT) contracts between Medical
     Transportation Management, Inc. and the District of Columbia
     (the D.C. Contracts) at any time during the period from
     July 13, 2014 to the present who performed driving services
     under the contracts.

A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=GEkMdqZ0

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Joseph M. Sellers, Esq.
          Miriam R. Nemeth, Esq.
          COHEN MILSTEIN SELLERS & TOLL PLLC
          1100 New York Ave., N.W., Suite 500
          Washington, DC 20005
          Telephone: (202) 408-4600
          E-mail: jsellers@cohenmilstein.com
                  mnemeth@cohenmilstein.com

               - and -

          Michael T. Kirkpatrick, Esq.
          Patrick D. Llewellyn, Esq.
          PUBLIC CITIZEN LITIGATION GROUP
          1600 20th Street NW
          Washington, DC 20009
          Telephone: (202) 588-1000
          E-mail: mkirkpatrick@citizen.org
                  pllewellyn@citizen.org


MERCHANTS CREDIT: Class Certification Sought in "O'Boyle" Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Anne O'Boyle moves the Court to certify the class described in the
complaint of the lawsuit entitled ANNE O'BOYLE, Individually and
on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated v. MERCHANTS CREDIT
GUIDE COMPANY d/b/a MERCHANTS' CREDIT GUIDE CO., Case No. 2:17-cv-
01350-JPS (E.D. Wisc.), and further asks that the Court both stay
the motion for class certification and to grant the Plaintiff (and
the Defendant) relief from the Local Rules setting automatic
briefing schedules and requiring briefs and supporting material to
be filed with the Motion.

Dicta in the Supreme Court's decision in Campbell-Ewald Co. v.
Gomez, left open the possibility that a defendant facing a class
action complaint could moot a class representative's case by
depositing funds equal to or in excess of the maximum value of the
plaintiff's individual claim with the court and having the court
enter judgment in the plaintiff's favor prior to the filing of a
class certification motion, the Plaintiff asserts, citing
Campbell-Ewald Co. v. Gomez, 136 S. Ct. 663, 672 (2016).

To avoid the risk of a defendant mooting a putative class
representative's individual stake in the litigation, the Seventh
Circuit instructed plaintiffs to file a certification motion with
the complaint, along with a motion to stay briefing on the
certification motion.  Damasco v. Clearwire Corp., 662 F.3d 891,
896 (7th Cir. 2011), overruled on other grounds, Chapman v. First
Index, Inc., 796 F.3d 783, 787 (7th Cir. 2015) ("The pendency of
that motion [for class certification] protects a putative class
from attempts to buy off the named plaintiffs.").

The Plaintiff is obligated to move for class certification to
protect the interests of the putative class, the Plaintiff
contends.

As the Motion to certify a class is a placeholder motion as
described in Damasco, the parties and the Court should not be
burdened with unnecessary paperwork and the resulting expense when
short motion to certify and stay should suffice until an amended
motion is filed, the Plaintiff contends.

A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=9jusizoY

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


MONTEREY FINANCIAL: 9th Cir. Remands "Brinkley" to District Ct.
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the case captioned TIFFANY BRINKLEY, on behalf of herself and
others similarly situated, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. MONTEREY
FINANCIAL SERVICES, INC.; MONTEREY FINANCIAL SERVICES, LLC,
Defendants-Appellants, Case No. 17-56335 (9th Cir.), Judge Milan
D. Smith, Jr., of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
vacated the district court's order granting Brinkley's motion to
remand the class action to California state court and remanded to
that court for further proceedings.

Monterey, a financial services company, allegedly recorded or
monitored its telephone conversations with Brinkley without giving
her notice.  On Oct. 15, 2013, Brinkley brought the action in
California state court against Monterey, alleging (i) invasion of
privacy in violation of California and Washington state law; (ii)
unlawful recording of telephone calls under California law; and
(iii) violation of California Business and Professions Code
Section 17200.

She brought her first and third claims on behalf of a class of all
persons who, while physically located or residing in California
and Washington, made or received one or more telephone calls with
Monterey during the four-year period preceding the filing of the
lawsuit and did not receive notice at the beginning of the
telephone call that their telephone conversation may be recorded
or monitored.

On May 6, 2016, Monterey removed the action to federal district
court.  Brinkley then moved to remand the case back to California
state court pursuant to CAFA's home-state controversy exception.
The district court delayed ruling on Brinkley's motion, and
ordered jurisdictional discovery.

On March 23, 2017, following a series of discovery disputes
regarding Monterey's records, the district court granted
Brinkley's motion to remand the case to California state court.
Based on Dr. Lackritz's analysis, the district court found that at
least two-thirds of class members are California citizens.
Monterey timely moved for permission to appeal pursuant to 28
U.S.C. Section 1453(c)(1).  On Sept. 5, 2017, the Court granted
Monterey's request for permission to appeal.

Judge Smith explains that a plaintiff cannot remand an otherwise
valid CAFA case to state court when only a portion of the class
meets the two-thirds citizenship requirement.  This is what
Brinkley seeks to do here -- remand a class action based on
evidence of only some class members' citizenship.

The Judge finds that the size of the entire class is unknown and
Brinkley has failed to prove that two-thirds of class members are
California citizens because there is no evidence regarding the
citizenship of class members who made or received a phone call
from Monterey while located in, but not residing in, California or
Washington.  Accordingly, Judge Smith vacated the district court's
order remanding the action to California state court, and remanded
it to the district court for further proceedings.  The costs are
to be taxed against the appellee Brinkley.

A full-text copy of the Ninth Circuit's Oct. 20, 2017 Opinion is
available at https://is.gd/PIuFxv from Leagle.com.

William P. Cole -- wcole@calljensen.com -- (argued) and Matthew R.
Orr -- morr@calljensen.com -- Call & Jensen APC, Newport Beach,
California, for Defendants-Appellants.

Patrick N. Keegan -- pkeegan@keeganbaker.com -- (argued) and James
M. Treglio, Keegan & Baker LLP, Carlsbad, California; Steven A.
Wickman -- Steve@wickmanlaw.com -- and Christina E. Wickman --
Christina@wickmanlaw.com -- Wickman & Wickman, Escondido,
California; for Plaintiff-Appellee.


NATIONSTAR MORTGAGE: Bid to Junk Amended "Pemberton" Suit Denied
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case captioned MICHAEL PEMBERTON and SANDRA COLLINS-
PEMBERTON, Plaintiffs, v. NATIONSTAR MORTGAGE LLC, Defendant, Case
No. 14-cv-1024-BAS-WVG (S.D. Cal.), Judge Cynthia Bashant of the
U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California denied
the Defendant's Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Subject Matter
Jurisdiction in response to the Plaintiffs' First Amended
Complaint ("FAC").

On April 23, 2014, the Pembertons brought a prospective class
action against the Defendant alleging a federal cause of action
under 26 U.S.C. Section 6050H and several causes of action under
state law.  They seek damages as well as injunctive and equitable
relief.

Nationstar filed a motion to dismiss these claims and a motion to
stay.  In ruling on that motion, the Court found no express or
implied private cause of action under 26 U.S.C. Section 6050H and
dismissed the Plaintiffs' corresponding federal claim with
prejudice.  The Court further dismissed the Plaintiffs' claims
sixth and seventh causes of action, and sua sponte stayed the case
as to their remaining state law claims, pending a determination by
the IRS about whether mortgage lenders are required to report
deferred interest on the Forms 1098 they issue.

During the stay, the Ninth Circuit issued a decision in Smith v.
Bank of America, N.A., a case also concerning interest reporting
under Section 6050H.  The Ninth Circuit determined that Smith
should be dismissed under Rule 12(b)(1) for lack of subject matter
jurisdiction on the ground that the complaint failed to show an
injury-in-fact.

After Smith, the Court ordered the Plaintiffs to show cause as to
why the complaint should not be dismissed for lack of standing.
The Plaintiffs conceded that their original complaint failed to
satisfy Smith, but also argued they could amend their complaint to
cure its standing deficiency.  The Court dismissed the original
complaint and permitted amendment.  The present dispute concerns
whether the FAC now establishes the Pembertons' Article III
standing.

In the wake of Smith, the Pembertons now allege two injuries due
to Nationstar's incorrect Form 1098 and its underlying method of
calculating interest payments: (i) the Pembertons filed an
erroneous tax return in 2013 in reliance on the form and (ii) the
Pembertons received a smaller tax deduction in 2013 than they
would have because they relied on the form.  The FAC, like the
original complaint, also alleges that the Pembertons have suffered
damages of the accountancy fees that will be necessary to amend
their tax returns.

Judge Bashant finds that the Pembertons' allegations concern the
Form 1098 Nationstar provided them, the federal tax return they
filed by relying on the form, and the smaller federal tax
deduction they received.  The Pembertons also allege that
Nationstar was obligated or had a duty to accurately report their
deferred interest payments on the 2013 Form 1098 it provided them
by virtue of Section 6050H.  These allegations, the Judge says,
satisfy the particularity requirement because they show that the
Pembertons suffered the alleged injury in a personal and
individual way. For the purposes of Article III standing, the
Pembertons' tax deduction injury constitutes an injury-in-fact.

She also finds that the Pembertons have not alleged an injury-in-
fact based on accountancy fees related to filing an amended
return.  The Pembertons do not allege that they have ever incurred
such fees in order to file an amended tax return, nor do they
allege an intent to file an amended return.  Nationstar correctly
argues that this injury is too hypothetical.

Judge Bashant further finds Nationstar's arguments against
causation unpersuasive.  Nationstar argues that the Pembertons
have not alleged causation because the amount of interest reported
on a Form 1098 does not determine the amount of deduction the
Pembertons may claim.  She says this argument wrongly equates
injury 'fairly traceable' to the Defendant with injury as to which
the Defendant's actions are the very last step in the chain of
causation.  Injury produced by the determinative or coercive
effect upon the action of someone else still satisfies the
causation requirement of Article III.

The Judge disagrees with Nationstar's argument that the Pembertons
fail to allege redressability because only the IRS, not this
Court, has the authority to determine whether the Pembertons are
entitled to an additional tax deduction.  The Pembertons seek
three forms of relief: damages for receiving a smaller 2013 tax
deduction, an order requiring Nationstar to provide corrected
Forms 1098, and a declaratory judgment that Nationstar's conduct
is unlawful.  These forms of relief, she says, would likely remedy
the Pembertons' injury, which was produced by Nationstar's
allegedly incorrect method of calculating mortgage interest,
Nationstar's allegedly incorrect Form 1098, and the resulting
economic harm to Nationstar.  It is in the Court's power to
provide a damages award.

For the foregoing reasons, Judge Bashant will deny Nationstar's
Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction Pursuant to Rule
12(b)(1).  Nevertheless, she observes that Nationstar's challenge
is a facial challenge to subject matter jurisdiction.  Nationstar
may file a factual Rule 12(b)(1) challenge to the Pembertons'
Article III standing at a later point.  Moreover, the Judge will
sua sponte revisit at any time the question of the Pembertons'
Article III standing should it suspect that they do not in fact
possess Article III standing to assert any or all of their state
law claims.

In denying Nationstar's current motion to dismiss for lack of
subject matter jurisdiction, the Judge sua sponte provides notice
that it is concerned that the Pembertons have not plausibly
pleaded any claims upon which relief may be granted.  Therefore,
she will afford the Plaintiffs the opportunity to file a brief in
opposition to a Rule 12(b)(6) dismissal, and sets a briefing
schedule at the conclusion of her Opinion and Order.

Having found that the Court has subject matter jurisdiction to
consider the Pembertons' state law claims, Judge Bashant considers
the propriety of imposing a stay under the primary jurisdiction
doctrine once more.  She says that the resolution of the question
about whether Section 6050H imposes a duty to report deferred
interest would not end the Court's inquiry as to whether the
Pembertons have successfully shown that common law principles
entitle them to relief from Nationstar's allegedly wrongful
conduct.  This is not to say that the IRS has no relevant
expertise regarding the scope of Section 6050H that would be
helpful.  But as only a portion of the state law claims falls
within the purview of the IRS, further delay in resolving the
Pembertons' claims through the imposition of another stay does not
aid judicial efficiency.

The Judge finds that the need for judicial efficiency
determinatively outweighs its initial concern with uniformity.  If
it becomes clear at a later point that the Court and the IRS are
on a collision course in rendering different decisions about the
scope of Section 6050H, the Court can easily revisit the propriety
of a stay to avoid a conflict.

For the foregoing reasons, Judge Bashant denied the Defendant's
Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Subject Matter Jurisdiction Pursuant
to Rule 12(b)(1) and declined to stay the remaining state law
claims.

She ordered the following Rule 12(b)(6) dismissal briefing
schedule:

     a. The Plaintiffs will file a Motion in Opposition to a Rule
12(b)(6) Dismissal of the First Amended Complaint no later than
Nov. 20, 2017.  The motion must not exceed a total of 35 pages in
length.

     b. The Defendant will file a response to such motion no later
than Dec. 11, 2017.  The response must not exceed a total of 35
pages in length.

     c. The Plaintiffs may file a reply no later than Dec. 18,
2017.  The reply must not exceed a total of 10 pages.

     d. The Plaintiffs' Motion in Opposition to a Rule 12(b)(6)
Dismissal and the Defendant's response should brief the question
of the appropriate choice of law to apply for the state law
claims.

A full-text copy of the Court's Oct. 20, 2017 Opinion and Order is
available at https://is.gd/th0qxE from Leagle.com.

Michael Pemberton, Plaintiff, represented by David J. Vendler --
dvendler@mpplaw.com -- Law Offices of David J. Vendler.

Michael Pemberton, Plaintiff, represented by Michael R. Brown --
mike@browntaxlaw.com -- Michael R Brown APC.

Sandra Collins-Pemberton, Plaintiff, represented by David J.
Vendler, Law Offices of David J. Vendler & Michael R. Brown,
Michael R Brown APC.

Nationstar Mortgage LLC, Defendant, represented by Erik Wayne Kemp
-- ek@severson.com -- Severson and Werson, John B. Sullivan --
jbs@severson.com -- Severson and Werson & Mary C. Kamka --
mkk@severson.com -- Severson and Werson, PC.


NAVIENT CORP: December 15 Lead Plaintiff Motion Deadline Set
------------------------------------------------------------
Khang & Khang LLP (the "Firm") on Oct. 16 announced the filing of
a securities class action lawsuit against Navient Corporation
("Navient" or the "Company") (Nasdaq: NAVI).  Investors who
purchased or otherwise acquired shares between February 25, 2016
and October 4, 2017, inclusive (the "Class Period"), are
encouraged to contact the Firm in advance of the December 15, 2017
lead plaintiff motion deadline.

If you purchased Navient shares during the Class Period, please
contact Joon M. Khang, Esquire, of Khang & Khang LLP, 4000
Barranca Parkway, Suite 250, Irvine, CA 92604, by telephone: (949)
419-3834, or by e-mail at joon@khanglaw.com.

There has been no class certification in this case yet.  Until
certification occurs, you are not represented by an attorney.  You
may choose to take no action and remain a passive class member as
well.

According to the Complaint, throughout the Class Period, Navient
made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose
that: the Company engaged in deceptive practices to facilitate the
origination of subprime loans; that the Company committed unfair
and deceptive acts by steering student borrowers into payment
plans that postponed bills, allowing interest to accumulate,
rather than helping them enroll in income-driven repayment plans;
and thus, the Company's public statements were materially false
and misleading at all relevant times.  When this news was
announced, shares of Navient declined in value materially, which
caused investors harm according to the Complaint.

If you wish to learn more about this lawsuit, or if you have any
questions concerning this notice or your rights, please contact
Joon M. Khang, Esquire, a prominent litigator for almost two
decades, by telephone: (949) 419-3834, or via e-mail at
joon@khanglaw.com. [GN]


NEW YORK: 2d Cir. Vacated Dismissal of "Linares" Prisoners Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Peter W. Hall of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second
Circuit vacated the district court's judgment dismissing the case
captioned JORGE LINARES, Plaintiff-Appellant, ROBERT WATT, TIMOTHY
BEDELL, Plaintiffs, v. ANTHONY ANNUCCI, ACTING COMMISSIONER, TINA
MARIE STANFORD, CHAIRPERSON BOARD OF PAROLE, WALTER WILLIAM SMITH,
JR., JAMES FERGUSON, CHRISTINA HERNANDEZ, G. KEVIN LUDLOW, LISA
BETH ELOVICH, SALLY THOMPSON, JOSEPH CRANGLE, EDWARD SHARKEY, MARC
COPPOLA, ELLEN ALEXANDER, GAIL HALLERDIN, JULIE SMITH, OTIS CRUSE,
Defendants, Case No. 16-1800-pr (2d Cir.) and remanded for
consideration.

Linares, a New York state prisoner, filed an in forma pauperis pro
se class action complaint on behalf of all New York state
prisoners who had been denied or would soon become eligible for
parole.  He claimed that New York's parole statutes violated,
among other things, the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth
Amendment.  Specifically, Linares alleged that New York's parole
scheme vested the Board of Parole with standardless and unfettered
discretion and made it impossible to rationally, fairly,
consistently, and non-arbitrarily predict whether a person will
remain law abiding if released on parole in individual cases.  He
did not allege that he had been denied parole, asserting instead
that he and the other Plaintiffs had been either denied parole or
would soon become eligible for parole consideration.

Before the Defendants were served, the district court sua sponte
determined that Linares's complaint failed to state a claim upon
which relief could be granted and therefore had to be dismissed.
With respect to Linares's due process claim, the district court
relied on decisions from this Court concluding that New York
prisoners do not have a parole interest that is protected by the
Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.  Although the
district court also recognized that Linares and other New York
prisoners had a limited due process right not to be denied parole
in an arbitrary or capricious manner, the district court concluded
that Linares was not asserting any such claim.  He was instead
challenging the statutory and regulatory guidelines on behalf of
all prisoners in New York state custody.

Linares now appeals the dismissal of his complaint and advances
two arguments, both first raised on appeal.  First, he asserts
that recent amendments to New York state's parole statutes created
a due process right to parole for New York state prisoners.
Second, he contends that the district court erred by dismissing
his complaint without giving him leave to amend it to raise
individualized claims.

Judge Hall concludes that the most appropriate course of action is
to vacate the judgment of the district court and remand for that
court to order Linares to serve the Defendants and thereafter for
that court to conduct such proceedings as may be appropriate for
it to consider the recent amendments to the parole statute.  Of
course, at this juncture, the Judge expresses no view on whether
those amendments alter our prior decisions on the due process
implications of the New York parole scheme.

The Judge also concludes that even when Linares' complaint is
liberally construed, it did not raise an individual claim that he
had been denied parole in an arbitrary manner.  Linares did not
allege that he had been denied parole and provided no allegations
regarding his experience before the Board of Parole.  In other
words, Linares challenged the standards by which parole was
granted or denied, not the denial of parole in any individual
case, including his own.  That challenge is distinct from the
claim Linares now seeks to amend his complaint to include.  Thus,
Linares' reliance on the non-precedential order in Robles v. Evans
is misplaced because, as Linares himself admits, the plaintiff in
that case challenged the denial of his release on parole.

Under such circumstances, Judge Wall finds that the district court
did not abuse its discretion when it declined to give Linares the
opportunity to amend his complaint.  Because he has already
determined that it is appropriate to remand this case to the
district court, however, he leaves it to that court to determine
on remand whether Linares may amend his complaint to raise an
individual claim if Linares seeks leave to do so.

Accordingly, Judge Wall vacated the judgment of the district court
and remanded for consideration, following prompt service on the
Defendants, of whether Linares' complaint may be amended and
whether it states a claim on which relief can be granted in light
of the recent amendments to New York's parole statutes.

A full-text copy of the Second Circuit's Oct. 13, 2017 Order is
available at https://is.gd/THcLW6 from Leagle.com.

MEGAN MCGLYNN, Yale Law School Appellate Litigation Project, New
Haven, CT (Robin Burrell -- rburrell@najjar.com -- Yale Law School
Appellate Litigation Project, New Haven, CT; Issa Kohler-Hausmann,
Yale Law School, New Haven, CT; Tadhg Dooley -- tdooley@wiggin.com
-- Wiggin and Dana LLP, New Haven, CT; Benjamin M. Daniels --
bdaniels@wiggin.com -- Wiggin and Dana LLP, New Haven, CT, on the
brief) for Plaintiff-Appellant.

KATE H. NEPVEU, Assistant Solicitor General (Barbara D. Underwood,
Solicitor General, Andrea Oser, Deputy Solicitor General, on the
brief), for Eric T. Schneiderman, Attorney General of the State of
New York, Albany, NY. for Amicus Curiae the New York State Office
of the Attorney General.


NIEMANN FOODS: Settlement in "Fikara" Suit Has Prelim Approval
--------------------------------------------------------------
Magistrate Judge Tom Schanzle-Haskins of the U.S. District Court
for the Central District of Illinois, Springfield Division,
preliminarily approved the Settlement Agreement in the case
captioned LARRY FIKARA, Plaintiff, v. NIEMANN FOODS, INC.,
Defendant, Case No. 16-3285 (C.D. Ill.).

On July 28, 2017, the Court conducted a mediation of the action
between the Parties.  The Parties tentatively agreed to settle
this matter and to submit to the Court a proposed settlement
agreement.  Minute Entry entered July 28, 2017.  The Parties then
consented to proceed before the Court.

The Parties have now submitted to the Court an agreement entitled
"Class Action Settlement Agreement and Release" executed by the
Parties and their attorneys, including the following Exhibits to
the Settlement Agreement: Exhibit A Class Notice, Exhibit B Claim
Form, and Exhibit C General and Comprehensive Release of Claims.

Magistrate Judge Schanzle-Haskins preliminarily approved the
Settlement Agreement subject to the provisions of his Opinion and
Order.  He directed the Clerk to file a copy with signatures
redacted of the Settlement Agreement and Exhibits; and to file
under seal an unredacted copy of the Settlement Agreement and
Exhibits.

The Magistrate Judge preliminarily approved certification of the
matter to proceed as a class action for purposes of settlement
under the Settlement Agreement.  He conditionally certifies of the
Class of all applicants or employees of Niemann Foods for whom a
consumer report or investigative consumer report was procured by
Niemann Foods from Oct. 19, 2011 to Feb. 16, 2016.

The Magistrate Judge approved of Plaintiff Fikara as the
representative for the Class for purposes of the settlement.  He
preliminarily approved Fikara's attorneys CounselOne, P.C.;
Eggnatz, Lopatin & Pascucci, LLP; and Nelson & Nelson, P.C. as the
counsel for the Class.

Pursuant to the Settlement Agreement, Magistrate Judge Schanzle-
Haskins appointed CPT Group, Inc., to perform the customary duties
of a third-party Claims Administrator as set forth in detail in
the Settlement Agreement.

The Exhibit A to the Settlement Agreement entitled "Notice of
Settlement and Release of Claims" (Class Notice), is approved with
the following modification:

     a. The following sentence will be inserted after the first
sentence and before the second sentence of paragraph 6(a): "You
may do this personally or through an attorney (retained at your
own expense)."

     b. The first three sentences of paragraph 6(a), as modified
by the Opinion and Order, will state: If you want to receive
benefits under the settlement, you must sign and return a Claim
Form to the Claims Administrator at the address below by First
Class or certified U.S. Mail postmarked no later than _______,
2017.  You may do this personally or through an attorney (retained
at your own expense).  It is recommended that you retain a receipt
of your mailing, or that you call the Claims Administrator before
the submission deadline to confirm the Claims Administrator has
received your Claim Form or request for exclusion.

The Exhibit B to the Settlement Agreement entitled "Claim Form" is
also approved as well as the distribution of the Class Notice and
Claim Form by U.S. Mail.  The Magistrate Judge directed Niemann
Foods to provide confidentially to the Claims Administrator on or
before Oct. 30, 2017, a Class List as defined in the Settlement
Agreement.  The Claims Administrator will review and update the
mailing address information in the Class List as set forth in the
Settlement Agreement and provide the Parties with a finalized copy
of the Notice and Claim Form on or before Nov. 6, 2017.  The
Claims Administrator will insert into the finalized copy of the
Notice and Claim Form will all dates, as set forth below, that are
currently blank.

On Nov. 8, 2017, the Claims Administrator will distribute the
copies of the finalized Notice and Claim Form to the Class Members
by U.S. Mail postage prepaid to the Class Members at the addresses
on the updated Class List.

The Class Members may: (i) elect to exclude themselves from
participating in the Class notifying the Claims Administrator in
the manner set forth in the Notice (Opt-Out Election); (ii) submit
a fully completed Claim Form to the Claims Administrator
(Completed Claim Form); or (iii) not respond to the Notice. All
Opt-Out Elections and all Completed Claim Forms must be submitted
to the Claims Administrator by U.S. Mail and must be postmarked on
or before Dec. 26, 2017.

Any Class Member may object to or oppose the final approval of the
Settlement Agreement on or before Dec. 26, 2017.

The Magistrate Judge set the final hearing to consider the
fairness and adequacy of the Settlement Agreement, final approval
the Settlement Agreement, and entry of a Final Approval Order and
Judgment on Feb. 2, 2018 at 10:30 a.m. in Courtroom 3, U.S.
Courthouse, 600 East Monroe Street, Springfield, Illinois 62701.

The Parties and the Claims Administrator with comply with all
other the terms and conditions of the Settlement Agreement and the
Opinion and Order.

A full-text copy of the Court's Oct. 20, 2017 Opinion and Order is
available at https://is.gd/td4cRw from Leagle.com.

Larry Fikara, Plaintiff, represented by Benjamin Michael Lopatin -
- BLopatin@ELPLawyers.com -- EGGNATZ LOPATIN & PASCUCCI LLP.

Larry Fikara, Plaintiff, represented by Anthony J. Orshansky,
COUNSELONE PC, Justin K. Kachadoorian --
justin@counselonegroup.com -- COUNSELONE PC & David C. Nelson,
NELSON & NELSON ATTORNEYS AT LAW PC.

Niemann Foods Inc, Defendant, represented by Eric L. Samore --
esamore@salawus.com -- SMITH AMUNDSEN LLC, James L. Palmer --
jpalmer@slpsd.com -- SCHOLZ LOOS PALMER SIEBERS & DUESTERHAUS,
Jonathan D. Hoag -- jhoag@salawus.com -- SMITH AMUNDSEN LLC,
Ronald David Balfour -- rbalfour@salawus.com -- SMITHAMUNDSEN LLC
& William S. Meckes -- wmeckes@slpsd.com -- SCHOLZ LOOS PALMER
SIEBERS & DUESTERHAUS.


PCL CONSTRUCTION: Six Lawsuits Over Outer Banks Outages Combined
----------------------------------------------------------------
WVEC reports that six lawsuits against PCL Construction are being
combined into one, following an eight-day power outage earlier
this year in the Outer Banks.

The contractor admitted to severing transmission lines serving
Hatteras and Ocracoke Islands over the summer.  Businesses are now
looking to recover what they lost during the height of the tourist
season.

To recoup all of the money lost, the suit seeks as much as $16
million.

Some who filed claims have already decided to settle with PCL.
[GN]


PHILLIPS 66: 401(k) Participants File ERISA Cass Action
-------------------------------------------------------
Robert Steyer, writing for Pensions&Investments, reports that
Participants in a 401(k) run by Phillips 66, Houston, have sued
plan officials saying they breached their fiduciary duty under the
Employee Retirement Income Security Act by keeping in the plan a
large amount of common stock from the company's former parent.

The participants in the Phillips 66 Savings Plan argued that the
plan's holding stock of the former parent, ConocoPhillips Co.,
said this strategy "violated ERISA's diversification and prudence
requirements and was reckless under any common-sense investment
strategy."

The lawsuit -- Jeffrey Schweitzer et al. vs. The Investment
Committee of the Phillips 66 Savings Plan et al. -- was filed
Oct. 9 in U.S. District Court in Houston. It seeks class-action
status.

The plan had $4.64 billion in assets as of Dec. 31, 2016,
according to the latest Form 5500 filed with the Department of
Labor.

"It is our practice to not comment on legal matters," Phillips 66
said in an Oct. 17 email sent to Pensions & Investments.

The plaintiffs allege that the plan held $1 billion, or 25% of its
assets, in ConocoPhillips stock during the class period starting
May 1, 2012, through the filing of the lawsuit. Such a large
holding "is, by definition, undiversified, exposing investors to
extreme volatility and risk," the complaint said.

The participants argued that the problem was exacerbated by the
401(k) plan also holding Phillips 66 common stock, which "has an
extremely high correlation" to ConocoPhillips stock because both
companies are energy companies.

The plaintiffs didn't sue over the Phillips 66 stock.

The lawsuit claimed that the defendants "ignored the numerous
warning signs that showed ConocoPhillips stock was an imprudent
investment for retirement assets," a reference to the impact of
falling energy prices on oil company stocks.

Phillips 66 was spun off from ConocoPhillips on April 30, 2012.
According to the complaint, each ConocoPhillips shareholder
received one share of Phillips 66 common stock for every two
shares of ConocoPhillips stock.  Phillips 66 established its
401(k) plan on May 1, 2012.

At the time of the spinoff, the former parent transferred about
$2.9 billion in assets to the Phillips 66 plan, including an
aggregate of $1 billion in two ConocoPhillips stock funds, the
complaint said.

"A prudent fiduciary considering the prudent diversification of
the (Phillips 66) plan as a whole would have removed
ConocoPhillips stock," the participants said.

The lawsuit was filed by law firms Ajamie; Izard Kindall & Raabe;
and Bailey & Glasser. [GN]


PURDUE PHARMA: Jacksonville City Council to Pursue Opioid Lawsuit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
A.G. Gancarski, writing for Florida Politics, reports that
Jacksonville City Council panels OK'd a resolution (2017-674) to
allow the city's general counsel to "investigate and pursue" a
lawsuit against opioid manufacturers.

Full Council approval will be a formality and will almost
certainly be conferred.

The resolution calls out "pharmaceutical manufacturers and
distributors" as potential lawsuit targets, yet does not rule out
other targets.

Resolution sponsor Bill Gulliford has pushed for a concerted local
response to the overdose epidemic, one that has seen myriad
fatalities, along with budgetary and manpower burdens imposed on
the city's Fire and Rescue department.

$1.5 million dollars have already been budgeted for a treatment
program.  However, Mr. Gulliford has sought to see the city join
other governments in suing Big Pharma.

Mr. Guilliford said on Oct. 16 the bill allowed for general
counsel to consider outside representation.  Each firm's financial
capability to pursue the matter is among criteria considered by
general counsel, he said.

Purdue and other pharmaceutical companies, said Mr. Gulliford,
claimed that these products were non-addictive -- leading to $17
billion profits for just Purdue alone.

There's no out-of-pocket cost for the city, a representative from
the general counsel said; if an award was made to the city, there
would be a contingency payment.

Despite many jurisdictions suing Big Pharma, Jacksonville's
lawyers believe that "independent damages" suffered by the city
provide rationale for a standalone suit -- regardless of whether
or not the state takes action eventually.

The city would need its own legal action to secure its own
potential recovery. This would not be a class action suit, as each
city has its own impacts.

Those "independent damages" have yet to be calculated.

The city lawyer on hand likened this suit to the "Big Tobacco"
suits years back, in terms of approach.

The mayor's office will be "evaluating this legislation" should it
pass, a staffer said. [GN]


QUAKER OATS: Court Dismisses Class Action Over Maple Oatmeal
------------------------------------------------------------
Emily L. Pincow, Esq. -- emily.pincow@weil.com -- of Weil Gotshal
& Manges LLP, in an article for Lexology, wrote that with cool and
brisk days soon approaching, a warm bowl of oatmeal seems like the
perfect breakfast choice -- but not so much for a group of
consumers allegedly disappointed with Quaker's "maple" flavored
oatmeal for its lack of maple syrup.  This month, a federal court
in California dismissed a proposed class action against Quaker
Oats Company based on federal preemption.

The oatmeal at issue is Quaker's "Maple and Brown Sugar" flavored
oatmeal, which was introduced in the 1970's.  Maple syrup comes
from the sap of maple trees through a process of drilling and
heating.  Plaintiffs, consumers from states throughout the United
States, claimed that the oatmeal's label states in bold type
"Quaker Instant Oatmeal, Maple & Brown Sugar" and includes a
picture of a glass pitcher of maple syrup. Plaintiffs alleged that
these representations convey to consumers that the oatmeal
contains maple syrup, which allowed the oatmeal to "command a
premium in the marketplace," when it really did not.  Plaintiffs'
lawsuit alleged claims for various state consumer protection laws,
misrepresentation, false advertising, breach of express warranty,
unjust enrichment, and requested injunctive relief.

In response, Quaker argued that Plaintiffs' claims were preempted
by the federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act ("FDCA") and
Nutritional Labeling and Education Act ("NLEA"), which preempts
any state law claim that would impose labeling requirements "not
identical" to the requirements imposed by the FDA.  Congress
enacted the FDCA as a "comprehensive regulatory scheme of branding
and labeling of food products."  Congress then passed the NLEA,
amending the FDCA in order to establish "uniform food labeling
requirements." The NLEA includes an express preemption provision.

At the outset, the Court addressed two threshold matters. First,
Plaintiffs argued that the NLEA's preemption provision did not
apply because the provision specifically exempts state laws that
are "applicable to maple syrup."  However, when analyzing the
exceptions for maple syrup, the Court concluded that the
exceptions "were implemented to enable states . . . to set
standards for what can be sold as maple syrup" not to "permit any
claim relating to maple syrup."  Second, the Court addressed
whether to consider the preemptive effect of federal flavoring
regulations or sweetener regulations.  On this point, the Court
concluded that Plaintiffs were treating maple as a flavor, not a
sweetener, since, among other things, Plaintiffs compared the
"Maple & Brown Sugar" products with the "Apple and Cinnamon"
ones, which are clearly all "flavors."

As for preemption, the Court held that Plaintiffs' lawsuit sought
"to enjoin exactly what the federal law expressly permits" and
thus, their claims were preempted.  The Court explained that
Plaintiffs sought to prohibit Quaker from labeling its oatmeal
with the flavor name "Maple and Brown Sugar" and an image of a
glass pitcher of maple syrup on the basis that the oatmeal does
not contain maple syrup.  However, federal law expressly permits
labeling to describe "the primary recognizable flavors, by word,
or vignette" even if the product "contains no such ingredient."
This is exactly what Quaker did.  Its oatmeal described the
primary recognizable flavor -- maple -- both by word and by the
image of the pitcher of syrup.  The Court found that Quaker was
permitted to do this so long as the flavor was properly labeled as
"natural" or "artificially" flavored, which Quaker did.

In response, Plaintiffs argued that the FDCA and state laws
contain identical prohibitions on false or misleading labeling.
The Court, however, explained that it did not find that the state
statutes themselves were preempted, but that their application to
Quaker oatmeal was preempted because it attempted to place
requirements on Quaker that went beyond the requirements of the
FDCA.  While the Court found that any misrepresentation or false
advertising claim premised on federal compliant "flavor" labeling
would be preempted, the Court noted that maple as a "sweetener"
could "possibly avoid preemption" if successfully pled.

The Court dismissed Plaintiffs' other claims as well.
Specifically, the Court dismissed Plaintiffs' breach of warranty
claim on the basis that labels that only indicate flavor, rather
than composition, cannot serve as the basis for a breach of
express warranty claim.  In addition, the Court dismissed
Plaintiffs' claim for unjust enrichment because it is not an
independent cause of action and no viable underlying claim
existed.  Lastly, the Court found that Plaintiffs lacked standing
to bring a claim for injunctive relief because such a claim
depends on whether the consumer is "likely to suffer future
injury" from the challenged product.  Since Plaintiffs' suit never
alleged that they intended to purchase Maple oatmeal again, the
Court found that Plaintiffs lacked standing for injunctive relief.
The Court noted, however, that under its current law, it is
possible for plaintiffs in consumer misrepresentation cases to
seek injunctive relief if they allege that they intend to purchase
the product at issue in the future.

This decision is not only a successful dismissal for Quaker, but
it can also serve as a roadmap for other companies in defending
against similar consumer class actions.  With respect to food
labeling specifically, preemption is one defense that should
always be considered.  Indeed, the Court highlighted the rationale
for preemption in this field, as articulated by Judge Posner: "It
is easy to see why Congress would not wait to allow states to
impose disclosure requirements of their own on packaged food
products, most of which are sold nationwide.  Manufacturers might
have to print 50 different labels, driving consumers who buy food
products in more than one state crazy." [GN]


QUALCOMM INC: Court Narrows Claims in Securities Fraud Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------
Judge Michael M. Anello of the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of California granted in part and denied in part
the Defendants' motion to dismiss the case captioned 3226701
CANADA, INC., Plaintiff, v. QUALCOMM, INC., et al., Defendants,
Case No. 15cv2678-MMA (WVG) (S.D. Cal.).

On Nov. 30, 2015, the Plaintiff filed the putative securities
fraud class action alleging claims under Sections 10(b) and 20(a)
of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended by Private
Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995 ("PSLRA"), and Rule 10b-
5, 17 CFR 240.10b-5, against Qualcomm and various directors,
officers, and/or employees of Qualcomm.  On Feb. 19, 2016, the
Court appointed the Public Employees Retirement System of
Mississippi ("Mississippi"), a member of the putative class, as
the Lead Plaintiff, and approved Mississippi's selection of the
co-lead counsel and the liaison counsel.

On April 29, 2016, the Plaintiff filed a First Amended Complaint
("FAC").  On June 28, 2016, the Defendants filed a motion to
dismiss the FAC for failure to state a claim under Rules 9(b) and
12(b)(6), as well as the PSLRA.  On Jan. 27, 2018, the Court
granted the Defendants' motion to dismiss, finding that the FAC
failed to adequately plead falsity, scienter, and, in part, loss
causation.  The Court granted the Plaintiff leave to amend a
Second Amended Complaint ("SAC").

On March 17, 2017, the Plaintiff filed their SAC.  On May 8, 2017,
the Defendants timely filed the instant motion to dismiss the SAC
for failure to state a claim under Rules 9(b) and 12(b)(6), as
well as the PSLRA.  The parties requested an extended briefing
schedule for the motion to dismiss, which the Court granted.  The
Plaintiff filed an opposition and the Defendants filed a reply.

On Oct. 6, 2017, the Plaintiff filed an unopposed ex parte motion
to withdraw paragraphs 116 and 117 from the SAC and asked the
Court to disregard any references to, statements based on, or
allegations relying on these paragraphs.  On Oct. 10, 1017, the
Court granted the unopposed ex parte motion.

The gravamen of the SAC is that the Defendants made false or
misleading statements and/or omissions during the Class Period
concealing the debilitating overheating problems with Qualcomm's
Snapdragon 8102 ("810"), which caused Qualcomm's most important
810 customer, Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd., to reject the 810 for
use in the Galaxy S6.  Specifically, the Defendants'
representations repeatedly touting the power, speed,
functionality, and overall success of the Snapdragon 810
processor, denying that the Snapdragon 810 had any abnormal
thermal issues, and denying that OEMs were encountering problems
with and abandoning the 810 because of those overheating problems
were highly material to investors.

The Plaintiff alleges the Defendants' conduct violated Sections
10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5.  It
defines the putative Class Period as Nov. 19, 2014 to July 22,
2015, and the putative Class as all persons and entities that,
during the class Period, purchased or otherwise acquired the
publicly traded common stock of Qualcomm and were damaged thereby.

Having reviewed the exhibits attached to the Defendants' request,
Judge Anello ordered that all exhibits, except for exhibits 24,
29, 30, and 31, are incorporated into the SAC by reference because
they are quoted or referred to in the SAC and because Plaintiff
does not object.  The Judge will not take judicial notice of the
remaining documents, as it did not rely on them in reaching the
conclusion below that the Plaintiff has sufficiently pleaded a
private securities fraud action.  Accordingly, he granted the
Defendants' request to incorporate exhibits 1-23, 25-28, and 32-43
into the SAC by reference, and denied the Defendants' request to
judicially notice exhibits 24, and 29-31.

With respect to the Defendant's Motion to Dismiss, Judge Anello
ultimately finds that the Plaintiff insufficiently pleads loss
causation with respect to the July 22, 2015 corrective disclosure.
The Plaintiff's argument that the July 22, 2015 conference call
reveals the concealed fraud even though it does not precisely
disclose the parameters of the fraud is insufficient.  The
statements from the conference call were considered by the Court
in its prior order dismissing the FAC and the statements are
substantively the same in the SAC.  As a result, the Judge says,
any argument that the conference call now supports the Plaintiff's
loss causation allegations is insufficient.  The Plaintiff did not
link economic losses to disclosure of the alleged fraud because
the July 22 disclosure does not reference the 810's propensity to
overheat.

The Judge further finds that the Plaintiff fails to sufficiently
plead the Defendants' statements on Nov. 19, 2014 and Dec. 2, 2014
with respect to OEM acceptance of the 810 in their flagship
devices were materially false or misleading.  Like the FAC, the
SAC still does not allege facts that would render the Defendants'
arguably incomplete statements misleading or false.  The Plaintiff
does not contend that many OEMs planned on not using the 810.  In
fact, the SAC alleges that many OEMs, including LG, HTC, ZTE,
Xiaomi, and Sony, did use the 810 in its flagship devices.

Judge Anello also finds that the Defendants' statements that the
810 was "on track," that it was expected to be available in 1H
2015, and that there aren't any significant technical issues that
will cause a delay, are not material misrepresentations or
omissions because the Plaintiff failed to allege that the
Defendants' knew the expected release date was insurmountable or
particularly significant.  The fact that several OEMs were
ultimately commercially available in 1H 2015 undercuts the
Plaintiff's argument.

On Jan. 28, 2015, Defendants Mollenkopf and Qualcomm made two
statements, explaining that the 810 was performing well, or as
expected, and that any concerns are related to one OEM.  The
Plaintiff has pleaded with sufficient particularity that on Jan.
28, 2015, there were problems with the 810 not limited to one OEM
and that it was not performing well.  Specifically, the Defendants
argue that none of the Plaintiff's allegations support the
Plaintiff's theory that production of the 810 suffered
debilitating thermal issues or was fundamentally compromised, and
therefore the Defendants' statements could not have been
materially false or misleading when made.  They also argue that
these are statements of opinion.  The Judge finds that none of
these arguments warrant dismissal of the Defendants Mollenkopf or
Qualcomm with respect to the Jan. 28, 2015 statements at this
stage of the proceedings.

The pleadings support a strong inference of scienter on the part
of Defendant Mollenkopf with respect to his knowledge that the 810
was defective, and Judge Anello will, therefore, impute scienter
to Defendant Qualcomm.  As discussed, the Plaintiff has
sufficiently alleged that it is plausible the 810 suffered from
serious overheating issues and was defective.  An analysis of the
Plaintiff's scienter allegations likewise suggests that it is
cogent to infer that Defendant Mollenkopf and Qualcomm made either
false or misleading statements intentionally, or with deliberate
recklessness, as they either had direct knowledge of the 810's
propensity to overheat or had access to such knowledge.  Because
he finds scienter with respect to Defendant Mollenkopf and
Qualcomm, the Judge declines to analyze scienter under a holistic
review of the Plaintiff's allegations.

Based on the falsity, scienter, and loss causation analyses, the
Plaintiff's 10(b) cause of action survives the motion to dismiss
based on the two statements made by Defendants Mollenkopf and
Qualcomm on Jan. 28, 2015.  Accordingly, Judge Anello will deny
the Defendants' motion to dismiss the Section 10(b) cause of
action as to Defendants Mollenkopf and Qualcomm.  He finds that
the Plaintiff cannot cure the deficiencies of loss causation with
respect to the July 22, 2015 corrective disclosure, and cannot
cure the insufficiently pleaded falsity of statements made prior
to Jan. 28, 2015.  As a result, he will grant the motion to
dismiss the Section 10(b) cause of action without leave to amend
as to Defendants Amon, Aberle, Renduchintala, and McDonough.

Finally, the Plaintiff also alleges a claim under Section 20(a) of
the Exchange Act, which requires a primary violation of federal
securities law, and that the defendant exercised actual power or
control over the primary violator.  The Defendants' motion to
dismiss this claim is predicated entirely on the argument that the
SAC fails to state a primary violation of Section 10(b) for
failure to adequately plead falsity, scienter, or loss causation.
Thus, he finds that the SAC sufficiently pleads falsity, loss
causation, and a strong inference of scienter, with reference to
some statements, Judge Anello will deny the Defendants' motion to
dismiss the Section 20(a) claim as to Defendants Mollenkopf and
Qualcomm, and will grant the Defendants' motion to dismiss the
Section 20(a) claims as to the Defendants Amon, Aberle,
Renduchintala, and McDonough without leave to amend.

For these reasons, Judge Anello denied the Defendants' motion to
dismiss as to Defendants Mollenkopf and Qualcomm, and granted
Defendants' motion to dismiss as to Defendants Amon, Aberle,
Renduchintala, and McDonough.  He dismissed the Plaintiff's claims
against Defendants Amon, Aberle, Renduchintala, and McDonough
without leave to amend.  The Clerk of Court is instructed to
terminate the action as to Defendants Amon, Aberle, Renduchintala,
and McDonough.

A full-text copy of the Court's Oct. 20, 2017 Order is available
at https://is.gd/WddS5c from Leagle.com.

3226701 Canada, Inc., Plaintiff, represented by Lesley F. Portnoy
-- lportnoy@glancylaw.com -- Glancy Prongay & Murray LLP.

3226701 Canada, Inc., Plaintiff, represented by Lionel Z. Glancy -
- lglancy@glancylaw.com -- Glancy Prongay & Murray LLP & Robert
Vincent Prongay -- RProngay@glancylaw.com -- Glancy Prongay &
Murray LLP.

Public Employees Retirement System of Mississippi, Plaintiff,
represented by Andrew L. Zivitz -- azivitz@ktmc.com -- Kessler
Topaz Meltzer & Check LLP, pro hac vice, Claiborne R. Hane --
chane@labaton.com -- Labaton Sucharow LLP, pro hac vice, Eli R.
Greenstein --megreenstein@ktmc.com -- Kessler Topaz Meltzer &
Check, LLP, Frank J. Johnson, Jr. -- FrankJ@JohnsonFistel.com --
Johnson Fistel, LLP, James T. Christie -- jchristie@labaton.com --
Labaton Sucharow LLP, pro hac vice, James W. Johnson --
jjohnson@labaton.com -- Labaton Sucharow LLP, pro hac vice,
Jennifer Lauren Joost -- jjoost@ktmc.com -- Kessler Topaz Meltzer
& Check, LLP, Jonathan F. Neumann -- jneumann@ktmc.com -- Kessler
Topaz Meltzer & Check LLP, pro hac vice, Matthew Hrutkay --
mhrutkay@labaton.com -- Labaton Sucharow LLP, Michael H. Rogers --
mrogers@labaton.com -- Labaton Sucharow LLP, pro hac vice, Paul
Aaron Breucop -- pbreucop@ktmc.com -- Kessler Topaz Meltzer &
Check, LLP, Phong L. Tran -- PhongT@JohnsonFistel.com -- Johnson
Fistel, LLP & Shawn E. Fields -- sfields@sandiego.edu -- Johnson &
Weaver LLP.

Qualcomm, Inc., Defendant, represented by Koji F. Fukumura --
kfukumura@cooley.com -- Cooley Godward Kronish, Peter M. Adams --
padams@cooley.com -- Cooley Godward Kronish, Steven M. Strauss --
sms@cooley.com -- Cooley Godward Kronish, Craig Edward TenBroeck -
- ctenbroeck@cooley.com -- Cooley LLP & Jeffrey Michael Kaban --
jkaban@cooley.com -- Cooley LLP.

Steven M. Mollenkopf, Defendant, represented by Koji F. Fukumura,
Cooley Godward Kronish, Steven M. Strauss, Cooley Godward Kronish,
Craig Edward TenBroeck, Cooley LLP & Jeffrey Michael Kaban, Cooley
LLP.

George S. Davis, Defendant, represented by Koji F. Fukumura,
Cooley Godward Kronish, Steven M. Strauss, Cooley Godward Kronish,
Craig Edward TenBroeck, Cooley LLP & Jeffrey Michael Kaban, Cooley
LLP.


RENZENBERGER INC: Class of Drivers Certified in "Wright" Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
The Honorable Fernando M. Olguin entered these rulings in the
lawsuit entitled Roderick Wright, et al. v. Renzenberger, Inc.,
Case No. 2:13-cv-06642-FMO-AGR (C.D. Cal.):

   1. Plaintiffs' Motion for Class Certification is granted;

   2. a class with respect to the Plaintiffs' claims for rest
      break violations is certified:

      All yard drivers and road drivers employed by Renzenberger,
      Inc. in California from August 1, 2011, through the date of
      this Order, who worked one or more days of three and one
      half (3 ´) hours or more ("Rest BreakClass");

   3. Plaintiffs Roderick Wright, Fernando Olivarez, Marcus
      Haynes, Jr., and Michael Watson are appointed as
      representatives of the Rest Break Class; and

   4. Matthew B. Hayes, Esq., and Kye D. Pawlenko, Esq., of Hayes
      Pawlenko LLP, are appointed as class counsel for the Rest
      Break Class.

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



SAINT-GOBAIN PERFORMANCE: Sullivan Moves for Class Certification
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Plaintiffs in the lawsuit titled JAMES D. SULLIVAN and LESLIE
ADDISON, WILLIAM S. SUMNER, JR., RONALD S. HAUSTHOR, GORDON
GARRISON, and TED and LINDA CRAWFORD, individually, and on behalf
of a Class of persons similarly situated v. SAINT-GOBAIN
PERFORMANCE PLASTICS CORPORATION, Case No. 5:16-cv-00125-gwc (D.
Vt.), move for class certification pursuant to Rule 23 of the
Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.

A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=dfkoP3vw

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Emily J. Joselson, Esq.
          James W. Swift, Esq.
          LANGROCK SPERRY & WOOL, LLP
          P.O. Drawer 351
          Middlebury, VT 05753
          Telephone: (802) 388-6356
          Facsimile: (802) 388-6149
          E-mail: ejoselson@langrock.com
                  jswift@langrock.com

               - and -

          Gary A. Davis, Esq.
          James S. Whitlock, Esq.
          Douglas A. Ruley, Esq.
          DAVIS & WHITLOCK, P.C.
          21 Battery Park Ave., Suite 206
          Asheville, NC 28801
          Telephone: (828) 622-0044
          Facsimile: (828) 398-0435
          E-mail: gadavis@enviroattorney.com
                  jwhitlock@enviroattorney.com
                  druley@enviroattorney.com

               - and -

          Patrick J. Bernal, Esq.
          Robert E. Woolmington, Esq.
          WOOLMINGTON, CAMPBELL, BERNAL & BENT, P.C.
          4900 Main Street
          P.O. Box 2748
          Manchester Center, VT 05255
          Telephone: (802) 362-2560
          Facsimile: (802) 362-7109
          E-mail: patrick@greenmtlaw.com
                  rob@greenmtlaw.com

               - and -

          David F. Silver, Esq.
          Timothy M. Andrews, Esq.
          BARR STERNBERG MOSS SILVER & MUNSON, P.C.
          507 Main Street
          Bennington, VT 05201
          Telephone: (802) 442-6341
          Facsimile: (802) 442-1151
          E-mail: dsilver@barrsternberg.com
                  tandrews@barrsternberg.com

The Defendant is represented by:

          R. Bradford Fawley, Esq.
          DOWNS RACHLIN MARTIN PLLC
          28 Vernon Street, Suite 501
          Brattleboro, VT 05301-3668
          Telephone: (802) 258-3070
          E-mail: bfawley@drm.com

               - and -

          Sheila L. Birnbaum, Esq.
          Mark S. Cheffo, Esq.
          Patrick D. Curran, Esq.
          Douglas E. Fleming, Esq.
          Paul A. LaFata, Esq.
          Rachel Passaretti-Wu, Esq.
          Lincoln D. Wilson, Esq.
          QUINN EMANUEL URQUHART & SULLIVAN LLP
          51 Madison Avenue
          New York, NY 10010
          Telephone: (212) 849-7000
          Facsimile: (212) 849-7100
          E-mail: sheilabirnbaum@quinnemanuel.com
                  markcheffo@quinnemanuel.com
                  patrickcurran@quinnemanuel.com
                  douglasfleming@quinnemanuel.com
                  paullafata@quinnemanuel.com
                  rachelpassarettiwu@quinnemanuel.com
                  lincolnwilson@quinnemanuel.com


SANOFI PASTEUR: $61.5MM Deal in Antitrust Suit Has Final OK
-----------------------------------------------------------
In the case captioned ADRIANA M. CASTRO, M.D., P.A., SUGARTOWN
PEDIACTRICS, LLC, and MARQUEZ & BENGOCHEA, M.D., P.A., on behalf
of themselves and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v.
SANOFI PASTEUR INC., Defendants, Civ. No. 11-7178 (JMV)(MAH) (D.
N.J.), Judge John Michael Vazquez of the U.S. District Court for
the District of New Jersey granted both the Parties' joint motion
for final approval of the settlement in the healthcare-related
antitrust class action and the Plaintiffs' motion for an award of
attorneys' fees, reimbursement of expenses, and payment of service
awards.

The Plaintiffs filed their First Consolidated Amended Class Action
Complaint on Jan. 20, 2012, alleging that the Defendant, through
Menactra, has a 93% monopoly of the meningococcal pediatric
vaccine market. Menactra inoculates against bacterial meningitis.
After Novartis, the only other producer of a meningococcal vaccine
in the U.S., planned to enter the meningococcal vaccine market
with its Menveo vaccine, the Defendant allegedly bundled its other
pediatric vaccines with Menactra to force physicians to buy their
vaccines at higher prices. As a result, purchasers of the Menveo
vaccine incurred substantial price penalties if they bought even
small quantities of the drug.

On Feb. 27, 2012, the Defendant filed a motion to dismiss and a
counterclaim against the Plaintiff and proposed class members.
After the stand-alone counterclaim was struck, the motion to
dismiss was also denied, and the Defendant answered and asserted
its counterclaim again on Aug. 21, 2012.  The Defendants claimed
that the Plaintiffs and other purported class members had engaged
in unlawful collective action by forming physician buying groups
("PBGs") causing the prices of vaccines to fall.

The Court eventually appointed a Special Master, Ronald J. Riccio,
to resolve discovery disputes.  The class certification process
was lengthy, and included an appeal by the Defendant to the Third
Circuit challenging the order certifying the class, which was
denied.

The class was defined as all persons or entities in the United
States and its territories that purchase Menactra directly from
Defendant Sanofi or any of its divisions, subsidiaries,
predecessors or affiliates, such a VaxServe, Inc., during the
period from March 1, 2010 through such time as the effects of
Sanofi's illegal conduct have ceased.  The class period was later
amended with an end date of Dec. 31, 2014.

On April 24, 2017, the Court granted preliminary approval of the
settlement, and approved Rust Consulting as the settlement
administrator.  The proposed settlement is for $61.5 million in
cash and the release of Defendant Sanofi's counterclaim.  The
class is comprised of approximately 30,000 members including
pediatricians, physician groups, and other vaccine purchasers.  Of
the class members, only 16 have opted out and none have objected
to the settlement.

The Court ordered a notice plan on April 24, 2017.  The parties
also held extensive settlement negotiations, beginning with a
private mediation in November 2014.  The Court also ordered that
the Settlement Notice to class members of the proposed settlement
and the Summary Notice be disseminated in three ways: (i) direct
first-class mail of the Settlement Notice to class members; (ii)
publication of the Summary Notice in the Pediatrics medical
journal; and (iii) posting the Settlement Notice and Summary
Notice on a litigation specific-website established by the
settlement administrator.  In addition, the settlement
administrator created a case-specific website, email address,
toll-free phone number, and post office box to facilitate
communication with potential class members.

The proposed distribution plan will allocate the settlement fund
on a pro rata basis calculated by each claimant's total Menactra
purchases made during the class period.  Sanofi will provide data
showing the Menactra purchases made, and the Plan Administrator
will mail a Claim Form to each Class Member with the details of
their purchases included.  The pro rata share will be calculated
by dividing the total volume of Menactra purchases made by a
Claimant by the total volume of Menactra purchases for all
Claimants.  That pro rata share will then be multiplied by the
total net settlement fund amount.

Approximately 30% of the purchases of Menactra during the class
period were made by three national wholesalers of pediatric
vaccines: AmerisourceBergen, Cardinal Health, and McKesson.  All
three fully support the settlement terms.

The Parties now move for final approval of the settlement and the
Plaintiffs requests for an award of attorneys' fees, reimbursement
of expenses, and payment of service awards.  The Plaintiff's
counsel makes a claim for attorneys' fees of one-third of the
settlement amount, or $20.5 million; reimbursement of litigation
expenses; and $100,000 service awards for each of the three class
representatives.  The Court reviewed the submissions in support of
the motions and held a final settlement hearing on Oct. 3, 2017.

Judge Vazquez finds that the settling parties have established
that the Girsh factors weigh in favor of final approval of the
class settlement.  To date, there are no objections to the
settlement by any class member.  Additionally, the three
sophisticated national wholesale class members have all joined the
settlement and submitted letters in support of its terms.

The Judge also finds that there have been no objections to the
request for attorneys' fees, litigation costs, and service awards.
Notably, none of the three sophisticated class members, who make
up almost 30% of the class, object to the motion for fees,
reimbursement, and service awards; rather, they have submitted
letters in support for the settlement.

The Plaintiffs' counsel logged 43,200 hours of work on the case.
The Counsel will also have to expend additional time.  Yet,
counsel is not seeking any payment for this additional effort.
Using their historical rates, the counsel cites the lodestar as
$22,086,998.45.  Because the lodestar cross-check results in a
negative multiplier, it provides strong evidence that the
requested attorneys' fee is reasonable.

The Plaintiff's counsel has also asked for reimbursement of
$7,199,310 in out-of-pocket and unpaid expenses out of the
settlement fund before it is distributed to class members.  These
fees are all properly charged to the class.  Judge Vazquez finds
that these expenses are reasonable and sufficiently documented.

The Plaintiff's counsel has asked that the Court award $100,000
each to the class representatives, Adriana M. Castro, M.D., P.A.,
Sugartown Pediatrics, LLC, and Marquez and Bengochea, M.D., P.A.
While the requested amount is higher than that awarded in an
average case, it is appropriate, the Judge finds.  All three were
subject to the Defendant's counterclaim, and all three
participated in the lengthy and onerous discovery process.  In
addition, the class representatives aided counsel during written
discovery, producing thousands of pages of documents.  No
objection has been received to this award.  He finds that given
the significant roles the class representatives played throughout
the litigation, the service awards are warranted.

For the reasons stated, and for good cause shown, Judge Vazquez
granted the joint motion for final approval of the settlement.  In
addition, he granted the Plaintiffs' motion for an award of
attorney fees, reimbursement of expenses, and payment of service
awards to the class representatives.  Appropriate Orders accompany
the Opinion.  One Order addresses the settlement and the other
concerns the fee, expenses, and award application.

A full-text copy of the Court's Oct. 20, 2017 Opinion is available
at https://is.gd/OigYCL from Leagle.com.

Novartis Vaccines & Diagnostics, Inc., Movant, represented by
REBEKAH R. CONROY -- rconroy@stoneconroy.com -- STONE CONROY LLC.

RONALD J. RICCIO, Special Master, represented by RONALD J. RICCIO
-- RRICCIO@MDMC-LAW.COM -- MCELROY, DEUTSCH, MULVANEY & CARPENTER,
LLP.

ADRIANA CASTRO, M.D., P.A., Plaintiff, represented by JAMES E.
CECCHI -- JCecchi@carellabyrne.com -- CARELLA BYRNE CECCHI OLSTEIN
BRODY & AGNELLO, P.C., KELLY AGNUS PURCARO, Cohn Lifland Pearlman
Herrman & Knopf, LLP & PETER S. PEARLMAN -- psp@njlawfirm.com --
COHN, LIFLAND, PEARLMAN, HERRMANN & KNOPF, LLP.

SUGARTOWN PEDIATRICS, LLC, Plaintiff, represented by JAMES E.
CECCHI, CARELLA BYRNE CECCHI OLSTEIN BRODY & AGNELLO, P.C., KELLY
MAGNUS PURCARO, Cohn Lifland Pearlman Herrman & Knopf, LLP, PAUL
COSTA -- mail@finekaplan.com -- FINE, KAPLAN AND BLACK, RPC, BRENT
WILLIAM JOHNSON -- bjohnson@cohenmilstein.com -- COHEN MILSTEIN
SELLERS & TOLL PLLC & PETER S. PEARLMAN, COHN, LIFLAND, PEARLMAN,
HERRMANN & KNOPF, LLP.

MARQUEZ AND BENGOCHEA, M.D.P.A., Plaintiff Consolidated,
represented by JAMES E. CECCHI, CARELLA BYRNE CECCHI OLSTEIN BRODY
& AGNELLO, P.C. & PETER S. PEARLMAN, COHN, LIFLAND, PEARLMAN,
HERRMANN & KNOPF, LLP.

SANOFI PASTEUR INC., Defendant, represented by JOHN P. BARRY --
jbarry@proskauer.com -- PROSKAUER ROSE, LLP, LIZA M. WALSH --
lwalsh@walsh.law.com -- WALSH PIZZI O'REILLY FALANGA LLP, JOEL A.
PISANO -- jpisano@walsh.law.com -- WALSH PIZZI O'REILLY FALANGA
LLP & KATELYN O'REILLY -- koreilly@walsh.law.com -- WALSH PIZZI
O'REILLY FALANGA LLP.

SANOFI PASTEUR INC., Counter Claimant, represented by JOHN P.
BARRY, PROSKAUER ROSE, LLP., LIZA M. WALSH, WALSH PIZZI O'REILLY
FALANGA LLP, JOEL A. PISANO, WALSH PIZZI O'REILLY FALANGA LLP &
KATELYN O'REILLY, WALSH PIZZI O'REILLY FALANGA LLP.

ADRIANA CASTRO, M.D., P.A., Counter Defendant, represented by JOHN
D. RADICE -- jradice@radicelawfirm.com -- Radice Law Firm, PC &
PETER S. PEARLMAN, COHN, LIFLAND, PEARLMAN, HERRMANN & KNOPF, LLP.


SCANA CORP: Faces SEC Nuke Plant Probe Amid Class Action
--------------------------------------------------------
Gavin Bade, writing for UtilityDIVE, reports that the Securities
and Exchange Commission on Oct. 17 served SCANA Corp. with a
subpoena for documents as part of an investigation it is
conducting related to the cancelled expansion of the V.C. Summer
nuclear plant in South Carolina.

SCANA officials said in a statement that they will "fully
cooperate" with the SEC investigation.  Company subsidiary South
Carolina Electric and Gas owns 55% of the plant and abandoned its
two-reactor expansion project with partner Santee Cooper in July.

The SEC investigation comes on the heels of a shareholder class
action lawsuit that alleges SCANA executives made "false and
misleading statements" on the Summer project.  Determining when
company officials knew of construction problems at the plant is
expected to be crucial in that case and two other shareholder
suits filed against the utility.

Dive Insight:

When it was proposed in 2008, the expansion of the V.C. Summer
nuclear plant was supposed to cost less than $12 billion.  But in
July, SCANA and Santee Cooper abandoned the project, already
having spent $9 billion.  They said completing construction would
take years and costs could spiral to $25 billion.

Delays and cost overruns were driven by design problems with the
new AP1000 reactors intended to be installed at the Summer plant.
Westinghouse, after years of delays at Summer and the Vogtle
nuclear project in Georgia, declared bankruptcy in March, and
internal documents from the company reveal executives had grave
doubts about the nuclear projects dating back to 2011.

Exactly when executives at the utilities learned of those issues
is now the subject of scrutiny from state lawmakers and the
central question in multiple shareholder lawsuits filed against
SCANA.

The class action suit, filed by Motley Rice LLC, focuses on a Feb.
2016 internal report to senior utility management from contractor
Bechtel on progress at the Summer plant.

The report warned SCANA that the Summer project would likely not
be successful, citing flawed engineering documents, low morale at
the work site, frequent construction changes, high turnover and
generally slow progress.

That was about a year and a half before the utilities agreed to
scrap the project, and the Motley Rice suit argues that SCANA
executives went on "assuring investors that costs spending was
prudent and substantial progress was being made, even when cost
overruns and other delays began to materialize."

"As a result of defendants' false statements and/or omissions,
SCANA's common stock traded at artificially inflated prices," the
firm wrote in a release.

The class action suit charges SCANA executives violated the
Securities and Exchange Act of 1934 and now the SEC is
investigating as well.

In a brief Oct. 16 statement, SCANA officials reported they had
been served with an SEC subpoena for documents relating to Summer
and intend to "fully cooperate" with the investigation.  "No
assurance can be given as to the timing or outcome of this
matter," they wrote.

In the face of lawsuits, SCANA and Santee Cooper are reportedly
turning on one another.  The Post & Courier reports SCANA
executives alleged that Santee Cooper officials misled state
leaders for years about its role in the Summer plant.

As a state-owned entity, Santee Cooper is not dealing with
shareholder lawsuits, but Gov. Henry McMaster (D) and some state
lawmakers have endorsed selling the company to cover the costs of
the abandoned plant. [GN]


SHELL OIL: Illinois Village Residents Object to Settlement
----------------------------------------------------------
Ryan Boysen and Hannah Meisel, writing for Law360, report that
residents of an Illinois village allegedly contaminated by benzene
spills from the Wood River Refinery have raised objections to a
proposed $5 million settlement that would end a class action
against refinery operator Shell Oil in Illinois federal court,
calling the deal a "slap in the face."

U.S. District Judge Nancy J. Rosenstengel gave the deal
preliminary approval in August, ahead of a final hearing on
Dec. 18, and counsel for the class of 367 residents of Roxana have
also signed off on the settlement.

Residents of the village have recently sent in a handful of
letters protesting the deal, however, saying it doesn't come close
to compensating them for widespread health issues or homes that
have been made worthless by benzene contamination.

"Less than a year ago, we had to put our dog down due to severe
tumors throughout," resident Michael Schultz said in his
objection, filed Oct. 7.  "Many residents in the neighborhood had
the same problem with their pets. . . . If this is happening to
our animals, what is going to happen to all the residents?"

"I do not believe that Shell/ConocoPhillips can possibly retrieve
the benzene out of the water, soil and air," he continued.  "It
will be an ongoing problem with little hope for the residents in
selling our homes and moving to a safer environment."

The suit alleged the Wood River Refinery has had 18 spills in 25
years, releasing chemicals like benzene, hexane, toluene and
xylene into the village's air and water.  Some of those chemicals,
like benzene, are carcinogenic, and at least a quarter of Roxana's
1,500 residents were directly affected by the pollution, according
to the suit.

The case was originally filed in state court in 2011, but it was
moved to federal court at the request of Shell Oil and co-
defendants ConocoPhillips and Canadian company Cenovu, majority
stakeholders in the Wood River Refinery at the time.

The class was certified in 2013 over Shell's complaints that the
class members were not similar enough and disagreements about the
class' findings on pollution in the area.

Mr. Schultz and two other residents filed objections that are
publicly available, and court records indicate that other
objection letters have been received but are under seal.  None of
the authors of the three publicly available letters explicitly
said whether they are members of the certified 367-person class,
but all said they are residents of the village.

Resident Amy Friedel said she was "born and raised in one of the
houses in question" and forced to sell it for next to nothing,
despite a lifetime's worth of improvements made by her father, who
Ms. Friedel said died from a brain tumor.

"It made me sick to my stomach seeing this beautiful home going
for the amount of a low-end sell," Ms. Friedel said.  "It's
sickening. Shell Oil Co. took away my family's inheritance and
possibly my father's life."

"For Shell Oil to propose the amount they are is a slap in our
face," she added.

The settlement does not include an admission of fault or
responsibility by Shell Oil.

Connie J. Kravanek appeared to refer to that aspect of the deal in
her objection letter.

"It helps the refinery and not the residents," she said.  "I am
retired and cannot afford to sell my home for a pittance but at
the same time I feel my health is at stake."

None of the parties involved responded to requests for comment on
Oct. 17.

The class is represented by Ted N. Gianaris --
tgianaris@simmonsfirm.com -- and Jo Anna Pollock --
jpollock@simmonsfirm.com -- of Simmons Browder Gianaris Angelides
& Barnerd LLC, and Andrea Bierstein -- ABierstein@simmonsfirm.com
-- of Hanly Conroy Bierstein Sheridan Fisher & Hayes LLP.

Shell Oil Co. and Equilon Enterprises LLC are represented by
Richard B. Korn -- rkorn@foxgalvin.com -- Ryan E. Mohr and Bart C.
Sullivan of Fox Galvin LLC.

Cenovus GPCO LLC, ConocoPhillips Co. and WRB Refining LP are
represented by Beth A. Bauer and Larry E. Hepler --
lhepler@heplerbroom.com -- of Hepler Broom MacDonald Hebrank True
& Noce LLC.

The case is Parko et al. v. Shell Oil Co. et al., Case No. 3:12-
cv-00336 (S.D. Ill.).  The case is assigned to Judge Nancy J.
Rosenstengel.  The case was filed April 27, 2012. [GN]


SOUTHWEST BANCORP: "Ubaldi" Case Still Ongoing
----------------------------------------------
Southwest Bancorp, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period
ended June 30, 2017, that the case, Ubaldi, et al. v SLM
Corporation, remains pending.

On March 18, 2011, an action entitled Ubaldi, et al. v SLM
Corporation ("Sallie Mae"), et al., Case No. 3:11-cv-01320 EDL
(the "Ubaldi Case") was filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of California as a putative class action with
respect to certain loans that the plaintiffs claim were made by
Sallie Mae. The loans in question were made by various banks,
including Bank SNB, and sold to Sallie Mae. Plaintiffs claim that
Sallie Mae entered into arrangements with chartered banks in order
to evade California law and that Sallie Mae is the de facto lender
on the loans in question and, as the lender on such loan, Sallie
Mae charged interest and late fees that violates California usury
law and the California Business and Professions Code. Sallie Mae
has denied all claims asserted against it and has stated that it
intends to vigorously defend the action.  On March 26, 2014, the
Court denied the plaintiffs' request to certify the class;
however, the Court permitted the plaintiffs to amend the filing to
redefine the class. Plaintiffs filed a renewed motion on June 23,
2014. On December 19, 2014, the Court issued a decision on the
renewed motion, certifying a class with respect to claims of
improper late fees, but denying class certification with respect
to plaintiffs' usury claims. Plaintiffs thereafter filed a motion
seeking leave to amend their complaint to add additional parties,
which Sallie Mae opposed, and, on March 24, 2015, the Court denied
the plaintiffs' motion.  On June 5, 2015, the law firm Cohen
Milstein Sellers & Toll based in Washington, D.C. entered its
appearance as co-counsel on behalf of plaintiffs.

Bank SNB is not specifically named in the action.  However, in the
first quarter of 2014, Sallie Mae provided Bank SNB with a notice
of claims that have been asserted against Sallie Mae in the Ubaldi
Case (the "Notice"). Sallie Mae asserts in the Notice that Bank
SNB may have indemnification and/or repurchase obligations
pursuant to the ExportSS Agreement dated July 1, 2002 between
Sallie Mae and Bank SNB, pursuant to which the loans in question
were made by Bank SNB. Bank SNB has substantial defenses with
respect to any claim for indemnification or repurchase ultimately
made by Sallie Mae, if any, and intends to vigorously defend
against any such claims.

Southwest Bancorp, Inc. is a financial holding company for Bank
SNB, which has been providing banking services since 1894.


SPOKEO INC: False Data Class Action to Proceed, Court Rules
-----------------------------------------------------------
Kevin Smith, writing for San Gabriel Valley Tribune, reports that
the American Civil Liberties Union is urging the Pasadena Police
Department to stop using aggregated social media data collected by
the people-search website Spokeo Inc.

In a letter sent on Oct. 17 to Mayor Terry Tornek, City Manager
Steven Mermell and Police Chief Phillip Sanchez, the civil rights
organization said the Pasadena-based company's Spokeo For Law
Enforcement database contains information that is sometimes
inaccurate.

The group also alleged in the letter the company may violate the
California Constitution's right to privacy by aggregating broad
swaths of information for law enforcement use that people wouldn't
expect a police department to access.

Spokeo provides users with everything from names, addresses and
social-media profiles to email addresses, people's marital status
and court and criminal records.

"We request the city provide all relevant documents concerning
Spokeo pursuant to the California Public Records Act in order to
make public Spokeo's capabilities and its service's risk to
Pasadena residents' privacy," ACLU of Southern California attorney
Mohammad Tajsar wrote in his letter to the city.

A class action moves forward

A federal appeals court recently allowed a proposed class action
to proceed challenging Spokeo's failure to "follow reasonable
procedures to assure maximum possible accuracy" of the information
contained in its reports.

Virginia resident Thomas Robins alleged in a 2011 lawsuit that
Spokeo published false data about him, including his age, marital
status, wealth and education.  He additionally alleged that the
information contained a photo of someone else purported to be him
which hurt his employment prospects at a time when he was out of
work.

Mr. Robbins claimed he had been looking for work throughout the
time Spokeo was displaying the erroneous information and that he
had been unable to find employment.  The allegedly bogus
information, he said, made him appear to be overqualified for jobs
he might have gained, expectant of a higher salary than employers
would be willing to pay and less mobile because of family
responsibilities.

In a May 2016 ruling, the Supreme Court dismissed the action,
saying that Mr. Robbins failed to prove an injury that was both
"concrete and particularized."  But the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of
Appeals recently decided that "Robins had alleged injuries that
were sufficiently concrete" to merit a lawsuit.

Striving for accuracy

Spokeo has maintained it is not a consumer reporting agency. Jason
Matthes, senior vice president and general counsel for Spokeo,
said the company strives to provide information that's as accurate
as possible.

"It's not a perfect science, but it's on the forefront of our
minds every single day because our data is used by thousands of
people each day," Mr. Matthes said last year, shortly after the
U.S. Supreme Court ruled in its favor in a class-action lawsuit
challenging the accuracy of its data.

In a statement issued on Oct. 17, Spokeo noted that its social
media and public record search data is accessed by more than 18
million visitors a month.

"These same publicly available tools are offered to public safety
and investigative agencies, as we strongly believe our search
tools can help them save time and effort in protecting our
communities," the company said.

Spokeo said it doesn't comment on partnerships or customer
relationships, but added that it offers a "simple and easy opt-out
for consumers" who might want to discontinue the service.

Mayor Tornek said the city strives to maintain an effective
balance between public safety and the rights and privacy of its
citizens.

"I think the ACLU has staked out some positions and they want to
make sure that government in general and police departments don't
violate people's privacy rights," he said.  "We're always mindful
of not crossing the line."

Mayor Tornek said he expected Pasadena police to have "more
effective investigative tools" than Spokeo, but that he understood
police sometimes used the service to "get shorthand information
quickly."

The sweet spot

Mayor Tornek said Spokeo recently provided the city with an update
on its services at a presentation on public safety. He called the
service "benign."

"But law enforcement is the flash point for all of this stuff,"
Mayor Tornek said.  "Some people will ask why the response time is
so long for law enforcement . . . and others think we have a
police state. There are varying points of view and government's in
the middle trying to find the sweet spot." [GN]


SPX CORP: Court Refuses to Certify Class in "Di Biase" Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------
The Hon. Robert J. Conrad, Jr., denied the motion for class
certification filed in the lawsuit styled JOSEPH Di BIASE, JOHN
PRODORUTTI and DAVID BRASS as individuals, on behalf of themselves
and all persons similarly situated, and INTERNATIONAL UNION,
UNITED AUTOMOBILE, AEROSPACE AND AGRICULTURAL IMPLEMENT WORKERS OF
AMERICA, UAW v. SPX CORPORATION, Case No. 3:14-cv-00656-RJC-DSC
(W.D.N.C.).

The Court finds that the Plaintiffs have failed to establish the
prerequisites under Rule 23(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil
Procedure for class certification.

Although the Plaintiffs posed a common question, assessing the
"New Approach to Retiree Health Care Coverage" would necessarily
require an individual analysis of each retiree, Judge Conrad
opines.  Such an analysis would render a variety of results
destroying commonality, Judge Conrad says.

"In addition plaintiffs have failed to meet the requirements of
typicality and adequacy.  Because Plaintiffs have not met the
requirements of Rule 23(a), this Court need not address the
requirements of 23(b)," Judge Conrad rules.

A copy of the Order is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=J5ttTAHI


SUBARU OF AMERICA: Faces Second Oil Consumption Class Action
------------------------------------------------------------
Denis Flierl, writing for Torque News, reports that last year
Subaru was hit with an oil consumption lawsuit, now there's a
second class-action lawsuit against Subaru of America claiming
there's an engine defect in 2013-2014 WRX and WRX STI models. Both
2013-2014 WRX and WRX STI models are powered by a 2.5-liter boxer
turbo engine that the suit contends have a defect which allows
contaminated oil to carry "damaging metal debris through the
engines."

According to a report by The Courier Post, the class-action
lawsuit was filed by McCune Wright Arevalo LLP after an "extensive
investigation by our firm during the past year," said attorney
Matthew Schelkopf at the law firm's East Coast offices in Berwyn,
Pennsylvania.

The California-based law firm, filed the class-action lawsuit in
the name of Vincent Salcedo, who says his 2013 Subaru WRX
developed a "knocking sound", then broke down on a California
highway in July, 2017.  The lawsuit claims the 2.5-liter engine
was damaged due to a "an insufficient supply" of oil to coat
connecting rod bearings caused by metal shavings in the oil. The
lawsuit contends this caused connecting rods to fracture,
releasing "large amounts of metal debris" that caused the engine
failure.

Mr. Salcedo, who lives in California, paid $5,700 bill to repair
the damaged engine, and the lawsuit says Subaru offered to pay
$2,000 of that amount as a "goodwill gesture."  The new lawsuit,
contends Subaru failed to disclose the WRX and WRX STI engine
problem to consumers, and says numerous people have experienced
engine damage and "catastrophic" failure while driving affected
vehicles, "placing themselves and those around them in immediate
danger."

This is the second lawsuit brought against Subaru of America. Last
year, the Cherry Hill automaker settled a suit alleging excessive
oil consumption in their Forester, Impreza, Crosstrek, Legacy and
Outback models made from 2011 through 2015.

The newest class action lawsuit wants Subaru of America to notify
consumers of the alleged defect and to reimburse owners for
repairs and other expenses.  With thousands of 2013-2014 WRX and
WRX STI sedan and hatch models on the road, the suit says there's
the potential to cost Subaru more than $5 million.

Michael McHale, Director of Corporate Communication for Subaru,
said on Oct. 13 they are "investigating the claims." Stay tuned.
[GN]


SUGAR TRANSPORT: Dec. 18 "Guinn" Class Certification Hearing
------------------------------------------------------------
In the case captioned RYAN GUINN, an individual, on behalf of
himself, and on behalf of all other persons similarly situated,
Plaintiffs, v. SUGAR TRANSPORT OF THE NORTHWEST, INC.; BRONCO WINE
COMPANY, a California corporation; CLASSIC WINES OF CALIFORNIA, a
California corporation, a California corporation, and DOES 1
through 100, Defendants, Case No. 2:16-cv-00325-WBS-EFB (E.D.
Cal.), Judge William B. Shubb of the U.S. District Court for the
Eastern District of California moved the hearing date on the
Plaintiff's Motion for Proceeding as Collective Action and for
Class Certification to Dec. 18, 2017 at 1:30 p.m., with briefing
in accordance with the Local Rules.

On Sept. 18, 2017, the Plaintiff's filed the Motion.  The hearing
date was set for Oct. 30, 2017.

The Plaintiff's responses to Sugar Transport's written discovery
were originally due on Sept. 11, 2017; he requested an extension
until Sept. 18, 2017 to respond to that discovery.  Sugar
Transport granted that extension with the understanding that (i)
the discovery was necessary to Sugar Transport's Opposition to the
Motion; and (ii) the discovery responses would be "meaningful."

On Sept. 18, 2017, the Plaintiff served responses to discovery,
but failed to produce any documents and, despite asserted the
attorney-client privilege multiple times, failed to provide a
privilege log.  The Parties are currently in the process of
meeting and conferring on the issue.  The Plaintiff provided a
portion of the requested documents on Oct. 12, 2017, as well as a
privilege log.  Sugar Transport has yet to have an opportunity to
review the additional material.  Sugar Transport and Bronco will
copy the remainder of the documents the Plaintiff intends to
produce at the office of his counsel early next week.

Sugar Transport and Bronco also noticed the depositions of five
individuals to take place between Oct. 6 and Oct. 11, 2017 with
the intention of completing those depositions in time for use in
the Parties' respective Oppositions to the Motion.  At the
Plaintiff's request, and pursuant to his agreement to move the
hearing date on the Motion to Dec. 18, 2017, the Defendants agreed
to continue the depositions.  These depositions are now
rescheduled to take place between Oct. 23, 2017, and Nov. 6, 2017.

The Parties stipulated that the hearing date on the Motion will be
held on Dec. 18, 2017, with briefing to follow the new hearing
date.

A full-text copy of the Court's Oct. 13, 2017 Order is available
at https://is.gd/CTpiwD from Leagle.com.

Ryan Guinn, Plaintiff, represented by Ian A. Kass --
paganolaw@aol.com -- Pagano & Kass APC.

Ryan Guinn, Plaintiff, represented by James L. Pagano, Pagano &
Kass APC.

Sugar Transport of the Northwest, Inc., Defendant, represented by
Cassandra M. Ferrannini -- cferrannini@downeybrand.com -- Downey
Brand LLP & Alexandra K. LaFountain -- amurphy@downeybrand.com --
Downey Brand LLP.

Bronco Wine Company, Defendant, represented by Eric J. Sousa --
esousa@rodsoulaw.com -- Rodarakis & Sousa, APC.

Classic Wines of California, Defendant, represented by Eric J.
Sousa, Rodarakis & Sousa, APC.


SUNWING: Quebec Man Files Class Action Over Champagne Service
-------------------------------------------------------------
Tom Blackwell, writing for National Post, reports that when Daniel
Macduff booked a holiday to Cuba that advertised "champagne
service," he expected, well, to be served champagne.

He did receive sparkling wine on the outgoing flight this
February, but not the pricey classic from France's Champagne
region; it was one of the cheaper competitors that connoisseurs
generally consider inferior.

So the Quebecer launched a novel class-action lawsuit against
Sunwing for what he considers misleading advertising, demanding
both compensation for the difference in cost of the fizzy wines,
and punitive damages.

The lawsuit has yet to be "certified" -- meaning it could move
ahead toward trial -- but a preliminary decision on an application
by the defendants has already resulted in a lengthy ruling.

The case is not so much about the subtle differences between
effervescent wines as about truthful advertising in a highly
competitive market, argued Sebastien Paquette, the Montreal lawyer
spearheading the suit.

"You have to go beyond the pettiness of the (wine cost) per head,"
he said on Oct. 17.  "What's important is you're trying to lure
consumers by marketing something, and you're not giving them that
something . . . It's a dishonest practice."

About 1,600 potential class members have come forward to join the
lawsuit since it was filed in court, said the lawyer.

But Sunwing does dismiss the case as petty.  It says it used the
phrases "champagne service" and "champagne vacations" to denote
the level of service in its travel packages overall, not the type
of beverage served on flights.

And it has won a Consumer Choice Award in each of the past three
years for that service, the company said in an emailed statement.

"Sunwing has always been proud to invest in experience-enhancing
features for our customers," the statement said.  "We consider any
legal action relating to the marketing of this service to be
frivolous and without merit."

However, some Sunwing marketing still available online promises
not just champagne service but a complimentary "glass of
Champagne."

After the lawsuit was filed earlier this year, Sunwing stopped
mentioning champagne in marketing.  Its website currently refers
to a "welcome glass of sparkling wine" as part of its in-flight
service.

Mr. Paquette says the travel firm employed the champagne phrase
widely until recently, with billboards and ads in airports
featuring smiling holidayers juxtaposed with flutes of a bubbly
wine.

Mr. Macduff, a retired provincial civil servant from L'Ancienne-
Lorette, near Quebec City, booked his holiday to the Cuban island
resort of Cayo Coco in November 2016, partly based on the come-on
of "service au champagne," the suit says.

But when he got on the plane in February, the flight attendant
gave him a "couple of ounces" of the inexpensive alternative in a
plastic cup, said Paquette.

The cheapest bottle of real champagne sells at Liquor Control
Board of Ontario stores for $40, the most expensive over $3,000.
Popular alternatives from Germany, Spain and Italy retail from
about $9 to $18.  The difference per plastic glass would be about
$2-4, estimates Paquette.

The Champagne region has aggressively defended its brand over the
years, launching lawsuits of its own to stop the word being used
in the names of other wines.

Tony Aspler, a Toronto-based wine journalist and educator who
testified as an expert witness for Champagne producers in one such
case, said using the term in advertising does invoke a particular
product.

"A lawyer could argue that the word champagne is a value judgment
rather than a beverage," he said.  "But 'champagne service'
suggests it should be champagne."

Still, with so many competitors, often using the same
manufacturing methods, is real champagne truly still a cut above
the rest? Oh yes, insists Mr. Aspler.

"It's what everybody aspires to when they make sparkling wine --
to make a product with the kind of balance and finesse and
elegance of champagne." [GN]


SYSCO CORP: Partly Compelled to Reply to "Martin" Interrogatories
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case captioned JOHN MARTIN, Plaintiff, v. SYSCO
CORPORATION, et al., Defendants, Case No. 1:16-cv-00990-DAD-SAB
(E.D. Cal.), Magistrate Judge Stanley A. Boone of the U.S.
District Court for the Eastern District of California partially
granted the Plaintiff's motion to compel Defendant Sysco Central
California, Inc., to produce further responses to his
interrogatories and requests for production of documents.

On June 7, 2016, the Plaintiff filed a complaint against
Defendants Sysco Corp. and Sysco Central in Stanislaus County
Superior Court.  The action was removed from Stanislaus County
Superior Court by the Defendant on July 11, 2016.

The Plaintiffs raise claims on behalf of a proposed class of non-
exempt current and former truck workers, truck drivers, drivers,
and other similar job designations of the Defendants who performed
uncompensated work.  They raise nine causes of action: (i) for
failing to pay full wages; (ii) for failing to pay overtime; (iii)
for failing to provide meal periods or compensation in lieu
thereof; (iv) for failing to permit rest periods; (v) for failing
to comply with itemized employee wage statement provisions; (vi)
for failing to pay all wages due at the time of termination; (vii)
for failing to reimburse and/or indemnify for expenses incurred
and for illegally deducting wages, and (viii) for violation of
California Business and Professions Code Section 17200, et seq.

The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendants as a non-exempt truck
worker, industrial truck worker, industrial truck driver,
industrial vehicle driver, industrial worker, and/or any similar
job designation.  He alleges that he was subjected to the same
uniform policies and/or practices that affected all such
employees.

On Sept. 12, 2017, the Plaintiff filed a motion to compel
Defendant Sysco Central to produce further responses to his
interrogatories and requests for production of documents.  On
Sept. 19, 2017, the Court entered the parties' stipulated
protective order.  On Sept. 20, 2016, the Court issued a pretrial
scheduling order for the first phase of the action, which relates
to class certification.  The Court ordered the Plaintiff to file a
motion for class certification no later than Aug. 4, 2017, but
this deadline has been amended to Dec. 18, 2017.  On Sept. 28,
2017, the Court continued the hearing on the Plaintiff's motion to
compel to Oct. 11, 2017.  The parties filed a joint statement re
discovery disagreement on Oct. 4, 2017.

The parties have met and conferred and narrowed the scope of their
discovery disagreement to interrogatories 1-4.  Interrogatory 1
seeks the names, job titles, last known addresses, telephone
numbers, and email addresses of the putative class members for the
relevant time period.  Interrogatory 2 seeks the number of
putative class members currently employed by the Defendant.
Interrogatory 3 seeks the number of putative class members that
had their employment with the Defendant or subsidiary of, or
related entity terminated -- either voluntarily or involuntarily -
- from June 7, 2013, to present.  Interrogatory 4 seeks the number
of putative class members Defendant employed during the relevant
time period.

As an initial matter, Magistrate Judge Boone finds that the
requested discovery is relevant for class certification purposes.
Interviews with potential class members are clearly useful in
establishing the class action factors.  In addition, information
regarding how many putative class members are currently employed,
have had their employment terminated, and were employed during the
relevant time period is relevant to numerosity.

At this stage, the Plaintiff has not demonstrated precisely how
the violations alleged in his complaint are occurring or submitted
evidence of a company-wide policy causing these violations.
Accordingly, it is unclear at this stage whether the incidents
alleged are isolated incidents, whether they are limited to
particular managers or supervisors, or whether they are caused by
a systemic policy issue across all of the Defendant's operations.

In balancing the relevance and proportionality requirements of
Rule 26, the Magistrate Judge will give the Plaintiff the
opportunity to substantiate his claims while still recognizing
that he has only alleged what appears at this stage to be
speculative class allegations not yet supported by any solid
evidence.  As stated, the Defendant has already produced responses
to interrogatories 1-4 relating to the Modesto facility where the
Plaintiff worked during his employment with the Defendant.
Magistrate Judge Boone will permit a limited sampling of discovery
regarding identities and contact information for employees of
facilities other than the Modesto facility.

The Magistrate Judge will require the Defendant to provide a
sampling of contact information for 20% of non-exempt truck
workers, industrial truck workers, industrial truck drivers,
industrial vehicle drivers, and industrial workers that fall
within the putative class at each of Defendant's California
facilities.  He finds that any similar job designation is a vague
term, and therefore, he limits the discovery responses to the
specific listed job titles.  Considering the privacy interests of
the affected individuals, a Belaire-West opt-out notice will be
sent to affected individuals before any information is disclosed.
He will leave the logistics of selecting the sample to the
parties.

Magistrate Judge Boone also finds that when considering the
relevance and proportionality requirements of Rule 26, the
Defendant should produce responses to interrogatories 2-4, which
ask it to indicate the number of putative class members currently
employed by it, the number of putative class members that had
their employment with Defendant or subsidiary of, or related
entity terminated -- either voluntarily or involuntarily -- from
June 7, 2013, to present, and the number of putative class members
the Defendant employed during the relevant time period, for non-
exempt truck workers, industrial truck workers, industrial truck
drivers, industrial vehicle drivers, and industrial workers that
fall within the putative class. As stated, he finds that any
similar job designation is a vague term, and therefore, he limits
the discovery responses to the specific listed job titles.

If, and only if, the Plaintiff uncovers evidence of company-wide
violations, the Magistrate Judge will leave the door open to allow
the Plaintiff to request broader discovery of putative class
members' contact information based upon such evidence.  However,
at this time, discovery of the putative class members' contact
information will be limited to a sampling of the Defendant's
employee base based upon the limitation.

Based upon the foregoing, Magistrate Judge Boone ordered the
Defendant to provide additional responses to the Plaintiff's
interrogatories.  He partially granted the motion to compel.  The
responses to interrogatories 2, 3, and 4 will be produced within
30 days of the date of the Order unless leave of Court is granted
for an extension of time based upon good cause.  The responses to
interrogatory 1 will be produced within 15 days of the deadline to
return the Belaire-West notices.  The hearing on the motion to
compel set for Oct. 11, 2017, is vacated.

A full-text copy of the Court's Oct. 9, 2017 Order is available at
https://is.gd/vgA74E from Leagle.com.

John Martin, Plaintiff, represented by David Thomas Mara, Turley &
Mara Law Firm, APLC.

John Martin, Plaintiff, represented by Jessica Renee Corrales,
Turley Law Firm, APLC, Jill Marie Vecchi, Turley & Mara Law Firm,
APLC, Matthew Evan Crawford, The Turley & Mara Law Firm, APLC &
William Turley -- bturley@turleylawfirm.com -- Turley & Mara Law
Firm, APLC.

Sysco Corporation, Defendant, represented by Diamond M. Hicks,
Baker & Hostetler LLP, Margaret Rosenthal --
mrosenthal@bakerlaw.com -- Baker and Hostetler LLP, Nicholas D.
Poper -- npoper@bakerlaw.com -- Baker & Hostetler LLP & Sabrina
Layne Shadi -- sshadi@bakerlaw.com -- Baker and Hostetler LLP.

SYSCO Central California, Inc., Defendant, represented by Diamond
M. Hicks, Baker & Hostetler LLP, Margaret Rosenthal, Baker and
Hostetler LLP, Nicholas D. Poper, Baker & Hostetler LLP & Sabrina
Layne Shadi, Baker and Hostetler LLP.


TAYLOR FARMS: Cato Urges Court to Address Evidentiary Issue
-----------------------------------------------------------
Andrew M. Grossman, Ilya Shapiro and Meggan Dewitt of CATO
Institute report that should judges consider evidence that's
inadmissible at trial when deciding whether to certify a class for
class-action litigation? Particularly given the serious
consequences of certification -- most defendants settle class
actions to avoid greater liability, and non-certified cases are
often not worth pursuing -- due process should require that
evidence presented at the class-certification stage meet the same
standards as that presented at trial.

One case out of California illustrates how allowing inadmissible
evidence in any part of a legal proceeding not only violates the
due-process rights of defendants and absent class members, but
contradicts recent Supreme Court rulings and the Federal Rules of
Civil Procedure.  Maria del Carmen Pena is the lead plaintiff of a
group of agricultural employees alleging that they were denied
breaks due them under the governing law.  Ms. Pena tried to gain
class certification by presenting a spreadsheet summarizing work
hours, but this evidence was inadmissible for trial purposes
because it was created by her attorney.

Nevertheless, the district court certified the class and the U.S.
Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit affirmed.  Cato has now
filed a brief supporting the employer's cert. petition, urging the
Supreme Court to address just that evidentiary issue.

If, as the Supreme Court recently said in Walmart Stores, Inc. v.
Dukes (2011), "mere allegations" are insufficient to support
certification, then it is also wrong to allow otherwise
inadmissible evidence to provide the foundation for certification.
Because the Court insisted in Dukes that "certification is proper
only if the trial court is satisfied, after rigorous analysis,
that the prerequisites of Rule 23(a) [laying out the requirements
for class certification] have been satisfied," lower courts should
consider examinations of both fact and legal merits when
determining if certification is appropriate.

Adhering to the 1974 decision of Eisen v. Carlisle, in which the
Court held that, "for purposes of determining certification,
allegations made in the complaint are taken as true and the merits
of the claim are not considered," many lower courts avoid
considering any issue at the certification stage that may overlap
with a question on the merits -- and thus have avoided requiring
that evidence used to certify a class meet the normal standards
for admissibility.

But Dukes established that due process demands a rigorous inquiry
(which sometimes may go beyond the bare pleadings) before
certification.  When courts accept inadmissible evidence to
support class certification, the basic requirements of due process
are compromised.  Once certified, expenses and risks often compel
settlements divorced from merit considerations; certification is,
as the Eleventh Circuit has explained, "the whole ball game."

Absent class members also suffer because it is the act of
certification that determines whether they are bound by a
settlement or adverse judgment that wipes out their individual
claims.  Unfortunately, confusion over the decades-old holding in
Eisen lingers; a refusal to view it in light of the Court's more
recent decisions has resulted in an inconsistent application of
evidentiary standards.

The Court should take up Taylor Farms v. Pena, dispel confusion
among lower courts, and protect due-process rights by clarifying
that evidence submitted at the class-certification stage must meet
the same time-tested standards as evidence submitted at trial.
[GN]


TENET HEALTHCARE: Motion to Dismiss Class Suit Pending
------------------------------------------------------
Tenet Healthcare Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly
period ended June 30, 2017, that defendants' motion to dismiss a
class action lawsuit remains pending.

On February 10, 2017, the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of Texas consolidated two previously disclosed lawsuits
filed by purported shareholders of the Company's common stock
against the Company and several current and former executive
officers into a single matter captioned In re Tenet Healthcare
Corporation Securities Litigation. On April 11, 2017, the four
court-appointed lead plaintiffs filed a consolidated amended class
action complaint asserting violations of the federal securities
laws. The plaintiffs are seeking class certification on behalf of
all persons who acquired the Company's common stock between
February 28, 2012 and August 1, 2016. The complaint alleges that
false or misleading statements or omissions concerning the
Company's financial performance and compliance policies,
specifically with respect to the previously disclosed civil qui
tam litigation and parallel criminal investigation of the Company
and certain of its subsidiaries (together, the "Clinica de la Mama
matters"), caused the price of the Company's common stock to be
artificially inflated. In addition, the plaintiffs claim that the
defendants violated GAAP by failing to disclose an estimate of the
possible loss or a range of loss related to the Clinica de la Mama
matters. On June 12, 2017, the Company filed a motion to dismiss
the consolidated complaint on behalf of all defendants. The
Company intends to vigorously defend against the allegations in
the purported shareholder class action.


TENET HEALTHCARE: Antitrust Class Action Pending in San Antonio
---------------------------------------------------------------
Tenet Healthcare Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly
period ended June 30, 2017, that defendants continue to defend an
antitrust class action lawsuit filed by registered nurses in San
Antonio.

In Maderazo, et al. v. VHS San Antonio Partners, L.P. d/b/a
Baptist Health Systems, et al., filed in June 2006 in the U.S.
District Court for the Western District of Texas, a purported
class of registered nurses employed by three unaffiliated San
Antonio-area hospital systems allege those hospital systems,
including Baptist Health System, and other unidentified San
Antonio regional hospitals violated Section S1 of the federal
Sherman Act by conspiring to depress nurses' compensation and
exchanging compensation-related information among themselves in a
manner that reduced competition and suppressed the wages paid to
such nurses. The suit seeks unspecified damages (subject to
trebling under federal law), interest, costs and attorneys' fees.
The case was stayed from 2008 through mid-2015.

"At this time, we are awaiting the court's ruling on class
certification and will continue to vigorously defend ourselves
against the plaintiffs' allegations. It remains impossible at this
time to predict the outcome of these proceedings with any
certainty; however, we believe that the ultimate resolution of
this matter will not have a material effect on our business,
financial condition or results of operations," the Company said.


THRIVENT FIN'L: DOL Files Motion to Stay BIC Litigation
-------------------------------------------------------
Nevin E. Adams, writing for NAPA, reports that the Labor
Department continues to fight an attempt by at least one fiduciary
rule opponent to pursue its case in court.

In an Oct. 13 filing, the DOL repeated its request that the court
grant its July motion to stay proceedings "because it would
conserve judicial resources to await completion of the
Department's pending administrative actions, which are likely to
address the challenged provision before it becomes applicable to
[Thrivent Financial for Lutherans.]

"The Court need not rule on this motion, but instead should grant
the Department's motion to stay the case.  If the Court does not
stay the case, there is no need for preliminary relief here, where
summary judgment has been fully briefed and Plaintiff is concerned
about an event that will occur in January 2018 at the earliest, if
at all," they wrote.

Last month Thrivent filed a motion asking that the U.S. District
Court for the District of Minnesota issue a preliminary injunction
against a clause in the fiduciary regulation's so-called best-
interest contract exemption (BICE) that prohibited financial
advisers from requiring their clients to waive their right to
bring class-action lawsuits. The Labor Department had previously
said that that it would not defend that portion of the rule in
another case challenging the regulation.

Last fall Thrivent Financial for Lutherans filed suit in the U.S.
District Court for the District of Minnesota, claiming that the
requirements of the BICE would, "by its terms and in its effect,
require Thrivent either to cease conducting certain business that
is beneficial to its Members or to abandon its longstanding
commitment to resolving Member disputes amicably and through
private, one-on-one mediation and arbitration."

'Irreparable Injury'?

In its most recent filing, the Labor Department argued again that
the plaintiffs cite "no authority suggesting that the burdens it
identifies rise to the level of irreparable injury," since the
harms alleged are not "certain and great."  The Labor Department
said that the plaintiffs here have ". . . not established that it
will face substantial compliance costs because it has made clear
that it has not yet decided to modify its contracts as
contemplated by the challenged provision of the BIC Exemption."
Moreover, they argue that since Thrivent "has identified no
specific cost involved in keeping its options open, and previously
noted only that it might include a proposed modification of its
Bylaws in its December newsletter" -- an action that they say
"Plaintiff no longer suggests it intends to take" -- it is "not
significant enough to constitute cognizable harm."

But the main argument the Labor Department leans on -- as it has
in previous filings -- is that Thrivent's "allegations of harm
depend on speculation about the likelihood that the January 1,
2018 applicability date will not be extended" -- noting that "the
very fact that an extension is likely makes these alleged harms
uncertain."

The Labor Department argues that the court here need not give
credence to "Plaintiff's speculative fears that it would be
subject to IRS enforcement, frivolous state law class actions, or
violation of its code of ethics certification in its annual
statement, in light of the written assurance (in Field Assistance
Bulletin 2013) the Department has provided to Plaintiff and the
industry that, in the event the applicability date is not extended
as proposed, neither the Department nor the IRS will require
compliance with the challenged provision in order to take
advantage of the BIC Exemption."

And -- if that were not enough, the Labor Department argued that,
even if the court found "some cognizable harm, that harm is
unlikely to justify issuance of an injunction when other relief
would suffice."

For its part, Thrivent has previously noted that "DOL has
acknowledged in open court that the BIC Exemption is unlawful and
that Thrivent's case is not moot."  Moreover, it said that "DOL's
statements that it does not intend to enforce the anti-arbitration
condition of the BIC Exemption, even if credited, do not resolve
the real and imminent threat to Thrivent that it must either take
steps to comply with the Fiduciary Rule as written, or face the
myriad consequences of non-compliance" -- since, after all, "The
BIC Exemption's anti-arbitration condition remains on the books as
a rule promulgated under the APA, and it impacts Thrivent," and
that the litigation "continues to present a very real controversy,
and remains ripe for adjudication by this Court." [GN]


TJX COMPANIES: Prelim Approval of "Chester" Class Deal Denied
-------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Otis D. Wright, II, of the U.S. District Court for the
Central District of California denied without prejudice the
Plaintifffs' Unopposed Motion for Preliminary Approval of Class
Action Settlement and Certification of Settlement Class in the
case captioned STACI CHESTER; DANIEL FRIEDMAN; ROBIN BERKOFF; and
THERESA METOYER, individually and o/b/o those similarly situated,
Plaintiffs, v. THE TJX COMPANIES, INC.; TJ MAXX OF CA, LLC;
MARSHALLS OF CA, LLC; HOMEGOODS, INC; and DOES 1-100, inclusive,
Defendants, Case No. 5:15-cv-01437-ODW (DTB) (C.D. Cal.).

Judge Wright finds that any notice of settlement distributed in
the case should display the logos of the Defendants, in color, to
alert potential class members to the contents of the notice and
the parties involved in the litigation.  He is inclined to
preliminarily approve the parties' proposed Settlement Agreement,
if the proposed notice was amended to conform to the format
addressed in the Order.

For these reasons, Judge Wright denied the Plaintiffs' Motion
without prejudice.  He directed the parties to submit a new Motion
for Preliminary Approval of Class Action Settlement, should they
wish to do so, no later than Nov. 13, 2017.

A full-text copy of the Court's Oct. 20, 2017 Order is available
at https://is.gd/EQCCMl from Leagle.com.

Staci Chester, Plaintiff, represented by Christopher J. Morosoff -
- cjmorosoff@morosofflaw.com -- Law Offices of Christopher J.
Morosoff.

Staci Chester, Plaintiff, represented by Douglas Caiafa --
dcaiafa@caiafalaw.com -- Douglas Caiafa APLC, Michael G. Dawson --
mdawson@hafif.com -- Law Offices of Herbert Hafif & Greg K. Hafif
-- ghafif@hafif.com -- Law Offices of Herbert Hafif.

Daniel Friedman, Plaintiff, represented by Christopher J.
Morosoff, Law Offices of Christopher J. Morosoff, Douglas Caiafa,
Douglas Caiafa APLC, Michael G. Dawson, Law Offices of Herbert
Hafif & Greg K. Hafif, Law Offices of Herbert Hafif.

Robin Berkoff, Consol Plaintiff, represented by Christopher J.
Morosoff, Law Offices of Christopher J. Morosoff, Douglas Caiafa,
Douglas Caiafa APLC, Michael G. Dawson, Law Offices of Herbert
Hafif & Greg K. Hafif, Law Offices of Herbert Hafif.

Theresa Metoyer, Consol Plaintiff, represented by Christopher J.
Morosoff, Law Offices of Christopher J. Morosoff, Douglas Caiafa,
Douglas Caiafa APLC, Michael G. Dawson, Law Offices of Herbert
Hafif & Greg K. Hafif, Law Offices of Herbert Hafif.

The TJX Companies, Inc., Defendant, represented by Aliki Sofis --
Aliki.Sofis@ropesgray.com -- Ropes and Gray LLP, pro hac vice,
Anne Johnson Palmer -- Anne.JohnsonPalmer@ropesgray.com -- Ropes
and Gray LLP, Benjamin O. Aigboboh -- baigboboh@sheppardmullin.com
-- Sheppard Mullin Richter and Hampton LLP, Jay T. Ramsey --
jramsey@sheppardmullin.com -- Sheppard Mullin Richter and Hampton
LLP, John P. Bueker -- John.Bueker@ropesgray.com -- Ropes and Gray
LLP, pro hac vice & P. Craig Cardon -- ccardon@sheppardmullin.com
-- Sheppard Mullin Richier & Hampton LLP.

TJ Maxx of CA, LLC, Defendant, represented by Aliki Sofis, Ropes
and Gray LLP, pro hac vice, Anne Johnson Palmer, Ropes and Gray
LLP, Benjamin O. Aigboboh, Sheppard Mullin Richter and Hampton
LLP, Jay T. Ramsey, Sheppard Mullin Richter and Hampton LLP, John
P. Bueker, Ropes and Gray LLP, pro hac vice & P. Craig Cardon,
Sheppard Mullin Richier & Hampton LLP.

Marshalls of CA, LLC, Consol Defendant, represented by Aliki
Sofis, Ropes and Gray LLP, pro hac vice, Anne Johnson Palmer,
Ropes and Gray LLP, Benjamin O. Aigboboh, Sheppard Mullin Richter
and Hampton LLP, Jay T. Ramsey, Sheppard Mullin Richter and
Hampton LLP & P. Craig Cardon, Sheppard Mullin Richier & Hampton
LLP.

Homegoods, Inc., Consol Defendant, represented by Aliki Sofis,
Ropes and Gray LLP, pro hac vice, Anne Johnson Palmer, Ropes and
Gray LLP, Benjamin O. Aigboboh, Sheppard Mullin Richter and
Hampton LLP, Jay T. Ramsey, Sheppard Mullin Richter and Hampton
LLP & P. Craig Cardon, Sheppard Mullin Richier & Hampton LLP.


TOTAL SYSTEM: Lead Plaintiffs' Motion for Leave to Amend Pending
----------------------------------------------------------------
Total System Services, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly
period ended June 30, 2017, that Lead plaintiffs' motion for leave
to amend is pending before the court.

ProPay, Inc. (ProPay), a subsidiary of the Company, has been named
as one of a number of defendants (including other merchant
processors) in several purported class action lawsuits relating to
the activities of TelexFree, Inc. and its affiliates and
principals. TelexFree is a former merchant customer of ProPay.
With regard to TelexFree, each purported class action lawsuit
generally alleges that TelexFree engaged in an improper multi-tier
marketing scheme involving voice-over Internet protocol telephone
services. The plaintiffs in each of the purported class action
complaints generally allege that the various merchant processor
defendants, including ProPay, aided and abetted the improper
activities of TelexFree. TelexFree filed for bankruptcy protection
in Nevada. The bankruptcy proceeding was subsequently transferred
to the Massachusetts Bankruptcy Court.

Specifically, ProPay has been named as one of a number of
defendants (including other merchant processors) in each of the
following purported class action complaints relating to TelexFree:
(i) Waldermara Martin, et al. v. TelexFree, Inc., et al. (Case No.
BK-S-14-12524-ABL) filed on May 3, 2014 in the United States
Bankruptcy Court District of Nevada, (ii) Anthony Cellucci, et al.
v. TelexFree, Inc., et. al. (Case No. 4:14-BK-40987) filed on May
15, 2014 in the United States Bankruptcy Court District of
Massachusetts, (iii) Maduako C. Ferguson Sr., et al. v.
Telexelectric, LLP, et. al (Case No. 5:14-CV-00316-D) filed on
June 5, 2014 in the United States District Court of North
Carolina, (iv) Todd Cook v. TelexElectric LLP et al. (Case No.
2:14-CV-00134), filed on June 24, 2014 in the United States
District Court for the Northern District of Georgia, (v) Felicia
Guevara v. James M. Merrill et al., CA No. 1:14-cv-22405-DPG),
filed on June 27, 2014 in the United State District Court for the
Southern District of Florida, and (vi) Reverend Jeremiah Githere,
et al. v. TelexElectric LLP et al. (Case No. 1:14-CV-12825-GAO),
filed on June 30, 2014 in the United States District Court for the
District of Massachusetts (together, the "Actions"). On October
21, 2014, the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation
transferred and consolidated the Actions before the United States
District Court for the District of Massachusetts (the
"Consolidated Action").

Following the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation's October
21, 2014 order, four additional cases arising from the alleged
TelexFree scheme were transferred to the United States District
Court for the District of Massachusetts for coordinated or
consolidated proceedings, including (i) Paulo Eduardo Ferrari et
al. v. Telexfree, Inc. et al. (Case No. 14-04080); (ii) Magalhaes
v. TelexFree, Inc., et al., No. 14-cv-12437 (D. Mass.); (iii)
Griffith v. Merrill et al., No. 14-CV-12058 (D. Mass.); Abelgadir
v. Telexelectric, LLP, No. 14-09857 (S.D.N.Y.) In addition, on
September 23, 2015, a putative class action relating to TelexFree
was filed in the United States District Court for the District of
Arizona, styled Rita Dos Santos, Putative Class Representatives
and those Similarly Situated v. TelexElectric, LLP et al., 2:15-
cv-01906-NVW (the "Arizona Action"). The Arizona Action makes
claims similar to those alleged in the consolidated action pending
before the United States District Court for the District of
Massachusetts. On September 29, 2015, a group of certain
defendants to the Consolidated Action, including ProPay, filed a
"tag along" notice with the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict
Litigation, asking that the Arizona Action be transferred to the
District of Massachusetts where it can be consolidated or
coordinated with the Consolidated Action. On October 20, 2015, the
Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation transferred the Arizona
Action to the District of Massachusetts.

The United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts
appointed lead plaintiffs' counsel on behalf of the putative class
of plaintiffs in the Consolidated Action. On March 31, 2015, the
plaintiffs filed a First Consolidated Amended Complaint (the
"Consolidated Complaint"). The Consolidated Complaint purports to
bring claims on behalf of all persons who purchased certain
TelexFree "memberships" and suffered a "net loss" between January
1, 2012 and April 16, 2014. The Consolidated Complaint supersedes
the complaints filed prior to consolidation of the Actions, and
alleges that ProPay aided and abetted tortious acts committed by
TelexFree, and that ProPay was unjustly enriched in the course of
providing payment processing services to TelexFree. On April 30,
2015, the plaintiffs filed a Second Consolidated Amended Complaint
(the "Second Amended Complaint"), which amends and supersedes the
Consolidated Complaint. Like the Consolidated Complaint, the
Second Amended Complaint generally alleges that ProPay aided and
abetted tortious acts committed by TelexFree, and that ProPay was
unjustly enriched in the course of providing payment processing
services to TelexFree

Several defendants, including ProPay, moved to dismiss the Second
Amended Complaint on June 2, 2015.Briefing on those motions closed
on October 16, 2015. The court held a hearing on the motions to
dismiss on November 2, 2015. At present, pursuant to a court
order, all discovery in the action is stayed pending the
resolution of parallel criminal proceedings against certain former
principals of TelexFree, Inc. Despite that stay of discovery, the
lead plaintiffs have subpoenaed documents previously produced by
ProPay pursuant to the Federal Rules of Bankruptcy Procedure to
the court-appointed trustee in the TelexFree bankruptcy
proceeding. ProPay has filed a motion to quash that subpoena.
ProPay's motion remains pending before the Court. ProPay's motion
to dismiss also remains pending.

On April 4, 2017, lead plaintiffs moved the court for leave to
further amend the Second Amended Complaint, and submitted a
proposed amendment with their motion. The proposed amendment seeks
to add new defendants to the case but does not make any new or
additional allegations against ProPay.  ProPay, along with certain
other defendants in the litigation, have not opposed the lead
plaintiffs' motion to further amend the Second Amended Complaint
so long as the amendment, if allowed by the court, would not delay
the court's decision on the pending motions to dismiss.  Lead
plaintiffs' motion for leave to amend is pending before the court.

Total System Services, Inc.'s revenues are derived from providing
payment processing services, merchant services and related payment
services to financial and nonfinancial institutions, generally
under long-term processing contracts.


TROY CONSTRUCTION: "Hensley" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT
------------------------------------------------------------
Roger Hensley, and all others similarly-situated v. Troy
Construction, LLC, Case No. 3:17-cv-00306 (S.D. Tex., October 12,
2017), seeks to recover unpaid overtime pursuant to the Fair Labor
Standards Act.

Plaintiff Roger Hensley is a resident of Houston County, Texas.
Plaintiff worked for Defendant as QC Inspector from January 2016
to March 2017.

Defendant Troy Construction, LLC is a pipeline and facility
construction and maintenance company.  Defendant has three primary
offices, two in Texas and one in Georgia. [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) 885-8812
      E-mail: BSosaMorris@smnlawfirm.com


TRUSTMARK CORP: Says No Activity Related to Amended Suit
--------------------------------------------------------
Trustmark Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended
June 30, 2017, that there has been no new activity related to the
second amended complaint in a class action lawsuit.

Trustmark's wholly-owned subsidiary, TNB, has been named as a
defendant in three lawsuits related to the collapse of the
Stanford Financial Group.  The first is a purported class action
complaint that was filed on August 23, 2009 in the District Court
of Harris County, Texas, by Peggy Roif Rotstain, Guthrie Abbott,
Catherine Burnell, Steven Queyrouze, Jaime Alexis Arroyo Bornstein
and Juan C. Olano (collectively, Class Plaintiffs), on behalf of
themselves and all others similarly situated, naming TNB and four
other financial institutions unaffiliated with Trustmark as
defendants.  The complaint seeks to recover (i) alleged fraudulent
transfers from each of the defendants in the amount of fees and
other monies received by each defendant from entities controlled
by R. Allen Stanford (collectively, the Stanford Financial Group)
and (ii) damages allegedly attributable to alleged conspiracies by
one or more of the defendants with the Stanford Financial Group to
commit fraud and/or aid and abet fraud on the asserted grounds
that defendants knew or should have known the Stanford Financial
Group was conducting an illegal and fraudulent scheme.  Plaintiffs
have demanded a jury trial.  Plaintiffs did not quantify damages.

In November 2009, the lawsuit was removed to federal court by
certain defendants and then transferred by the United States Panel
on Multidistrict Litigation to federal court in the Northern
District of Texas (Dallas) where multiple Stanford related matters
are being consolidated for pre-trial proceedings.  In May 2010,
all defendants (including TNB) filed motions to dismiss the
lawsuit.  In August 2010, the court authorized and approved the
formation of an Official Stanford Investors Committee (OSIC) to
represent the interests of Stanford investors and, under certain
circumstances, to file legal actions for the benefit of Stanford
investors.  In December 2011, the OSIC filed a motion to intervene
in this action.  In September 2012, the district court referred
the case to a magistrate judge for hearing and determination of
certain pretrial issues.  In December 2012, the court granted the
OSIC's motion to intervene, and the OSIC filed an Intervenor
Complaint against one of the other defendant financial
institutions.  In February 2013, the OSIC filed a second
Intervenor Complaint that asserts claims against TNB and the
remaining defendant financial institutions.  The OSIC seeks to
recover: (i) alleged fraudulent transfers in the amount of the
fees each of the defendants allegedly received from Stanford
Financial Group, the profits each of the defendants allegedly made
from Stanford Financial Group deposits, and other monies each of
the defendants allegedly received from Stanford Financial Group;
(ii) damages attributable to alleged conspiracies by each of the
defendants with the Stanford Financial Group to commit fraud
and/or aid and abet fraud and conversion on the asserted grounds
that the defendants knew or should have known the Stanford
Financial Group was conducting an illegal and fraudulent scheme;
and (iii) punitive damages.  The OSIC did not quantify damages.

In July 2013, all defendants (including TNB) filed motions to
dismiss the OSIC's claims.  In March 2015, the court entered an
order authorizing the parties to conduct discovery regarding class
certification and setting a deadline for the parties to complete
briefing on class certification issues.  In April 2015, the court
granted in part and denied in part the defendants' motions to
dismiss the Class Plaintiffs' claims and the OSIC's claims.  The
court dismissed all of the Class Plaintiffs' fraudulent transfer
claims and dismissed certain of the OSIC's claims.  The court
denied the motions by TNB and the other financial institution
defendants to dismiss the OSIC's constructive fraudulent transfer
claims.

On June 23, 2015, the court allowed the Class Plaintiffs to file a
Second Amended Class Action Complaint (SAC), which asserted new
claims against TNB and certain of the other defendants for (i)
aiding, abetting and participating in a fraudulent scheme, (ii)
aiding, abetting and participating in violations of the Texas
Securities Act, (iii) aiding, abetting and participating in
breaches of fiduciary duty, (iv) aiding, abetting and
participating in conversion and (v) conspiracy.  On July 14, 2015,
the defendants (including TNB) filed motions to dismiss the SAC
and to reconsider the court's prior denial to dismiss the OSIC's
constructive fraudulent transfer claims against TNB and the other
financial institutions that are defendants in the action.  On July
27, 2016, the court denied the motion by TNB and the other
financial institution defendants to dismiss the SAC and also
denied the motion by TNB and the other financial institution
defendants to reconsider the court's prior denial to dismiss the
OSIC's constructive fraudulent transfer claims.  On August 24,
2016, TNB filed its answer to the SAC.  There has been no new
activity related to the SAC.

Trustmark Corporation (Trustmark) is a bank holding company
headquartered in Jackson, Mississippi.  Through its subsidiaries,
Trustmark operates as a financial services organization providing
banking and financial solutions to corporate institutions and
individual customers through 199 offices at June 30, 2017 in
Alabama, Florida, Mississippi, Tennessee and Texas.


TWIN 161 CORP: "Basurto" Suit Alleges FLSA and NYLL Violations
--------------------------------------------------------------
Gonzalo Cornelio Basurto, and all others similarly-situated v.
Twin 161 Corp. dba Blimpie, Kahala Holdings LLC., Kahala
Restaurants LLC., Kahala Franchising LLC., Kahala Restaurant
Holdings LLC, Kahala Franchise Corp., Kahala Brands Ltd., and
Rehan Khan, Case No. 1:17-cv-07848 (S.D. N.Y., October 12, 2017),
seeks to recover unpaid minimum and overtime wages pursuant to the
Fair Labor Standards Act, the New York Labor Law and the spread of
hours wage order.

Plaintiff Gonzalo Cornelio Basurto is a resident of Bronx County,
New York. Plaintiff was employed as cook by Defendants from
November 2016 until October 2017.

Franchisee Defendants Twin 161 Corp. and Rehan Khan, own, operate
or control an American Submarine Sandwich chain located at 196 E.
161st Street, Bronx, New York 10451, operating under the trade
name "Blimpie".  Franchisee Defendants are franchised to operate
Blimpie under contract with the Franchisor Defendants.

Franchisor Defendants Kahala Holdings, LLC, Kahala Restaurants
LLC, Kahala Franchising LLC, Kahala Restaurant Holdings, LLC,
Kahala Franchise Corp. and Kahala Brands Ltd. grant franchises to
operate Blimpies in New York and grant sublicenses to franchisees
to use the Blimpie trademarks. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


U.S. PHYSICAL: Shareholder Class Suit Underway
----------------------------------------------
U.S. Physical Therapy, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly
period ended June 30, 2017, that a shareholder class action
lawsuit is in its initial stages.

On March 31, 2017, an alleged shareholder filed a putative class
action lawsuit in the United States District Court for the
Southern District of New York (the "Court") against the Company,
chief executive officer Christopher J. Reading, chief financial
officer Lawrance C. McAfee and corporate controller Jon C. Bates,
alleging, inter alia, that the defendants misstated or omitted to
state material information concerning the Company's historical
accounting for redeemable non-controlling interests of acquired
partnerships, in alleged violation of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. The complaint seeks a
declaration that the action is a proper class action under Rule 23
of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, unspecified compensatory
damages in an amount to be determined at trial and interest, costs
and expenses.

On June 26, 2017, the Court appointed a lead plaintiff in the
matter. On July 31, 2017, the lead plaintiff filed an amended
complaint, alleging substantially the same violations and seeking
substantially the same unspecified damages. The amended complaint
also names Glenn McDowell, the Company's Chief Operating Officer,
as an additional defendant. The proceeding is in its initial
stages and the defendants have not yet answered, moved against or
otherwise responded to the complaint, though they intend to file a
motion to dismiss and defend themselves vigorously.

U.S. Physical Therapy, Inc. operates outpatient physical therapy
clinics that provide preventive and post-operative care for a
variety of orthopedic-related disorders and sports-related
injuries, treatment for neurologically-related injuries and
rehabilitation of injured workers. As of June 30, 2017, we
operated 566 clinics in 41 states.


UNITED STATES: Army Corps Flood Case Attracts Scores of Lawyers
---------------------------------------------------------------
L.M. Sixel, writing for Houston Chronicle, reports that scores of
lawyers, eager to get a piece of what could be the biggest payday
since the multibillion dollar Volkswagen emissions settlement, are
rushing to sign up thousands of property owners whose homes were
damaged by floodwaters released by the Army Corps of Engineers
from two Houston-area reservoirs.

The case -- which legal analysts say could be worth as much as $10
billion -- is drawing lawyers from a wide range of specialties,
from criminal defense to bankruptcy to class action, as they
target the ultimate big pocket: the federal government. They're
hosting seminars for flooded homeowners, advertising on social
media and retooling websites to tout their expertise in property
rights, hydrology and flood claims.

"We're getting an amazing number of cases," said Houston personal
injury lawyer Eric Allen, whose firm, Zehl & Associates, typically
represents consumers hurt in motor vehicle accidents, maritime-
related industrial accidents and insurance disputes.

The case turns on an argument that the decision to release water
from the Addicks and Barker reservoirs amounted to an eminent
domain taking of private property and the owners are entitled to
compensation from the federal government.  Lawyers estimate that
more than 10,000 homes and businesses were damaged by the releases
and nearly four dozen lawsuits, involving 193 plaintiffs, have
already been filed in U.S. Court of Federal Claims in Washington.

In such broad disputes, the cases typically get consolidated with
the court appointing a few lead lawyers to represent all the
property owners.  Individual lawyers who have signed up clients
usually get a portion, typically one-third of whatever the clients
collect from a judgment or settlement.  Lawyers who sued
Volkswagen AG over excessive diesel emissions on behalf of nearly
600,000 car owners were awarded $300 million in legal fees earlier
this year.

Prominent faces join fray

W. Mark Lanier, a prominent personal injury lawyer in Houston,
explained that any time a potential big-dollar case looms, lawyers
tend to fall into two groups: the "chicken catchers," who are good
at finding clients, and the "chicken pluckers," who specialize in
preparing and presenting the cases for trial.

"It's an art to catching them," said Mr. Lanier, who has about 50
actual chickens in his backyard in Houston.  "They don't just
stand there.  You have to chase them."

Some of the best-known trial lawyers in the state and nation are
jockeying to become the lead lawyers for the bragging rights and
higher fees that often come with heading up a giant case.  They
include John Eddie Williams Jr., who negotiated a $17.2 billion
tobacco settlement on behalf of Texas in 1998 and Adam Pulaski,
who represents 25,000 women in an ongoing transvaginal mesh
settlement that will likely exceed $1 billion.

Jay Edelson, a class-action lawyer from Chicago who specializes in
high-tech privacy cases, also has traveled to Houston to get in on
the rush.  His firm, which last year won a $76 million settlement
for consumers who received automated calls from Caribbean Cruise
Line, has already signed up a few hundred victims of the
reservoir-related flooding and filed one case.

Messrs. Edelson, Williams and Pulaski were among the 125 lawyers
who packed a courtroom in the federal courthouse in Houston
recently to meet with Susan Braden, the chief judge of the U.S.
Court of Federal Claims, who flew in from Washington to determine
how to proceed with the 46 lawsuits that have been filed and the
hundreds more likely to come.  The crowd was one of the best
dressed in Houston, mostly men exquisitely attired in custom-made
suits, starched white cotton shirts, silk ties and shined shoes.
They sat shoulder to shoulder, hanging on to every word from the
judge. Very few left early.

Gary Siller, a commercial litigator best known for his work in
health care and taxes, was among them.  His firm, Strasburger &
Price, which made its name in insurance defense, has signed about
25 clients including executives of its long-standing corporate
clients whose homes flooded.

Legal theories untested

The likely consolidation would mean that each lawyer doesn't have
to prove the release of water affected each client's property,
unlike, say environmental cases, in which the path of
contamination and the cause of illnesses are fiercely disputed.
"All you need to be is a lawyer who can prove damages," said
Mr. Siller.

But eminent domain experts predict it won't be that easy because
the legal theories underpinning the reservoir flooding cases are
still relatively untested and the government has several avenues
to defend its actions, including that the broader public
benefited, said Justin Hodge, a lawyer who specializes in eminent
domain.  "I would not call them slam dunks," he said.

Most eminent domain proceedings begin when government agencies
decide they want private land for public use, whether expanding a
highway or building a new school.  The government makes what it
believes is a fair offer and if the private landowner rejects it,
the government files a court claim and a panel of local landowners
assess the value.  Private property holders are entitled to fair
compensation under the U.S. Constitution.

But when the government essentially takes property from an owner
without launching a formal condemnation process -- such as when
water is released from a dam, flooding everything in its path --
property owners may also have a claim. A U.S. Supreme Court
decision from 2012 paved the way for such claims after the high
court found the Army Corps of Engineers' decision to periodically
flood an Arkansas state-owned timber producing forest did, in
fact, constitute a government taking of property.

Judge Braden also ruled two years ago that the federal government
is responsible for some of the flooding that followed Hurricane
Katrina in New Orleans and that property owners are eligible for
compensation.  The U.S. government has appealed.  The Army Corps
of Engineers referred a request for comment to the U.S. Department
of Justice, which declined to comment.

Sudden flood

Mary Bessinger, 70, went to one of the seminars that have popped
up in and around Houston to discuss legal options for flooded
property owners.  She and her husband's home next to the Addicks
Reservoir was inundated with 2 1/2 feet of water within about 20
minutes after the releases from the dam.  "All we could do was
grab the dog and take off," she said.

Ms. Bessinger wasn't familiar with the law firms, Terry W. Yates &
Associates and the Woodfill Law Firm, neither of which returned
calls for comment.  But after the seminar, a lot of people signed
a notebook to arrange for an individual meeting with one of the
lawyers, said Ms. Bessinger, who didn't join the throng.

Ms. Bessinger was surprised to hear later that Terry Yates &
Associates is a criminal defense firm, which, according to its
website, handles white-collar crimes, sex crimes and internet-
related crimes.

"That's just crazy," said Ms. Bessinger.  "I guess they just do
everything." [GN]


UNITED STATES: Sued Over Unconstitutional Abortion Veto Power
-------------------------------------------------------------
Mary Alice Robbins, writing for Law.com, reports that a
Brownsville attorney serving as guardian ad litem for a pregnant
17-year-old immigrant in custody in Texas alleged in a suit filed
Oct. 13 in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia
that federal officials are wielding an "unconstitutional veto
power" over unaccompanied minors' access to abortion.

On Oct. 11, a federal judge in San Francisco refused to add the
17-year-old Jane Doe's case to a suit pending in her court, saying
that courts in Texas or Washington, D.C. would be more appropriate
venues.  The pregnant teen is being held in a shelter funded by
the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, according to a
news release issued Oct. 10 by Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton.

The American Civil Liberties Union filed the new case as a class
action for the 17-year-old Jane Doe's guardian, Rochelle Garza,
who is acting on behalf of similarly situated pregnant
unaccompanied immigrant minors in the legal custody of the federal
government.

Ms. Garza, an attorney with Garza & Garza in Brownsville, said
Jane Doe is from Central America but declined for privacy reasons
to give the girl's name or her home country.  She said the girl
did not know that she was pregnant until she arrived in South
Texas.

Brigitte Amiri, senior staff attorney with the ACLU Reproductive
Freedom Project, said in a statement, "Jane Doe is a brave and
persistent young woman who has already been forced by the Trump
administration to delay her abortion for weeks.  The government is
holding her hostage so that she will be forced to carry to term
against her will."

In an interview, Ms. Garza said, "The question is, can anyone be
forced to have a child against her will, and the answer is
absolutely not."

Ms. Garza alleges in her petition in Garza v. Hargan, et al. that
the defendants, all officials with federal agencies responsible
for the immigrant unaccompanied minors, recently revised national
policies so that they can deny the minors access to abortion in
violation of their Fifth Amendment rights.  She further alleges
that the defendants have violated the minors' First Amendment
right to free speech by compelling them to discuss the
circumstances surrounding their pregnancies and decisions to have
abortions with crisis pregnancy centers and their parents.

Defendants also have violated the Establishment Clause of the
First Amendment by requiring unaccompanied immigrant minors to
obtain counseling at crisis pregnant centers that are often
religiously affiliated, Garza alleges in the petition.

Named as defendants in the suit are Eric Hargan, acting secretary
of Health and Human Services; Stephen Wagner, acting assistant
secretary for Administration for Children and Families; and Scott
Lloyd, director of the Office of Refugee Resettlement.

The Administration for Children and Families said in a statement,
"In most cases when a child enters the United States illegally
without a parent or guardian the minor is placed into the care and
custody of the Office of Refugee Resettlement at HHS'
Administration for Children and Families.  At that point, our
paramount concern is the child's safety and well-being. While the
child is in our custody, our goal is to provide food, shelter and
care to her under federal statute.  In this specific case, we are
providing excellent care to the adolescent girl and her unborn
child, who remain under our care until the mother's release."

Austin attorney Susan Hays, legal director of Jane's Due Process,
a nonprofit organization that has been assisting with the 17-
year's case, said the girl obtained a judicial bypass on
Sept. 25.  The bypass is an order from a judge that allows a minor
to get an abortion without the notification or consent of her
parents.

Ms. Hays said that private funds would pay for the girl to have an
abortion.

According to Ms. Garza's suit, the defendants would not let the
girl go with her guardian ad litem to the appointment for the
abortion or let anyone else transport her.  Hays said the girl has
missed multiple appointments.

"Under Texas law, the guardian ad litem has a right to the child,"
Ms. Hays said.

Ms. Hays said the guardian filed a suit in state district court,
seeking the girl's release, but the federal government had the
suit removed to the U.S. District Court for the Southern District
of Texas, where it is pending.

Mr. Paxton expressed concern in his news release that if Jane Doe
prevails in her litigation, it could create a right to abortion
for anyone who enters the U.S. illegally.

"Texas must not become a sanctuary state for abortions," Paxton
said in the release.

Ms. Garza is asking the federal court in D.C. to grant injunctive
relief to keep the federal officials from blocking immigrant
minors' access to abortion, forcing them to visit pregnancy crisis
centers or revealing to their parents or immigration sponsors
information about their abortions decisions.  She also is asking
the court to award monetary damages to Jane Doe against defendants
Wagner and Lloyd. [GN]


UNITED STATES: Nov. 27 Final Deadline Set for Cobell Settlement
---------------------------------------------------------------
Cherokee One Feather reports that Kilpatrick Townsend & Stockton
LLP, Class Counsel in the Cobell v. Jewell (formerly Cobell v.
Salazar) lawsuit, along with GCG, the court approved Claims
Administrator, are seeking to locate members of the Eastern Band
of Cherokee Indians who are entitled to participate in the
settlement of that lawsuit.  The Cobell case was filed in 1996,
settled in December 2009, was approved by Congress in December
2010, and received final court approval in November 2012.  The
total settlement, $3.5 billion, is one of the largest class action
settlements against the federal government.

The Cobell case resolves certain claims relating to mismanagement
of individual Indian money ("IIM") accounts and individual trust
assets by the federal government.  There are approximately 500,000
individuals who are eligible to participate in this settlement.
This includes principally individuals who had IIM accounts between
approximately 1985 and September 30, 2009 and individuals who
owned trust or restricted land as of September 30, 2009.

The US District Court for the District of Columbia has ordered
Monday, Nov. 27 as the final deadline for Class Members in the
Cobell Settlement or their heirs to submit documentation to Garden
City Group, LLC ("GCG"), the Claims Administrator, so that
payments can be made.  All documentation must be received or
postmarked by that date

The determination of a final deadline marks the end of a
successful and exhaustive effort by Class Counsel and GCG to find
and pay hundreds of thousands of Native American Class Members and
their heirs.  Those efforts have been incredibly effective, and to
date almost $2 billion dollars or over 92 percent of the funds
have been distributed. After the deadline, unclaimed funds will be
paid out to the Cobell Scholarship Fund administered by Indigenous
Education, Inc.

Below is a list of individuals identified by the Department of the
Interior as living or deceased members of the Eastern Band of
Cherokee Indians who may be entitled to a payment.  Class Members
or their heirs wishing to submit documentation to GCG for review
via email at Info@IndianTrust.com or U.S. mail to P.O. Box 9577,
Dublin, OH 43017-4877.  For more information about the Settlement
and to read the Court's order, visit www.IndianTrust.com.  You may
also call (800) 961-6109 if you are an heir and have questions
regarding acceptable documentation.  To retrieve your IIM number
please call Sheree Steve (615)-564-6933. [GN]


UNIVERSAL HEALTH: Suit by Teamsters Remains Pending
---------------------------------------------------
Universal Health Services, Inc., continues to defend against the
case, Teamsters Local 456 Pension Fund, et. al. v. Universal
Health Services, Inc. et.al., according to its Form 10-Q Report
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2017.

In December 2016 a purported shareholder class action lawsuit was
filed in U.S. District Court for the Central District of
California against UHS, and certain UHS officers alleging
violations of the federal securities laws.  Plaintiff alleges that
defendants violated federal securities laws relating to the
disclosures made in public filings associated with practices at
our behavioral health facilities.  The case was originally filed
as Heed v. Universal Health Services, Inc. et. al. (Case No. 2:16-
CV-09499-PSG-JC). The court subsequently appointed Teamsters Local
456 Pension Fund and Teamsters Local 456 Annuity Fund to serve as
lead plaintiffs.  The case has been transferred to the U.S.
District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania and the
style of the case has been changed to Teamsters Local 456 Pension
Fund, et. al. v. Universal Health Services, Inc. et.al. (Case No.
2:17-CV-02817-LS).

"We deny liability and intend to defend ourselves vigorously. At
this time, we are uncertain as to potential liability or financial
exposure, if any, which may be associated with this matter," the
Company said.

The Company's principal business is owning and operating, through
its subsidiaries, acute care hospitals and outpatient facilities
and behavioral health care facilities.


URBAN OUTFITTERS: Faces Class Action Over Unpaid Overtime Wages
---------------------------------------------------------------
Dan Glaun, writing for MassLive, reports that a former employee of
Northampton's Urban Outfitters clothing store is suing the
retailer in U.S. District Court, claiming the store violated
federal labor law by failing to pay her overtime wages.

In the suit, Michelle Otero alleges that she was hired as a
"department manager" and was treated as an exempt employee,
allowing the company to have her work 55 hours per week without
paying overtime.

But, the suit claims, she spent most of her work hours performing
manual labor like cleaning, folding clothes and unloading
shipments -- tasks which legally require the payment of hourly
overtime.

"As part of its regular business practice, Defendant
intentionally, willfully, and repeatedly engaged in a policy,
pattern, and/or practice of violating the [Fair Labor Standards
Act] with respect to Plaintiff," the suit says.

It is not the first time that Urban Outfitters has faced lawsuits
for allegedly underpaying workers.

Three other department managers sued Urban Outfitters over similar
claims in 2013.  And in 2015, the company reached a $5 million
settlement with workers who alleged overtime and break period
violations in class action suits.

Urban Outfitters did not return a request for comment prior to
publication.

Ms. Otero worked at the Northampton store as a department manager
from June 2012 through May 2013, according to the complaint.  She
regularly worked more than 40 hours per week but was not paid for
the excess hours, because she was classified as a salaried
employee exempt from the Fair Labor Standards Act.

The FLSA requires that employees receive overtime pay when working
more than 40 hours per week, unless their job has certain primary
characteristics -- like supervision of other employees, high-level
educational requirements or allowances for individual discretion
and judgment.

Ms. Otero's job had no such responsibilities or privileges, the
suit claims. Rather, despite the "manager" in her title, Ms. Otero
spent most of her time doing manual labor.

The suit also claims that Otero's treatment was part of a broad
policy of attempting to minimize labor costs by violating federal
law.  Urban Outfitters stores had to stay within tight labor
budgets, leading managers to have salaried employees like Otero
work extra hours without compensation rather than hiring hourly
employees to perform manual work, according to the suit.

The store also had Otero report that she only worked 40 hours per
week when she actually worked additional hours, the suit claims.

Ms. Otero is suing for unpaid wages and overtime compensation, as
well as damages for the alleged violations of federal labor law.
[GN]


US STEEL: Faces Class Action Over Huge Stock Price Drop
-------------------------------------------------------
Joseph S. Pete, writing for NWI.com, reports that U.S. Steel faces
a class action lawsuit after its stock plunged by 26 percent when
it reported a first-quarter loss of $180 million that stunned
analysts and investors.

New York-based Rosen Law Firm, Pennsylvania-based RM LAW, Los
Angeles-based Lundin Law and several other law firms announced the
lawsuit on behalf of investors who lost money when the Pittsburgh-
based steelmaker posted the unexpected first-quarter loss, leading
to a huge drop in the stock price and the retirement of then CEO
Mario Longhi at a time when the rest of the steel industry was
rebounding.

The steelmaker, one of Northwest Indiana's largest employers,
declined to comment on the case.

"We do not comment on pending litigation," U.S. Steel Corp.
spokeswoman Meghan Cox said.

Rosen Law Firm said in a news release that U.S. Steel "issued
false and misleading statements," failing to disclose that while
the steelmaker was implementing its Carnegie Way cost-cutting
program in recent years, it failed to make investments needed to
profit when market conditions improved and that its failure to
invest in maintenance meant it had higher production costs than
competitors.

"Defendants were forestalling expensive capital equipment upgrades
in order to boost U.S. Steel's short-term financial results at the
expense of long-term financial performance, leaving U.S. Steel in
need of accelerated, costly equipment upgrades that would leave
U.S. Steel years away from generating improved financial
performance," Rosen Law Firm said in the news release.

U.S. Steel pulled in a $261 million profit in the second quarter,
but its stock price remains down from a yearly high of $41.57 per
share in February.  U.S. Steel stock closed on Oct. 17 at $26.63.
[GN]



VALEANT PHARMA: Florida to Pursue Direct Action
-----------------------------------------------
Lloyd Dunkelberger, writing for Orlando Sentinel, reports that  in
a rare move, Florida is considering taking on a large
pharmaceutical company, alleging the state's pension fund lost
some $127 million in stock value because of federal security
violations by the company.

The State Board of Administration, which includes Gov. Rick Scott
and two Cabinet members, will decide whether to hire a New York-
based law firm to pursue a "direct action" case against Valeant
Pharmaceuticals International Inc., rather than joining a class-
action lawsuit against the company.

Valeant has been accused of violating federal securities
regulations by marking up drug prices and then selling the drugs
through a pharmacy network, without disclosing the full scope of
the transactions to the stockholders.

"In my view, if the SBA files a direct action, the SBA may be able
to enhance its recovery above the class action recovery by double-
digit millions of dollars," Ash Williams, head of the State Board
of Administration, said in a memorandum to Scott and Attorney
General Pam Bondi and state Chief Financial Officer Jimmy
Patronis, who also serve on the board.

Mr. Williams had recommended that the State Board of
Administration hire the firm Bernstein Litowitz Berger and
Grossmann to handle the Valeant lawsuit, which would be filed in
federal court in New Jersey, where the company has its U.S.
headquarters.

But Bondi on Oct. 17 asked for the decision to be delayed while
she reviews law firms that could handle the case. She said she did
not disagree with the decision to file the suit but wanted to look
at potential law firms "in a little more detail."

In a report to the state, Bernstein Litowitz said Florida's $154
billion pension fund "incurred significant damages as a result of
the fraudulent misrepresentations at Valeant."  The law firm
identified $127 million in "potential recoverable damages," based
on Valeant stock transactions between January 2013 and August
2016.

In a review of records at the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission, the law firm said the Florida losses were "among the
largest of any public fund investor."

About $17 million of the Valeant transactions were on the Canadian
stock exchange, which is not expected to be the focus of the
lawsuit.  In an indication of how much Florida might recover from
the litigation, Bernstein Litowitz said it recovered 37.5 percent
of investors' estimated damages in a securities lawsuit against
the Cendant Corp. and 18.5 percent of investors' claims against
the Biovail Corp.

Both were class-action lawsuits and Bernstein Litowitz noted it
"has achieved substantially higher recovery percentages when
selectively representing prominent institutional investors
(including the SBA) in direct actions."

Mr. Williams said the state "very rarely" opts out of class-action
lawsuits in favor of direct action claims.  But he said the state
pension fund has a clear set of guidelines that allows for adirect
claims, including cases of "egregious" behavior and where Florida
wants to "make a statement for the benefit of the markets, that we
don't like this kind of thing and we're not going to take it."

In its report, Bernstein Litowitz said Florida's lawsuit would
allow the state to hold Valeant accountable for losses and also
provide a forum "to insist on meaningful corporate governance
reforms as an important component of any direct resolution with
the company."

"Given Valeant's prominence in the pharmaceutical industry and the
impact its practices have had on a strained American healthcare
system, any corporate reforms achieved through this matter should
have a lasting and meaningful impact," the law firm said.

Valeant is facing numerous lawsuits, including an $80 billion
claim filed in August by Lord Abbett & Co., a mutual fund company.
[GN]


VOCUS TELECOMS: Fund Manager Vows to Lobby Against Class Action
---------------------------------------------------------------
Byron Kaye, writing for Reuters, reports that after Australian
internet company Vocus Telecommunications Ltd gave its second
profit warning in seven months, fund manager David Pace received
an email from a law firm asking him to join a shareholder class
action.

The case, proposed the email, would accuse Vocus of delaying
reporting problems it was having bedding down some recent
takeovers, and would seek compensation for shareholders.

"I told them flatly, 'we won't be participating'," Mr. Pace, whose
firm owns 8 percent of Vocus, told Reuters.  "It's just not in my
clients' interests.  This is a distraction.  My priority is that
they just keep focused on turning the business around."

Mr. Pace's response reflects a growing impatience in Australia's
listed company sector, as local regulations encourage global
litigation funders to prosecute more lawsuits of Australian
corporates.

Unlike the United States, lawyers in Australia are banned from
taking percentage cuts of damages payouts, opening the door for
litigation funders to fill the gap.

Australia is now one of the world's biggest markets for litigation
funders, by number of cases and number of participants.  Some 30
funders are now vying for a piece of an industry which has seen
more than 500 class action lawsuits since 1992, compared to none
before then.

The number of shareholder class actions in Australia jumped 115
percent in the five years to 2017, compared to the previous five
years. U.S. shareholder class actions rose just 24 percent over
the same time.

"Australia is the country where the role played by third party
funders in a class action landscape is greater than any country in
the English-speaking world," said Vince Morabito, a law professor
at Monash University who specializes in class actions. "It's the
place."

"EASY TO POINT THE FINGER"

While advocates argue third-party financing improves the ability
of aggrieved parties to seek redress, some business groups say the
model promotes more lawsuits and want tighter controls.

"Class actions are on the rise, the proportion of class actions
that are funded by entrepreneurial litigation funders are on the
rise, and we believe that our regulatory environment is
particularly conducive to activist class actions and . . . profit-
driven litigation funders," said Australian Institute of Company
Directors General Manager for Advocacy Louise Petschler.

"A national system of regulation around our class action regime
would be a significant improvement."

Attorney-General George Brandis, who in opposition said greater
regulation of litigation funding should be considered, declined to
comment.

In 2016, a lawsuit against New Zealand-owned CBL Insurance Ltd
generated headlines by winning a A$5 million damages payout, none
of which went 300 laid-off factory workers.  Litigation funder LCM
Finance received A$1.85 million while lawyers, liquidators and
auditors split the rest.

The state government has since ordered an inquiry into litigation
funding.

LCM Managing Director Patrick Moloney said the lawsuit was brought
by the trustees of the collapsed company, not by the factory
workers themselves. The trustees were responsible for disbursing
the funds recovered, he said.

"It's easy for everyone to point their finger at the funder, but
our job is to fund, to just keep paying the bills. We don't give
instructions, we don't run the litigation. They have the control
over the proceedings."

Australian targets of litigation funders include surfwear retailer
Surfstitch and the country's biggest listed company, Commonwealth
Bank of Australia.  Both are fighting accusations of failing to
disclose information that weighed on their share prices.

Treasury Wine Estates Ltd, the world's largest standalone
winemaker, paid A$49 million in August to settle a class action
accusing it of failing to disclose problems with a U.S. expansion.

None of those companies would comment.  Nor would Vocus, the
internet company, or more than a dozen other listed companies
which have received or been notified of plans for shareholder
class actions in recent years, citing concerns about interfering
with unresolved disputes or re-visiting old ones.

IMF Bentham Ltd bankrolled its first class action in Australia in
2001 and now has about two-thirds of Australia's litigation
funding market.

Executive director Hugh McLernon said plaintiffs had received
about 60 percent of A$2.1 billion in total payouts from 162 cases
funded by IMF Bentham.

IMF Bentham is bankrolling the CBA class action, Australia's
largest with some 800,000 potential complainants.

"I seriously doubt that the class action will drain CBA's
resources but if it does then this will occur in tandem with the
concurrent Federal Court allegations of Austrac, the inquiry by
APRA, the investigations by ASIC and the tumultuous outcry of the
Australian public," he said in an email, referring to a civil
lawsuit by the anti-money-laundering agency and a host of
regulatory inquiries.

IMF's last annual report said it has 65 active matters in
Australia, the United States, Canada and Asia, with a "total
estimated portfolio value of A$3.8 billion".

Mr. McLernon dismissed as "arrant nonsense" any suggestion his
firm's business model encouraged companies to settle rather than
undertake costly, distracting legal battles.

"No board pays out tens of millions of dollars unless there is a
reasonable case against them," he said.

Meanwhile, Mr. Pace, the fund manager, said he will use his firm's
top position on the Vocus shareholder register to lobby its board
to fight the class action currently being contemplated.

"Just because they try, it doesn't mean there's a case to answer
to," he said. [GN]


WAWA INC: Gervasio Moves for Certification of Class Under FLSA
--------------------------------------------------------------
Anthony Gervasio, Michael Dinse, James Cloud and Christopher
Carmany, Plaintiffs in the lawsuit captioned ANTHONY GERVASIO,
RICHARD BONGIOVANNI, MICHAEL DINSE, JAMES CLOUD and CHRISTOPHER
CARMANY Individually and on Behalf of All Other Persons Similarly
Situated v. WAWA, INC., Case No. 3:17-cv-00245-PGS-DEA (D.N.J.),
moves the Court for conditional certification pursuant to the Fair
Labor Standards Act.

The Defendant's answering papers, if any, are due to be served and
filed on November 1, 2017, and the Plaintiff's Reply is due on
November 15, 2017.

A copy of the Notice of Motion is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=tB9LsWnD

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Marc S. Hepworth, Esq.
          Charles Gershbaum, Esq.
          David A. Roth, Esq.
          Rebecca S. Predovan, Esq.
          Joshua P. Cittadino, Esq.
          HEPWORTH, GERSHBAUM & ROTH, PLLC
          192 Lexington Avenue, Suite 802
          New York, NY 10016
          Telephone: (212) 545-1199
          Facsimile: (212) 532-3801
          E-mail: marc@hgrlawyers.com
                  Charles@hgrlawyers.com
                  david@hgrlawyers.com
                  rpredovan@hgrlawyers.com
                  jcittadino@hgrlawyers.com

               - and -

          Joseph D. Monaco, III, Esq.
          THE LAW OFFICES OF JOSEPH MONACO, P.C.
          317 Morris Avenue
          Union, NJ 07083
          Telephone: (212) 486-4244
          Facsimile: (646) 807-4749
          E-mail: jmonaco@monaco-law.com


WEST MARINE: "McNeil" Class Suit Underway
-----------------------------------------
West Marine, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended
July 1, 2017, that the Company continues to defend against the
case, Derrick McNeil v. West Marine, Inc., et. al. ("McNeil");
George Patterson v. Randolph K. Repass, Matthew L. Hyde, Barbara
L. Rambo, Dennis F. Madsen, Robert D. Olsen, James F. Nordstrom,
Jr., Alice M. Richter, and Christiana Shi ("Patterson"); and
Daniel Greenberg v. West Marine, Inc., et. al. ("Greenberg").

On July 27, 2017, McNeil and Patterson each filed a lawsuit in the
United States District Court for the District of Delaware and in
the Superior Court of the State of California, County of Santa
Cruz (Patterson), and on July 31, 2017, Greenberg filed a lawsuit
in the United States District Court for the Northern District of
California. All three lawsuits are putative securities class
action complaints that name the Company and/or its directors as
defendants and relate to Monomoy's proposed acquisition of the
Company. The McNeil and Greenberg lawsuits allege, among other
things, that the Company and its directors violated Section 14(a)
of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (the "Exchange
Act"), by omitting certain information from the preliminary proxy
statement filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission in
connection with the merger of Sub with and into the Company, with
the Company surviving the merger as a wholly-owned subsidiary of
Parent (the "Merger"). The Patterson lawsuit alleges that the
Company's directors were conflicted and breached their fiduciary
duties to stockholders by, among other things, seeking to sell the
Company through an allegedly unfair process, for an unfair price
and on unfair terms, and because the preliminary proxy statement
omits certain information. Based on these allegations, the
complaints seek, among other things, equitable relief, including
additional disclosure in the proxy statement, an injunction of the
Merger and costs and expenses of the litigation, including
attorneys' fees.

Based on the facts known to date, the Company considers the claims
asserted to be without merit and intends to vigorously defend
against them.


WILLMARK COMMUNITIES: Appeal in "Parker" Class Suit Dismissed
-------------------------------------------------------------
In the case captioned DAVIS PARKER et al., Plaintiffs and
Respondents, v. WILLMARK COMMUNITIES, INC. et al., Defendants and
Appellants, Case No. D069466 (Cal. App.), Judge Cynthia Aaron of
the Court of Appeals of California for the Fourth District,
Division One, dismissed the Defendants' appeal from a trial court
order regarding precertification communications.

The Defendants appeal from a trial court order regarding
precertification communications in a putative class action filed
by the Plaintiffs.  The Plaintiffs are former tenants of apartment
complexes owned or managed by the Defendants.  The Plaintiffs
filed the action in May 2015, on behalf of themselves and a
putative class of former tenants, alleging that the Defendants had
engaged in unlawful practices, including improperly withholding
security deposits and imposing additional or unsubstantiated
charges in connection with those deposits.

After the lawsuit was filed, the Defendants attempted to settle
with certain members of the putative class, initially without
advising them about the class action, and later using a release
form that disclosed the lawsuit, but that the Plaintiffs viewed as
misleading.  The Plaintiffs sought relief, and trial court entered
the Amended Order Governing Communications by Counsel to Putative
Class Members Regarding Settlements or Release on Dec. 1, 2015.
The order required the Defendants to obtain court approval before
initiating further settlement communications with putative class
members, limited settlement-related communications by the
Plaintiffs' attorneys, and required the Defendants to send a
curative notice to putative class members to whom they had
previously made settlement offers.

The Defendants argue that the trial court improperly enjoined
their settlement communications with putative class members, and
that if the Appellate Court determines that the order is not an
appealable injunction, it should construe the appeal as a petition
for writ of mandate.  The Plaintiffs contend that the order is a
proper interlocutory ruling, that it is not appealable, and that
the Defendants' appeal should not be treated as a writ petition.

Judge Aaron explains that focusing on the substance and effect of
the December 1 Order, it does not impact the status quo with
respect to the parties' underlying dispute.  The December 1 Order
is an exercise of the trial court's power to control the class
action proceedings, not an injunction.  She concludes that the
December 1 Order is not an appealable injunction.  In addition,
she observes that the courts routinely issue orders that require
or prohibit conduct, but that are not appealable.  In the class
action context, although orders denying class certification may be
appealed under the "death knell" doctrine, the courts have held
that other interim rulings generally are not appealable final or
collateral orders.  These authorities illustrate that the courts
consistently reject efforts to appeal from routine litigation
management orders, including in the class action context.

Turning to the Defendants' contention that if the Court concludes
that the December 1 Order is not appealable, it should construe
their appeal as a petition for writ of mandate, Judge Aaron says
contrary to the Defendants' characterization, the order does not
bar precertification settlement communications or settlements.
Rather, it imposes limits on both parties' settlement-related
communications, based on the trial court's finding that the
Defendants had engaged in misleading settlement efforts.  Far from
agreeing to writ review, the Plaintiffs expressly request that the
Court rejects the Defendants' request that it treats the appeal as
a writ petition.  In the absence of unusual circumstances or
irreparable harm, the Judge declines to construe the Defendants'
improper appeal as a writ petition.

Judge Aaron concludes that the December 1 Order is not appealable,
and that the circumstances do not warrant construing this improper
appeal as a writ petition.  Therefore, she dismissed the
Defendants' appeal.  The Plaintiffs will recover their costs on
appeal.

A full-text copy of the Cal. App.'s Oct. 20, 2017 Opinion is
available at https://is.gd/JHmaOk from Leagle.com.

Michelman & Robinson, Mona Z. Hanna -- mhanna@mrllp.com -- Todd H.
Stitt -- tstitt@mrllp.com -- and Robin James -- rjames@mrllp.com;
Morris Polich & Perdy and Lane E. Webb -- lwebb@clarkhill.com;
Wood Smith Henning & Berman, for Defendants and Appellants.

Law Office of Jimmie Davis Parker and Jimmie Davis Parker --
JDParker@gmail.com -- Law Office of Leonard B. Simon and Leonard
B. Simon --lens@rgrdlaw.com; Phillips, Erlewine, Given & Carlin,
R. Scott Erlewine -- rse@phillaw.com -- David M. Given --
dmg@phillaw.com --and Brian S. Conlon -- bsc@phillaw.com -- for
Plaintiffs and Respondents.


YAKIMA, WA: Keith Effler Settles Rainbow Shadow Report Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------
Kaitlin Bain, writing for Yakima Herald, reports that a Yakima
City Council candidate has agreed to pay nearly $10,000 as part of
a settlement stemming from allegations about his involvement in
the Rain Shadow Report, a newspaper-styled handout sent to voters
in District 4 this summer.

The settlement, signed by a Yakima County judge on Oct. 13, makes
no determination regarding fault and will end a class action
lawsuit against District 4 City Council candidate Keith Effler.

"Basically, it was cheaper to settle than to win in court,"
Mr. Effler said in an emailed statement on Oct. 17.  In agreeing
to the settlement, Mr. Effler does not admit liability.

In the lawsuit, Yakima resident Sydnee Galusha alleged the state
voter registration database was used to distribute the
publication.  She made the accusation based on an email she
received from the publication's editor-in-chief saying the Report
was sent to a "semi-randomized sampling" of District 4 voters. The
lawsuit also maintained Mr. Effler requested the database from the
county elections office and made it available to the Rain Shadow
Report.

However, the lawsuit did not provide a direct link tying
Mr. Effler's copy of the voter registration database to the
handout.  And, other District 4 candidates also requested the
list.  Ms. Galusha would not comment on the settlement except to
confirm its existence.

The Rain Shadow Report was a 12-page newspaper-like handout mailed
to District 4 voters in July in advance of the August primary.
The handout featured interviews with most District 4 candidates
along with other articles, including one about the best tacos in
Yakima.


When questioned, Mr.  Effler said the handout was originally his
idea but that he turned over control of "the project" to others
when he decided to run for City Council.  Mr. Effler later
admitted to being involved in the design and printing of the Rain
Shadow Report, including sending email correspondence to the
Yakima Herald-Republic during production of the handout and
approving pages for printing. The Yakima Herald-Republic, which
offers a commercial print service separate from the newsroom,
printed the handout.

But Mr. Effler maintains he had no control over the content and
did not read any of the articles -- except for one small
information box on the back page -- before publication.

Under the settlement, a letter and $1 will be sent to 2,324
District 4 voters from Ms. Galusha's attorney.  The letter, in
addition to explaining why voters are receiving the money, also
will explain that Mr.  Effler says he is not liable for any of the
claims against him and agreed to the settlement to "avoid further
expense, inconvenience and the distraction of litigation."

Mr.  Effler previously paid back $315 to Conquest Church, LLC, an
organization that had already donated $1,000 -- the limit -- to
Effler's campaign. The repayment, the state Public Disclosure
Commission ruled, was the "value" he received from the Rain Shadow
Report, which was funded by Conquest Church.  The publication's
editor-in-chief, Jared Bower, who went by the pseudonym "Kyle
Smith" in the handout, was facing a complaint with the commission
because of an alleged failure to report the sponsor of the handout
to the commission and to voters on the handout itself.  That
complaint and another against Mr.  Effler, both filed by Ms.
Galusha, were dismissed. [GN]


* 20% of Food Class Actions Nationwide Filed in N.D. California
---------------------------------------------------------------
John Doherty and Lisa Rickard, writing for Sacramento Bee, report
that California has long been known as the nation's breadbasket,
but now it's also becoming notorious as its food lawsuit capital.

Lawyers file class-action lawsuits claiming that Starbucks puts
too much ice in its iced coffee and too much milk foam in its
lattes.  They sue over salt and vinegar potato chips allegedly not
having enough vinegar, and they sue Krispy Kreme because its
donuts supposedly don't contain real raspberries.

About 36 percent of all of the food-related class-action lawsuits
in the nation are filed in California because the state's laws are
so biased the lawyers believe they can file meritless claims and
get away with it -- and sometimes they do.

During 2015-16, California's federal courts heard about 150 of
these cases, all based on state consumer protection laws.  Twenty
percent of all food class actions nationwide are filed in the
Northern District of California, dubbed the "food court."

Food class-action lawsuits are cash cows for lawyers with little
or no benefit at all for consumers.

For example, Nutella was sued for allegedly misleading a consumer
that the well-known chocolate-hazelnut spread was a health food.
Despite the ridiculous allegation, the family-run business settled
the case and the lawyers received nearly twice as much ($985,920)
as all of the class members combined ($550,000).

Companies that are repeatedly targeted by these meritless suits
often settle them secretly out of court because the cost of paying
the lawyers to go away is less expensive than prolonged
litigation.

The vast majority of these food cases are not the result of
aggrieved consumers.  Rather, the lawsuits are because law firms
search supermarkets for product packages that could lead to a
lawsuit, then find a plaintiff willing to put their name on a
complaint.

The newest trend in food litigation, especially in California, is
to sue companies in "slack fill" lawsuits that claim manufacturers
package products to make customers think there is more food or
drink inside than there is, even if the actual quantity is clearly
marked.

These kinds of abuses extend to other kinds of lawsuits.  For
example, California lawyers perfected the "drive-by" lawsuit
targeting small businesses for technical violations of the
Americans with Disabilities Act and then extorting settlements in
the thousands of dollars.  More than 40 percent of the nation's
ADA access lawsuits are in California.

The Legislature has chipped away at eliminating some ADA lawsuit
abuses, but still has a long way to go.

A new Harris Poll ranks California as one of the five worst states
for the fairness of its laws, courts, judges and juries. The
survey, commissioned by the U.S. Chamber Institute for Legal
Reform, is a compilation of rankings by more than 1,300 senior
attorneys and corporate CEOs.

California has ranked among the 10 worst since the survey began in
2002.  But this year, an all-time high of 85 percent say a state's
lawsuit climate is expected to affect decisions about where to
locate or expand their businesses.

If the Legislature wants to keep the state's economy growing, it
must reform its laws that open its legal system to rampant abuse.
[GN]


* Ballard Spahr Attorneys Provide Details on CFPB Rule Lawsuit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Alan S. Kaplinsky, Esq., Mark J. Levin, Esq., of Ballard Spahr
LLP, in an article for The National Law Review, report that
as promised previously, here are further details on the lawsuit
filed by industry groups against the CFPB to overturn the final
arbitration rule.   The complaint largely mirrors our heavy
criticism of the rule.

The complaint asserts four principal arguments:

The rule is the product of "the unconstitutional structure that
Congress gave the CFPB" in the Dodd-Frank Act, which gives the
Director "an extraordinary degree of authority that is virtually
unique in the federal system, and insulates the Director from
control by either the President or Congress."  (A similar argument
is presently pending before the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals in
PHH v. CFPB).

The rule violates the Administrative Procedure Act ("APA") because
"the CFPB failed to observe procedures required by law when it
adopted the conclusions of a deeply flawed study that improperly
limited public participation, applied defective methodologies,
misapprehended the relevant data, and failed to address key
considerations."  In directing the CFPB to study the use of
arbitration in consumer financial contracts and base any
regulation of arbitration on the results of that study, Congress
necessarily required the CFPB to conduct a fair, unbiased, and
thorough study that that would produce reliable and accurate
results.  Instead, the CFPB "misstated or disregarded key data,
reaching palpably invalid conclusions that understate the
demonstrated effectiveness of arbitration and overstate the value
of class-action litigation."

The rule also violates the APA because "it runs counter to the
record before the [CFPB]" and is "the very model of arbitrary and
capricious agency action."   In particular, the CFPB "failed to
address key considerations -- among them, whether effectively
eliminating arbitration in contracts subject to the CFPB's
jurisdiction would injure consumers."  Moreover, the rule "is
premised on conclusions that run counter to the administrative
record before the [CFPB], which establishes that arbitration is
effective in providing relief to consumers and that class-action
litigation generally is not.

The rule violates the Dodd-Frank Act because "it fails to advance
either the public interest or consumer welfare: it precludes the
use of a dispute resolution mechanism that generally benefits
consumers (i.e., arbitration) in favor of one that typically does
not (i.e., class-action litigation)."  The rule "effectively
precludes use of an arbitration mechanism that provides the only
realistic method by which consumers may obtain relief for the
types of individualized claims that they typically regard as most
important.  And it does so in the interest of encouraging class-
action litigation, a procedure that provides substantial rewards
to class-action lawyers but almost never produces meaningful
relief for individual consumers."

The complaint alleges that the CFPB reached a "preordained
conclusion" to ban class action waivers which "ignored the data
before it that demonstrated both the benefits of arbitration to
consumers and the failure of class-action lawsuits to provide
consumers with meaningful benefits."  In addition, the CFPB failed
to address "key policy questions," including whether a rule
mandating the availability of class-action litigation would lead
to the complete abandonment of arbitration," and made no serious
effort "to weigh the comparative costs and benefits of
implementing a regime that substitutes costly class-action
litigation for efficient arbitration."  The "inevitable practical
consequence" of the rule, plaintiffs allege, is that businesses
will abandon arbitration altogether" since they will face "the
certainty of high litigation costs associated with class-action
suits and therefore will not go to the expense of creating an
alternative arbitration mechanism-for which business shoulders the
lion's share of the costs."

The complaint seeks entry of a judgment vacating the arbitration
rule and entry of orders staying the rule's implementation pending
the conclusion of judicial review and enjoining the CFPB and
Director Cordray from enforcing the rule.  If the rule goes into
effect, plaintiffs aver, "it will inflict immediate, irreparable
injury" because "[p]roviders of consumer financial products and
services will incur significant legal and compliance costs in
adapting their businesses to the new rule," and "the vast majority
of these costs will be wasted, and not recoverable, if the [r]ule
ultimately is deemed to be contrary to law."  Moreover, "so long
as the effects of the [r]ule are being felt, providers of such
services will both be denied the benefits of arbitration and
exposed to expensive class-action litigation." [GN]


* High Court to Decide on Enforceability of Class Action Waivers
----------------------------------------------------------------
Sherry Karabin, writing for Akron Legal News, reports that are
class action and collective action waivers in which employers
require workers to resolve employment-related disputes through
individual arbitration and waive their right to do so through
class and collective proceedings enforceable?

That's what the U.S. Supreme Court will decide after the circuit
courts failed to agree on an answer.

On Oct. 2, the justices heard oral arguments in three consolidated
cases that deal with the enforceability of waivers (Epic Systems
Corp. v. Lewis, Ernst & Young, LLP v. Morris, et al. and National
Labor Relations Board v. Murphy Oil USA, Inc.) known as Epic
Systems Corp. v. Lewis.

The cases pit two federal laws, the Federal Arbitration Act (FAA)
and the National Labor Relations Act, against one another.

The FAA states that arbitration agreements "shall be valid,
irrevocable, and enforceable," while Section 7 of the NLRA
protects the rights of workers to engage in "concerted activity"
for their "mutual aid or protection."

Richard Millisor -- rmillisor@fisherphillips.com -- a partner in
the Cleveland office of the management-side labor and employment
law firm Fisher Phillips, said the high court will have to decide
whether "the NLRA protects the right to pursue class actions and
collective actions in state and federal courts and, if so, whether
the policies underlying the FAA trump the NLRA.

"The Supreme Court has already ruled that arbitration agreements
that contain class action waivers are enforceable in the
commercial context," said Mr. Millisor.  "The question as to
whether they are enforceable in the employment context is very
important to employers, especially large and mid-sized companies."

In addition to increased exposure, Mr. Millisor said class action
lawsuits generally cost companies much more in legal fees and time
spent defending against the actions than individually arbitrated
disputes.

"In my view, arbitration agreements are good for both employers
and employees," said Mr. Millisor.  "The disputes are generally
resolved much quicker and the decision is very difficult to
appeal.

"Traditional jury verdicts can take years to resolve and may be
overturned," he said.

Mr. Millisor said one significant benefit to employees and
employers is that these disputes are not public.

"This prevents employees from being concerned that asserting a
claim against one employer may adversely impact their future
employment opportunities with other employers."

In addition, Mr. Millisor said the costs of arbitration, except
for the employee's own attorney's fees, must be borne by the
employer.

While the specific circumstances in the three cases heard by the
high court were different, they all dealt with the enforceability
of class action/collective action waivers.

The 2nd, 5th and 8th circuits ruled that the waivers are
enforceable, while the 6th, 7th and 9th circuits held they are
not.

Olivia Hochschwender -- ohochschwender@kwwlaborlaw.com -- an
associate at Kastner Westman & Wilkins, said the Department of
Justice has switched sides in the matter under the Trump
administration.

"The DOJ was initially representing the NLRB at the Supreme Court
on the issue of whether the waivers violate Section 7 of the
National Labor Relations Act," said Ms. Hochschwender.  "Now the
DOJ has flipped flopped and actually has filed an amicus curiae
brief in support of the employers."

Rachel Reight, a partner at Baasten-McKinley & Co, who represents
employees, argues that class actions provide advantages for both
employers and employees.

She said allowing class action challenges provides employers with
more accountability since they know a class action may be a
potential outcome of violations and "can reduce costs to employers
by enabling employers to defend the same issue once as a class
action, as opposed to defending numerous individual claims over
the same issue.

"Whereas, mandatorily eliminating the ability of employees to
bring collective claims pre-dispute would essentially prevent
employees from pursuing many employer violations," said
Ms. Reight.  "Oftentimes, it is cost prohibitive to file an
individual claim against an employer, especially if that claim is
a wage-and-hour suit in which damages are limited.

"Additionally, I believe that the waivers violate employees'
rights under the NLRA to engage in 'concerted activities.' I
believe that if the Supreme Court sanctions the use of class
action waivers, we will see an open floodgate of inclusion of
these class action waivers in employment agreements."

But Mr. Millisor disagrees.

"Currently based on published estimates by one think tank, only
about 25 million employees are subject to arbitration agreements
with class waivers, which is only one in four nonunion employees,
and this estimate likely overstates employers' use of arbitration
agreements with class action waivers," said Mr. Millisor.

"While I believe arbitration agreements make sense for employers
and employees in most workplaces, these agreements are not a
panacea for employers since companies do have to pay for the
arbitration costs, the agreements cannot limit remedies, such as
liquidated and punitive damages, available to employees and both
sides are guaranteed a neutral decision-maker.

"If things do not go the employer's way, it's almost impossible to
reverse the award," he said.

Additionally, he said under the Fair Labor Standards Act, a
prevailing plaintiff obtains his/her legal fees, "which will
continue to provide an incentive for plaintiffs-side lawyers to
pursue low-damage individual wage-and-hour claims, even if they
cannot do so as part of the class or collective action."

Mr. Hochschwender said "here at KWW we have noticed that employers
with high volumes of employees tend to use the waivers more than
others.

"In particular skilled nursing and home health franchises as well
as food service franchises use the waivers more than others."

If the Supreme Court does decide that they are enforceable,
Mr. Millisor said there would likely be a significant uptick in
the use of arbitration agreements containing class action waivers.
However, he said "many businesses will still shy away from binding
and mandatory arbitration."

While no one can predict what the high court will decide or when,
Ms. Reight said it will be interesting to see how Justice Neil
Gorsuch rules.

"In reviewing NLRB v. Community Health Services, Inc., one of his
most recent decisions involving the NLRB, then-Judge Gorsuch in
his dissent found the NLRB overreached by failing to deduct
interim earnings in calculating back pay for hospital employees
whose hours had been unlawfully reduced."

However, she said Justice Gorsuch has deferred to the NLRB in
previous cases as well, such as in Teamsters Local Union No. 455
v. NLRB.

"If the court finds that class action waivers are enforceable, I
would advise employees bound by such agreements to seek legal
counsel right away on how they should proceed should problems
arise," said Ms. Reight. [GN]


* Illinois Employers Face Biometric Privacy Law Class Actions
-------------------------------------------------------------
Amy Korte, writing for Illinois Policy, reports that in 2017,
increasing numbers of employees have sued their employers for
alleged violations of Illinois' biometric privacy law through the
use of fingerprint-operated time clocks.

Since July, employees have filed at least 26 class-action lawsuits
against employers in Illinois state court under Illinois'
Biometric Information Privacy Act, or BIPA, according to Law360.

These lawsuits are largely based on the use of fingerprint-
operated time clocks.  The employee-plaintiffs have alleged their
employers used those time clocks to collect, use and store
biologically derived, or biometric, information in a manner that
violates the consent, notice and disclosure requirements of the
BIPA.

Illinois' Biometric Information Privacy Act

In 2008, Illinois enacted the BIPA, the most stringent law of any
state regarding the consent, notice and disclosure procedures
private entities must follow when collecting, storing or using
people's biometric information, such as fingerprints, iris scans
and face prints.

The BIPA requires private entities to inform persons in writing
about the specific purposes and length of time for which their
biometric information will be collected, used or stored.  And no
private entity may collect, use or store biometric information
without first receiving a written release by the person whose
biometric information is sought.  The statute further requires a
written schedule and guidelines for the retention and destruction
of the biometric information to be made public.  And the BIPA
mandates consent and notice procedures that private entities must
follow before disclosing someone's biometric information to a
third party.

Under the BIPA, Illinoisans have the right to sue private parties
for violations of the act and to collect the greater of $1,000 or
actual damages for each violation negligently committed, and the
greater of $5,000 or actual damages for each violation recklessly
or intentionally committed.  Plaintiffs can also collect
attorneys' fees and costs under the BIPA.

Illinois consumers have sued under the BIPA for alleged violations
by companies that use facial-recognition technology, such as
Facebook, Shutterfly, Google, Snapchat, Take-Two Interactive
Software, Wow Bao and others, as well as companies that have used
fingerprint scans, such as L.A. Tan.

Employee lawsuits under the BIPA

A recent and increasingly popular avenue for BIPA litigation is
class-action lawsuits by employees against employers based on the
use of biometric information in the workplace, such as
fingerprint-operated time clocks.  Between March and July,
Roundy's, which operates the Mariano's grocery store chain,
InterContinental Hotels Group and Zayo Group were sued under the
BIPA over the allegedly improper collection and storage of
employee biometrics such as fingerprints and hand scans.

And between July and October, more class-action lawsuits were
filed in Illinois state court by current and former employees
alleging their employers had violated the BIPA.  Here are just a
few of the employers who have been sued for alleged BIPA
violations:

Speedway LLC, a gas station and convenience store chain
Greencore USA-CPG Partners LLC, which does business as Peacock
Foods, a food manufacturing, packaging and supply chain solutions
company
Superior Air-Ground Ambulance Service Inc., an emergency medical
services provider
Millard Group LLC, which provides janitorial services to offices,
educational institutions, restaurants and home associations
Alliance Ground International LLC, which provides cargo, mail and
ramp handling services to airlines
Pineapple Hospitality Company and Pineapple Restaurant Group LLC,
which run hotels and restaurants, including The Alise in Chicago
ABRA Auto Body & Glass, an auto repair company

Though some of the details vary, in nearly all of the employee
BIPA cases, the plaintiffs have alleged their employers used
fingerprint-operated machines (and in at least one case, a more
elaborate system that recognizes a person's finger vein patterns)
to clock employees' work hours.  The plaintiffs allege their
employers failed to inform employees about the companies' policies
for use, storage and ultimate destruction of the fingerprint data
or obtain the employees' written consent before collecting, using
or storing the biometric information.

In at least one case, the employee has also alleged fingerprint
data was improperly shared with the supplier of the time-tracking
machines, and has named that supplier as a defendant as well.

Potential impact of employee BIPA lawsuits

The BIPA is a relatively new and developing area of law, and the
extent of potential recoveries in BIPA cases isn't yet clear. Many
of the lawsuits, including those against Facebook and Google, are
still working their way through the courts, while others, such as
one against Take-Two Interactive, have been dismissed. Meanwhile,
parties have settled cases involving Shutterfly and L.A. Tan. (A
new facial-recognition BIPA suit against Shutterfly is now pending
in federal court, according to the Chicago Tribune.)

Employees, consumers and others have every reason to be concerned
about the privacy and security of their biometric information. As
the General Assembly noted, "Biometrics . . . are biologically
unique to the individual; therefore, once compromised, the
individual has no recourse, is at heightened risk for identity
theft, and is likely to withdraw from biometric-facilitated
transactions."

It is not yet known whether any of the employer-defendants in the
recently filed BIPA cases failed to comply with the statute's
requirements.  Nor is it known whether, even assuming the
defendants had not followed the mandated consent, notice and
disclosure procedures, the plaintiffs' fingerprint or finger scan
data were ever put at risk of being compromised or how the
plaintiffs might have been harmed.  And in the event the courts
grant class-action status, it is also unclear to what extent any
monetary recoveries would benefit the victims of the alleged
statutory violations -- or whether attorneys would take the lion's
share, with comparatively small sums going to the actual
plaintiffs in the cases.

But one need look no farther than the attention garnered by the
facial-recognition features of Apple's new iPhone X to see that
biometric-based innovation is increasingly important in the U.S.
economy, and in people's daily lives.

Yet it remains to be seen what effect the proliferation of BIPA
litigation will have on technological innovation in the Prairie
State.  Such innovation has the potential to make life easier for
Illinoisans, as well as to stoke a job-creation engine Illinois
desperately needs.

One thing is certain, however: Litigation against businesses does
have the potential to drive up costs -- and make employing people
more difficult and more expensive.  And as authors of a Law360
article noted in discussing the BIPA's damages provisions, "It is
easy to see how damages can become enormous when aggregated
through a class action."  Indeed, articles by attorneys warning
about the hazards of biometric class-action litigation against
employers have cropped up in the wake of these lawsuits.

Whether businesses will take extra precautions to comply with the
BIPA, hoping to escape enterprising class-action lawyers and
litigants -- or decide hiring people in Illinois is not worth the
expense and hassle -- will play out as the cases progress.  In a
state where recent jobs growth has been less than half the
national average and worse than every neighboring state, this is
not a minor concern. [GN]


* Labeling Critical to Avoiding Class Action Settlements
--------------------------------------------------------
Hank Schultz, writing for NUTRAingredients.com, reports attention
to detail on labelling and claims issues is critical to avoiding
potential class action settlements, an attorney told an industry
gathering recently.

Justin Prochnow, a shareholder in the firm Greenberg Traurig,
spoke at a meeting in Boulder, CO on Oct. 11.  The meeting, titled
the Rocky Mountain Dietary Supplement Forum, was put on by the
consulting firm FDA Compliance Group.

Mr. Prochnow cautioned that small mistakes can have big
consequences when plaintiffs law firms are out there patrolling
the periphery of the industry.

"We are representing at least 17 different companies in class
action lawsuits," Mr. Prochnow said.

Mr. Prochnow said being precise in claims is an important
preventive action.  A claim that might imply something a company
didn't mean to imply could just be inviting a demand letter, he
said.

"We have seen action on 'all natural' claims, so many that almost
no one uses that claim any more.  We recommend something more
focused, such as 'made with naturally sourced ingredients.' That
at least takes the processing part out of the argument," he said.

"We've seen demand letters on no added sugars, 'Made in USA'
claims, and for a failure to put 'from concentrates' on the front
of the label," he said. "On 'no added sugars,' we are representing
at least five companies on those.  And if you put 'evaporated cane
juice' on your label, you are just asking for a demand letter."

Blueprint for 'success'

The plaintiff's law firms use previous successful demands from
firms as a plan of action for subsequent cases, Mr. Prochnow said.
So it's a high throughput activity.

"If they're successful on one case they'll use that as a blueprint
for 50 more cases.  They are usually settling these out of court
for $30,000, $40,000 or $50,000.  If they settle ten of these,
they just made $500,000 for a few hours work," he said.

Mr. Prochnow said increasingly state attorneys general are getting
involved in looking at claims made on dietary supplements.
Companies need to know what their substantiation is for making
claims, and loose approximations of what the underlying studies
actually say will no longer fly.

"Making claims about ingredients and not knowing whether you have
enough of that ingredient in that product to support the claim is
something that raises risk," Mr. Prochnow said.

Mr. Prochnow said all too often he has seen companies try to match
their claims to what they see in the marketplace.  That could
work, as long as you were fortunate enough to hit on the right
company to copy.

"I tell my clients, make sure you are copying from the kid who got
the 'A,' not the one who got the 'D,'" Mr. Prochnow said. [GN]


* McGuireWoods Attorneys Discuss Waiver "Opt Out Provisions"
------------------------------------------------------------
Los Angeles labor and employment litigators Michael Mandel --
mmandel@mcguirewoods.com -- and Amy Beverlin --
abeverlin@mcguirewoods.com -- of McGuireWoods LLP provide
perspective on three class-action waiver cases currently awaiting
decision by the Supreme Court, as well as a potential path forward
for class-action waivers in employment contracts.

Everyone is talking about the future of class-action waivers in
employment arbitration agreements after the Supreme Court launched
its new term with oral argument in three closely-watched cases--
National Labor Relations Board v. Murphy Oil USA, Inc. (5th
Circuit), Epic Systems Corp. v. Lewis (7th Circuit), and Ernst &
Young LLP v. Morris (9th Circuit).  In its impending decision, the
Court is poised to resolve a fierce debate over whether class-
action waivers in arbitration agreements must be enforced under
the Federal Arbitration Act (as the Court previously held in the
consumer context in its landmark 2011 decision, AT&T Mobility v.
Concepcion, 563 U.S. 333 (2011)), or whether such waivers in the
employment context violate another federal statute, the National
Labor Relations Act (NLRA), as seeded by the National Labor
Relations Board (NLRB) in its controversial decision in D.R.
Horton (357 NLRB No. 184 (2012)).

In D.R. Horton, the NLRB upended the world of employment
litigation in holding that the NLRA prohibits class-action waivers
in mandatory employment arbitration agreements.  The Fifth Circuit
refused to enforce the NLRB's decision on appeal. But with the
NLRB consistently holding to its position in subsequent cases, a
circuit split soon developed.  The Sixth, Seventh, and Ninth
Circuits have sided with the NLRB, represented before the Court by
Lewis and Morris.  The Second and Eighth Circuits have rejected
the NLRB's position, and the Fifth Circuit reasserted its early
rejection of the NLRB's position in Murphy Oil.

Predictably, court watchers have pored over the transcript of the
oral argument before the high court on the consolidated cases, and
dissected the Justices' questions to foretell how the Court will
rule.  But even against the backdrop of a bench tilted towards the
conservative, there is no way to know for sure how the Court will
come down. Regardless of the Court's ultimate decision, however,
there is one simple way for employers to "opt out" of a pro-NLRB
ruling, and any NLRA issues for that matter: the inclusion of an
"opt out" provision in the employment arbitration agreement.

Even in California, with its reliably anti-arbitration courts and
rulings, the cases imposing strict limitations on arbitration
agreements all arise in the context of "mandatory" arbitration
agreements--that is, agreements that employers impose as a
condition of employment.  Indeed, that the class action waiver at
issue in Morris was imposed as a condition of the plaintiffs'
employment was the fact that sealed its fate.

Two years earlier, in Johnmohammadi v. Bloomingdale's, 834 F.3d
975 (9th Cir. 2014), the Ninth Circuit upheld the enforceability
of a class-action waiver contained in an arbitration agreement
against a challenge that it violated the NLRA.  The court
emphasized that Bloomingdale's had not required the plaintiff to
accept the class-action waiver as a condition of employment;
instead, in contrast to the waiver at issue in D.R. Horton,
Bloomingdale's "gave her the option of participating in its
dispute resolution program."  Only if she decided not to opt out
of the arbitration agreement did she waive her right to pursue
employment-related claims on a collective basis.  Because the
plaintiff in Johnmohammadi chose not to opt out of the program,
she had "freely elected to arbitrate employment-related disputes
on an individual basis."

The Ninth Circuit reaffirmed this distinction in Morris, stating:

In contrast [to an employer conditioning employment on signing a
concerted action waiver], there was no Sec 8 violation in
Johnmohammadi . . . because the employee there could have opted
out of the individual dispute resolution agreement and chose not
to.

The waiver in Morris was more akin to that in D.R. Horton because
the employer had required the plaintiffs to sign the agreement --
and thereby waive their right to bring a concerted action against
the company -- as a condition of their employment.  Thus, the
court found that the agreement violated Sec. 8 of the NLRA.
Still, in so finding, the Ninth Circuit explicitly distinguished
between permissive class-action waivers and mandatory class-action
waivers, and did nothing to stamp out the propriety of the former
under the NLRA.

In Lewis, the Seventh Circuit touched upon the "opt out" issue in
dicta.  In that case, the subject arbitration agreement did not
allow employees to opt out, and instead provided that employees
were "deemed to have accepted [the] Agreement" by virtue of their
continued employment.  The court noted that other circuits had
found that an arbitration agreement mandating individual
arbitration may be enforceable where the employee had the right to
opt out of the agreement without penalty.  In the same breath,
though, it noted that such a holding might conflict with the
NLRB's interpretation of the NLRA, thereby suggesting that an "opt
out" provision may not ameliorate NLRA issues presented by class-
action waivers.  In the end, however, the Seventh Circuit declined
to resolve the issue given that it was undisputed that "assent to
Epic's arbitration provision was a condition of continued
employment."

Even if the Supreme Court's sure-to-be-landmark ruling strikes
down class-action waivers in mandatory arbitration agreements as
violating the NLRA, that will not be the end of arbitration
agreements and class-action waivers.  Instead, employers will
still be able to stave off challenges to class-action waivers
under the NLRA by including an "opt out" provision in the
agreement that provides employees with a meaningful opportunity to
"opt out" of the agreement or the waiver provision. [GN]


* Sen. Elizabeth Warren Issues Opinion on CFPB Arbitration Rule
---------------------------------------------------------------
US Senator Elizabeth Warren of Massachusetts, a member of the
Senate Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs, in an
opinion article posted at Boston Globe, states "The Equifax data
breach and the Wells Fargo fake accounts scandal have given
America a peek into business practices at some of America's
biggest financial institutions.  In both companies, a related
practice popped to the surface: forced arbitration clauses."

"These little clauses, often buried in a fog of fine print, are a
way for the companies to slither out of accountability when they
cheat their customers.  And Senate Republicans are on the verge of
ramming through a resolution that will allow companies like
Equifax and Wells Fargo to continue using these tricks to get away
with even more misconduct.

"Here's how the trick works: Let's say you discover an unexplained
$20 fee on your credit card statement. You call, spend a long
stretch on hold, get shuffled from person to person, and, finally,
learn that your credit card company won't remove the fee.  What
now? If your credit card company cheated you out of $20, there's a
good chance it cheated a lot of other customers out of $20. So you
can join -- or start  -- a class action, which gives you the
chance to go to court and get your money back.  It's not a lot of
money, but add up all the people in the class action, and the
company feels some real heat if they cheat a lot of their
customers.

But if your credit card contract contains a forced arbitration
clause, you can't go to court.  Instead, your only option is to
pony up $200 to file an arbitration claim.  No one is going to pay
$200 to try to recover a $20 fee -- and your credit card company
knows it.  That means it can get away with cheating you on small
fees forever.  And it can juice its profit by cheating millions of
its other customers too.

Forced arbitration is bad for consumers.  That's why the Consumer
Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) issued a new rule earlier this
year that limits the use of forced arbitration clauses in
financial contracts and lets consumers join class action lawsuits
if they get cheated.

Republicans who blasted Wells Fargo want to water down the
landmark financial regulation legislation that established the
consumer bureau.

Equifax messed up. Now consumers have to pay?

Bank lobbyists hate the CFPB's new rule, and they're pushing
Congress hard to reverse it.  So far, Republicans have been happy
to oblige.  While Democrats in the House of Representatives voted
unanimously against a resolution to repeal the CFPB rule, House
Republicans voted in lock step to pass it.  If Senate Republicans
follow suit, the rule -- and protection for customers who get
tricked -- will disappear.  The Senate vote on the resolution
could happen.

Equifax, Wells Fargo and other giant financial institutions use
forced arbitration clauses.  But the new CFPB rule would stop them
in their tracks.  Any senators who vote to reverse the CFPB rule
are saying loud and clear that they side with those companies
instead of with their constituents.

A broad coalition of groups representing consumers is fighting
hard to keep the new CFPB rule alive.  The Military Coalition,
which represents more than 5.5 million veterans and
servicemembers, supports the rule because "our nation's veterans
should not be deprived of the Constitutional rights and freedoms
that they put their lives on the line to protect, including the
right to have their claims heard in a trial."  AARP, which
represents nearly 38 million American seniors, says the rule "is a
critical step in restoring consumers' access to legal remedies
that have been undermined by the widespread use of forced
arbitration for many years."  And the Main Street Alliance, which
represents thousands of small businesses, says the rule will help
small businesses fight against big financial firms that try to
drive up their fees.

Despite overwhelming public support for the CFPB rule, financial
industry lobbyists are prowling the halls of Congress, claiming
that the rule is bad for consumers because consumers fare better
in arbitration than in class actions.  That claim is laughable.
According to a CFPB study, consumers recovered an average of $540
million annually from class actions settlements, while receiving
less than $1 million annually in the arbitration cases the agency
reviewed. It's not even close.

And if consumers prefer arbitration, that's their choice -- the
CFPB rule doesn't prevent consumers from choosing arbitration. The
rule simply says that consumers should also have the option to go
to court if that's what they want.

Senate Republicans should listen to service members, veterans,
seniors, and small businesses -- not bank lobbyists.  As we
continue to find out how much damage Equifax and Wells Fargo have
inflicted on American consumers, the last thing Congress should be
doing is reducing customers' rights to hold financial companies
accountable. [GN]


* Vandeventer Attorney Discusses Employment Law Developments
------------------------------------------------------------
Anne G. Bibeau, Esq. -- abibeau@vanblacklaw.com -- of Vandeventer
Black LLP, in an article for Lexology, reports that as 2017 winds
down, there are a few developments that may change the legal
landscape for employers:

Class-Action Waivers in Employment Arbitration Agreements.
Arbitration agreements, in which employees agree to submit
disputes with their employer to arbitration rather than to court,
have become common.  Often, the agreement stipulates that all
claims must be submitted on an individual basis, thus precluding
class actions.  The National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) opposes
such class action waivers, arguing that they violate employees'
rights under the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA).  Federal
appellate courts are divided on the issue: the Fifth Circuit has
held that such arbitration clauses are lawful, whereas the Seventh
and Ninth Circuits have held that they are prohibited by the NLRA.
On October 2, the U.S. Supreme Court heard arguments in three
cases on this issue that have been consolidated before the Court.
Depending on the Court's decision, employers may need to revise
their employment agreements.

Joint Employer Bill. The Save Local Business Act (H.R. 3441) is
progressing through the House of Representatives with bipartisan
support.  This bill, if it passes, will restrict the definition of
"joint employer," thereby reversing the NLRB's infamous Browning
Ferris decision.  "Joint employer" is the legal doctrine whereby
one business can be held legally liable for the employment law
violations of another business, such as a subcontractor or
franchisee.  In Browning Ferris, the NLRB held in 2015 that simply
having the right to control another business's workers, even if
that right is never exercised, was sufficient to confer joint
employer liability. The pending legislation would limit joint
employer liability under both the NLRA and the Fair Labor
Standards Act (FLSA) to businesses that actually control another
business's workers.

Evolving Policy for Transgender Employees. U.S. Attorney General
Jeff Sessions has announced that Title VII's prohibition on sex
discrimination "does not encompass discrimination based on gender
identity per se, including transgender status." This announcement
reverses the past administration's policy that deemed employment
discrimination against transgender individuals to be
discrimination on the basis of sex in violation of Title VII.
Under President Obama's administration, the Equal Employment
Opportunity Commission (EEOC) pursued several cases against
employers for Title VII discrimination against transgender
individuals. Attorney General Sessions' pronouncement signals a
departure from those enforcement efforts.

Employers still should be cautious in taking any adverse action
against transgender or gay individuals, however, because several
courts have held that Title VII does prohibit discrimination on
the basis of gender identity and sexual preference.  Even in
jurisdictions where courts share Attorney General Sessions' view,
plaintiffs' attorneys routinely file such cases, claiming that the
employer discriminated against an individual because he or she
failed to conform to gender stereotypes.  The law is well-settled
that discrimination based on gender stereotypes violates Title
VII. Also, under current law, federal government contractors are
prohibited from discriminating against applicants and employees
based on sexual preference and gender identity (which includes
transgender individuals). [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  * * *