CAR_Public/160725.mbx              C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

              Monday, July 25, 2016, Vol. 18, No. 147




                            Headlines


ADAMS OUTDOOR: Court Approves Settlement Deal in "DiClemente"
AHOLD USA: "Jain" Class Suit Removed to District of Columbia
AIR EVAC: Faces Air Ambulance Class Action in Oklahoma
ALTITUDE MARKETING: Faces "Terlizzi" Suit in Colorado
AMERICAN FAMILY MUTUAL: "Strembitskyy" Suit Remanded to State Ct.

AMERICAN TOBACCO: Smoking Cessation Program Offered After Ruling
ANTHEM HEALTH: Certification of Class Sought in "Wilson" Suit
ASSOCIA COMMUNITY: Illegally Collects Debt, "Waljroh" Suit Says
ATLANTIC COAST: Faces "Crawford" Suit Over Breach of Contract
BAXTER CREDIT: Faces "Ramirez" Suit in North. District California

BERKSHIRE HATHAWAY: Class Certification Sought in "Gonzalez" Suit
BOEHRINGER INGELHEIM: Faces "Delaney" Suit Over Pradaxa (R) Drug
BOEHRINGER INGELHEIM: Faces "Meyer" Suit Over Pradaxa (R) Drug
BOEHRINGER INGELHEIM: Faces "Monastra" Suit Over Pradaxa (R) Drug
BOEHRINGER INGELHEIM: Faces "Moore" Suit Over Pradaxa (R) Drug

BOEHRINGER INGELHEIM: Faces "Runyon" Suit Over Pradaxa (R) Drug
BOEHRINGER INGELHEIM: Faces "Shapira" Suit Over Pradaxa (R) Drug
BOEHRINGER INGELHEIM: Faces "Fuller" Suit Over Pradaxa(R) Drug
BODY CONTOUR: "Bazzell" FLSA Action Has Conditional Certification
BOYD BILOXI: American Legal Named as Claims Administrator

CALIBER HOME LOANS: Court Dismisses "Fowler" Suit
CAREFIRST INC: Court Dismisses Data Breach Class Action
CARIBOU COFFEE: Farnham Seeks to Certify Class and Defer Brief
CENTRAL CITY: Faces "Hoang" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
CERES INC: Faces "Stryder" Suit Over Misleading Financial Reports

CHEMIX ENERGY: Court Certifies Class, OKs Notice in "Ramos" Suit
CLAYTON MYRICK: Illegally Collects Debt, "Piccinetti" Suit Says
CLIENT SERVICES: Illegally Collects Debt, "Hart" Suit Claims
COMENITY CAPITAL: Faces "Podolsky" Suit in N.J. District Ct.
COMPREHENSIVE DECUBITUS: Holt Wants TCPA & ICFA Classes Certified

DELTA AIR: Judge Allows Baggage Fee Class Action to Proceed
DENVER, CO: Court Awards Over $1.6MM in Damages in "Kerner" Suit
DETROIT, MI: ACLU Sues Over Discriminatory Tax Foreclosures
DRILTECH LLC: Joint Motion to Certify Operators Class Sought
DUPONT: Judge Decides on $4MM Class Action Settlement Surplus

EPIC SYSTEMS: Ruling on Class Action Waiver to Impact Employers
FAMOUS BOURBON: Richardson Seeks Certification of FLSA Class
FEDERATED ADJUSTMENT: Olbinski Seeks Certification of Class
FIRSTMERIT CORP: Court Declines to Appoint Murray as Lead Counsel
FOX ENTERTAINMENT: Settles Black Swan Interns' Class Action

GAP INC: "Munning" Suit Removed to Northern District California
GC SERVICES: Has Sent Unsolicited Calls, "Bellamy" Suit Claims
GENERAL MOTORS: Court Narrows Claims in Ignition Theory Suit
GROUPON INC: Judge Approves $45MM Class Action Settlement
GVN MICHIGAN: "Johansen" Class Suit Dismissed With Prejudice

HARRIS & HARRIS: Neuharth Seeks Certification of Class
HEALTHSOURCE GLOBAL: "Mackall" Suit Removed to N.D. California
HOMELAND SECURITY: Class of Air Marshals Certified in "KH" Suit
HUMANA MILITARY: "Cary" Class Suit Removed to W.D. Oklahoma
HYUNDAI MOTOR: Bowen Seeks Review of D.N.J. Ruling to 3rd Circuit

ILLINOIS: Dismissal of "Cochran" Suit Affirmed
INN ON THE LAKE: Faces Class Action Labor Law Violations
INTELLICURE INC: Holt Seeks Certification of 3 TCPA, ICFA Classes
JP MORGAN: Faces "Podolsky' Class Suit in New Jersey Ct.
KELLY SERVICES: Status Hearing in "Dolemba" on Nov. 15

KNIGHTSBRIDGE RESTAURANT: Ex-Rasika Employee Sue Over OT Wages
KROGER CO: Bid for Class Cert. in "Hardesty" Partly Granted
KYDIA INC: Sued in Cal. Over Illegal Background Reports Use
LANCASTER SCHOOL DISTRICT: Bid for Class Cert. in "Issa" Granted
LEGAL RECOVERY: Has Made Unsolicited Calls, "Addes" Suit Claims

MALAYSIA AIRLINES: Faces Class Action Over MHI17 Tragedy
MARRONE BIO: Deal in Special Situations Fund Suit Has Initial OK
MEDICAL FACILITIES: Illegally Uses Background Reports, Suit Says
MONSTER BEVERAGE: 9th Cir. Revives Portion of "Fisher" Suit
NAPLES TRANSPORTATION: Pfeuti Seeks to Certify Chauffeurs Class

NATURMED INC: Nichols Seeks Certification of Class
NEW YORK, NY: Court Dismisses "Bryant" Suit as Moot
OHIO, USA: Court Refuses to Certify Parolees Class in "Sabo" Suit
PARK PLUS: Fails to Pay Employees Overtime, "Dorie" Suit Claims
PAWTUCKET, R.I.: Retirees Class Cert. Sought in "Pawtucket" Case

PC RICHARD: Matijakovich Appeals From D.N.J. Ruling to 9th Cir.
PENN WEST: Settles Class Action Over Financial Report Restatement
PHOENIX RMA: Faces "Reyes" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
PRIV ATEBANCORP: Faces "Solak" Suit Over Proposed Sale
PROCTER & GAMBLE: Faces "Banegas" Suit in South. Dist. Florida

REAL TIME: Accused of Wrongful Conduct Over Debt Collection
RIDDELL INC: Plaintiffs May Serve 9 of 10 3rd-Party Subpoenas
ROBERTS TOOL: Faces "Ortiz" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
SHARP ELECTRONICS: 3rd Cir. Appeal Filed in "Popejoy" Class Suit
SIMM ASSOCIATES: Status Hearing in "Cheatham" Suit on Sept. 30

SPOTIFY: David Lowery Balks at Royalties Class Action Settlement
STANFORD UNIVERSITY: Faces "Burns" Class Suit in N.D. California
SUNTRUST BANK: Depositor Gets Another Stab at Class Certification
TODD A. MIKLES: 1600 Barberry Suit Removed to S.D. California
TRUMP UNIVERSITY: Judge Delays Ruling on Video Depositions

UBER TECHNOLOGIES: "Cullinane" Suit Sent to Arbitration
UBER TECHNOLOGIES: Limousine Firms File Class Action
UFC: Congressman Pushes for Independent Ranking System
UNILEVER UNITED: Hearing on Class Cert. Bid Set for August 29
US BANKCARD: Faces "Vera" Suit Over PCI DSS Non-compliance Fees

VALVE: Law Firm Invites U.S. Residents to Join Skin Gambling Case
VALVE: Distances from Counter-Strike Skin Gambling Industry
VALVE CORPORATION: Faces "Reed" Suit in New Jersey Dist. Ct.
VIVENDI UNIVERSAL: Appeal Filed From Judgment in Securities Suit
WAKE FOREST: Faces "Burkholder" Suit in Southern Dist. Indiana

WESTERN AND SOUTHERN: Faces "Mancini" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT
WESTCONSIN CREDIT: Sued Over Fair Credit Reporting Act Violation

* Class Action Law Now in Force in India Following NCLT Creation
* Draft Rules to Help Defrauded Student Loan Borrowers
* New Arbitration Rules Boon for Credit Union Fee Suits


                            *********


ADAMS OUTDOOR: Court Approves Settlement Deal in "DiClemente"
-------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Malachy E. Mannion granted the plaintiffs' motion for
approval of their collective action settlement in the case
captioned JOSEPH DiCLEMENTE, et al., Plaintiffs v. ADAMS OUTDOOR
ADVERTISING, INC., Defendant, Civil Action No. 3:15-0596 (M.D.
Pa.).

The proposed settlement agreement provides that the defendant will
pay the plaintiffs a total amount of $23,750.00, with each
plaintiff receiving the following specific amounts: Joseph
DiClemente = $10,935.83; Jessica Giuricich Wills = $937.68; Nathan
Bush = $3,014.74; Robert Vosper = $3,529.49; Aneta Lotrean =
$2,815.62; and Karly Diehl = $2,516.65.  The settlement agreement
also provides that the plaintiffs' counsel will receive fees and
costs of $23,750.00 from the defendant.  The settlement agreement
contains a release as well as a confidentiality provision.

A full-text copy of Judge Mannion's July 7, 2016 memorandum is
available at https://is.gd/I0x4kH from Leagle.com.

Joseph DiClemente sued Adams Outdoor Advertising, Inc. under the
Fair Labor Standards Act and the Pennsylvania Minimum Wage Act, on
behalf of himself and other hourly employees.  DiClemente claimed
that Adams Outdoor's practices have caused him and other hourly
employees to work many overtime hours without compensation in
violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act mandates.

Joseph Diclemente, Plaintiff, represented by Mark J. Gottesfeld,
Winebrake & Santillo, LLC, Peter D. Winebrake, Winebrake &
Santillo, LLC & R. Andrew Santillo, Winebrake & Santillo, LLC.

Adams Outdoor Advertising, Inc., Defendant, represented by Patrick
J. Reilly -- preilly@grossmcginley.com -- Gross, McGinley, LaBarre
& Eaton, LLP.


AHOLD USA: "Jain" Class Suit Removed to District of Columbia
------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit captioned Shawn Jain and Ms. Gloria
Hackman, Individually and on Behalf of Others Similarly Situated
and the General Public of the District of Columbia v. AHOLD USA
Inc. d/b/aGiant Landover, Giant Carlisle, Stop & Shop New England,
Stop & Shop New York Metro, and Peapod, Case No. 2016 CA 002557 B,
was removed from the Superior Court for the District of Columbia
to the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia
(Washington, DC). The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:16-
cv-01415 to the proceeding.

The Defendants operate supermarkets, superstores, and online
grocery stores.


AIR EVAC: Faces Air Ambulance Class Action in Oklahoma
------------------------------------------------------
Sarah Stewart, writing for KFOR.com, reports that former OSU
basketball coach, Tommy Wade, was on his usual run April 7, 2015
when something went terribly wrong.

"I had a heart attack," said Mr. Wade.  "Collapsed right in front
of the OSU police department."

Mr. Wade had to be airlifted from Stillwater Medical Center to the
Heart Hospital in Oklahoma City.

He says the bill for that ride shocked him.

"$38,000 for a 20 minute air flight from Stillwater to Oklahoma
City?" said Mr. Wade.

And Mr. Wade had insurance, good insurance, that had already paid
the air ambulance company what they felt was sufficient.

The company was coming after Mr. Wade for the balance.

"I told them I can't pay the bill.  I can't afford it," said
Mr. Wade.

Attorneys Noble McIntyre and Ed White are representing more than a
dozen clients with similar stories and they've now asked the judge
to certify the lawsuit as class action.

They say in many instances, these companies will claim to be out
of network, leaving a heavy burden on the patient.

"You're price gouging innocent people who have already been
victimized," said Mr. McIntyre.

The lawsuit names four defendants -- Air Evac EMS, Inc., Air
Methods Corporation, Rocky Mountain Holdings, LLC and Eaglemed
LLC.

They're asking the court to refund money to those who have already
been charged and to come up with fair billing practices so this
doesn't happen again.

"They're making profit margins of in excess of 750%.  These are
huge profit margins they're trying to get from the average
public," said Mr. White.

Mr. Wade says the company, Rocky Mountain Holdings, LLC, hounded
him for months, trying to get him to pay the bill.

"They were relentless. They were you know they didn't really let
up until I got legal assistance," said Mr. Wade.

He hopes this lawsuit can prevent this from happening to anyone
else.

"I wouldn't want anybody to have to go through that," said
Mr. Wade.

EagleMed said in a statement, "We are still looking into the
allegations and prefer not to discuss ongoing litigation,
especially when all we have is the initially filed Petition.
EagleMed has been, and currently is, in network with Blue Cross
Blue Shield of Oklahoma -- the largest insurer in the State.  At
this point, we don't know why we were sued if our patient had BCBS
insurance.  We would expect the BCBS agreement to deal with this
situation.  The only other EagleMed patient was said to have
United Health Care insurance, which covered about half of the
cost.  If our patients need financial assistance with our
invoices, we work with them -- and we ask them to work with us
when their insurance company underpays for services.  We still
would like to take our patient out of the middle and see if United
Health Care will pay usual and customary rates."

Air Evac Lifeteam said in a statement, "Air Evac Lifeteam is still
looking into the allegations and prefer not to discuss ongoing
litigation, especially when all we have is the initially filed
Petition.  At this point, we don't know why we were sued. Based on
the Petition, the only claim against Air Evac is for transporting
a patient who was injured in an on-the-job incident. We would
expect an on-the-job injury to be covered by workers' compensation
with no patient financial responsibility.  In addition, Air Evac
has been, and currently is, in network with Blue Cross Blue Shield
of Oklahoma -- the largest insurer in the state.  Caring for our
patients doesn't stop when we get them to the hospital.  If our
patients need financial assistance with our invoices, we work with
them -- and we ask them to work with us when their insurance
company underpays for services."


ALTITUDE MARKETING: Faces "Terlizzi" Suit in Colorado
-----------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been commenced against Altitude
Marketing, Inc. and GreenSky, LLC.

The case is captioned Jason Terlizzi and Rebecca Terlizzi,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v.
Altitude Marketing, Inc. and GreenSky, LLC, Case No. 1:16-cv-01712
(D. Col., July 5, 2016).

Altitude Marketing, Inc. operates a marketing agency located at
417 State Rte 2005, Emmaus, PA 18049.

GreenSky, LLC operates as a third party service provider and
program administrator for federally insured, federal, and state
chartered banks.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Benjamin Harris Richman
      EDELSON, PC
      350 North LaSalle Street, Suite 1300
      Chicago, IL 60654-7582
      Telephone: (312) 589-6370
      Facsimile: (312) 589-6378
      E-mail: brichman@edelson.com


AMERICAN FAMILY MUTUAL: "Strembitskyy" Suit Remanded to State Ct.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Robert S. Lasnik granted the plaintiff's motion to remand to
the King County Superior Court, the case captioned OMELYAN
STREMBITSKYY, individually and on behalf of all those similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. AMERICAN FAMILY MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY,
Defendant, No. C16-0691RSL (W.D. Wash.).

The defendant previously removed the case from state court under
the Class Action Fairness Act and 28 U.S.C. Section 1332(a)(1).
Although the complaint did not specify the amount of damages
sought, the defendant argued that the jurisdictional minimums were
satisfied under various theories based predominantly on the
affidavit of Matt Wheeler, a Claims Data and Reporting Manager for
the defendant, which was the only evidence regarding the amount in
controversy.

Judge Lasnik, however, found that it is impossible to determine
what information and statements contained in the affidavit were
based on Wheeler's personal knowledge and what constitutes
inadmissible hearsay.  The judge concluded that the defendant has
failed to come forward with admissible evidence to support its
assertion of federal jurisdiction under Class Action Fairness Act.
Further, Judge Lasnik found that even if the court were to
overlook the inadmissible nature of Wheeler's affidavit, the
preponderance of the evidence shows that the amount in controversy
is less than $5,000,000.

A full-text copy of Judge Lasnik's July 8, 2016 order is available
at https://is.gd/YoIoBN from Leagle.com.

Omelyan Strembitskyy, Plaintiff, represented by Matthew James Ide
& David R. Hallowell -- dave@dhallowell.com

American Family Insurance Company, Defendant, represented by
Desmonne A. Bennett -- desmonne.bennett@bryancave.com -- BRYAN
CAVE LLP, pro hac vice, Eric David Lansverk --
eric.lansverk@hcmp.com -- HILLIS CLARK MARTIN & PETERSON, Lawrence
G. Scarborough -- lgscarborough@bryancave.com -- BRYAN CAVE LLP,
pro hac vice & Meridyth M. Andresen -- mmandresen@bryancave.com --
BRYAN CAVE LLP, pro hac vice.


AMERICAN TOBACCO: Smoking Cessation Program Offered After Ruling
----------------------------------------------------------------
Britney Glaser, writing for KSLA News, reports that a class action
lawsuit is paving the way for 200,000 people in Louisiana to stop
smoking for free.  KPLC's Britney Glaser reports it's also funding
the first of its kind Smoking Treatment Center in Southwest
Louisiana, which is recruiting those ready to stop smoking today.

Back in 2011, the judgment in a 14-year old class action lawsuit,
"Scott v. American Tobacco Company," became final.  Imperial
Health family medicine physician, Dr. Steve Springer, explains it
ordered certain tobacco companies to fund a statewide 10-year
smoking cessation program for Louisiana residents who smoked a
cigarette before September 1, 1988.

"You don't have to smoke a pack a day by 1988," said
Dr. Springer.  "If you take one puff off a cigarette in junior
high, that qualifies."

As part of the Smoking Cessation Trust, Dr. Springer opened the
Smoking Treatment Center inside the Imperial Health complex on Dr.
Michael DeBakey Drive in Lake Charles.

"It's free individual counseling, free group therapy.  You get a
card in the mail in about two to three days once you get qualified
for the trust.  That card allows us to be able to fund completely
your nicotine replacement, gum or patches, it completely pays for
medications like Chantix or Wellbutrin," said Dr. Springer.

That full circle support is what leads to people successfully
kicking the habit.  Dr. Springer says without it, failure is
almost inevitable.

"The abstinence rate for people that try to do it by themselves
with no nicotine replacement and no therapy is literally two or
three percent.  The failure rate is about 97 percent."

While the Smoking Treatment Center is housed in Lake Charles,
anyone in Southwest Louisiana can take advantage of its services.

"If someone lives out in Ragley or in Cameron, DeRidder, very far
away from our center, we can still reach out virtually," said Dr.
Springer.  "We can do phone consults, we can do virtual groups, so
we have the ability to even treat people if they can't make it
physically to our location."

If you do not qualify for this specific grant, the Smoking
Treatment Center can work with your insurance provider or
workplace wellness plan to make the treatment affordable.


ANTHEM HEALTH: Certification of Class Sought in "Wilson" Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
Margaret Wilson moves the Court for an order certifying the action
captioned MARGARET WILSON, individually and on behalf of a Class
of persons similarly situated v. ANTHEM HEALTH PLANS OF KENTUCKY,
INC., Case No. 3:14-cv-00743-TBR (W.D. Ky.), as a class action.

Ms. Wilson also asks the Court to appoint her as class
representative, and Strauss Troy Co., LPA, as counsel for the
class.

A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=U4kT9KWo

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Robert R. Sparks, Esq.
          STRAUSS TROY CO., LPA
          150 East Fourth Street
          Cincinnati, OH 45202
          Telephone No.: (513) 621-2120
          Facsimile No.: (513) 241-8259
          E-mail: rrsparks@strausstroy.com


ASSOCIA COMMUNITY: Illegally Collects Debt, "Waljroh" Suit Says
---------------------------------------------------------------
Ajaynue Waljroh and Comfort Waljroh on behalf of themselves and
all others similarly situated v. Associa Community Development,
Inc. d/b/a Community Development Inc. d/b/a Associa Minnesota,
Case No. 0:16-cv-02326 (D. Minn., July 5, 2016), seeks to stop the
Defendant's unfair and unconscionable means to collect a debt.

Associa Community Development, Inc. is a property management
company in Brooklyn Park, Minnesota

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Robert L. Hyde, Esq.
      HYDE & SWIGART
      2221 Camino del Rio South, Ste. 101
      San Diego, CA 92108
      Telephone: (619) 233-7770
      Facsimile: (619) 297-1022
      E-mail: bob@westcoastlitigation.com

         - and -

      Anthony P. Chester, Esq.
      HYDE & SWIGART
      120 S. 6th St., Suite 2050
      Minneapolis, MN 55402
      Telephone: (952) 225-5333
      Facsimile: (800) 635-6425
      E-mail: tony@westcoastlitigation.com

ATLANTIC COAST: Faces "Crawford" Suit Over Breach of Contract
-------------------------------------------------------------
William Crawford, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. Atlantic Coast Conference and The National
Collegiate Athletic Association, Case No. 1:16-cv-01813-WTL-MPB
(S.D. Ind., July 7, 2016), arises out of the Defendants' alleged
breach of contract.

Atlantic Coast Conference is a collegiate athletic conference in
the United States of America in which its fifteen member
universities compete in the National Collegiate Athletic
Association.

The National Collegiate Athletic Association is an organization
that administers intercollegiate athletics.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      William E. Winingham, Esq.
      WILSON KEHOE & WININGHAM
      2859 North Meridian Street
      Indianapolis, IN 46208
      Telephone: (317) 920-6400
      Facsimile: (317) 920-6405
      E-mail: winingham@wkw.com


BAXTER CREDIT: Faces "Ramirez" Suit in North. District California
-----------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been commenced against Baxter Credit
Union.

The case is captioned Sondra Ramirez, individually and on behalf
of all others similarly situated v. Baxter Credit Union, Case No.
4:16-cv-03765-DMR (N.D. Cal., July 30, 2016).

Baxter Credit Union is a not-for-profit, financial institution
providing community banking.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Taras Peter Kihiczak
      THE KICK LAW FIRM
      201 Wilshire Blvd
      Santa Monica, CA 90401
      Telephone: (310) 395-2988
      Facsimile: (310) 395-2908
      E-mail: Taras@kicklawfirm.com


BERKSHIRE HATHAWAY: Class Certification Sought in "Gonzalez" Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Adela Gonzalez asks the Court for an order granting her motion for
class certification in her lawsuit styled ADELA GONZALEZ, on
behalf of herself and all others similarly situated v. BERKSHIRE
HATHAWAY HOMESTATE COMPANIES, et al., Case No. 2:16-cv-02690-AG-
JEM (C.D. Cal.).

The Court will commence a hearing on October 17, 2016, at 10:00
a.m., to consider the Motion.

A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=k9VsIadh

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Mark Ravis, Esq.
          David Martin, Esq.
          Ivo Genchev, Esq.
          LAW OFFICE OF MARK RAVIS & ASSOCIATES
          1875 Century Park East, Suite 700
          Los Angeles, CA 90067
          Telephone: (310) 295-4145
          Facsimile: (310) 388-5251
          E-mail: mravis99@gmail.com
                  dhmartin99@gmail.com
                  Ivo1914@yahoo.com


BOEHRINGER INGELHEIM: Faces "Delaney" Suit Over Pradaxa (R) Drug
----------------------------------------------------------------
Carrie Delaney, individually and as personal representative of the
estate of William Delaney, deceased v. Boehringer Ingelheim
Pharmaceuticals, Inc. and Boehringer Ingelheim International GMBH,
Case No. HHD-CV-16-6069596-S (Conn. Super. Ct., July 7, 2016), is
an action for damages suffered by William Delaney as a proximate
result of the Defendants' alleged negligent and wrongful conduct
in connection with the design, testing, and labeling, of
Pradaxa(R).

Pradaxa (R) is a direct thrombin inhibitor that is indicated to
reduce the risk of stroke and systemic embolism in patients with
non-valvular atrial fibrillation.

The Defendants operate a pharmaceutical company with principal
place of business at 900 Ridgebury Road, Ridgefield, Connecticut
06877.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Neal L. Moskow, Esq.
      URY & MOSKOW, LLC
      833 Black Rock Turnpike
      Fairfield, CT 06825
      Telephone: (203) 610-6393
      Facsimile: (203) 610-6399
      E-mail: neal@urymoskow.com

         - and -

      Roopal P. Luhana, Esq.
      CHAFFIN LUHANA LLP
      600 Third Ave., 12th Floor
      New York, NY 10016
      Telephone: (347) 269-4472
      Facsimile: (888) 499-1123
      E-mail: luhana@chaffinluhana.com


BOEHRINGER INGELHEIM: Faces "Meyer" Suit Over Pradaxa (R) Drug
--------------------------------------------------------------
Jerry Meyer v. Boehringer Ingelheim Pharmaceuticals, Inc., and
Boehringer Ingelheim International GMBH, Case No. HHD-CV-16-
6069592-S (Conn., Sup. Ct., July 7, 2016), is an action for
damages suffered by the Plaintiff as a proximate result of the
Defendants' alleged negligent and wrongful conduct in connection
with the design, testing, and labeling, of Pradaxa(R).

Pradaxa (R) is a direct thrombin inhibitor that is indicated to
reduce the risk of stroke and systemic embolism in patients with
non-valvular atrial fibrillation.

The Defendants operate a pharmaceutical company with principal
place of business at 900 Ridgebury Road, Ridgefield, Connecticut
06877.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Neal L. Moskow, Esq.
      URY & MOSKOW, LLC
      833 Black Rock Turnpike
      Fairfield, CT 06825
      Telephone: (203) 610-6393
      Facsimile: (203) 610-6399
      E-mail: neal@urymoskow.com

         - and -

      Russell T. Abney, Esq.
      FERRER, POIROT WANSBROUGH FELLER DANIEL ABNEY & LINVILLE
      2100 RiverEdge Parkway, Suite 720
      Atlanta, GA 30328
      Telephone: (800) 521-4492
      Facsimile: (214) 526-6026
      E-mail: rabney@lawyerworks.com


BOEHRINGER INGELHEIM: Faces "Monastra" Suit Over Pradaxa (R) Drug
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Joan Monastra, as surviving spouse and personal representative of
the Estate of Robert Monastra, Decedent v. Boehringer Ingelheim
Pharmaceuticals, Inc., and Boehringer Ingelheim International
GMBH, Case No.________(Conn. Sup. Ct., July 7, 2016), is an action
for damages suffered by the Plaintiff as a proximate result of the
Defendants' alleged negligent and wrongful conduct in connection
with the design, testing, and labeling, of Pradaxa(R).

Pradaxa (R) is a direct thrombin inhibitor that is indicated to
reduce the risk of stroke and systemic embolism in patients with
non-valvular atrial fibrillation.

The Defendants operate a pharmaceutical company with principal
place of business at 900 Ridgebury Road, Ridgefield, Connecticut
06877.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Neal L. Moskow, Esq.
      URY & MOSKOW, LLC
      833 Black Rock Turnpike
      Fairfield, CT 06825
      Telephone: (203) 610-6393
      Facsimile: (203) 610-6399
      E-mail: neal@urymoskow.com

         - and -

      Russell T. Abney, Esq.
      FERRER, POIROT WANSBROUGH FELLER DANIEL ABNEY & LINVILLE
      2100 RiverEdge Parkway, Suite 720
      Atlanta, GA 30328
      Telephone: (800) 521-4492
      Facsimile: (214) 526-6026
      E-mail: rabney@lawyerworks.com


BOEHRINGER INGELHEIM: Faces "Moore" Suit Over Pradaxa (R) Drug
--------------------------------------------------------------
Gloria Moore v. Boehringer Ingelheim Pharmaceuticals, Inc., and
Boehringer Ingelheim International GMBH, Case No. HHD-CV-16-
6069593-S (Conn. Sup. Ct., July 7, 2016), is an action for damages
suffered by the Plaintiff as a proximate result of the Defendant's
alleged negligent and wrongful conduct in connection with the
design, testing, and labeling, of Pradaxa(R).

Pradaxa (R) is a direct thrombin inhibitor that is indicated to
reduce the risk of stroke and systemic embolism in patients with
non-valvular atrial fibrillation.

The Defendants operate a pharmaceutical company with principal
place of business at 900 Ridgebury Road, Ridgefield, Connecticut
06877.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Neal L. Moskow, Esq.
      URY & MOSKOW, LLC
      833 Black Rock Turnpike
      Fairfield, CT 06825
      Telephone: (203) 610-6393
      Facsimile: (203) 610-6399
      E-mail: neal@urymoskow.com

         - and -

      Russell T. Abney, Esq.
      FERRER, POIROT WANSBROUGH FELLER DANIEL ABNEY & LINVILLE
      2100 RiverEdge Parkway, Suite 720
      Atlanta, GA 30328
      Telephone: (800) 521-4492
      Facsimile: (214) 526-6026
      E-mail: rabney@lawyerworks.com


BOEHRINGER INGELHEIM: Faces "Runyon" Suit Over Pradaxa (R) Drug
---------------------------------------------------------------
Sharon Runyon v. Boehringer Ingelheim Pharmaceuticals, Inc. and
Boehringer Ingelheim International GMBH, Case No._______(July 7,
2016), is an action for damages suffered by the Plaintiff as a
proximate result of the Defendants' alleged negligent and wrongful
conduct in connection with the design, testing, and labeling, of
Pradaxa(R).

Pradaxa (R) is a direct thrombin inhibitor that is indicated to
reduce the risk of stroke and systemic embolism in patients with
non-valvular atrial fibrillation.

The Defendants operate a pharmaceutical company with principal
place of business at 900 Ridgebury Road, Ridgefield, Connecticut
06877.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Neal L. Moskow, Esq.
      URY & MOSKOW, LLC
      833 Black Rock Turnpike
      Fairfield, CT 06825
      Telephone: (203) 610-6393
      Facsimile: (203) 610-6399
      E-mail: neal@urymoskow.com

         - and -

      Russell T. Abney, Esq.
      FERRER, POIROT WANSBROUGH FELLER DANIEL ABNEY & LINVILLE
      2100 RiverEdge Parkway, Suite 720
      Atlanta, GA 30328
      Telephone: (800) 521-4492
      Facsimile: (214) 526-6026
      E-mail: rabney@lawyerworks.com


BOEHRINGER INGELHEIM: Faces "Shapira" Suit Over Pradaxa (R) Drug
----------------------------------------------------------------
Shirley Shapira v. Boehringer Ingelheim Pharmaceuticals, Inc., and
Boehringer Ingelheim International GMBH, Case No. HHD-CV-16-
6069594-S (Conn. Sup. Ct., July 7, 2016), is an action for damages
suffered by the Plaintiff as a proximate result of the Defendants'
alleged negligent and wrongful conduct in connection with the
design, testing, and labeling, of Pradaxa(R).

Pradaxa (R) is a direct thrombin inhibitor that is indicated to
reduce the risk of stroke and systemic embolism in patients with
non-valvular atrial fibrillation.

The Defendants operate a pharmaceutical company with principal
place of business at 900 Ridgebury Road, Ridgefield, Connecticut
06877.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Neal L. Moskow, Esq.
      URY & MOSKOW, LLC
      833 Black Rock Turnpike
      Fairfield, CT 06825
      Telephone: (203) 610-6393
      Facsimile: (203) 610-6399
      E-mail: neal@urymoskow.com

         - and -

      Russell T. Abney, Esq.
      FERRER, POIROT WANSBROUGH FELLER DANIEL ABNEY & LINVILLE
      2100 RiverEdge Parkway, Suite 720
      Atlanta, GA 30328
      Telephone: (800) 521-4492
      Facsimile: (214) 526-6026
      E-mail: rabney@lawyerworks.com


BOEHRINGER INGELHEIM: Faces "Fuller" Suit Over Pradaxa(R) Drug
--------------------------------------------------------------
Margaret Fuller v. Boehringer Ingelheim Pharmaceuticals, Inc. and
Boehringer Ingelheim International GMBH, Case No. HHD-CV-16-
6069525-S (Conn. Super. Ct., July 5, 2015), is an action for
damages suffered by the Plaintiff as a proximate result of the
Defendant's alleged negligent and wrongful conduct in connection
with the design, testing, and labeling, of Pradaxa(R).

Pradaxa (R) is a direct thrombin inhibitor that is indicated to
reduce the risk of stroke and systemic embolism in patients with
non-valvular atrial fibrillation.

The Defendants operate a pharmaceutical company principal place of
business at 900 Ridgebury Road, Ridgefield, Connecticut 06877.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Neal L. Moskow, Esq.
      URY & MOSKOW, LLC
      833 Black Rock Turnpike
      Fairfield, CT 06825
      Telephone: (203) 610-6393
      Facsimile: (203) 610-6399
      E-mail: neal@urymoskow.com

         - and -

      C. Andrew Childers, Esq.
      CHILDERS, SCHLUETER & SMITH, LLC
      1932 N. Druid Hills Road Suite 100
      Atlanta, GA 30319
      Telephone: (404) 419-9500
      Facsimile: (404) 419-9501
      E-mail: achilders@cssfirm.com


BODY CONTOUR: "Bazzell" FLSA Action Has Conditional Certification
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case captioned JAMIE BAZZELL, et al., Plaintiffs, v. BODY
CONTOUR CENTERS, LLC Defendant, Case No. C16-0202JLR (W.D. Wash.),
Judge James L. Robart granted in part and denied, in part, the
plaintiffs' motion for conditional certification, notice and other
issues.

Judge Robart ordered as follows:

          1. The court conditionally certified the following Fair
             Labor Standards Act (FLSA) collective:

             All individuals who worked as patient care
             consultants, traveling patient care consultants,
             patient sales consultants (or other similar job
             titles), for the defendant Body Contour Centers, LLC
             d/b/a Sono Bello (BCC) at any time from February 10,
             2013, at any of the following locations: Bellevue,
             Washington; Tacoma, Washington; Beverly Hills,
             California; Sacramento, California; San Diego,
             California; Chicago, Illinois; Cincinnati, Ohio;
             Cleveland, Ohio; Edina, Minnesota; Greenwood,
             Colorado; Houston, Texas; Overland Park, Kansas;
             Portland, Oregon; Salt Lake City, Utah; Scottsdale,
             Arizona; and St. Louis, Missouri.

          2. BCC shall provide the plaintiffs with the
             identification and contact information for all
             putative plaintiffs or members of the collective
             action in electronic format within 20 days of the
             date of the order.

          3. The court authorized the plaintiffs to mail notices
             and consent forms to all putative plaintiffs or
             members of the collective, except the notices and
             consent forms shall be modified as directed in the
             order.

          4. The court authorized the plaintiffs to mail reminder
             letters on or about the 45th day of the notice
             period to those putative plaintiffs or members of
             the collective who have not opted in to the lawsuit,
             except that the reminder letters shall be modified
             as directed in the order.

          5. The court authorized the plaintiffs to send email
             notifications to putative plaintiffs or members of
             the collective, except that the emails shall be
             modified as directed in the order.

A full-text copy of Judge Robart's July 8, 2016 order is available
at https://is.gd/O1Yf2o from Leagle.com.

The plaintiffs in the putative collective action alleged that BCC
assigned certain employees, known as consultants, more work than
could be completed in a 40-hour work week and thereby required
consultants to work more than 40 hours per week.  Because
consultants are not compensated for overtime, the plaintiffs
asserted that BCC violated the FLSA.

Jamie Bazzell, Plaintiff, represented by Brittany B. Skemp --
bbachmanskemp@nka.com -- NICHOLS KASTER, PLLP, pro hac vice, Erika
L. Nusser -- enusser@terrellmarshall.com -- TERRELL MARSHALL LAW
GROUP PLLC & Beth E. Terrell -- bterrell@terrellmarshall.com --
TERRELL MARSHALL LAW GROUP PLLC.

Carissa Alioto, Plaintiff, represented by Brittany B. Skemp,
NICHOLS KASTER, PLLP, pro hac vice, Paul J. Lukas -- lukas@nka.com
-- NICHOLS KASTER, PLLP, pro hac vice, Erika L. Nusser, TERRELL
MARSHALL LAW GROUP PLLC & Beth E. Terrell, TERRELL MARSHALL LAW
GROUP PLLC.

Body Contour Centers, LLC, Defendant, represented by Richard J.
Omata -- romata@karrtuttle.com -- KARR TUTTLE CAMPBELL & Tracy M.
Miller -- tmiller@karrtuttle.com -- KARR TUTTLE CAMPBELL.


BOYD BILOXI: American Legal Named as Claims Administrator
---------------------------------------------------------
In the case captioned JASON BENNETT, etc., Plaintiff, v. BOYD
BILOXI, LLC, etc., Defendant, Civil Action 14-0330-WS-M (S.D.
Ala.), Judge William H. Steele granted the plaintiff's motion to
approve settlement administrator and revised proposed claim form.

American Legal Claim Services, LLC was appointed as claims
administrator.

Judge Steele, however, required certain modifications and had
ordered the parties to file, on or before July 22, 2016, a notice
of filing that includes amended proposed documents incorporating
the required modifications.

A full-text copy of Judge Steele's July 8, 2016 order is available
at https://is.gd/iV4dIP from Leagle.com.

Jason Bennett, Plaintiff, represented by Earl P. Underwood, Jr.
-- epunderwood@alalaw.com -- John R. Cox -- jrc@jrcoxlaw.com --
and Kenneth J. Riemer.

Boyd Biloxi, LLC, Defendant, represented by Laura F. Ashley --
lashley@joneswalker.com -- Jones Walker, LLP, pro hac vice &
Matthew C. McDonald -- mmcdonald@joneswalker.com -- Jones Walker
LLP.


CALIBER HOME LOANS: Court Dismisses "Fowler" Suit
-------------------------------------------------
In the case captioned RICHARD L. FOWLER, et al., Plaintiffs, v.
CALIBER HOME LOANS, INC., et al, Defendants, Case No. 15-24542-
CIV-GOODMAN (S.D. Fla.), Judge Jonathan Goodman granted the
defendants' motions to dismiss, and dismissed the complaint with
prejudice.

A full-text copy of Judge Goodman's July 8, 2016 order is
available at https://is.gd/pZIXMk from Leagle.com.

The plaintiffs are borrowers with home loans serviced by Caliber
Home Loans, Inc.  Richard Fowler and Yvonne Yambo-Gonzalez are
Florida residents who own separate properties in Miami-Dade
County.  Glenda Keller is a Pennsylvania resident who owns real
property in Lancaster, Pennsylvania.  The plaintiffs alleged that
Caliber colluded with its lender-placed insurance (LPI) insurer,
American Security Insurance Company, to charge them inflated LPI
premiums that included "kickbacks" paid to Caliber and its
affiliates.

Richard L. Fowler, Glenda Keller, Yvonne Yambo-Gonzalez,
Plaintiffs, represented by Aaron Samuel Podhurst --
apodhurst@podhurst.com -- Podhurst Orseck, P.A., Eric D. Holland -
- eholland@allfela.com -- Holland Groves Schneller & Stolze LLC,
pro hac vice, Howard Mitchell Bushman, Harke Clasby & Bushman LLP,
Lance August Harke, Harke Clasby & Bushman LLP, Matthew Weinshall
-- mweinshall@podhurst.com -- Podhurst Orseck, Peter Prieto --
pprieto@podhurst.com -- Podhurst Orseck, P.A., Rachel Sullivan --
rs@kttlaw.com -- Kozyak, Tropin & Throckmorton, P.A., Randall Seth
Crompton -- scrompton@allfela.com -- Holland, Groves, Schneller &
Stolze, pro hac vice, Robert J. Neary -- rn@kttlaw.com -- Kozyak
Tropin & Throckmorton, P.A., Sarah Clasby Engel, Harke Clasby &
Bushman LLP, Thomas A. Tucker Ronzetti -- tr@kttlaw.com -- Kozyak
Tropin & Throckmorton & Adam M. Moskowitz -- amm@kttlaw.com --
Kozyak Tropin & Throckmorton.

Caliber Home Loans, Inc, Defendant, represented by Alan Graham
Greer, Richman Greer, P.A., Alisa A. Givental -- aag@severson.com
-- Severson & Werson, pro hac vice, Erik Kemp -- ek@severson.com -
- Severson & Werson, pro hac vice, John B. Sullivan --
jbs@severson.com -- Severson & Werson, pro hac vice, Mary Kate
Kamka -- mkk@severson.com -- Severson & Werson, pro hac vice &
Nathaniel Mark Edenfield -- nedenfield@richmangreer.com -- Richman
Greer, P.A..

American Security Insurance Company, Defendant, represented by
Brian P. Perryman -- bperryman@carltonfields.com -- Carlton Fields
Jorden Burt, P.A., pro hac vice, Farrokh Jhabvala --
fjhabvala@carltonfields.com -- Carlton Fields Jorden Burt, P.A. &
Franklin G. Burt -- fburt@carltonfields.com -- Carlton Fields
Jorden Burt P.A..


CAREFIRST INC: Court Dismisses Data Breach Class Action
-------------------------------------------------------
Jessica Karmasek, writing for Legal Newsline, reports that a
Maryland federal court, joining a handful of other federal courts,
recently dismissed a data breach class action for lack of
standing.

Judge Richard Bennett for the U.S. District Court for the District
Court of Maryland nixed the putative class action brought against
CareFirst Inc. and CareFirst of Maryland Inc.

The plaintiffs, Pamela Chambliss and Scott Adamson, who held
health insurance issued by CareFirst, alleged various tort,
negligence and statutory claims arising under Maryland law.

Specifically, they claimed CareFirst failed to adequately secure
the computer hardware storing their customers' personal
information, including names, birthdates, email addresses and
subscriber identification numbers.

CareFirst filed a motion to dismiss the class action. The court,
after a May 19 hearing on the motion, agreed that the plaintiffs
failed to allege facts sufficient to establish standing.

Citing the U.S. Supreme Court's 2013 decision in Clapper v.
Amnesty International USA, the Maryland federal court explained
that when the plaintiff alleges an injury based on future harm,
"the threatened injury must be certainly impending to constitute
an injury in fact."

Mere allegations of possible future injury are not sufficient.

"Where the alleged injury requires a lengthy chain of assumptions,
including 'guesswork as to how independent decisionmakers will
exercise their judgment,' the injury is too speculative to be
'certainly impending,'" Bennett wrote in the 13-page ruling.

The case came about after a data breach at CareFirst, a health
insurance provider operating in Maryland, Virginia and the
District of Columbia.

On May 20, 2015, CareFirst announced it had discovered a data
breach that allegedly compromised the confidential personal
information of about 1.1 million individuals.

Two data breaches allegedly occurred: the first in June 2014 and
the second just before CareFirst's announcement in May 2015.

The insurer denied that any confidential medical records were
implicated in the breaches.

Bennett noted that although no courts in the circuit have
addressed the standing requirements in the context of data breach
litigation, most courts to consider the issue have agreed that the
mere loss of data, "without any evidence that it has been either
viewed or misused," does not constitute an injury sufficient to
confer standing.

"Indeed, since Clapper . . . courts have been even more emphatic
in rejecting 'increased risk' as a theory of standing in data-
breach cases," the judge wrote.

As he noted, the reliance on the actions of an unknown independent
third party creates a theory of injury that only amounts to an
"objectively reasonable likelihood of harm."

"In this case, Plaintiffs do not allege that their data has been
misused in any way thus far," Bennett wrote, pointing out that the
breach compromised only the plaintiffs' names, birthdates, email
addresses and subscriber identification numbers, and not their
social security numbers, credit card information or any other
"similarly sensitive data" that could heighten the risk of harm.

"Plaintiffs contend that their personal information has value, but
have not alleged how a hacker would use the particular information
stolen to harm the Plaintiffs," Bennett wrote.

And to this day, the judge noted, neither plaintiff has suffered
any fraudulent charges or other evidence of misuse.

"The imminence of the asserted harm thus becomes ever less likely
as the breaches fade further into the past," Bennett wrote.

The Maryland federal court, in its opinion, rejected the
plaintiffs' reliance on rulings in the Neiman Marcus and Target
data breach cases.

"Indeed, the cases upon which they rely do not contradict this
Court's conclusion, but rather demonstrate the factual allegations
necessary to establish standing in data breach litigation,"
Bennett wrote.

In Remijas v. Neiman Marcus Group LLC, for example, more than
9,200 customers had experienced fraudulent charges, thus "there
was no need to speculate" as to whether the harm was imminent, the
judge pointed out.

In re Target Corp. Data Security Breach Litigation, the harm was
not speculative, as the plaintiffs had alleged unlawful charges,
restricted or blocked access to bank accounts, inability to pay
other bills, and late payment charges or new card fees, Bennett
noted.

"Plaintiffs do not cite a single instance of data misuse even
though a significant amount of time has passed since the data
breaches," the judge wrote. "They even acknowledged at the May 19
hearing that any amended complaint would not include new
allegations of misuse."

In addition, the federal court shot down the plaintiffs' arguments
that they have suffered harm in the form of mitigation costs --
specifically, expenses incurred from obtaining credit-monitoring
services -- and by the lost benefit of their bargain with
CareFirst.

The court also declined to decide whether the plaintiffs' personal
information has a monetary value. The plaintiffs, in their
complaints, argued their personal information has an "intrinsic"
value that was diminished as a result of the data breach.


CARIBOU COFFEE: Farnham Seeks to Certify Class and Defer Brief
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Plaintiff in the lawsuit captioned KRISTIE FARNHAM, on behalf
of herself and all others similarly situated v. CARIBOU COFFEE
COMPANY, INC., Case No. 3:16-cv-00295-wmc (W.D. Wisc.), moves the
Court to certify this class, as defined in her first amended
complaint:

     All persons within the United States who received an SMS
     text message from Caribou Coffee Company, Inc. and/ or an
     affiliate, subsidiary, or agent of Caribou Coffee Company,
     Inc. to a cellular telephone through the use of an automatic
     dialing system and who did not provide prior express written
     consent to receive such SMS text messages.

Ms. Farnham further asks that the Court both defer adjudication of
the Motion and defer briefing on the Motion (including granting
the Plaintiff (and the Defendant) relief from the automatic
briefing schedule related to the Motion and the requirement that
briefs and supporting material be filed with the Motion) until she
is able to take the necessary discovery relating to issues of
class certification.

Because the Motion is a placeholder motion as described in Damasco
v. Clearwire Corp., 662 F.3d 891 (7th Cir. 2011), overruled by
Chapman v. First Index, Inc., 796 F.3d 783, 787 (7th Cir. 2015),
the parties and the Court should not be burdened with unnecessary
paperwork and the resulting expense in briefing the Motion to
certify until the completion of class discovery, Ms. Farnham
contends.

Ms. Farnham also asks the Court to appoint her as class
representative, and Carey Rodriguez Milian Gonya, LLP, as class
counsel.

A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=OA4Pw1v2

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Frank S. Hedin, Esq.
          David P. Milian, Esq.
          CAREY RODRIGUEZ MILIAN GONYA, LLP
          1395 Brickell Avenue, Suite 700
          Miami, FL 33131
          Telephone: (305) 372-7474
          Facsimile: (305) 372-7475
          E-mail: fhedin@careyrodriguez.com
                  dmilian@careyrodriguez.com


CENTRAL CITY: Faces "Hoang" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
-------------------------------------------------------------
Nancy Hoang, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated v. Central City Community Health Center, Inc. and Does 1
through 100, Inclusive, Case No. BC626178 (Cal. Super. Ct., July
7, 2016), is brought against the Defendants for failure to pay
overtime wages in violation of the California Labor Code.

Central City Community Health Center, Inc. operates a health care
facility in Los Angeles, California.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Bruce Kokozian, Esq.
      KOKOZIAN LAW FIRM, APC
      9440 South Santa Monica Boulevard, Suite 510
      Beverly Hills, CA 90210
      Telephone (323) 857-5900


CERES INC: Faces "Stryder" Suit Over Misleading Financial Reports
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Gary Stryder, Leo Nguyen, and Rajesh Joshi, on behalf of
themselves and all others similarly situated v. Ceres, Inc., Land
O'Lakes, Inc., Roman Merger Sub, Inc., Cheryl P. Morely, Pascal
Brandys, Richard Flavell, Robert Goldberg, and Richard Hamilton,
Case No. BC626066 (Cal. Super. Ct., July 5, 2016), alleges that
the Defendants made false and misleading statements, as well as
failed to disclose material adverse facts about the Company's
business, operations, and prospects.

Ceres, Inc. is a biotechnology company based in Thousand Oaks,
California.

Land O'Lakes, Inc. operates an agricultural cooperative based in
Arden Hills, Minnesota.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Ronald A. Marron, Esq.
      Skye Resendes, Esq.
      William B. Richards, Esq.
      LAW OFFICES OF RONALD A. MARRON, APLC
      651 Arroyo Drive
      San Diego, CA 92103
      Telephone: (619) 696-9006
      Facsimile: (619) 564-6665
      E-mail: ron@consumeradvocates.com
              ron@consumeradvocates.com
              skye@consumeradvocates.com


CHEMIX ENERGY: Court Certifies Class, OKs Notice in "Ramos" Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Hon. Nelva Gonzales Ramos granted the Plaintiffs' opposed
motion for conditional class certification and notice in the
lawsuit titled SHANE MCGARRY and GILBERT CANTU, Individually and
On Behalf of All Similarly Situated Persons v. CHEMIX ENERGY
SERVICES, LLC, Case No. 2:15-cv-00496 (S.D. Tex.).

The Court also contemporaneously entered an order governing notice
to the putative class.

A copy of the Order is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=c4e9U3m4


CLAYTON MYRICK: Illegally Collects Debt, "Piccinetti" Suit Says
---------------------------------------------------------------
Brian A. Piccinetti, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated v. Clayton, Myrick, Mcclanahan & Coulter, PLLC, Internal
Credit Systems, Inc., Robert J. Nauseef and John Does 1-25, Case
No. 3:16-cv-04032-MAS-TJB (D.N.J., July 5, 2016), seeks to stop
the Defendant's unfair and unconscionable means to collect a debt.

Clayton, Myrick, McClanahan & Coulter, PLLC is a law firm in
Durham, North Carolina.

Internal Credit Systems, Inc. operates a debt collection firm
headquartered at 5504 Durham-Chapel Hill Blvd, Durham, NC 27707.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Ari Hillel Marcus, Esq.
      MARCUS ZELMAN LLC
      1500 Allaire Avenue, Suite 101
      Ocean, NJ 07712
      Telephone: (732) 695-3282
      Facsimile: (732) 298-6256
      E-mail: ari@marcuszelman.com

CLIENT SERVICES: Illegally Collects Debt, "Hart" Suit Claims
------------------------------------------------------------
Stacey Hart, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated v. Client Services, Inc., Case No. 5:16-cv-00450-MMH-PRL
(M.D. Fla., July 5, 2016), seeks to stop the Defendant's unfair
and unconscionable means to collect a debt.

Client Services, Inc. operates a debt collection agency with
headquarters in St. Charles, Missouri.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Alex D. Weisberg, Esq.
      WEISBERG CONSUMER LAW GROUP, PA
      Suite 290, 5846 S. Flamingo Rd.
      Cooper City, FL 33330
      Telephone: (954) 212-2184
      Facsimile: (866) 577-0963
      E-mail: aweisberg@attorneysforconsumers.com


COMENITY CAPITAL: Faces "Podolsky" Suit in N.J. District Ct.
------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been commenced against Comenity Capital
Bank.

The case is captioned Yehudis Podolsky, individually and on behalf
of others similarly situated v. Comenity Capital Bank, Case No.
3:16-cv-04075-PGS-DEA (D.N.J., July 7, 2016).

Comenity Capital Bank operates a banking company in New Jersey.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Edward B. Geller, Esq.
      15 Landing Way
      Bronx, NY 10464
      Telephone: (914) 473-6783
      E-mail: epbh@aol.com


COMPREHENSIVE DECUBITUS: Holt Wants TCPA & ICFA Classes Certified
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In its amended motion for class certification, Holt Healthcare
Management Services, Inc., asks the Court to enter an order
determining that the action titled HOLT HEALTHCARE MANAGEMENT
SERVICES, INC., on behalf of plaintiff and the class members
defined herein v. COMPREHENSIVE DECUBITUS THERAPY, INC., d/b/a
ADVANCED TISSUE, and JOHN DOES 1-10, Case No. 1:16-cv-07295 (N.D.
Ill.), may proceed as a class action against the Defendant.  The
Plaintiff defines the classes as:

     For purposes of Count I, alleging violation of the Telephone
     Consumer Protection Act, 47 U.S.C. Section 227, plaintiff
     seeks to represent a class consisting of (a) all persons
     with Illinois fax numbers (b) who, on or after a date four
     years prior to the filing of this action (28 U.S.C.
     Section 1658), (c) were sent faxes by or on behalf of
     defendant Comprehensive Decubitus Therapy, Inc., d/b/a
     Advanced Tissue, promoting its goods or services for sale
     (d) which did not contain a compliant opt out notice.

     For purposes of Count II, alleging violation of the Illinois
     Consumer Fraud Act, 815 ILCS 505/2, plaintiff seeks to
     represent a class consisting of (a) all persons with
     Illinois fax numbers (b) who, on or after a date three years
     prior to the filing of this action, (c) were sent faxes by
     or on behalf of defendant Comprehensive Decubitus Therapy,
     Inc., d/b/a Advanced Tissue, promoting its goods or services
     for sale (d) which did not contain a compliant opt out
     notice.

     For purposes of Count III, alleging conversion, Count IV,
     alleging nuisance, and Count V, alleging trespass to
     chattels, plaintiff seeks to represent a class consisting of
     (a) all persons with Illinois fax numbers (b) who, on or
     after a date five years prior to the filing of this action,
     (c) were sent faxes by or on behalf of defendant
     Comprehensive Decubitus Therapy, Inc., d/b/a Advanced
     Tissue, promoting its goods or services for sale (d) which
     did not contain a compliant opt out notice.

Holt further asks that it be appointed class representative and
that Edelman, Combs, Latturner & Goodwin, LLC, be appointed
counsel for the class.

Copies of the Motion and Amended Motion to Certify Class are
available at no charge at:

    http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=AN337ZMn
    http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=ggW76OzS

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Daniel A. Edelman, Esq.
          Cathleen M. Combs, Esq.
          James O. Latturner, Esq.
          Dulijaza Clark, Esq.
          EDELMAN, COMBS, LATTURNER & GOODWIN, LLC
          20 South Clark Street, Suite 1500
          Chicago, IL 60603
          Telephone: (312) 739-4200
          Facsimile: (312) 419-0379
          E-mail: dedelman@edcombs.com
                  ccombs@edcombs.com
                  jlatturner@edcombs.com
                  jclark@edcombs.com


DELTA AIR: Judge Allows Baggage Fee Class Action to Proceed
-----------------------------------------------------------
Kelly Yamanouchi, writing for The Atlanta Journal-Constitution,
reports that a lawsuit alleging that Delta Air Lines and AirTran
Airways colluded to charge baggage fees has been certified as a
class action case involving millions of customers who paid the
fees.

U.S. District Judge Timothy Batten on July 12 granted class
certification in the case.  The class consists of all customers
who paid Delta or AirTran first checked bag fees on domestic
flights from Dec. 5, 2008 through Nov. 1, 2014.

That group that potentially consists of more than 28 million
people, according to the judge's order.

An appeal of the ruling is expected.  Delta declined to comment.

The lawsuit seeks damages totaling all first checked-bag fees paid
during the period, with amounts tripled under anti-trust law.
However, payouts to consumers in class action lawsuits are often
minimal.

Judge Batten's order is the latest development in a lawsuit that
dates to 2009.

The lawsuit filed that year claimed AirTran invited Delta to
collude on charging a first bag fee by signaling that it wanted to
charge the fee if Delta acted first -- and that Delta accepted the
invitation by announcing its fee shortly afterward.

A key example of the signaling, the plaintiffs allege, came during
a conference call with analysts on the company's financial
results.  In 2008, then-AirTran CEO Bob Fornaro said during the
call that AirTran had not started charging a first bag fee
"primarily because our largest competitor in Atlanta" had not done
it.

Delta announced its first checked bag fee a couple of weeks after
the conference call, and AirTran followed.  Southwest Airlines,
which does not charge for checked bags, has since acquired
AirTran. Delta still charges the fees, which have become common
among most carriers.

The judge's decision on July 12 could move the case forward as a
massive class action lawsuit.

The plaintiffs in the case "are pleased to have the opportunity to
seek to vindicate the rights of the millions of passengers who we
believe were overcharged by Delta or AirTran for first bag fees,"
according to Daniel Low, an attorney representing airline
passengers who are plaintiffs in the case.


DENVER, CO: Court Awards Over $1.6MM in Damages in "Kerner" Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case captioned MARIAN G. KERNER; and ROMONA J. LOPEZ, on
behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated,
Plaintiffs, v. CITY AND COUNTY OF DENVER, Defendant, Civil Action
No. 11-cv-00256-MSK-KMT (D. Colo.), Judge Marcia S. Krieger
entered a total damage award in the amount of $1,674,807.

The plaintiffs, a class of black and Hispanic applicants for
various positions with the City and County of Denver, alleged that
Denver's use of a written employment screening test, the
"AccuPlacer," had a disparate impact on minority applicants in
violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, 42 U.S.C. section
2000e.  Judge Krieger found in favor of the plaintiffs, but was
unable to make an immediate award of damages.

After reviewing the parties' briefing on disputed issues with
regard to damages, Judge Krieger adopted Dr. Mullin's baseline
damages calculation of $1,164,523, and added the following sums:
$2,182 (reflecting the correct shortfall calculation), $355,329
(reflecting actual benefit levels), and $152,773 (reflecting a
rolling year for mitigation purposes).

A full-text copy of Judge Krieger's July 8, 2016 opinion and order
is available at https://is.gd/3U7Pmq from Leagle.com.

Marian G. Kerner, Plaintiff, represented by Joaquin Gabriel
Padilla, Padilla & Padilla, PLLC, John Edward Mosby, John Mosby,
Attorney at Law, Kenneth Alfredo Padilla, Padilla & Padilla, PLLC
& Marilyn Cain Gordon, The Law Office of Marilyn Cain Gordon.

Ramona J. Lopez, Plaintiff, represented by Kenneth Alfredo
Padilla, Padilla & Padilla, PLLC.

City and County of Denver, Defendant, represented by Edward
Michael Allen -- eallen@allen-curry.com -- Allen & Curry, P.C..

City and County of Denver, efendant, represented by Franklin A.
Nachman, Denver City Attorney's Office-West Colfax Avenue.

City and County of Denver, Defendant, represented by Kristen Anne
Merrick, Denver City Attorney's Office-West Colfax Avenue &
Timothy Michael Kratz -- tim.kratz@jacksonlewis.com -- Jackson
Lewis, P.C..


DETROIT, MI: ACLU Sues Over Discriminatory Tax Foreclosures
-----------------------------------------------------------
The American Civil Liberties Union of Michigan and the NAACP are
suing the city of Detroit and Wayne County over alleged
discriminatory tax foreclosures.  The class action lawsuit claims
the city seized the homes of people who should have been entitled
to "poverty tax exemptions."  The suit says the city puts an undue
burden on homeowners to qualify for those lower bill payments.
Michigan's ACLU Legal Director Michael Steinberg says in Michigan,
tax assessment is based on the true cash value of a house.

Mr. Steinberg says as a result, thousands of Detroiters, most of
them African-American, lost their homes to foreclosure.  He says
under the Fair Housing Act, local governments are liable for
discrimination.


DRILTECH LLC: Joint Motion to Certify Operators Class Sought
------------------------------------------------------------
The Plaintiff and Defendant in the class action lawsuit styled
KELLY BAKER, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, the Plaintiff, v. DRILTECH, L.L.C., the Defendant Case
No. 6:16-cv-00309-SMH-CBW (W.D. La.), ask the Court to authorize
notice to a class:

          "All MWD Operators of Driltech, L.L.C. employed from
           July 20, 2013 to the present."

The parties also request the Court approve the notice and consent
to join forms to the order. The motion is submitted with the right
of Defendant to file a motion for decertification and is submitted
with reservation of all rights and defenses of Defendant.

A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=0QJWM6Fe

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Kenneth W. DeJean, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF KENNETH W. DEJEAN
          417 W. University Ave, (70506)
          Post Office Box 4325
          Lafayette, LA 70502
          Telephone: (337) 235 5294
          Facsimile: (337) 235 1095
          E-mail: kwdejean@kwdejean.com

               - and -

          Andrew W. Dunlap, Esq.
          Michael A. Josephson, Esq.
          FIBICH, LEEBRON, COPELAND
          BRIGGS & JOSEPHSON
          1150 Bissonnet St.
          Houston, TX 77005
          Telephone: (713) 751 0025
          Facsimile: (713) 751 0030
          E-mail: mjosephson@fibichlaw.com
          adunlap@fibichlaw.com

               - and -

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

The Defendant is represented by:

          Joel P. Babineaux, Esq.
          Karen T. Bordelon, Esq.
          Olivia S. Regard, Esq.
          BABINEAUX, POCHE', ANTHONY
          & SLAVICH, L.L.C.
          P.O. Box 52169
          Lafayette, LA 70505-2169
          Telephone: (337) 984 2505
          Facsimile: (337) 984 2503
          E-mail: jbabineaux@bpasfirm.com
                  kbordelon@bpasfirm.com
                  oregard@bpasfirm.com


DUPONT: Judge Decides on $4MM Class Action Settlement Surplus
-------------------------------------------------------------
Matt Harvey, writing for The Exponent Telegram, reports that
Harrison Chief Judge Thomas A. Bedell has decided how to disburse
a $4 million surplus from a toxic pollution soil and home cleanup
settlement with DuPont in northwestern Harrison County.

Judge Bedell will set aside about $250,000 to $300,000 for road
repairs; additional money for drainage remediation; and $40,000 to
the Spelter Volunteer Fire Department to be used only to replace
air tanks.

From what remains, residents of the area closest to the old DuPont
smelter in Spelter -- in what was called Zone 1A as part of the
class action lawsuit -- will receive one share for each home
cleaned up, and one share for each parcel of soil that was
cleaned.

Other members of the class action (who lived in zones farther away
from the old smelter) who had homes cleaned will receive one
share, Judge Bedell ruled.

And those who filed property remediation claims but didn't
participate in the cleanup program will receive a one-fifth share,
Judge Bedell ruled.

Judge Bedell also spelled out a specific process for remuneration
in the event that property was sold between the time the
remediation program began on Nov. 1, 2011, and the issuance of the
court's order on July 13.

Judge Bedell's ruling came three weeks to the day since a hearing
was held in which claimants were invited to share input.

Members of the class action who spoke brought a variety of
thoughts in the June 22 hearing, including: Spending the $40,000
to purchase the air tanks for the local fire department; prorating
the amount due per claimant on the basis of time lived in the
class action area; and awarding double to those who had soil and
home remediation done vs. those who just had home remediation.

About 80 individuals signed up for the court hearing, with half of
those scheduled to speak.  However, about 25 actually showed, with
only a handful taking brief turns offering comments to the court.

Also during the June 22 hearing, settlement Claims Administrator
Ed Gentle shared input from a survey in which 281 members of the
class action responded.

Those who responded voted 199-54 against spending about $250,000
to $300,000 for road repair; 191-85 against awarding a large
amount of the surplus to those closest to the site of the former
Spelter smelter, who had both soil and home cleanup done; and 203-
76 against giving those who own multiple properties multiple
shares.

Another question: Whether the 235 families who declined to
participate in the settlement remediation program should get part
of the money.  Those surveyed, which didn't include the 235,
overwhelmingly were against awarding any money to nonparticipants.

Mr. Gentle noted two sides to this issue: Those who didn't
participate in the property remediation program were warned in
writing that they were waiving claims. Yet on the other hand, if
they had participated there probably wouldn't have been any
surplus.

The court's ruling effectively ends the home remediation program,
although some work remains to be done.

A total of about $35 million was set aside by DuPont for property
and home cleanup as part of the deal reached to settle the class
action lawsuit that was filed in 2004, with Lenora Perrine as the
lead plaintiff.

Medical monitoring also was provided as part of the settlement,
but the surplus doesn't involve it or those participating in that
process.

The medical monitoring program is scheduled to continue for up to
25 more years.


EPIC SYSTEMS: Ruling on Class Action Waiver to Impact Employers
---------------------------------------------------------------
Philip Bruce, writing for Employer Linc, reports that some
companies ask their employees to sign arbitration agreements
requiring them to arbitrate any disputes about their employment,
rather than filing a lawsuit against the employer in a state or
federal court.  A few years ago, the U.S. Supreme Court held that
waivers of class action claims in non-employment settings were
enforceable.  That led to a big push by employers to add waivers
of class or collective actions under the Fair Labor Standards Act
and other employment laws to their employee arbitration
agreements. Challenges to these employee waivers of class action
claims followed.  Employers were successful in enforcing these
waivers at the Second, Fifth, Ninth and Eleventh Circuit Courts of
Appeals, which cover Washington, Oregon, California, Nevada,
Arizona, Alaska, Hawaii, Texas, Louisiana, Mississippi, New York,
Vermont, Connecticut, Alabama, Georgia and Florida.  And then came
the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals' recent decision in Lewis v.
Epic Systems Corporation.  The Seventh Circuit agreed with the
National Labor Relations Board's argument that class action
waivers violate the National Labor Relations Act and are
unenforceable, an argument that the other federal appeal courts
had uniformly rejected for various reasons.

Impact of Lewis decision on employers

The Lewis decision has several important ramifications for
employers.  First, it may lead to situations where your
arbitration agreement is challenged by an employee.  The Lewis
decision creates a split between federal appeal courts that may
prompt the U.S. Supreme Court to step in and resolve whether class
action waivers are enforceable in the context of employment
claims.  With its current make-up, it may be some time before the
Supreme Court takes the case.  The appeal courts' split -- and
corresponding likelihood of the Supreme Court eventually taking
the case -- also creates the potential for the Supreme Court to
reverse the view of the other federal appeal courts that class
waivers in employment arbitration agreements are enforceable.  Put
simply, the Seventh Circuit's recent decision gave just enough
ammunition to employees' attorneys to continue fighting
arbitration agreements.

Second, the decision places the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals --
which includes Oklahoma, Colorado, Wyoming, Kansas and Utah -- in
a tug of war.  The Tenth Circuit has not yet ruled on whether
class action waivers in employment arbitration agreements are
valid.  Trial courts in Oklahoma, Colorado and Kansas, however,
have held that these waivers are enforceable.  As challenges to
these waivers continue, the Tenth Circuit is likely to address the
issue soon.  The Seventh Circuit's decision will be heavily relied
upon by the employees' attorneys to convince the Tenth Circuit to
hold the waivers unenforceable.  Such a decision could have
drastic consequences for your company.

Third, if you have employees in Wisconsin, Illinois and Indiana
with arbitration agreements containing class action waivers, the
agreements may not be enforceable because those states are covered
by the Seventh Circuit.  That creates the potential for situations
where an employee from one of those states with an unenforceable
class waiver files a class action and sends notice of the class
action to other employees in other states who have signed valid
class action waivers.  In short, it can create a mess if you have
a multistate work force.

Lewis v. Epic Systems Corp., No. 15-2997 (7th Cir. 5/26/16)


FAMOUS BOURBON: Richardson Seeks Certification of FLSA Class
------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. Lawrence Richardson in the class action lawsuit styled
LAWRENCE RICHARDSON, the Plaintiff, v. FAMOUS BOURBON MANAGEMENT
GROUP, INC. AND FIORELLA'S ON DECATUR, INC., D/B/A JAZZ CAFE,
FIORELLA'S CAFE AND BEERFEST, the Defendants, Case No. 2:15-cv-
05848-JTM-DEK (E.D. La.), asks the Court to certify a class of:

     "All persons employed by Defendants since July 2013 who were
      paid on an hourly basis but were not paid at an overtime
      rate of one and one-half times their hourly rate of pay for
      each hour worked in excess of 40 per week in violation of
      the Fair Labor Standards Act."

Famous Bourbon is in the management services industry in New
Orleans, Los Angeles.

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

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Jody Forester Jackson, Esq.
          Mary Bubbett Jacksonv, Esq.
          JACKSON+JACKSON
          201 St. Charles Avenue, Suite 2500
          New Orleans, LA 70170
          Telephone: (504) 599 5953
          Facsimile: (888) 988 6499
          E-mail: jjackson@jackson-law.net
                  mjackson@jackson-law.net


FEDERATED ADJUSTMENT: Olbinski Seeks Certification of Class
-----------------------------------------------------------
Helene Olbinski and Hector Rosa Badillo in the class action
lawsuit captioned HELENE OLBINSKI, and HECTOR ROSA BADILLO,
Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, the
Plaintiffs, v. FEDERATED ADJUSTMENT COMPANY, INC., the Defendant,
Case No. 16-cv-944 (E.D. Wisc.), move the court to certify a class
and further request that the Court both stay the motion for class
certification and to grant Plaintiffs (and Defendant) relief from
the local rules setting automatic briefing schedules and requiring
briefs and supporting material to be filed with the motion.

To avoid the risk of a defendant mooting a putative class
representative's individual stake in the litigation, the Seventh
Circuit in Damasco instructed plaintiffs to file a certification
motion with the complaint, along with a motion to stay briefing on
the certification motion until discovery could commence. Damasco
v. Clearwire Corp., 662 F.3d 891 (7th Cir. 2011), overruled,
Chapman v. First Index, Inc., 796 F.3d 783, 787 (7th Cir. 2015).

As this 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
a one paragraph, single page motion to certify and stay should
suffice until an amended motion is filed, the Plaintiffs contend.

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

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


FIRSTMERIT CORP: Court Declines to Appoint Murray as Lead Counsel
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case captioned MARY H. WOJNO, In Her Capacity as the
Trustee of the MARY H. WOJNO REVOCABLE TRUST, on Behalf of Itself
and All Others Similarly Situated, et al., Plaintiffs, v.
FIRSTMERIT CORPORATION, et al., Defendants, Case No. 5:16CV00461
(N.D. Ohio), Judge Benita Y. Pearson denied non-party W. Patrick
Murray's Motion to Vacate, and for Appointment as Lead Plaintiff
and for Approval of Lead Plaintiff's Selection of Counsel Pursuant
to the Private Securities and Litigation Reform Act of 1995
(PSLRA).

A full-text copy of Judge Pearson's July 8, 2016 memorandum of
opinion and order is available at https://is.gd/RQN5Hf from
Leagle.com.

The consolidated action is composed of three separate class and
derivative complaints filed in the Northern District of Ohio, by
and on behalf of shareholders of FirstMerit Corporation.  The
plaintiffs alleged that, in connection with the proposed merger of
FirstMerit and Huntington Bancshares, Inc., "Defendants breached
their fiduciary duties and/or aided and abetted breaches of
fiduciary duties . . . and violated Sections 14(a) and 20(a) of
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 ("Exchange Act") by
disseminating [a] materially misleading Preliminary Proxy."

Mary H. Wojno, Plaintiff, represented by Christopher R. Tillotson,
Kahn Swick & Foti, pro hac vice, Michael J. Palestina, Kahn Swick
& Foti, pro hac vice & Chris T. Nolan, Perantinides & Nolan.

Jack Wilkinson, Plaintiff, represented by Christopher R.
Tillotson, Kahn Swick & Foti, pro hac vice, Michael J. Palestina,
Kahn Swick & Foti, pro hac vice, Shannon L. Hopkins --
shopkins@zlk.com -- Levi & Korsinsky, pro hac vice & Chris T.
Nolan, Perantinides & Nolan.

Michael Hafner, Plaintiff, represented by Jeffrey S. Goldenberg
-- jgoldenberg@gs-legal.com -- Goldenberg Schneider & Robert B.
Sherwood -- rsherwood@gs-legal.com -- Goldenberg Schneider.

FirstMerit Corporation, Defendant, represented by Brett A. Wall
-- bwall@bakerlaw.com -- Baker & Hostetler, Daniel R. Warren --
dwarren@bakerlaw.com -- Baker & Hostetler & Steven M. Dettelbach -
- sdettelbach@bakerlaw.com -- Baker & Hostetler.

Huntington Bancshares, Inc., West Subsidiary Corporation,
Defendants, represented by Benjamin D. Klein -- bdklein@wlrk.com -
- Wachtell, Lipton, Rosen & Katz, pro hac vice, Hugh E. McKay --
hmckay@porterwright.com -- Porter, Wright, Morris & Arthur, Jay A.
Yurkiw -- jyurkiw@porterwright.com -- Porter, Wright, Morris &
Arthur, L. Bradfield Hughes -- bhughes@porterwright.com -- Porter,
Wright, Morris & Arthur, Robert W. Trafford --
rtrafford@porterwright.com -- Porter, Wright, Morris & Arthur,
Stephen R. DiPrima -- srdiprima@wlrk.com -- Wachtell, Lipton,
Rosen & Katz, pro hac vice & Tracy A.S. Francis --
tlfrancis@porterwright.com -- Porter, Wright, Morris & Arthur.

Paul G. Grieg, John C. Blickle, Phillip A. Lloyd, II, Terry L.
Haines, R. Cary Blair, Karen S. Belden, Robert W. Briggs, Richard
Colella, Gina D. France, J. Michael Hochschwender, Steven H. Baer,
Russ M. Strobel, Lizabeth A. Ardisana, Robert S. Cubbin,
Defendant, represented by Stephen W. Funk -- sfunk@ralaw.com --
Roetzel & Andress, Jessica A. Lopez -- jlopez@ralaw.com -- Roetzel
& Andress, Lazar Pol Raynal -- lraynal@mwe.com -- McDermott, Will
& Emery, pro hac vice, Lisa N. Haidostian -- lhaidostian@mwe.com
-- McDermott, Will & Emery, Ronald S. Kopp -- rkopp@ralaw.com --
Roetzel & Andress & William P. Schuman -- wschuman@mwe.com --
McDermott, Will & Emery, pro hac vice.

W. Patrick Murray, Movant, represented by Jack Landskroner,
Landskroner Grieco Merriman.


FOX ENTERTAINMENT: Settles Black Swan Interns' Class Action
-----------------------------------------------------------
Dominic Patten and Erik Pedersen, writing for Deadline, report
that after a half-decade of fighting the Black Swan interns
lawsuit, Fox said on July 12 that it has reached a settlement in
the case that changed Hollywood.  The deal puts the studio in the
company of NBCUniversal, Lionsgate, Viacom and ICM Partners among
those that have opted to settle such complaints rather than go to
trial.

"On July 8, 2016, the Plaintiffs Eric Glatt, Alexander Footman,
Eden Antalik, and Kanene Gratts and Defendants Fox Searchlight
Pictures, Inc. and Fox Entertainment Group, Inc., by their
respective counsel of record, filed with this Court a Settlement
Stipulation," said the proposed settlement order on July 12.

If approved, the settlement would see all those who interned at
Fox Entertainment Group, Fox Filmed Entertainment, Fox Networks
Group and Fox Interactive Media in the first nine months of 2010
and those who had the unpaid gig at the NYC offices of said Fox
entities from 2005-10 get about $495 each.  Original plaintiffs
Eric Glatt and Alex Footman would get $7,500 and $6,000 and
Eden Antalik -- who joined the case when an amended complaint was
filed in late 2012 -- would receive $3,500.

And as always in these things, the lawyers will come out well. The
Outten & Golden firm, which repped the plaintiffs, looks to bank
about $220,000 in fees and administration services.
Despite twists and turns, the suit, which has been ongoing since
2011, was an industry game-changer in an ear where the term is too
often overused.  "The Glatt action, involving claims brought on
behalf of unpaid interns, was among the first to be brought
nationwide and began an important discussion about the legality of
unpaid internships at private employers, notes a memorandum of law
in support of the Black Swan settlement on July 12.  "After
several years of hard-fought litigation, including an appeal to
the Second Circuit, the parties have reached a proposed agreement
to resolve the claims on a classwide basis."

The original lawsuit against Fox Searchlight set the stage for a
slew of intern class actions and settlements against media
companies based on claims that the interns were doing what should
be classified as paid work.  Fox Searchlight won the right to
appeal former Black Swan interns Footman and Glatt's case in
November 2013, after a game-changing ruling in June of that year
that the unpaid interns on the 201o Oscar winning film were really
employees under the definitions of the Fair Labor Standards Act
and New York Labor Law.

Footman and Glatt's class action was on behalf of themselves and
more than 100 Fox Searchlight interns. They sought back pay from
the Fox specialty label for work they believe they should have
been paid for.  The studio eventually fired back that the two were
never actually Fox Searchlight interns, arguing that the duo
actually worked for Aronofsky's production company.  In August
2012, the plaintiffs attempted to expand the scope of their suit
to include all interns who participated in Fox Entertainment
Group's internship program.

Anxiety over where the Black Swan case could go was one reason why
a number of actions against entertainment and media companies
recently have resulted in settlements.  Trying to get its legal
house in order, Hollywood also has seen studios and agencies turn
their internship programs into paid positions -- moves that mean
there are far fewer intern spot available for those looking to
break into the industry.


GAP INC: "Munning" Suit Removed to Northern District California
---------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit styled Laurie Munning, individually and
on behalf of all others similarly situated v. The Gap, Inc., Gap
(Apparel) LLC, Gap International Sales, Inc., Banana Republic
(Apparel) LLC, and Banana Republic LLC, Case No. CGC-16-552215,
was removed from the San Francisco Superior Court to the U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of California (San
Francisco). The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 3:16-cv-
03804-JSC to the proceeding.

The Defendants operate a clothing and accessories retailing
company in San Francisco, California.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Todd Michael Friedman, Esq.
      LAW OFFICES OF TODD M. FRIEDMAN, P.C.
      324 South Beverly Drive, Suite 725
      Beverly Hills, CA 90212
      Telephone: (877) 206-4741
      Facsimile: (866) 633-0228
      E-mail: tfriedman@attorneysforconsumers.com

The Defendant is represented by:

      Joseph Duffy, Esq.
      Esther Kyungmin Ro, Esq.
      MORGAN, LEWIS AND BOCKIUS LLP
      300 South Grand Avenue
      Twenty-Second Floor
      Los Angeles, CA 90071
      Telephone: (213) 612-7378
      Facsimile: (213) 612-2501
      E-mail: joseph.duffy@morganlewis.com
              esther.ro@morganlewis.com


GC SERVICES: Has Sent Unsolicited Calls, "Bellamy" Suit Claims
--------------------------------------------------------------
Ebony Bellamy, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. GC Services Limited Partnership, Case No. 2:16-cv-
03671-WB (E.D. Penn., July 5, 2016), seeks to stop the Defendants'
practice of using an artificial and prerecorded voice to deliver a
message without prior express consent of the called party.

GC Services Limited Partnership is a provider of call center
management and collection agency services in North America.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Cynthia Z. Levin, Esq.
      LAW OFFICES OF TODD M. FRIEDMAN PC
      1150 First Avenue Ste 501
      King of Prussia, PA 19406
      Telephone: (888) 595-9111
      E-mail: czlevin@comcast.net


GENERAL MOTORS: Court Narrows Claims in Ignition Theory Suit
------------------------------------------------------------
In the case captioned IN RE: GENERAL MOTORS LLC IGNITION SWITCH
LITIGATION. This Document Relates To All Actions, Nos. 14-MD-2543
(JMF), 14-MC-2543 (JMF) (S.D.N.Y.), Judge Jesse M. Furman granted
in part and denied, in part, General Motors, LLC's ("New GM")
motion to dismiss.

Judge Furman granted the motion with respect to the plaintiffs'
claim under the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations
(RICO) and claims brought by any plaintiff whose car was not
allegedly defective when sold.  The judge also granted New GM's
motion to dismiss with respect to some of the plaintiffs' state
law claims, but denied with respect to others.  Finally, Judge
Furman held that the named plaintiffs who survive cannot bring
claims on behalf of putative class members whose defects are not
sufficiently similar to theirs.

A full-text copy of Judge Furman's July 15, 2016 opinion and order
is available at https://is.gd/LQEY6a from Leagle.com.

The multidistrict litigation arose from the recall in February
2014 by New GM of General Motors vehicles that had been
manufactured with a defective ignition switch -- a switch that
could too easily move from the "run" position to the "accessory"
and "off" positions, causing moving stalls and disabling critical
safety systems (such as the airbag).  Following that recall, New
GM recalled millions of other vehicles, some for ignition switch-
related defects and some for other defects.  Thousands of MDL
plaintiffs have filed claims alleging that they or their loved
ones were injured or killed as a result of accidents caused by one
or the other of these defects.  Those cases are proceeding on one
track, with "bellwether" trials in individual cases having
commenced earlier this year.  On a separate track, the plaintiffs
pursue claims for "economic losses."  Specifically, the plaintiffs
pursue recovery on behalf of a broad putative class of GM car
owners and lessors, arguing that they and others have been harmed
by a drop in their cars' value due to the revelations of GM's
years-long cover-up of the ignition switch and other potentially
fatal defects.  Their operative complaint -- the Third Amended
Consolidated Complaint (TACC) -- runs to over a thousand pages and
4,500 paragraphs, and includes claims under federal and state law
brought by the named plaintiffs in all 50 states and the District
of Columbia.

Megan Webb, Plaintiff, represented by Edward Charles Kruse, Kruse
Law, LLC.

                           *     *     *

Nathan Bomey, writing for USA TODAY, reports that General Motors
cannot avoid lawsuits from pre-bankruptcy ignition-switch defect
victims, a federal court has ruled.

The U.S. Second Circuit Court of Appeals overturned a bankruptcy
judge's ruling that had protected GM from those lawsuits because
of the company's 2009 bankruptcy restructuring.

The ruling gives new life to hundreds of lawsuits from potential
victims, including some who refused to accept settlements and
instead took their chances in court.  It also revives lawsuits
from potential victims whom GM refused to offer deals and to
class-action lawsuits by consumers who claim their vehicle values
fell because of the scandal.

Accordingly, it may expose the so-called New GM to new liabilities
for a defect that killed at least 124 people and injured another
275 in small cars made by the old,
pre-bankruptcy, GM, such as the Chevrolet Cobalt and Saturn Ion.

Plaintiffs attorneys who have battled the automaker in court
quickly hailed the decision.

"I was so relieved for my clients," Texas attorney Robert Hilliard
said in an interview.  "For years many of the victims of the GM
ignition switch have had their claims languishing in bankruptcy
court.  These folks will have their day in court."

Victims who qualified for settlements -- based on the
determination of GM-hired independent compensation fund chief
Kenneth Feinberg -- have already received settlements from GM
totaling at least $595 million.  In many cases, those settlements
topped $1 million, with some deals much higher.

"We are reviewing the ruling and its impact," GM spokesman
Jim Cain said in a statement.  "Even if some claims are ultimately
allowed to proceed, the plaintiffs must still prove their cases."

The central question for the court to decide was whether GM's
Chapter 11 bankruptcy protected it from ignition-switch claims
that arose before it petitioned the court for protection from its
creditors.  GM failed to disclose the defect during its
bankruptcy, giving rise to the dispute over whether victims were
given adequate opportunity to seek compensation during the
bankruptcy case.

The 2nd Circuit Court ruled that GM knew or should have known
about the defect.  The company has repeatedly apologized and
acknowledged it failed to fix the defect for more than a decade
following a series of bureaucratic mishaps, communication mistakes
and engineering blunders.

"Old GM did nothing, even as it knew that the ignition switch
defect impacted consumers," the court ruled.

The panel added: "New GM essentially asks that we reward debtors
who conceal claims against potential creditors.  We decline to do
so."

The New GM was created when the federal government bailed out the
old GM, funding a transaction in which the Detroit-based
automaker's best assets were sold to a newly created company that
was given the name General Motors LLC instead of General Motors
Corp.


GROUPON INC: Judge Approves $45MM Class Action Settlement
---------------------------------------------------------
Pomerantz LLP on July 13 disclosed that the Honorable Charles R.
Norgle of the United States District Court for the Northern
District of Illinois has granted final approval of the $45 million
class settlement achieved in In re Groupon Securities Litigation,
No 12 C 2450 (N.D. Ill.).   The Pomerantz Firm was appointed lead
counsel in 2012, and has vigorously litigated the case for nearly
four years.

"We are pleased to have reached this favorable settlement for
class members," Pomerantz partner Joshua Silverman stated.

The Pomerantz Firm reminds all investors who purchased shares in
Groupon's initial public offering, or between November 4, 2011 and
March 30, 2012, that the Court has established a claims filing
deadline of August 26, 2016.  Claims forms, class notice, and
other important documents are available on the settlement website,
www.grouponsecuritieslitigation.com.

With offices in New York, Chicago, Florida, and Los Angeles, The
Pomerantz Firm -- www.pomerantzlaw.com -- concentrates its
practice in the areas of corporate, securities, and antitrust
class litigation.  Founded by the late Abraham L. Pomerantz, known
as the dean of the class action bar, the Pomerantz Firm pioneered
the field of securities class actions.  Today, more than 80 years
later, the Pomerantz Firm continues in the tradition he
established, fighting for the rights of the victims of securities
fraud, breaches of fiduciary duty, and corporate misconduct.


GVN MICHIGAN: "Johansen" Class Suit Dismissed With Prejudice
------------------------------------------------------------
The Clerk of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of
Illinois made a docket entry on July 18, 2016, in the case
entitled Ken Johansen v. GVN Michigan, Inc., et al., Case No.
1:15-cv-00912 (N.D. Ill.), relating to a hearing held before the
Honorable Richard A. Posner.

The minute entry states that by stipulation of the parties, the
Case is dismissed with prejudice, with each party to bear its own
costs and fees.  The Plaintiff's motion to certify class is
terminated as moot, all pending dates are stricken as moot, and
the Civil Case is terminated.

A copy of the Notification of Docket Entry is available at no
charge at http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=sI1emHII


HARRIS & HARRIS: Neuharth Seeks Certification of Class
------------------------------------------------------
Cynthia Neuharth in the class action lawsuit styled CYNTHIA
NEUHARTH, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly
Situated, the Plaintiff, v. HARRIS & HARRIS, LTD., the Defendant,
Case No. 16-cv-945 (E.D. Wisc.), moves the court to certify a
class, and further requests that the court both stay the motion
for class certification and to grant Plaintiff (and Defendant)
relief from the local rules setting automatic briefing schedules
and requiring briefs and supporting material to be filed with the
motion.

To avoid the risk of a defendant mooting a putative class
representative's individual stake in the litigation, the Seventh
Circuit in Damasco instructed plaintiffs to file a certification
motion with the complaint, along with a motion to stay briefing on
the certification motion until discovery could commence. Damasco
v. Clearwire Corp., 662 F.3d 891 (7th Cir. 2011), overruled,
Chapman v. First Index, Inc., 796 F.3d 783, 787 (7th Cir. 2015).

As this 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
a one paragraph, single page motion to certify and stay should
suffice until an amended motion is filed, the Plaintiffs contend.

A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=50M4QtIK

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


HEALTHSOURCE GLOBAL: "Mackall" Suit Removed to N.D. California
--------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit entitled Karen Mackall, as an individual
and on behalf of all other similarly situated employees v.
Healthsource Global Staffing, Inc., Case No. HG16816839, was
removed from the Alameda County Superior Court to the U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of California (San
Francisco). The District Court Clerk assigned 3:16-cv-03810-MEJ to
the proceeding.

The case asserts labor-related claims.

HealthSource Global Staffing, Inc. provides healthcare
professionals for hospitals and other facilities during labor
disputes.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Kevin Mahoney, Esq.
      Treana L. Allen, Esq.
      MAHONEY LAW GROUP, APC
      249 E. Ocean Blvd., Suite 814
      Long Beach, CA 90802
      Telephone: (562) 590-5550
      Facsimile: (562) 590-8400
      E-mail: kmahoney@mahoney-law.net
              tallen@mahoney-law.net

The Defendant is represented by:

      Adam Ryan Rosenthal, Esq.
      SHEPPARD MULLIN RICHTER & HAMPTON LLP
      12275 El Camino Real, Suite 200
      San Diego, CA 92130
      Telephone: (858) 720-8900
      Facsimile: (858) 509-3691
      E-mail: arosenthal@littler.com

         - and -

      Thomas Roy Kaufman, Esq.
      SHEPPARD, MULLIN, RICHTER & HAMPTON LLP
      1901 Avenue of the Stars, Suite 1600
      Los Angeles, CA 90067
      Telephone: (310) 228-3748
      Facsimile: (310) 228-3942
      E-mail: tkaufman@sheppardmullin.com

         - and -

      Brian Samuel Fong, Esq.
      SHEPPARD MULLIN RICHTER HAMPTON
      Four Embarcadero Center
      17th Floor
      San Francisco, CA 94111
      Telephone: (415) 434-9100
      Facsimile: (415) 434-3947
      E-mail: bfong@sheppardmullin.com


HOMELAND SECURITY: Class of Air Marshals Certified in "KH" Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Hon. Jon S. Tigar entered an order granting motion to approve
notice of collective action and to conditionally certify class in
the lawsuit titled K.H., et al. v. SECRETARY OF THE DEPARTMENT OF
HOMELAND SECURITY, Case No. 3:15-cv-02740-JST (N.D. Cal.).  Judge
Tigar conditionally certified this class:

     All Federal Air Marshals who were impacted by the closure of
     the Federal Air Marshal Service's Cincinnati, Cleveland,
     Phoenix, Pittsburgh, San Diego, and Tampa offices and who
     were over 40 years of age at the time the decision to close
     the offices was made.

The Court also directed the Defendant to produce to the Plaintiffs
a list of the names and last known addresses of all members of the
class as of the date of the Order.  Within 10 days of receiving
the list of names and addresses from the Defendant, the Plaintiffs
will mail "Notice and Consent to Join" forms to all members whose
information is provided in the class list.  Within 10 days of
sending the list of names and addresses to the Plaintiffs, the
Defendant will post an updated Notice and provide multiple copies
of Consent to Join forms in all field offices, in a place visible
and accessible to all Federal Air Marshals.

If any notice is returned as undeliverable, the Plaintiffs will
obtain the best available forwarding address using the National
Change of Address database or equivalent, and re-mail the notice
to that address within 5 days.  The members of the class will have
60 days from the date of mailing to postmark or otherwise send
their Consent to Join forms.

A further Case Management Conference is scheduled on January 18,
2017, at 2:00 p.m.  A Joint Case Management Statement is due on
January 9, 2017.

A copy of the Order is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=9a53Yb7E


HUMANA MILITARY: "Cary" Class Suit Removed to W.D. Oklahoma
-----------------------------------------------------------
The case captioned Jon Cary and Beth Cary as parents of C.C., a
minor child and on behalf of all others similarly situated v.
Humana Military Healthcare Services Inc., Case No. CJ-16-02866,
was removed from the District Court of Oklahoma County to the
United States District Court for the Western District of Oklahoma
(Oklahoma City). The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 5:16-
cv-00764-D to the proceeding.

Humana Military Healthcare Services Inc. operates an insurance
agency headquartered at 500 W Main St, Louisville, KY 40202.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Jason J. Waddell, Esq.
      JASON WADDELL PLLC
      222 NW 13th St
      Oklahoma City, OK 73103
      Telephone: (405) 232-5291
      Facsimile: (405) 708-7871
      E-mail: jason@jasonwaddelllaw.com

The Defendant is represented by:

      Douglas A. Rice, Esq.
      DERRYBERRY QUIGLEY SOLOMON & NAIFEH
      4800 N Lincoln Blvd
      Oklahoma City, OK 73105-3300
      Telephone: (405) 528-6569
      Facsimile: (405) 528-6462
      E-mail: drice@derryberrylaw.com


HYUNDAI MOTOR: Bowen Seeks Review of D.N.J. Ruling to 3rd Circuit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Deedra L. Bowen filed an appeal from a court ruling entered in the
lawsuit titled Deedra Bowen v. Hyundai Motor America, Case No.
1-15-cv-06942, in the United States District Court for the
District of New Jersey.

The appellate case is captioned as Deedra Bowen v. Hyundai Motor
America, Case No. 16-3112, in the United States Court of Appeals
for the Third Circuit.

As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter on June 30,
2016, District Judge Robert B. Kugler granted the Defendant's
motion to dismiss the Plaintiff's claims with prejudice.  Judge
Kugler found that the limitations provision contained in the Blue
Link Agreement is reasonable and enforceable.  Because the
Plaintiff failed to file her TCCWNA claims by October 22, 2014,
her claims are time-barred.  A copy of the Opinion and Order dated
June 22, 2016, is available at https://is.gd/BQyRsf from
Leagle.com.

The Defendant is a manufacturer and distributor of automobiles and
automotive parts.

The Plaintiff commenced her original putative class action against
the Defendant in the Superior Court of New Jersey, Law Division,
Atlantic County on July 31, 2015.  The Defendant timely removed
the matter to the District Court on September 18, 2015.  The
Plaintiff alleges violations of the New Jersey Truth in Consumer
Contract, Warranty, and Notice Act.

The Plaintiff-Appellant is represented by:

          Lewis G. Adler, Esq.
          LAW OFFICE OF LEWIS ADLER
          26 Newton Avenue
          Woodbury, NJ 08096
          Telephone: (856) 845-1968
          E-mail: lewisadler@verizon.net

The Defendant-Appellee is represented by:

          Christopher J. Dalton, Esq.
          BUCHANAN INGERSOLL & ROONEY PC
          550 Broad Street, Suite 810
          Newark, NJ 07102
          Telephone: (973) 424-5614
          Facsimile: (973) 273-9430
          E-mail: christopher.dalton@bipc.com

               - and -

          Jacqueline M. Weyand, Esq.
          BUCHANAN INGERSOLL & ROONEY PC
          1290 Avenue of the Americas
          New York, NY 10104
          Telephone: (212) 440-4488
          E-mail: jacqueline.weyand@bipc.com


ILLINOIS: Dismissal of "Cochran" Suit Affirmed
----------------------------------------------
In the case captioned JEFFREY D. COCHRAN, Plaintiff-Appellant, v.
ILLINOIS STATE TOLL HIGHWAY AUTHORITY, et al., Defendants-
Appellees, No. 15-2689 (7th Cir.), the United States Court of
Appeals, Seventh Circuit affirmed the district court's dismissal
of the plaintiff's federal claims for failure to state a claim for
relief and its refusal to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over
the state law claims.

A full-text copy of the Seventh Circuit's July 8, 2016 opinion is
available at https://is.gd/Kgxypn from Leagle.com.

Jeffrey Cochran brought the putative class action under 42 U.S.C.
section 1983 against the Illinois State Toll Highway Authority and
several of its directors claiming violations of procedural due
process and equal protection and asserting related state law
claims.  Cochran's claims arose from fines he incurred while
driving on the Illinois tollway.

Thomas C. Cronin -- tcc@cronincoltd.com -- George Willard Cochran,
Jr., for Jeffrey D. Cochran, Plaintiff-Appellant.

Jan E. Hughes, Nadine J. Wichern, Frank Henry Bieszczat, for
Illinois State Toll Highway Authority, Terrence D'Arcy, Jeffrey
Redick, Earl Dotson, Paula Wolff, Defendant-Appellee.


INN ON THE LAKE: Faces Class Action Labor Law Violations
--------------------------------------------------------
Julie Sherwood, writing for Daily Messenger, reports that The Inn
on the Lake, a popular resort and conference center on Canandaigua
Lake, is at the center of a lawsuit alleging violations of state
and federal labor laws.

The complaint filed in U.S. District Court was brought on behalf
of a former inn employee and seeks to recover damages for that
employee and others in his situation through a class action.
"We allege folks were not paid properly," said Justin Cordello,
attorney representing the workers.  He added there are multiple
causes of action brought on behalf of the employee and others in
that worker's situation.  As outlined in the 30-page complaint,
they include: unpaid minimum wages; unpaid overtime; improperly
withheld tips; unpaid spread of hours premium; failing to maintain
uniforms; providing employees with defective annual notices; and
failing to provide employees with statements with every payment of
wages.

Mr. Cordello -- with Cordello Law PLLC and Ferr & Mullin, P.C. --
represents Martin Hinckley Jr. and others in the class action that
the complaint states is believed to exceed 40 employees or former
employees.  Mr. Hinckley worked for The Inn on the Lake from about
July 2013 until July 2015 as a banquet service worker at events
such as weddings, parties, conferences, corporate functions and
other special events.

Defendants are The Inn on the Lake parent organizations, Seagate
Hospitality Group LLC and Canandaigua Hotel Corp, along with
Thomas A. Blank, chief executive officer of Canandaigua Hotel
Corp.  Mr. Blank was named because of his position "directly in
charge of the overall operations of The Inn that includes power of
payroll decisions including power to retain time and/or wage
records" and other authority, according to the lawsuit.
Attorneys with Nixon Peabody LLP represent the defendants.
"We think the allegations are baseless," said attorney Stephen
Jones with Nixon Peabody.  "We intend to vigorously defend the
lawsuit.

"The Inn on the Lake treats its employees fairly and has paid its
employees in full compliance with the law.  We have filed a motion
to dismiss the lawsuit with the court," Mr. Jones added.

Oral arguments are scheduled to be heard in Rochester before U.S.
District Court Judge Charles Siragusa on Oct. 20.

Mr. Cordello said he is in the process of connecting with those
who will be in the class action and encouraged people who believe
they should be represented to contact him.

Mr. Cordello is also the attorney representing workers in a class
action lawsuit alleging Bristol Harbour Resort violated labor
laws.  The lawsuit claims that the resort in South Bristol for six
years pocketed tips that should have gone to its banquet service
staff.  The class involves those who worked at the resort between
May 2008 and May 2014 in banquet service, which includes servers,
bussers and bartenders.


INTELLICURE INC: Holt Seeks Certification of 3 TCPA, ICFA Classes
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Holt Healthcare Management Services, Inc., asks the Court to enter
an order determining that the action styled HOLT HEALTHCARE
MANAGEMENT SERVICES, INC., on behalf of plaintiff and the class
members defined herein v. INTELLICURE, INC., d/b/a US WOUND
REGISTRY and US PODIATRY REGISTRY; CHRONIC DISEASE REGISTRY, INC.;
and JOHN DOES 1-10, Case No. 1:16-cv-07281 (N.D. Ill.), may
proceed as a class action against the Defendants.  The Plaintiff
defines the classes as:

     For purposes of Count I, alleging violation of the Telephone
     Consumer Protection Act, 47 U.S.C. Section 227, plaintiff
     seeks to represent a class consisting of (a) all persons (b)
     who, on or after a date four years prior to the filing of
     this action (28 U.S.C. Section1658), (c) were sent faxes by
     or on behalf of defendants Intellicure, Inc., d/b/a US Wound
     Registry and US Podiatry Registry; or Chronic Disease
     Registry, Inc., promoting any of their goods or services for
     sale (d) which did not contain a compliant opt out notice.

     For purposes of Count II, alleging violation of the Illinois
     Consumer Fraud Act, 815 ILCS 505/2, plaintiff seeks to
     represent a class consisting of (a) all persons with
     Illinois fax numbers (b) who, on or after a date three years
     prior to the filing of this action, (c) were sent faxes by
     or on behalf of defendants Intellicure, Inc., d/b/a US Wound
     Registry and US Podiatry Registry; or Chronic Disease
     Registry, Inc., promoting any of their goods or services for
     sale (d) which did not contain a compliant opt out notice.

     For purposes of Count III, alleging conversion, Count IV,
     alleging nuisance, and Count V, alleging trespass to
     chattels, plaintiff seeks to represent a class consisting of
     (a) all persons with Illinois fax numbers (b) who, on or
     after a date five years prior to the filing of this action,
     (c) were sent faxes by or on behalf of defendants
     Intellicure, Inc., d/b/a US Wound Registry and US Podiatry
     Registry; or Chronic Disease Registry, Inc., promoting any
     of their goods or services for sale (d) which did not
     contain a complaint opt out notice.

Holt further asks that it be appointed class representative and
that Edelman, Combs, Latturner & Goodwin, LLC, be appointed
counsel for the class.

A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=oefoH0WN

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Daniel A. Edelman, Esq.
          Cathleen M. Combs, Esq.
          James O. Latturner, Esq.
          Dulijaza Clark, Esq.
          EDELMAN, COMBS, LATTURNER & GOODWIN, LLC
          20 South Clark Street, Suite 1500
          Chicago, IL 60603
          Telephone: (312) 739-4200
          Facsimile: (312) 419-0379
          E-mail: dedelman@edcombs.com
                  ccombs@edcombs.com
                  jlatturner@edcombs.com
                  jclark@edcombs.com


JP MORGAN: Faces "Podolsky' Class Suit in New Jersey Ct.
--------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been commenced against JP Morgan Chase
Bank, N.A.

The case is captioned Yehudis Podolsky and Simcha Podolsky,
individually and on behalf of others similarly situated v. JP
Morgan Chase Bank, N.A., Case No. 3:16-cv-04072-AET-TJB (D.N.J.,
July 7, 2016).

JP Morgan Chase Bank, N.A. is a national bank that constitutes the
consumer and commercial banking subsidiary of the multinational
banking corporation JP Morgan Chase.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Edward B. Geller, Esq.
      15 Landing Way
      Bronx, NY 10464
      Telephone: (914) 473-6783
      E-mail: epbh@aol.com


KELLY SERVICES: Status Hearing in "Dolemba" on Nov. 15
------------------------------------------------------
The Hon. Sara L. Ellis entered an order in the lawsuit captioned
Herminia Dolemba, the Plaintiff, v. Kelly Services, Inc., et al.,
the Defendants, Case No. 1:16-cv-04971 (N.D. Ill.), giving the
Plaintiff leave to file amended complaint until July 22, 2016.

The Plaintiff's response is due by August 16, 2016. The
Defendant's reply is due by August 30, 2016. Fact discovery is
stayed pending ruling on motion to dismiss. A status hearing date
is set for November 15 at 9:30 a.m. for ruling on motion to
dismiss.

A copy of the Order is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=BX1Jpa7M


KNIGHTSBRIDGE RESTAURANT: Ex-Rasika Employee Sue Over OT Wages
--------------------------------------------------------------
Rebecca Cooper, writing for Washington Business Journal, reports
that a former employee of perennially popular Indian restaurant
Rasika in Penn Quarter is suing its owner, Ashok Bajaj and
Knightsbridge Restaurant Group, for $800,000 in what he says are
unpaid overtime wages.

The former employee, Kalikinkhar Sinha, was a line cook at Rasika
from 2007 to 2015, according to the suit, which was filed in D.C.
Superior Court and on July 8 moved to U.S. District Court.
Mr. Sinha "routinely" worked overtime hours -- as many as 31 hours
beyond a 40-hour work week -- and was not paid for those hours,
Mr. Sinha's suit alleges.

"Because defendants would not pay Mr. Sinha overtime for the hours
he worked in excess of 40 hours per week, Mr. Sinha frequently
requested that he be scheduled to work less hours," the suit
states.  "On another occasion where Mr. Sinha complained to an
upper-level manager about the long hours, he was told, 'This is
how the industry works.'"

Reached by phone, Bajaj said the case has no merit and that he
plans to "vigorously defend" against Mr. Sinha's claims.

The case appears to hinge on whether Mr. Sinha was a manager or
not: The suit notes early on that Mr. Sinha served as a line cook
and "never supervised any employees, was not responsible for
managing any part of the business or employees," or other
managerial tasks.

Mr. Bajaj, however, said in an interview that Mr. Sinha was a
salaried employee who held the title of sous chef. (Sous chefs
often serve under executive chefs and manage other cooks.)

This is the second such lawsuit that Mr. Bajaj and Knightsbridge
have faced recently.  In June 2015, a former waiter at Bombay Club
filed a class-action lawsuit against against his former employer
for unpaid overtime wages.

Knightsbridge in May settled that lawsuit without admitting
liability, agreeing to pay more than $43,000 in "owed overtime
wages" and liquidated damages to 17 employees of Bombay Club. That
is in addition to $40,600 in attorney's fees to the plaintiffs'
attorney, Brendan Klaproth.


KROGER CO: Bid for Class Cert. in "Hardesty" Partly Granted
-----------------------------------------------------------
The Hon. Judge Timothy S. Black entered an order in the class
action lawsuit styled JOSEPH HARDESTY, et al., Individually and on
behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, the Plaintiffs, v. THE
KROGER CO., et al., the Defendants, Case No. 1:16-cv-00298-TSB
(S.D. Ohio), granting in part and denying in part Plaintiffs'
motion for conditional class certification and notice.

The Court conditionally certifies the group of employees:

     "All employees classified as Recruiters, who were employed
      at Kroger's Center of Recruiting Excellence (CoRE) in Blue
      Ash, Ohio, at any time from the beginning of CoRE's
      operations in October 2014 to the present who worked in
      excess of 40 hours during any given workweek."

The court also orders the Defendants to produce, in a searchable
excel spreadsheet, a list of all individuals employed at Kroger as
Recruiters since October 2014, including: (1) Employee's full
name, (2) Employee's last known address, (3) Employee's job title,
(4) Employee's hire date, (5) Employee's termination date, and (6)
Employee' e-mail address (if no longer employed).

A copy of the Order is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=V6dJk9bk


KYDIA INC: Sued in Cal. Over Illegal Background Reports Use
-----------------------------------------------------------
Chris Donovan, individually and on behalf of all other similarly
situated v. Kydia, Inc. and Does 1 to 10, Case No. 2:16-cv-04994-
GW-PLA (C.D. Cal., July 7, 2016), is brought on behalf of the
Defendants' failure to provide required disclosures prior to
procuring background reports on applicants and employees.

Kydia, Inc. designs restaurant websites that can take online
orders.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Caleb H. Liang, Esq.
      James Mitchell Lee, Esq.
      LTL Attorneys LLP
      601 South Figueroa Street Suite 3900
      Los Angeles, CA 90017
      Telephone: (213) 612-8900
      Facsimile: (213) 612-3773
      E-mail: caleb.liang@ltlattorneys.com
              james.lee@ltlattorneys.com


LANCASTER SCHOOL DISTRICT: Bid for Class Cert. in "Issa" Granted
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Hon. Edward G. Smith grants Plaintiffs' motion for class
certification in the lawsuit styled Khadidja Issa; Q.M.H., a
minor, individually, by and through his parent, Faisa Ahmed
Abdalla; Alembe Dunia; Anyemu Dunia; V.N.L., a minor, individually
by and through her parent Mar Ki; Sui Hnem Sung; and all others
similarly situated, the Plaintiffs, v. The School District of
Lancaster, the Defendant, Case No. 5:16-cv-03881-EGS (E.D. Penn.).

The Class is defined:

     "All limited English proficient (LEP) immigrants, who, at
      any time after August 1, 2013, while aged 17-21, were, are,
      or will be in the future, excluded from Defendant School
      District of Lancaster's main high school, McCaskey -- either
      as a result of being refused enrollment altogether, or
      through involuntary placement at Phoenix."

The court further ordered that Plaintiffs Khadidja Issa; Q.M.H.,
by and through his parent, Faisa Ahmed Abdalla; Alembe Dunia;
Anyemu Dunia; V.N.L., by and through her parent Mar Ki; and Sui
Hnem Sung are appointed Class Representatives, and their counsel,
the American Civil Liberties Union of Pennsylvania, the Education
Law Center, and Pepper Hamilton LLP are appointed Class Counsel.

A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=sXpu9VEW

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Eric Rothschild, Esq.
          Kathleen A. Mullen, Esq.
          Kaitlin M. Gurney, Esq.
          Megan Morley, Esq.
          PEPPER HAMILTON LLP
          3000 Two Logan Square
          Eighteenth & Arch Streets
          Philadelphia, PA 19103-2799
          Telephone: (215) 981 4000
          Facsimile: (215) 981 4750
          E-mail: rothschilde@pepperlaw.com
                  mullenk@pepperlaw.com
                  gurneyk@pepperlaw.com
                  morleym@pepperlaw.com

               - and -

          Witold J. Walczak, Esq.
          Molly Tack-Hooper, Esq.
          AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES
          UNION OF PENNSYLVANIA
          Fort Pitt Blvd.
          Pittsburg, PA 15222
          Telephone: (412) 681 7736
          Facsimile: (412) 681 8707
          E-mail: VWalczak@aclupa.org
                  MTack-Hooper@aclupa.org

               - and -

          Maura McInerney, Esq.
          Kristina Moon, Esq.
          Alex Dutton, Esq.
          EDUCATION LAW CENTER
          1315 Walnut Street Suite 400
          Philadelphia, PA 19107
          Telephone: (215) 238 6907
          Facsimile: (215) 772 3125
          E-mail: mmcinerney@elc-pa.org
                  kmoon@elc-pa.org
                  adutton@elc-pa.org

               - and -

          Seth F. Kreimer, Esq.
          3501 Sansom Street
          Philadelphia, PA 19104
          Telephone: (215) 898 7447
          E-mail: skreimer@law.upenn.edu


LEGAL RECOVERY: Has Made Unsolicited Calls, "Addes" Suit Claims
---------------------------------------------------------------
Valerie Addes, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. Legal Recovery Network and Does 1 - 10, inclusive,
Case No. 4:16-cv-01406-MWB (M.D. Penn., July 7, 2016), seeks to
stop the Defendants' practice of using an artificial and
prerecorded voice to deliver a message without prior express
consent of the called party.

Legal Recovery Network operates a debt collection firm at 2525 NW
Expressway, Third Fl, Oklahoma City, OK.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Cynthia Levin, Esq.
      LAW OFFICES OF TODD M. FRIEDMAN, PC.
      1150 First Avenue, Suite 501
      King of Prussia, PA 19046
      Telephone: (888) 529-9111 ext 818
      Facsimile: (866) 633-0228
      E-mail: clevin@attorneysforconsumers.com

MALAYSIA AIRLINES: Faces Class Action Over MHI17 Tragedy
--------------------------------------------------------
Tim Barlass, writing for The Sydney Morning Herald, reports that
Malaysia Airlines is facing a class action.

Liliane Derden was flying from Amsterdam to Perth via Kuala Lumpur
for a two-week visit to her daughter Cassandra Gibson and
granddaughter, Ella, 2-1/2, who were in the process of moving into
their first home.

"She was so excited to help me move in," Ms. Gibson said.  "We
were planning on decorating by painting and furnishing my new
place. She wanted to make the house a warm, inviting home for Ella
and I."

Ms. Derden, from Canberra, was on Malaysia Airlines flight MH17
flying over a contested area of the Ukraine on July 17, 2014, when
it was shot out of the sky by a surface to air missile.  All 298
passengers and crew were killed.  The airline has been accused of
trying to save fuel by flying over a known war zone.

With the two-year anniversary of the attack on July 17,
Ms. Gibson emerges as the lead applicant for eight Australian
families who have just filed a class action for compensation from
Malaysia Airlines in the Federal Court of Australia.

The papers were submitted on July 5, only 10 days before the
two-year deadline for compensation claims.

Ms. Gibson, who has a sister, Chelsea, in Canberra, said that the
family had been left with no other choice but to take legal action
which had brought unwanted stress and anxiety to the family.

"It's upsetting that it has had to come to this," she said.  "When
you are trying to grieve for your loved one who has been wrongly
taken away from you, then have to fight another battle to prove
their life's worth, it really tests all your emotions.

"I'm shocked by the way Malaysia Airlines has reacted to this
horrible incident.  I don't understand how they could ignore such
important risk management procedures just to save on fuel costs.
It's scary to know they still carry people's lives in their hands
. . . "

Asked how Ella was coping without her grandma, she added: "It's
hard to tell right now.  She has such a bubbly, positive
personality just like her 'Omi'.  She says her name some days but
then is confused as to why she isn't around.  It's upsetting to
know that she has lost such a huge influence in her life.

"I feel that this tragedy, and the lengthy quest for answers, has
kept everything raw. We just need to make sure we continue to hold
onto all the good memories we made with mum and her positive
outlook on life."

She said she would spend the second anniversary with her "little"
sister Chelsea and stepfather C.J. to travel to some places her
mother would have loved to see.

Lawyer Michael Hyland of Sydney-based LHD Lawyers, which acts for
Cassandra Gibson, said the two-tier claim was brought under the
terms of the Montreal Convention 1999.

"Under the first tier the claimant does not need to establish
negligence against Malaysia Airlines but must establish both that
their relative was killed and that they were, to some extent,
financially dependant upon them," he said.

Maximum compensation per passenger is approximately $A220,000.

Damages under the second tier, where negligence of the carrier is
a critical issue, are open-ended and could result in a much larger
payout, he said.

In a brief statement of facts, the eight-page claim states that on
July 17, 2014, flight "MH17 followed its planned chosen route,
airway L980 across Ukraine.  On or about the same date MH17 was
shot down in the airspace over the war zone.  The in-flight
disintegration of MH17 was the result of the detonation of a
warhead."

In an additional claim families of the Australian victims involved
in the class action are also seeking compensation of $10 million
per passenger in what could result in one of the largest aviation
disaster payouts in history.  The claim, also served by LHD
Lawyers, was submitted in May to the European Court of Human
Rights. It lays the blame squarely at the door of the Russians.
Proposed respondents to the claim are the Russian Federation and
President Vladimir Putin.

It argues that Russia recognizes an attack on a passenger plane is
an egregious act, having offered "a $50 million reward in
connection with the terrorist downing of an Egyptian airline that
killed a large number of Russian citizens".

The other families are not named in the class action legal papers.


MARRONE BIO: Deal in Special Situations Fund Suit Has Initial OK
----------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Morrison C. England, Jr. preliminarily approved the parties'
settlement in the case captioned SPECIAL SITUATIONS FUND III QP,
L.P., SPECIAL SITUATIONS CAYMAN FUND, L.P, and DAVID M. FINEMAN,
Individually and On Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated,
Plaintiffs, v. MARRONE BIO INNOVATIONS, INC., PAMELA G. MARRONE,
JAMES B. BOYD, DONALD J. GLIDEWELL, HECTOR ABSI, ELIN MILLER,
RANJEET BHATIA, PAMELA CONTAG, TIM FOGARTY, LAWRENCE HOUGH, JOSEPH
HUDSON, LES LYMAN, RICHARD ROMINGER, SHAUGN STANLEY, SEAN
SCHICKEDANZ, and ERNST & YOUNG LLP, Defendants, Master No. 2:14-
cv-2571-MCE-KJN (E.D. Cal.).

In the securities class action, the lead plaintiffs Special
Situations Fund III QP, L.P. and Special Situations Cayman Fund,
L.P., , and additional named plaintiff David M. Fineman, on behalf
of themselves and the other members of the settlement class, and
the defendants Marrone Bio Innovations, Inc., Pamela G. Marrone,
James B. Boyd, Donald J. Glidewell, Hector Absi, Elin Miller, Tim
Fogarty, Richard Rominger, Shaugn Stanley, Ranjeet Bhatia,
Lawrence Hough, Joseph Hudson, Sean Schickedanz, Pamela Contag,
and Les Lyman, have agreed to settle claims asserted in the action
in exchange for a settlement payment of $12,000,000 in cash, which
has been deposited into an escrow account controlled by the lead
counsel.

A settlement hearing will be held on September 22, 2016 at 2:00
p.m. in Courtroom 7 of the Robert T. Matsui United States Court
House, 501 I Street, Sacramento, CA 95814.

A full-text copy of Judge England's July 8, 2016 preliminary
approval order is available at https://is.gd/bQIjg6 from
Leagle.com.

Special Situations Fund III QP, L.P., Special Situations Cayman
Fund, L.P., David M. Fineman, Plaintiffs, represented by Michael
John McGaughey -- mmcgaughey@lowenstein.com -- Lowenstein Sandler
LLP.

Kent Oldham, Plaintiff, represented by Robert S. Green, Green &
Noblin, P.C..

Marrone Bio Innovations, Inc., Pamela G. Marrone, James B. Boyd,
Donald J. Glidewell, Elin Miller, Ranjeet Bhatia, Pamela Contag,
Tim Fogarty, Lawrence Hough, Joseph Hudson, Les Lyman, Richard
Rominger, Shaugn Stanley, Sean Schickedanz, Defendants,
represented by Judson Earle Lobdell -- jlobdell@mofo.com --
Morrison & Foerster LLP.

Hector Absi, Defendant, represented by John V. McDermott --
jmcdermott@bhfs.com -- Brownstein Hyatt Farber Schreck, LLP, pro
hac vice, Jonathan Charles Sandler -- jsandler@bhfs.com --
Brownstein Hyatt Farber Schreck & Judson Earle Lobdell, Morrison &
Foerster LLP.

Piper Jaffray & Co., Roth Capital Partners, LLC, Jefferies, LLC,
Stifel, Nicolaus & Company, Inc., Defendants, represented by
Charlene Sachi Shimada -- charlene.shimada@morganlewis.com --
Morgan, Lewis & Bockius LLP & Lucy Han Wang --
lucy.wang@morganlewis.com -- Morgan, Lewis & Bockius LLP.

Ernst & Young, LLP, Defendant, represented by Elizabeth Dianne
Mann -- emann@mayerbrown.com -- Mayer Brown LLP & Stanley J.
Parzen -- sparzen@mayerbrown.com -- Mayer Brown and Platt, pro hac
vice.

Special Situations Cayman Fund, L.P., Special Situations Fund III
QP, L.P., Movant, represented by Lawrence M. Rolnick --
lrolnick@lowenstein.com -- Lowenstein Sandler LLP, pro hac vice,
Michael John McGaughey -- mmcgaughey@lowenstein.com -- Lowenstein
Sandler LLP, Steven M. Hecht -- shecht@lowenstein.com --
Lowenstein Sandler LLP, pro hac vice & Thomas E. Redburn, Jr. --
tredburn@lowenstein.com -- Lowenstein Sandler LLP, pro hac vice.

Marrone Investor Group, Movant, represented by Jon A. Tostrud --
jtostrud@tostrudlaw.com -- Tostrud Law Group, P.C..

United States of America, Movant, represented by Todd A. Pickles,
United States Attorney's Office.


MEDICAL FACILITIES: Illegally Uses Background Reports, Suit Says
----------------------------------------------------------------
Theresa Bartlow and Robert A. McBride, individually and on behalf
of all others similarly situated v. Medical Facilities of America,
Inc., Case No. 3:16-cv-00572-HEH (E.D. Va., July 7, 2016), is
brought against the Defendant for failure to provide required
disclosures prior to procuring background reports on applicants
and employees.

Medical Facilities of America, Inc. provides nursing and
rehabilitation care throughout Virginia and North Carolina.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Leonard Anthony Bennett, Esq.
      Craig Carley Marchiando, Esq.
      Susan Mary Rotkis, Esq.
      CONSUMER LITIGATION ASSOCIATES
      763 J Clyde Morris Boulevard, Suite 1A
      Newport News, VA 23601
      Telephone: (757) 930-3660
      Facsimile: (757) 930-3662
      E-mail: lenbennett@clalegal.com
              craig@clalegal.com
              srotkis@clalegal.com

         - and -

      Andrew Joseph Guzzo, Esq.
      Kristi Cahoon Kelly, Esq.
      KELLY & CRANDALL PLC
      4084 University Drive, Suite 202A
      Fairfax, VA 22030
      Telephone: (703) 424-7570
      Facsimile: (703) 591-0167
      E-mail: aguzzo@kellyandcrandall.com
              kkelly@kellyandcrandall.com


MONSTER BEVERAGE: 9th Cir. Revives Portion of "Fisher" Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------
In the case captioned ALEC FISHER, et al., Plaintiffs-Appellants,
v. MONSTER BEVERAGE CORPORATION and MONSTER ENERGY COMPANY,
Defendants-Appellees, No. 13-57094 (9th Cir.), the United States
Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit affirmed in part, and reversed in
part, the dismissal of the putative consumer class action filed by
Alec Fisher, Matthew Townsend, and Ted Cross regarding the safety
of certain energy drinks (Monster Drinks) produced by Monster
Beverage Corporation and Monster Energy Company.

The Ninth Circuit held that Fisher lacks standing, and therefore
the off-label claims do not survive Monster's motion to dismiss.
The appellate court also held that the plaintiffs' state-law on-
label claims that seek to subject Monster to a caffeine-content
labeling requirement are preempted by federal law.  Lastly, the
Ninth Circuit stated that the remainder of the plaintiffs' on-
label claims are not preempted, and the FDA does not have primary
jurisdiction over such claims.

A full-text copy of the Ninth Circuit's July 8, 2016 memorandum is
available at https://is.gd/a0Y5Hz from Leagle.com.


NAPLES TRANSPORTATION: Pfeuti Seeks to Certify Chauffeurs Class
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Plaintiffs ask the Court to issue an order conditionally
certifying a class of current and former non-exempt chauffeurs,
who worked for the Defendants between May 16, 2013, and the
present in the lawsuit captioned HERMANN PFEUTI and ALFRED ERZAK,
on behalf of themselves and others similarly situated v. NAPLES
TRANSPORTATION & TOURS, LLC, RANDALL R. SMITH and TAMIR RANKOW,
Case No. 2:16-cv-00364-UA-MRM (M.D. Fla.).

During their employment with the Defendants non-exempt employees
were not paid for all hours worked including overtime compensation
when applicable, the Plaintiffs allege.

The Plaintiffs also ask the Court to (i) direct the Defendants to
produce a list containing the names, the last known addresses,
phone numbers and e-mail addresses of putative class members, (ii)
authorize their counsel to send notice to all individuals whose
names appear on the list, and (iii) provide all individuals on the
list a Consent to Become Opt-In Plaintiff.

A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=92EA9QCM

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Bill B. Berke, Esq.
          BERKE LAW FIRM, P.A.
          4423 Del Prado Blvd. S.
          Cape Coral, FL 33904
          Telephone: (239) 549-6689
          E-mail: berkelaw@yahoo.com


NATURMED INC: Nichols Seeks Certification of Class
--------------------------------------------------
Mary Ann Nichols in the class action lawsuit styled MARY ANN
NICHOLS, on behalf of plaintiff and a class, the Plaintiff, v.
NATURMED, INC., d/b/a INSTITUTE FOR VIBRANT LIVING, the Defendant,
Case No. 1:16-cv-07356 (N.D. Ill.), asks the court to certify a
class:

The class under Count I, alleging violation of the Uniform
Commercial Code (UCC) and Magnuson-Moss Act, consists of (a) all
persons in the United States (except Louisiana and Puerto Rico)
(b) who purchased "All Day Energy Greens" products (c) on or after
a date 4 years prior to the filing of this action.

The class under Count II, alleging violation of the Uniform
Commercial Code consists of (a) all persons in the United States
(except Louisiana and Puerto Rico) (b) who purchased "All Day
Energy Greens" products (c) on or after a date 4 years prior to
the filing of this action.

The class under Count III, alleging violation of Illinois Consumer
Fraud Act, 815 ILCS 505/2 consists of (a) all persons in Illinois
(b) who purchased "All Day Energy Greens" products (c) on or after
a date 3 years prior to the filing of this action.

The class under Count IV, alleging violation of the Arizona
Consumer Fraud Act, consists of (a) all persons (b) who purchased
"All Day Energy Greens" products (c) on or after a date 1 year
prior to the filing of this action.

The class under Count V, alleging that defendant was unjustly
enriched consists of (a) all persons (b) who purchased "All Day
Energy Greens" products (c) on or after a date 5 years prior to
the filing of this action.

The Plaintiff further seeks her appointment as representative to
the class, and the appointment of Edelman Combs Latturner &
Goodwin, LLC as counsel to the class.

A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=N4uGfSkh

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Daniel A. Edelman, Esq.
          Cathleen M. Combs, Esq.
          James O. Latturner, Esq.
          Emiliya G. Farbstein, Esq.
          EDELMAN, COMBS, LATTURNER & GOODWIN, L.L.C.
          20 S. Clark Street, Suite 1500
          Chicago, IL 60603
          Telephone: (312) 739 4200
          Facsimile: (312) 419 0379
          E-mail: courtecl@edcombs.com


NEW YORK, NY: Court Dismisses "Bryant" Suit as Moot
---------------------------------------------------
Judge Sidney H. Stein granted the defendants' motion to dismiss
the complaint in the case captioned AHLIJAH BRYANT, individually
and on behalf of all others similarly situated, ET AL.,
Plaintiffs, v. CITY OF NEW YORK, ET AL., Defendants, No. 14-Cv-
8672 (SHS) (S.D.N.Y.).

The plaintiffs commenced the civil rights putative class action to
challenge the defendants' old time policy.  The individual
plaintiffs were detainees in city jails who had been confined in
punitive segregation to serve old time.  The plaintiffs sought
monetary damages as well as declaratory and injunctive relief.
The defendants were the city as well as current and former New
York City Department of Correction Commissioners and Chiefs of
Department.  The complaint charged that defendants' old time
policy violated the substantive and procedural due process
guarantees of the Fourteenth Amendment.

Approximately two months after the action commenced, Mayor Bill de
Blasio and Commissioner of Correction Joseph Ponte jointly
announced that the system of old time was going to end, and that
no inmate was "going to owe time anymore."  All "historic time,"
they announced, will be "wipe[d] . . . off the books."  Two days
after that announcement, the New York City Board of Correction
proposed new rules concerning solitary confinement that, inter
alia, prohibited detainees from being placed into punitive
segregation based on old time alone.  The board approved these
rules in mid-January 2015.

Judge Stein found that the recent amendment to the New York City
Board of Correction's rules concerning the use of punitive
segregation for pretrial detainees has rendered the litigation
moot, therefore requiring that it be dismissed for lack of federal
subject matter jurisdiction.  The judge concluded that the
defendants have met the "heavy burden" of showing that "subsequent
events [have] made it absolutely clear that the allegedly wrongful
behavior could not reasonably be expected to recur."

A full-text copy of Judge Stein's July 8, 2016 opinion and order
is available at https://is.gd/2zOLku from Leagle.com.

Ahlijah Bryant, Plaintiff, represented by Barbara Patricia
Hamilton, The Legal Aid Society.

Ahlijah Bryant, Plaintiff, represented by Julian Nahuel Radzinschi
-- jradzinschi@paulweiss.com -- Paul, Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton &
Garrison LLP.

Ahlijah Bryant, Plaintiff, represented by William Donald Gibney,
Sr, The Legal Aid Society & Eric Andrew Felleman --
efelleman@paulweiss.com -- Paul, Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton &
Garrison LLP.

Quandell Hickman, Plaintiff, represented by Barbara Patricia
Hamilton, The Legal Aid Society & Julian Nahuel Radzinschi --
jradzinschi@paulweiss.com -- Paul, Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton &
Garrison LLP.

Quandell Hickman, Plaintiff, represented by William Donald Gibney,
Sr, The Legal Aid Society.

Quandell Hickman, Plaintiff, represented by Eric Andrew Felleman,
Paul, Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton & Garrison LLP.

Shymil McBee-Miles, Plaintiff, represented by Julian Nahuel
Radzinschi, Paul, Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton & Garrison LLP & Eric
Andrew Felleman, Paul, Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton & Garrison LLP.

Elijah Selman, Plaintiff, represented by Barbara Patricia
Hamilton, The Legal Aid Society, Julian Nahuel Radzinschi, Paul,
Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton & Garrison LLP, William Donald Gibney, Sr,
The Legal Aid Society & Eric Andrew Felleman, Paul, Weiss,
Rifkind, Wharton & Garrison LLP.

City of New York, Commissioner Joseph Ponte, Chief of Department
William P. Clemons, Defendant, represented by Martin John Bowe,
Jr., NYC Law Department.


OHIO, USA: Court Refuses to Certify Parolees Class in "Sabo" Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The Hon. Algenon L. Marbley denied without prejudice to renewal at
a later stage of the proceedings Larry Sabo's motion for an
evidentiary hearing, motion to appoint counsel, and motion for
discovery in the lawsuit styled LARRY SABO v. WARDEN, LONDON
CORRECTIONAL INSTITUTION, et al., Case No. 2:16-cv-00536-ALM-NMK
(S.D. Ohio.).

"Because there is currently no counsel to assist in the
prosecution of a class action, moreover, certification of the
action as a class action would be inappropriate," Judge Marbley
opined.  Judge Marbley added that the Petitioner's Motion for
Class Certification is, therefore, likewise denied without
prejudice to renewal should counsel be appointed for the
Petitioner or the putative class.

The Petitioner brings the Action under 28 U.S.C. Section 2241,
alleging that the retroactive application of Ohio's parole
guidelines to him violates his rights under federal and state law.
The Respondents have until September 6, 2016, to respond to the
Petition.

A copy of the Order is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=EUpwNP5p


PARK PLUS: Fails to Pay Employees Overtime, "Dorie" Suit Claims
---------------------------------------------------------------
Mohan Dorie, individually and on behalf of others similarly
situated v. Park Plus Valet Service LLC and any other related
entities, Case No. 605034/2016 (N.Y. Sup. Ct., July 7, 2016), is
brought against the Defendants for failure to pay overtime wages
for work in excess of 40 hours per week.

Park Plus Valet Service LLC operates an airport parking facility
located at 123-70 South Conduit Avenue, South Ozone Park, New York
11420.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Brett R. Cohen, Esq.
      Jeffrey K. Brown, Esq.
      Michael A. Tompkins, Esq.
      LEEDS BROWN LAW, PC
      One Old Country Road, Suite 347
      Carle Place, NY 11514
      Telephone: (516) 873-9550


PAWTUCKET, R.I.: Retirees Class Cert. Sought in "Pawtucket" Case
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Plaintiff in the class action lawsuit styled PAWTUCKET PUBLIC
SAFETY RETIREES ASSOCIATION, the Plaintiff, v. CITY OF PAWTUCKET,
ET AL., Case No. 1:15-cv-00026-M-LDA (D.R.I.), moves the Court to
certify a class consisting of:

     "all persons who are members of the Pawtucket Public
      Retirees Association being paid pensions equal to or in
      excess of $30,000 annually and who on the date the
      complaint was filed were:

       (a) retired from employment with the Pawtucket
           Police Department and Pawtucket Fire Department and
           are entitled to a city-paid pension with mandatory
           cost of living adjustments (COLAs) for the remainder
           of their lives under a collective bargaining
           agreement (CBA), ordinance, and/or arbitration award
           as a result of that employment; or

       (b) married to a person or was otherwise related as
           a family member to a person who retired from or
           otherwise terminated employment with the Pawtucket
           Police Department and Pawtucket Fire Department and,
           as a result of that relationship, is entitled to a
           city-paid pension with mandatory COLAs under a CBA,
           ordinance, and/or arbitration award as a result of
           that employment."

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

Plaintiffs are represented by:

     Joseph F. Penza, Jr., Esq.
     Michael B. Forte, Jr., Esq.
     OLENN & PENZA, LLP
     530 Greenwich Avenue
     Warwick, RI 02886
     PHONE: (401) 737-3700
     FAX: (401) 737-5499
     EMAIL: jfp@olenn-penza.com
            mbf@olenn-penza.com


PC RICHARD: Matijakovich Appeals From D.N.J. Ruling to 9th Cir.
---------------------------------------------------------------
David Matijakovich filed an appeal from a court ruling in the
lawsuit styled David Matijakovich v. PC Richard & Son, Case No.
2-16-cv-015-6, in the United States District Court for the
District of New Jersey.

As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter on March 28,
2016, the Case was removed from the Superior Court of New Jersey,
Bergen County to the District Court.

The appellate case is captioned as David Matijakovich v. PC
Richard & Son, Case No. 16-3111, in the United States Court of
Appeals for the Third Circuit.

The Plaintiff-Appellant is represented by:

          Lewis G. Adler, Esq.
          LAW OFFICE OF LEWIS ADLER
          26 Newton Avenue
          Woodbury, NJ 08096
          Telephone: (856) 845-1968
          E-mail: lewisadler@verizon.net

The Defendant-Appellee is represented by:

          William S. Gyves, Esq.
          ENTWISTLE & CAPPUCCI LLP
          299 Park Avenue, 20th Floor
          New York, NY 10171
          Telephone: (215) 894-7200
          Facsimile: (212) 894 7272
          E-mail: wgyves@entwistle-law.com

               - and -

          Michael A. Innes, Esq.
          Lauri A. Mazzuchetti, Esq.
          KELLEY DRYE & WARREN LLP
          200 Kimball Drive
          Parsippany, NJ 07054
          Telephone: (973) 503-5943
          Facsimile: (973) 503-5950
          E-mail: minnes@kelleydrye.com
                  lmazzuchetti@kelleydrye.com


PENN WEST: Settles Class Action Over Financial Report Restatement
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Sutts, Strosberg LLP Barristers & Solicitors on July 13 disclosed
that Penn West Petroleum Ltd. has paid CDN$53M in full and final
settlement of all claims against them in Canada and the United
States including class counsel fees and administration costs in
return for releases and a dismissal of the class actions in both
countries relating to the restatement of the company's financial
statements.  The settlement was funded by Penn West's insurers and
has been approved by the courts in Ontario, Alberta, Quebec and
the United States.

The Settlement Amount has been allocated in equal parts of
$26,500,000 to the settlement of the class actions in Canada and
the United States.  The net settlement monies, after payment of
administration expenses and Class Counsel Fees, will be
distributed in accordance with the court-approved and supervised
Plan of Allocation.

In 2014, proposed class actions were commenced against Penn West
and others in the Ontario Superior Court of Justice, Middlemiss v.
Penn West Petroleum Ltd. et al., Court File Number CV-15-525189-
00CP, the Quebec Superior Court, Benadiva v. Penn West Petroleum
Ltd. et al., Court File Number 500-06-000713-145 and the Alberta
Court of Queen's Bench, Allen v. Penn West Petroleum Ltd. et al.,
Court File Number 1401-08454.  The plaintiffs in these actions
alleged that Penn West's historical financial statements were not
prepared in accordance with GAAP and/or International Financial
Reporting Standards.  A related class action was also commenced in
the United States District Court for the Southern District of New
York for persons and entities who purchased or otherwise acquired
Penn West common stock, trust units or call options or sold Penn
West put options on an open market located within the United
States, including but not limited to the New York Stock Exchange
or another U.S. exchange, from February 18, 2010 through July 29,
2014, inclusive, and who were damaged thereby.

"We are very pleased with this outcome and that Penn West
Petroleum Ltd. will compensate investors," said Jay Strosberg --
jay@strosbergco.com -- Partner of Sutts Strosberg LLP.

Each Canadian Class Member must submit a completed Claim Form on
or before November 14, 2016 in order to participate in the
settlement.  The Claim Form can be accessed or downloaded at
www.PennWestCanadianClassAction.com or obtained by calling the
Administrator at 1.888.244.1486.

Further information on the Canadian settlement, including the
Settlement Agreement, Plan of Allocation and the court orders, may
be found at www.PennWestCanadianClassAction.com

For information about the U.S. Class Action, please visit:
www.PennWestUSSecuritiesLitigation.com


PHOENIX RMA: Faces "Reyes" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
------------------------------------------------------------
Jose Sanchez Reyes, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. Phoenix RMA Construction Services LLC, Case
No. 1:16-cv-03794 (E.D.N.Y., July 7, 2016), is brought against the
Defendants for failure to pay overtime wages in violation of the
Fair Labor Standards Act.

Phoenix RMA Construction Services LLC owns and operates a
construction company in New York.

Jose Sanchez Reyes is a pro se plaintiff.


PRIV ATEBANCORP: Faces "Solak" Suit Over Proposed Sale
------------------------------------------------------
John Solak, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. Larry Richman, James M. Guyette, Dianne Aigotti,
Norman Bobins, Michelle L. Collins, Cheryl Mayberry McKissack,
James Nicholson, Richard Rice, Edward Rabin, Alejandro Silva, and
Priv Atebancorp, Inc., Case No. 2016-CH-08949 (Ill. Cir. Ct., July
7, 2016), is brought on behalf of all the public stockholders of
Private Bancorp, Inc. in connection with the proposed sale of the
Company, through a flawed process and inadequate consideration.

Priv Atebancorp, Inc. through its subsidiary The PrivateBank,
delivers customized business and personal financial services to
middle-market companies, as well as business owners, executives,
entrepreneurs and families in all of the markets and communities
it serves.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Theodore B. Bell, Esq.
      Carl V. Malmstrom, Esq.
      WOLF HALDENSTEIN ADLER FREEMAN & HERZ LLC
      One South Dearborn Street, Ste 2122
      Chicago, IL 60603
      Telephone: (312) 984-0000
      Facsimile: (312) 212-4401
      E-mail: tbell@whafh.com
              malmstrom@whafh.com

         - and -

      Gregory M. Nespole, Esq.
      WOLF HALDENSTEIN ADLER FREEMAN & HERZ LLP
      270 Madison Avenue
      New York, NY 10016
      Telephone: (212) 545-4600
      Facsimile: (212) 686-0114
      E-mail: nespole@whafh.com


PROCTER & GAMBLE: Faces "Banegas" Suit in South. Dist. Florida
--------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been commenced against The Procter &
Gamble Company.

The case is captioned Mrs. Angela Banegas, as an individual and on
behalf of all others similarly situated v. The Procter & Gamble
Company, Case No. 0:16-cv-61617-DPG (S.D. Fla., July 7, 2016).

The Procter & Gamble Company operates a consumer goods company
headquartered in Cincinnati, Ohio.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Michael Thomas Fraser, Esq.
      THE FRASER LAW FIRM, P.C.
      4120 Douglas Blvd., Suite 306-262
      Granite Bay, CA 95746
      Telephone: (888) 557-5115
      Facsimile: (866) 212-8434
      E-mail: mfraser@thefraserlawfirm.net

         - and -

      Joseph M. Pustizzi, Esq.
      LAW OFFICE OF JOSEPH PUSTIZZI, P.A.
      3440 Hollywood Blvd., Suite 415
      Hollywood, FL 33021
      Telephone: (954) 241-4244
      E-mail: joseph@pustizzilaw.com


REAL TIME: Accused of Wrongful Conduct Over Debt Collection
-----------------------------------------------------------
Mordechai Deutsch, on behalf of himself and all other similarly
situated consumers v. Real Time Resolutions, Inc., Case No. 1:16-
cv-03775 (E.D.N.Y., July 7, 2016), seeks to stop the Defendant's
unfair and unconscionable means to collect a debt.

Real Time Resolutions, Inc. operates a debt collection firm
headquartered at 1349 Empire Central #150, Dallas, TX 75247.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Adam Jon Fishbein, Esq.
      ADAM J. FISHBEIN, ATTORNEY AT LAW
      483 Chestnut Street
      Cedarhurst, NY 11516
      Telephone: (516) 791-4400
      Facsimile: (516) 791-4411
      E-mail: fishbeinadamj@gmail.com


RIDDELL INC: Plaintiffs May Serve 9 of 10 3rd-Party Subpoenas
-------------------------------------------------------------
In the case captioned In re RIDDELL CONCUSSION REDUCTION
LITIGATION, Civil No. 13-7585 (JBS/JS (D.N.J.), Judge Joel
Schneider overruled in part and granted, in part, the defendants'
objections to the plaintiffs' request to serve 10 third-party
document subpoenas.

Judge Schneider granted the plaintiffs leave to serve third-party
document subpoenas directed to Biokinetics, NFL Enterprises, LLC,
Dr. Elliot Pellman, Mindsview Innovation, Weber Shandrick, Inc.,
Empire Green Creative, LLC, Wishbone Design Factory, LLC, Cohn &
Wolfe and MSL Chicago.  The judge denied the request for leave to
serve a subpoena directed to Dan Kult.

A full-text copy of Judge Schneider's July 7, 2016 memorandum
opinion and order is available at https://is.gd/PU8p6a from
Leagle.com.

The proposed nationwide class action was filed by purchasers of
Riddell's Revolution football helmets from 2007 to present seeking
the return of a "price premium" allegedly paid for the helmets.
The case focuses on the concussion reduction capabilities of
Riddell's helmets and defendants' pricing, advertising and
marketing of the helmets.  The crux of the plaintiffs' case is
that Riddell's Revolution helmets offered no greater protection
against concussions than other helmets and, therefore, the price
premium they paid should be reimbursed.  The plaintiffs claimed
that the defendants' use of the term "concussion reduction
technology" or "CRT" was false and misleading.  The defendants'
claims concerning concussion reduction purportedly derive from a
2002 study done by the University of Pittsburgh Medical Center
(UPMC) that compared the concussion rates of users who used the
Revolution helmet with those who wore "traditional helmets."  The
UPMC study found that in some instances the Revolution helmet
could reduce concussions by as much as 31%.

In re RIDDELL CONCUSSION REDUCTION LITIGATION, represented by
JOSEPH A. BOYLE -- jboyle@kelleydrye.com -- KELLEY DRYE & WARREN
LLP.

NORMA D. THIEL, Nicholas W. Farrell, Cahokia School District,
Gustavo Galvan, Kenny King, Alliance Youth Sports Association,
Plaintiffs, represented by JOSEPH A. CULLEN -- jcullen@stark-
stark.com -- STARK & STARK & JAMES E. CECCHI --
jcecchi@carellabyrne.com -- CARELLA BYRNE CECCHI OLSTEIN BRODY &
AGNELLO, P.C..

RIDDELL, INC., RIDDELL SPORTS GROUP, EASTON-BELL SPORTS, INC.,
EASTON-BELL SPORTS, LLC, EB SPORTS CORPORATION, RBG HOLDINGS
CORPORATION, ALL AMERICAN SPORTS CORPORATION, Defendants,
represented by JOSEPH A. BOYLE, KELLEY DRYE & WARREN LLP & MICHAEL
ANDREW INNES -- minnes@kelleydrye.com -- KELLEY DRYE & WARREN LLP.

DOUGLAS ARONSON, DENISE ARONSON, Interested Parties, represented
by JAMES E. CECCHI, CARELLA BYRNE CECCHI OLSTEIN BRODY & AGNELLO,
P.C..


ROBERTS TOOL: Faces "Ortiz" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
-------------------------------------------------------------
Jose Ortiz, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. Roberts Tool Co., Inc. and Does 1-25, Case No.
BC626244 (Cal. Super. Ct., July 7, 2016), is brought against the
Defendants for failure to pay overtime wages in violation of the
California Labor Code.

Roberts Tool Co., Inc. provides precision machining solutions for
aerospace, commercial, and entertainment industries.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Aaron C. Gundzik, Esq.
      GARTENBERG GELFAND & HAYTON LLP
      15260 Ventura Blvd., Suite 1920
      Sherman Oaks, CA 91403
      Telephone: (213) 542-2100
      Facsimile: (213) 542-2101
      E-mail: agundzik@gghslaw.com


SHARP ELECTRONICS: 3rd Cir. Appeal Filed in "Popejoy" Class Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs Jason Popejoy, Joe Sawyer and Daniel Sullivan filed an
appeal from a court ruling in their lawsuit entitled Jason
Popejoy, et al. v. Sharp Electronics Corp., Case No. 2-14-cv-
06426, in the United States District Court for the District of New
Jersey.

The appellate case is captioned as Jason Popejoy, et al. v. Sharp
Electronics Corp., Case No. 16-3114, in the United States Court of
Appeals for the Third Circuit.

As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, District
Judge William J. Martini granted the Defendant's motion to dismiss
and denied the Defendant's motion to strike filed in the Case.

In their complaint, the Plaintiffs allege that Sharp has engaged
in "a massive consumer fraud" by "deceptively labeling" certain of
its televisions as "LED TVs," "LED HDTVs," or "LED televisions."
The Plaintiffs argue that Sharp's marketing of its LED TVs is
false and misleading because Sharp fails to disclose that its
references to LED refer to the light source that illuminates the
LCD panel rather than the display technology itself.  The
Plaintiffs further allege that Sharp's marketing is "designed to
falsely suggest that the televisions at issue are not LCD TVs at
all, but an entirely different, improved, and technologically
advanced class or species of television.

In his Opinion dated September 18, 2015, available at
http://is.gd/iY2Qzqfrom Leagle.com, Judge Martini found that the
Plaintiffs have not adequately alleged that a reasonable consumer
could be deceived by Sharp's marketing.  Although the Plaintiffs
argue in their opposition brief that they were deceived by
misrepresentations made through multiple marketing channels, those
allegations are absent from the Complaint.

The Plaintiffs-Appellants are represented by:

          Eileen T. Burns, Esq.
          KOHN SWIFT & GRAF, P.C.
          One South Broad Street, Suite 2100
          Philadelphia, PA 19107
          Telephone: (215) 218-1700

               - and -

          Scott A. George, Esq.
          SEEGER WEISS LLP
          1515 Market Street, Suite 1380
          Philadelphia, PA 19102
          Telephone: (215) 553-7982
          Facsimile: (215) 851-8029
          E-mail: sgeorge@seegerweiss.com

The Defendant-Appellee is represented by:

          Kevin H. Marino, Esq.
          John D. Tortorella, Esq.
          MARINO, TORTORELLA & BOYLE, P.C.
          437 Southern Boulevard
          Chatham, NJ 07928
          Telephone: (973) 824-9300
          E-mail: kmarino@khmarino.com
                  jtortorella@khmarino.com


SIMM ASSOCIATES: Status Hearing in "Cheatham" Suit on Sept. 30
--------------------------------------------------------------
U.S. Magistrate Judge Steven I. Locke has adopted and "So Ordered"
the joint proposed scheduling order submitted by the parties in
the lawsuit entitled Cheatham v. Simm Associates, Inc., et al.,
Case No. 2:15-cv-06071-LDW-SIL (E.D.N.Y.).  Judge Locke sets these
dates:

    * September 30, 2016, at 11:00 a.m. -- Status conference; and

    * April 3, 2017, at 11:00 a.m. -- Pretrial conference.  A
      joint proposed pretrial order must be electronically filed
      three days prior to the conference.

According to the civil conference minute order, the parties
voluntarily withdrew two pending matters for reasons set forth on
record.

A copy of the Minute Order is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=HXQGOf97

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Abraham Kleinman, Esq.
          KLEINMAN LLC
          626 RXR Plaza
          Uniondale, NY 11556-0626
          Telephone: (516) 522-2621
          Facsimile: (888) 522-1692
          E-mail: kleinman@kleinmanllc.com

The Defendants are represented by:

          Joseph P. McNulty, Esq.
          CARROLL MCNULTY KULL LLC
          570 Lexington Avenue, 8th Floor
          New York, NY 10022
          Telephone: (212) 252-0004
          Facsimile: (212) 252-0444
          E-mail: jmcnulty@cmk.com


SPOTIFY: David Lowery Balks at Royalties Class Action Settlement
----------------------------------------------------------------
Paul Resnikoff, writing for Digital Music News, reports that
staunch artist activist David Lowery is fighting Spotify, Goldman
Sachs, HFA, and the NMPA to the bitter end, with a $200 million
lawsuit wavering in the wind.  After Digital Music News
effectively declared his contentious class action deflated,
Mr. Lowery fought back by accusing Spotify and its mega-investor,
Goldman Sachs, of hoodwinking DMN into a favorable headline that
plays well for Wall Street manipulation.

The big blowback follows a big victory for Spotify, with 96% of
publishers represented by the National Music Publishers'
Association (NMPA) agreeing to an out-of-court arrangement.  In a
discussion on July 12, NMPA president David Israelite shared the
opt-in results with Digital Music News, and earlier confirmed
details of the Spotify arrangement to compensate unpaid parties.


But that misses the entire point of the class action, according to
Mr. Lowery.  "Beg to differ," Mr. Lowery blasted in DMN's comment
section.  "This doesn't do anything to the class action. The class
action is about UNLICENSED SONGS not UNMATCHED ROYALTIES."

In other words, the NMPA-structured agreement is a sideshow
designed to dupe songwriters and unsophisticated publishers.
"Songs represented by NMPA publishers were never really the issue
here.  Why? In most cases the licensing was done via modified
compulsory by NMPA owned Harry Fox Agency.  The unlicensed songs
are most likely to belong to non-NMPA publishers and songwriters."

"However if you are Spotify or Goldman Sachs and you need to
convince investors that the problem is cleared up this headline
works! Let the securities fraud begin!"

In follow-up email correspondence, Mr. Lowery confirmed those
comments to DMN, though questions of whether Mr. Lowery can
achieve a critical mass of litigants remain paramount.
Mr. Lowery noted that 100 participating class action members were
needed to move the case forward, and raised the strong possibility
that this class can be achieved.  "The court determines if there
likely are more than 100 affected songwriters," Mr. Lowery
relayed.  "Then it's a class.  All similarly situated songwriters
are automatically in. You can opt out if you like, but unless you
do you are in."

On the topic of whether '96% of publishers' is actually accurate,
Lowery offered a concrete breakdown of who might be left out of
that equation.  "[Israelite is] saying market share equal to 96%,"
Mr. Lowery offered.  "In a superstar economy like the music
business, 96% by market share may represent only the most popular
10% (?) of songs/songwriters."

And, maybe the NMPA and their members don't actually have the
authority to commit their songwriters into their structured
agreement.  "Just because publishers opted in NMPA deal, they may
not have right to opt in for their songwriters," Mr. Lowery
offered.  "Especially in administration deals.  The Survey Monkey
form that TuneCore used is evidence that  they had no legal right
to opt in their songwriters."

The Wixen Problem.

Then, there's this: a major defection from a serious publisher:
Wixen Music Publishing, Inc.  This letter, leaked to Digital Music
News, squarely indicates the Wixen is not participating in the
NMPA-structured agreement.

Whether Wixen constitutes a fringe minority of publishers that
opted-out is an important question.  The company counts more than
2,000 individual songwriters and publishers, hardly a number to
sneeze at.  "We would match our client list against any slate in
the music business," the Calabassas, CA-based company boasts on
its website.  "And our clients stay with us forever."

But the presence of at least one uncooperative publisher,
especially one of this size, indicates that there are more out
there.  Indeed, Mr. Lowery is making the calculation that a
verifiable class won't be hard to achieve.  "Simply put: what are
the odds that at least 100 songwriters did not opt into the NMPA
deal?  Infringement damages are calculated per track not per
spin," Mr. Lowery continued.

"Even at the lower end of statutory damages for willful
infringement (at $10,000 a song), my catalogue racks up 1.5
million in damages.  At a maximum of $150k? My catalogue racks up
$22.5 million."


STANFORD UNIVERSITY: Faces "Burns" Class Suit in N.D. California
----------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been commenced against Stanford
University, Pac-12 Conference, and the National Collegiate
Athletic Association (NCAA).

The case is captioned David Burns, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated v. Stanford University, Pac-12
Conference, and NCAA, Case No. 4:16-cv-03805-KAW (N.D. Cal., July
7, 20160.

Stanford University is a private research university in Stanford,
California.

Pac-12 Conference is a collegiate athletic conference that
operates in the Western United States.

The National Collegiate Athletic Association is an organization
that administers intercollegiate athletics.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Stewart Ryan Pollock, Esq.
      EDELSON PC
      123 Townsend St, Suite 100
      San Francisco, CA 94107
      Telephone: (415) 212-9300
      E-mail: spollock@edelson.com


SUNTRUST BANK: Depositor Gets Another Stab at Class Certification
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case captioned BICKERSTAFF, v. SUNTRUST BANK, No. S15G1295
(Ga.), the Supreme Court of Georgia reversed the ruling of the
Court of Appeals which held that the class lacks numerosity for
class certification.

Jeff Bickerstaff, Jr., who was a SunTrust Bank depositor, filed a
complaint against SunTrust on behalf of himself and all others
similarly situated alleging the bank's overdraft fee constitutes
the charging of usurious interest.

SunTrust filed a motion to compel arbitration, but that motion was
denied in an order finding Bickerstaff had substantially complied
with the contract's arbitration rejection requirements when he
supplied the required information to SunTrust in the pleadings
filed by his attorney on his behalf prior to the notice deadline.

On April 13, 2013, Bickerstaff moved to certify a class of all
Georgia citizens with a SunTrust deposit agreement who, from a
date four years prior to the date Bickerstaff filed his complaint,
had at least one overdraft of $500.00 or less resulting from an
ATM or debit card transaction and paid an overdraft fee on that
transaction.  That motion was denied.

On appeal, the Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court, holding,
in essence, that the contractual language in the case requiring
individual notification of the decision to reject arbitration did
not permit Bickerstaff to reject the deposit agreement's
arbitration clause on behalf of other putative class members by
virtue of the filing of his class action complaint.  The Court of
Appeals opined, since Bickerstaff's complaint could not serve as
notification of rejection of arbitration by any other depositor,
the class consists of only one depositor and lacks numerosity for
class certification.

The Supreme Court reversed, holding that "the terms of the
arbitration rejection provision of SunTrust's deposit agreement do
not prevent Bickerstaff's class action complaint from tolling the
contractual limitation for rejecting that provision on behalf of
all putative class members until such time as the class may be
certified and each member makes the election to opt out or remain
in the class.  Accordingly, the numerosity requirement of OCGA
section 9-11-23(a)(1) for pursuing a class complaint is not
defeated on this ground."

A full-text copy of the Supreme Court's July 8, 2016 ruling is
available at https://is.gd/iqbc83 from Leagle.com.

Jason James Carter -- carter@bmelaw.com -- Steven Jason
Rosenwasser -- rosenwasser@bmelaw.com -- Michael Brian Terry --
terry@bmelaw.com -- Joshua Ferber Thorpe, BONDURANT, MIXSON &
ELMORE, LLP, for Appellant.

C. Ronald Ellington -- cre@uga.edu -- for Appellant.

J. Benjamin Finley -- bfinley@thefinleyfirm.com -- THE FINLEY
FIRM, P.C., for Appellant.

William N. Withrow, Jr. -- william.withrow@troutmansanders.com --
Jaime L. Theriot, Lindsey Elisa Bowen, TROUTMAN SANDERS LLP, for
Appellee.

John Frank Salter, Jr., THE BARNES LAW GROUP, LLC, for Amicus
Appellant.

Roy M. Sobelson, GEORGIA STATE UNIVERSITY COLLEGE OF LAW, for
Amicus Appellant.

William V. Custer IV -- bill.custer@bryancave.com -- Jennifer
Burch Dempsey -- jennifer.dempsey@bryancave.com -- BYRAN CAVE LLP,
for Amicus Appellee.

Hardy Gregory, Jr., George H. Carley, CARLEY, GREGORY & GREGORY,
for Amicus Appellee.

William Joseph Sheppard -- wsheppard@jamesbatesllp.com -- JAMES
BATES BRANNON GROOVER, LLP, for Amicus Appellee.


TODD A. MIKLES: 1600 Barberry Suit Removed to S.D. California
-------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit captioned 1600 Barberry Lane 8, LLC and
1600 Barberry Lane 9, LLC, on behalf of itself/themselves and all
others similarly situated v. Todd A. Mikles, Daymark Residential
Management, Inc., Sovereign Capital Management Group, Inc.,
Cottonwood Residential O.P., LP, and Does 1 through 40, Case No.
37-2016-00019030-CU-BT-CTL, was removed from the Superior Court,
San Diego County, Central Division to the U.S. District Court
Southern District of California (San Diego). The District Court
Clerk assigned 3:16-cv-01749-AJB-KSC to the proceeding.

The Defendants own and operate a real estate company headquartered
at 750 B St #2620, San Diego, CA 92101.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Kenneth Catanzarite, Esq.
      CATANZARITE LAW CORPORATION
      2331 West Lincoln Avenue
      Anaheim, CA 92801
      Telephone: (714) 520-5544
      Facsimile: (714) 520-0680
      E-mail: kcatanzarite@catanzarite.com

The Defendant is represented by:

      Henry H. Oh, Esq.
      SHUMENER, ODSON & OH LLP
      550 S. Hope Street, Suite 1050
      Los Angeles, CA 90071
      Telephone: (213) 344-4200
      Facsimile: (213) 344-4193
      E-mail: hoh@soollp.com


TRUMP UNIVERSITY: Judge Delays Ruling on Video Depositions
----------------------------------------------------------
Chicago Tribune reports that a federal judge who has been a target
of criticism from Donald Trump is taking time to decide whether to
release videos of the Republican presidential candidate testifying
in a civil lawsuit.

Mr. Trump's attorneys worry the images will be used to tarnish his
campaign.  U.S. District Judge Gonzalo Curiel said on July 13
during a hearing in San Diego that he will focus on whether there
is "good cause" to protect the material over the public's right to
evaluate the videotaped deposition by Mr. Trump regarding the
fraud allegations against now-defunct Trump University.

Judge Curiel pressed Mr. Trump's attorney during the hour-long
hearing to specify what harm the videos might cause.  July 13 was
the first time Judge Curiel faced Mr. Trump's attorneys since the
judge permitted the release of unrelated documents in a class-
action lawsuit alleging fraud, a move that led Trump to intensify
his unusual attacks on the judge that included mention of his
Mexican heritage.

Judge Curiel asked Mr. Trump's lawyer Daniel Petrocelli to explain
how the potential harm overrides the public's right to evaluate a
presidential candidate and potential future "leader of the free
world?"

Mr. Petrocelli answered: "The court's duty is not to facilitate
public elections.  The court's duty is to facilitate a fair
trial."

The lawsuits allege that Trump University, which wasn't accredited
as a school, gave seminars and classes across the country that
were like infomercials, constantly pressuring students to spend up
to $35,000 for mentorships and, in the end, failing on its promise
to teach success in real estate.

News organizations want full transcripts and video of Trump
testifying at an all-day deposition Dec. 10 at his New York office
and for three hours on Jan. 21 in a Las Vegas law office. Nearly
all transcripts have been released.

Mr. Petrocelli told Judge Curiel that he has no problem with
unsealing the remaining transcripts, but the video clips would be
used in campaign attack ads and elsewhere, tainting the jury pool.

"They would be subjected to massive -- perhaps unprecedented --
public dissemination," Mr. Petrocelli told the court.

He pointed out another judge in a lawsuit involving Hillary
Clinton's email practices allowed the release of deposition
transcripts, but no video.

News organizations argue that the public has a right to the
complete record, given how Trump has touted his business acumen.
Dan Laidman, the lawyer representing the news organizations, said
the clips would enhance the accuracy of reporting on the case.

Lawyers representing Trump University's former customers say the
videos present "a more complete picture" than the transcripts.

Mr. Trump can be seen in them explaining his blog posts in 2008
that Bill Clinton was a great president and Hillary Clinton would
make a great president or vice president.  Of his praise for
Hillary Clinton, he said: "I didn't give it a lot of thought,
because I was in business."

Judge Curiel did not say when he will issue his ruling.

An adverse ruling for Trump may test his pledge in early June to
avoid talking about the judge. Trump's earlier remarks on the
judge's ethnicity drew criticism from Republican leaders.


UBER TECHNOLOGIES: "Cullinane" Suit Sent to Arbitration
-------------------------------------------------------
In the case captioned RACHEL CULLINANE, JACQUELINE NUNEZ,
ELIZABETH SCHAUL, AND ROSS McDONAGH, on behalf of themselves and
all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. UBER TECHNOLOGIES,
INC., Defendant, Civil Action No. 14-14750-DPW (D. Mass.), Judge
Douglas P. Woodlock allowed the defendant's motion seeking to
compel arbitration of the dispute pursuant to the Federal
Arbitration Act, and dismissed the case.

A full-text copy of Judge Woodlock's July 8, 2016 memorandum and
order is available at https://is.gd/sfJRSg from Leagle.com.

The plaintiffs in the putative class action are a group of users
of the ride-sharing phone application designed and managed by the
defendant Uber Technologies.  They alleged that Uber overcharged
them for travel to and from Boston Logan Airport and East Boston
by imposing fictitious fees hidden in charges for legitimate local
tolls.  The plaintiffs sought class action relief pursuant to
MASS. GEN. LAWS ch. 93A, section 9, and accused Uber of unjust
enrichment.

Rachel Cullinane, Jacqueline Nunez, Plaintiffs, represented by
Elizabeth A. Ryan -- eryan@baileyglasser.com -- Bailey & Glasser
LLP & John J. Roddy -- jroddy@baileyglasser.com -- Bailey &
Glasser LLP.

Elizabeth Schaul, Ross McDonagh, Plaintiffs, represented by John
J. Roddy, Bailey & Glasser LLP.

Uber Technologies, Inc., Defendant, represented by S. Elaine
McChesney -- elaine.mcchesney@morganlewis.com -- Morgan, Lewis &
Bockius LLP, Emma D. Hall -- emma.hall@morganlewis.com -- Morgan
Lewis & Bockius LLP & Lawrence T. Stanley, Jr. --
lawrence.stanley@morganlewis.com -- Morgan, Lewis & Bockius LLP.


UBER TECHNOLOGIES: Limousine Firms File Class Action
----------------------------------------------------
Eliot Kleinberg, writing for, reports that Palm Beach County gave
the app-based ride service Uber treatment that wasn't just unfair
to taxis and limos, it was unlawful, four limousine firms say in a
federal class-action lawsuit.

The suit, which targets the county's treatment of San Francisco-
based Uber parent Rasier LLC, was filed on July 12 in U.S.
District Court by Boyce Transportation, operating as A1A Airport
and Limousine Service; Act One Limousine; Priority Limousine and
Transportation; and Dignitary Services.

During the local, regional, statewide and national debate over how
much, if at all, governments should regulate app-based firms, the
taxi and limo companies have said rules give the app-based ride
services an unfair advantage and don't go far enough to protect
the public.

On April 19, county commissioners set rules for Uber and Lyft and
similar ride operations that those firms have said guarantee they
will operate safely.

For the nearly 19 months, ending April 19, that Uber was under a
temporary operating agreement imposed in September 2014, it
exempted Uber and other firms from rules to which taxis and limos
still were subject, the suit says.

"On various occasions, Palm Beach County has acknowledged that the
plaintiffs and Rasier are both subject to the Code and are thus
similarly situated in all material respects," the suit argues.
"Despite these admissions, Palm Beach County nevertheless bowed to
the political pressure created by Rasier and entered into an
unlawful agreement that allowed Rasier, and Rasier alone, to
operate outside the law."

Palm Beach County Attorney Denise Nieman on July 13 reiterated her
department's policy of not commenting on active suits.

Efforts on July 13 to reach an Uber spokesman and attorneys for
the plaintiffs were unsuccessful.

Public Safety Director Stephanie Sejnoha, who's coordinated much
of the county's dealings with the app-based ride service, said on
July 13 she'd been advised not to discuss the county's handling of
Uber even in general because of active lawsuits.

A1A and four other firms filed a separate suit in federal court in
May 2015, also arguing the county gave special treatment to Uber.
Those plaintiffs were A1A, North County Transportation, Apollo
Transportation Services, Metro Premier Car Service and Prestige
Limousines Inc.

In February, Fort Pierce-based U.S. District Judge Robin L.
Rosenberg dismissed that case but permitted the firms to file an
amended complaint, which they did.

In late May, Rosenberg tossed the third of three counts, and part
of the second count, agreeing with the county's argument that the
suit was made moot by the county commissioners' April 19 action.
Rosenberg wrote at the time that the firms may continue to pursue
damages for the time that the temporary operating agreement was in
place.

Meanwhile, in May, Uber sued the county and asked a judge to block
it from revealing its number of pick-ups and drop-offs at the
airport, saying that's a protected trade secret.  That issue is
pending.


UFC: Congressman Pushes for Independent Ranking System
------------------------------------------------------
Gene Maddaus, writing for Variety, reports that when WME/IMG
bought the Ultimate Fighting Championship for $4 billion, it
signaled that it sees tremendous upside for the global expansion
of the sport.  But the agency is also taking on risks, as some
fighters are waging a struggle for greater power in the sport,
which could pose a threat to the UFC's business model.

One of the key figures in the fight is Markwayne Mullin, a former
MMA fighter who is now a Republican congressman from Oklahoma. Mr.
Mullin has proposed legislation that would force the UFC to share
financial information with fighters and create an independent
ranking system, both steps that would give greater leverage to
fighters.  The UFC has been adamantly opposed to the bill, called
the Ali Expansion Act.

"Maybe this new group will see the importance of the athlete to
make sure the sport is sustainable," Mr. Mullin told Variety on
July 12.  "The UFC has treated fighters like they were a
commodity."

Mr. Mullin used to fight both in the cage and in the Octagon.  He
says he never made very much money, and after paying for his own
surgeries he probably didn't break even.

The UFC has grown in leaps and bounds since then.  Once considered
a brutal fringe sport, it has become mainstream and tremendously
profitable, and is poised to expand in Europe and Asia.  But many
fighters allege that success has come at the expense of fighters.
For years, they have complained about long-term contracts, a
rankings system controlled by the UFC and low pay among the lower
ranks of performers.

"The minimum wage in the NBA is $500,000," said Nate Quarry, a
former UFC fighter who is now a plaintiff in a class-action suit
against the promotion.  "The athletes in the UFC have no minimum
wage. They have no rights to negotiate."

Some have banded together to form the Mixed Martial Arts Fighters
Association, which some see as a precursor to a union.  The class-
action lawsuit accuses the UFC of being an illegal monopoly and
seeks to open up contracts to allow for greater competition. And
then there's Mr. Mullin's bill, which would extend regulations
that apply to boxing as well as MMA, creating an independent
ranking system and giving more leverage to the fighters.

None of these issues was seen as serious enough to prevent WME/IMG
from paying a record-setting price for the UFC.  But as the sport
reaches "the next level," as UFC president Dana White put it when
announcing the sale, some say it will have to take a fresh look at
labor relations.

Erik Magraken, an attorney who blogs at CombatSportsLaw.com, says
the sale may finally give the fighters' association some teeth.

"If I'm a fighter and I'm reading the headlines of the $4 billion
valuation, my next call would be to the fighters' association to
get on board," he said.

If he were conducting due diligence for the buyers, he said he
would be most worried about "fighters demanding an objective
revenue split consistent with other major sports."

WME/IMG declined to comment for this story.  The sale will not be
final for several more weeks.  Ms. White will stay on as
president, so any changes may be very slow in coming.

The UFC has been adamantly opposed to Mr. Mullin's bill, which
does not seem to pose a risk of becoming law anytime soon.  But
Mr. Mullin, the only member of Congress who is a former MMA
fighter, argues that giving more power to fighters is in the
sport's best long-term interests.  With more ability to negotiate,
fighters would have longer careers and would attract larger
fanbases, he says.

"The only way the sport is sustainable is the fighters being
treated on an even playing field," Mr. Mullin says.  The bill, he
said, "is great for UFC.  It doesn't spit up athletes and throw
them out.  That's what happens right now.  Athletes are here today
and gone tomorrow . . . This is about sustaining the sport for the
promoter and the athlete."


UNILEVER UNITED: Hearing on Class Cert. Bid Set for August 29
-------------------------------------------------------------
The Hon. Judge Sharon Johnson Coleman entered an order in the
class action lawsuit styled Virgil Fleming, et al., Plaintiff,
v. Unilever United States, Inc., et al., the Defendant, Case No.
1:14-cv-06117 (N.D. Ill.), continuing Plaintiff's motion to
certify class to a next date.

According to the docket entry made by the Clerk on July 18, 2016,
the status hearing was held on July 18, 2016. Another status
hearing is set for August 29, 2016 at 09:00 a.m.

A copy of the Order is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=Qy0OCqR1


US BANKCARD: Faces "Vera" Suit Over PCI DSS Non-compliance Fees
---------------------------------------------------------------
David Vera d/b/a QC Massage Therapy, Zen Massage Center, and Thai
Foot Massage, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated v. US Bankcard Services, Inc., Ela Von, Inc., and Does 1
through 25, inclusive, Case No. BC626185 (Cal. Super. Ct., July 7,
2016), seeks to stop the Defendants' practice of imposing Payment
Card Industry ("PCI") Data Security System ("DSS") non-compliance
fees on merchants, without providing them with anything of value
in return.

US Bankcard Services, Inc. is a provider of merchant services for
credit card and other electronic payment transactions.

Ela Von, Inc. is a processor of credit card transactions and a
subsidiary of U.S. Bancorp.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Michele L. Jackson, Esq.
      LAW OFFICES OF MICHELE L. JACKSON
      19200 Von Karman Avenue, Suite 400
      Irvine, CA 92612
      Telephone: (949) 622-5595
      Facsimile: (949) 622-5598
      E-mail: mjackson@michelejacksonlaw.com

         - and -

      Gretchen Carpenter, Esq.
      CARPENTER LAW
      1230 Rosecrans Ave., Suite 300
      Manhattan Beach, CA 90266
      Telephone: (424) 456-3183
      E-mail: gretchen@gcarpenterlaw.com


VALVE: Law Firm Invites U.S. Residents to Join Skin Gambling Case
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Callum Leslie, writing for The Daily Dot, reports that the second
Counter-Strike skin gambling class action lawsuit is now open for
any U.S. resident who has fallen victim to what lawyers describe
as "deception" from the gambling sites and Valve.

The lawsuit was filed in Florida by an anonymous mother on behalf
of her son, who she claims lost money on skin gambling sites while
betting underage.

Valve is named as a defendant in the suit, along with CSGO Lotto
and its owners, YouTubers Thomas "ProSyndicate" Cassell and Thomas
"Tmartn" Martin (who is also a co-owner of top esports franchise
EnVyUs).  That site became the center of controversy in June after
a YouTube video revealed that Cassell and Martin had promoted
gambling on CSGO Lotto without revealing they were owners.

The case has been taken on by Jones Ward PLC, a trial attorney
firm that specializes in class action lawsuits.  The majority of
its cases have involved pharmaceuticals, but the firm has also
been involved in suits against Draft Kings, Fan Duel, and TD Bank.

The firm's website is now inviting applications to join the case.

"We are working diligently to recover funds from U.S. residents
who have lost money or skins through these illegal gambling
contracts," the website says.  "We cannot guarantee that we will
be able to recover the value lost by all users, or that we will
recover at all, due to the nature of litigation.  Still, we seek
to assist every user that has been wronged by these companies and
can only do so with your help."

It is still unclear how successful a class action suit of this
nature might be.  If Jones Ward manage to get the suit to court,
it might at the very least put Valve, Counter-Strike's developer,
in the middle of a public relations firestorm.


VALVE: Distances from Counter-Strike Skin Gambling Industry
-----------------------------------------------------------
Callum Leslie, writing for Daily Dot, reports that after weeks of
controversy surrounding Counter-Strike skin gambling, developer
Valve is finally taking steps to distance itself from the growing
industry.

The developer says its Steam API was not intended to be used for
the purpose of skin gambling and that it will begin reaching out
to these companies to demand they cease operations.

"Using the OpenID API and making the same web calls as Steam users
to run a gambling business is not allowed by our API nor our user
agreements." the statement said.  "We are going to start sending
notices to these sites requesting they cease operations through
Steam, and further pursue the matter as necessary."

The news comes hot on the heels of a major scandal involving the
site CSGO Lotto.  Two YouTubers, Thomas "ProSyndicate" Cassell and
Thomas "Tmartn" Martin -- who is also a co-owner of major esports
organization EnVyUs -- made videos gambling on the site without
disclosing that they in fact owned it.  This led to a class action
lawsuit naming the pair and Valve as defendants -- the second such
addition class action suit which was filed against Valve.

Valve's statement also makes clear that it does not receive any
revenue from any of these gambling sites, and that they do not
have any business relationship with them.  The first class action
lawsuit claimed that Valve received revenue from the gambling
industry, but no evidence for this has ever come to light.

If these companies don't find workarounds, this could mean the end
of a major secondary industry in esports.  A Bloomberg report put
the value of the skin betting industry at over $2 billion, far
more than the overall value of the esports industry directly. Many
predict a decline in Counter-Strike viewership if the gambling
audience lose interest, but the wider impact will likely not be
apparent for weeks and months to come.


VALVE CORPORATION: Faces "Reed" Suit in New Jersey Dist. Ct.
------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been commenced against Valve
Corporation, Csgolotto Inc., Trevor A. Martin, and Thomas Cassell.

The case is captioned Jayme Reed, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated v. Valve Corporation, Csgolotto
Inc., Trevor A. Martin, and Thomas Cassell, Case No. 2:16-cv-
04099-ES-JAD (D.N.J., July 7, 2016).

The Defendants operate a digital distribution company
headquartered in Bellevue, Washington.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      James A. Barry, Esq.
      LOCKS LAW FIRM LLC
      801 N. Kings Highway
      Cherry Hill, NJ 08034
      Telephone: (856) 663-8200
      Facsimile: (856) 661-8400
      E-mail: jbarry@lockslaw.com


VIVENDI UNIVERSAL: Appeal Filed From Judgment in Securities Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Defendant Vivendi, S.A., filed an appeal from a court ruling in
the lawsuit styled In Re Vivendi Universal, S.A., Securities
Litigation, Case No. 1:02-cv-05571-PAE-HBP, in the U.S. District
Court for the Southern District of New York (New York City).

The appellate case is captioned as In Re Vivendi Universal, S.A.,
Securities Litigation, Case No. 16-2489, in the United States
Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit.

Vivendi S.A. seeks review of the final judgment entered by the
Hon. Paul A. Engelmayer on July 14, 2016.  The Final Judgment is
entered against Vivendi and in favor of each plaintiff Class
Member claimant.  The Court ordered that each plaintiff Class
Member claimant is entitled to recover from Vivendi the principal
sum and prejudgment interest on the principal sum of its claim.

The stay of execution or enforcement of judgment pending appeal
previously ordered by the District Court with respect to the Rule
54(b) Judgment of December 22, 2014, will remain in force pending
final determination of the existing appeals and of any additional
appeals arising from the Final Judgment, and Vivendi will not be
required to increase the Security Amount previously deposited into
the Court registry interest bearing account to stay execution or
enforcement of the Final Judgment pending appeal.

The District Court will retain jurisdiction of the Action for
purposes of addressing issues and procedures arising in connection
with distribution of the aggregate damages and pre- and post-
judgment interest and with the Court's Order of April 29, 2016,
concerning the payment of the Plaintiffs' attorneys' fees and
reimbursement of expenses, as may be necessary, once all appeals
are final.

A copy of the Final Judgment is available for free at:

     http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=g30tdpfe

Plaintiffs-Appellees Prigest, S.A., Tocqueville Finance, S.A, Yong
Man Kim, Price Hal, W. Scott Polland, Jr., Nicholas A. Radosevich,
Pearson-Doniger Family, Rosenbaum Partners, L.P., Marc Rovner,
Sheldon Seid and Leslie Turbowitz are represented by:

          Stuart M. Grant, Esq.
          GRANT & EISENHOFER P.A.
          123 Justison Street
          Wilmington, DE 19801
          Telephone: (302) 622-7070
          E-mail: sgrant@gelaw.com

Plaintiff-Appellee Rosenbaum Partners, L.P., is represented by:

          Gregory Mark Nespole, Esq.
          WOLF HALDENSTEIN ADLER FREEMAN & HERZ LLP
          270 Madison Avenue
          New York, NY 10016
          Telephone: (212) 545-4600
          E-mail: nespole@whafh.com

Plaintiffs-Appellees Miami Group, consisting of the Retirement
System for General Employees of the City of Miami Beach, Oliver M.
Gerard, Francois R. Gerard, Prigest S.A. and Tocqueville Finance
S.A.; and Pearson-Doniger Family, consisting of two sister and
their respective family members Beatrice Doniger, Bruce Doniger,
Grandchildren's Trust by Bruce Doniger Trustee, Alison Doniger,
Michael Doniger, Edward B. Brunswick and Ruth Pearson Trust
Pearson Trustee, are represented by:

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

Plaintiff-Appellee GAMCO Investors, Incorporated, is represented
by:

          Harold F. McGuire, Jr., Esq.
          D.F. MCGUIRE & ASSOCIATES, LLC
          777 Westchester Avenue
          White Plains, NY 10604
          Telephone: (914) 368-0016
          Facsimile: (914) 368-0017
          E-mail: hmcguire@dfmcguire.com

Plaintiffs-Appellees Plaintiff KBC Asset Management N.V.,
Capitalia Asset Management SGR, S.p.A., Capitalia Investment
Management S.A., Eurizon Capital SGR S.p.A., KBC Asset Management
S.A., Jeffrey Kurtz, Sjunde Ap-Fonden, Varma Mutual Pension
Insurance Company, Danske Invest Administration A/S, AFA
Sjukforsakringsaktiebolag, AMF Pension Fondforvaltning AB,
Arbetsmarknadsforsakringar, Pensionsforsakringsaktiebolag,
Pensionskassernes Adminstration A/S, Arbejdsmarkedets
Tillaegspension, Industriens Pensionsforikring A/S, Arca SGR
S.p.A., Ilmarinen Mutual Pension Insurance Company, Prima Societa'
di Gestione del Risparmio S.p.A., Nordea Invest Fund Management
A/S, Nordea Fonder AB, Nordea Investment Funds Company I.S.A.,
Nordea Fondene Norge AS, Nordea Fondbolag Finland AB, Swedbank
Robur Fonder AB, Fjarde AP-Fonden, Yong Man Kim and AGF Asset
Management, S.A., are represented by:

          Javier Bleichmar, Esq.
          BLEICHMAR FONTI & AULD LLP
          7 Times Square
          New York, NY 10036
          Telephone: (212) 789-1341
          Facsimile: (212) 205-3961
          E-mail: jbleichmar@bfalaw.com

Plaintiffs-Appellees Oppenheim Kapitalanlagegesellschaft mbH,
Baden-Wurttembergische Investmentgesellschaft mbH, Barclays Global
Investors (Deutcshland), Cominvest Asset Management GMBH, Deutsche
Asset Management Investmentgesellschaft mbH, DWS (Austria)
Investmentgesellschaft mbH, DWS Investment GmbH, Erste-Sparinvest
Kapitalanlagegesellschaft m.b.H., Forsta AP-fonden, Fortis
Investment Management SA, Landesbank Berlin Investment GmbH, LBBW
Luxemburg S.A., Oppenheim Asset Management Services S.a.r.l.,
Pioneer Investment Management Limited, Pioneer Investment
Management SGRPA, Pioneer Investments Austria GmbH, Pioneer
Investments Kapitalanlagegesellschaft mbH, Raiffeisen
Kapitalanlage-Gesellschaft m.b.H., SEB Investment Management AB,
Skandia Insurance Company Ltd., Union Asset Management Holding AG,
Universal-Investment-Gesellschaft Mbh and SEB Investment GmbH are
represented by:

          Joseph F. Rice, Esq.
          MOTLEY RICE LLC
          28 Bridgeside Boulevard
          P.O. Box 1792
          Mount Pleasant, SC 29465
          Telephone: (843) 216-9237
          E-mail: jrice@motleyrice.com

Plaintiffs-Appellees Andra Ap-Fonden, Bayern-Invest
Kapitalanlagegesellschaft mbH, Deka Investment GmbH, Deka
International (Ireland) Limited, Deka International S.A.
Luxemburg, Deka Fundmaster Investmentgesellschaft MBH, Fideuram
Investimenti S.G.R., Fideuram Gestions S.A., Interfund Sica V,
Frankfurt-Trust Investment-Gesellschaft MBH, Frankfurt-Trust
Invest Luxemburg AG, Helaba Invest Kapitalanlagegesellschaft MBH,
HSBC Trinkaus & Burkhardt AG, Internationale
Kapitalanlagegesellschaft mbH, Meag Munich Ergo
Kapitalanlagegesellschaft mbH, Meag Munich Ergo Asset Management
GMBH, Metzler Investment GmbH, Metzler Ireland LTD, Nordcon
Investment Management AG, Norges Bank, Swiss Life Holding AG,
Swiss Life Investment Management Holding AG, Swiss Life Asset
Management AG, Swiss Life Funds AG, Swiss Life (Belgium) S.A.,
Swiss Life Asset Management GmbH, Swiss Life Asset Management
(Nederland) B.V., Tredje Ap-Fonden, Westlb Mellon Asset Management
Kapitalanlagegesellschaft MBH, Alecta Pensionsforsakring,
Omsesidigt, AFA Livforsakringsaktiebolag, AFA
Trygghetsforsakringsaktiebolag and Caisse de Depot et Placement du
Quebec are represented by:

          James Sabella, Esq.
          GRANT & EISENHOFER P.A.
          485 Lexington Avenue
          New York, NY 10017
          Telephone: (646) 722-8520
          E-mail: jsabella@gelaw.com

Plaintiffs-Appellees Ruth Pearson Trust, Gerard Morel, Olivier
Chastan, Reed S. Clark, Daha Davis, Collen Dodi, Ruth Pearson
Trust Pearson Trustee, Edward B Brunswick, Michael Doniger, Alison
Doniger, Grandchildren's Trust by Bruce Doniger Trustee, Beatrice
Doniger, Jeffrey Kurtz, Bruce Doniger, Yong Man Kim, Price Hal, W.
Scott Polland, Jr., Nicholas A. Radosevich, Pearson-Doniger
Family, Rosenbaum Partners, L.P., Marc Rovner, Sheldon Seid and
Leslie Turbowitz are represented by:

          Brian Kerr, Esq.
          BROWER PIVEN, A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION
          475 Park Avenue South
          New York, NY 10016
          Telephone: (212) 501-9000
          Facsimile: (212) 501-0300
          E-mail: kerr@browerpiven.com

Plaintiffs-Appellees Liberty Media Corporation, LMC Capital LLC,
Liberty Programming Company LLC, LMC USA VI, Inc., LMC USA VII,
Inc., LMC USA VIII, Inc., LMC USA X, Inc., Liberty HSN LLC
Holdings, Inc., and Liberty Media International, Inc., are
represented by:

          Michael L. Calhoon, Esq.
          BAKER BOTTS LLP
          1299 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
          Washington, DC 20004
          Telephone: (202) 639-7954
          Facsimile: (202) 585-1096
          E-mail: michael.calhoon@bakerbotts.com

               - and -

          Alexandra Walsh, Esq.
          PAUL, WEISS, RIFKIND, WHARTON & GARRISON LLP
          2001 K Street, NW
          Washington, DC 20006
          Telephone: (202) 223-7300
          E-mail: awalsh@wilkinsonwalsh.com

Plaintiffs-Appellees Allianz Global Investors
Kapitalanlagegesellschaft MBH, Allianz Global Investors Luxembourg
S.A. and Allianz Global Investors Ireland Limited are represented
by:

          David Kessler, Esq.
          KESSLER TOPAZ MELTZER & CHECK, LLP
          280 King of Prussia Road
          Radnor, PA 19087
          Telephone: (610) 667-7706
          Facsimile: (610) 667-7056
          E-mail: dkessler@ktmc.com

Plaintiff-Appellee AGF Asset Management, S.A., is represented by:

          David J. Goldsmith, Esq.
          LABATON SUCHAROW LLP
          140 Broadway
          New York, NY 10005
          Telephone: (212) 907-0700
          Facsimile: (212) 883-7079
          E-mail: dgoldsmith@labaton.com

Plaintiff-Appellee Barry Family, LP, is represented by:

          Lionel Z. Glancy, Esq.
          GLANCY PRONGAY & MURRAY LLP
          1925 Century Park East
          Los Angeles, CA 90067
          Telephone: (310) 201-9150
          Facsimile: (310) 432-1495
          E-mail: lglancy@glancylaw.com

Plaintiff-Appellee Eleanor Turberg is represented by:

          Evan J. Kaufman, Esq.
          ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN & DOWD LLP
          58 South Service Road
          Melville, NY 11747
          Telephone: (631) 367-7100
          Facsimile: (631) 367-1173
          E-mail: ekaufman@rgrdlaw.com

Plaintiff-Appellee Bruce Doniger is represented by:

          Jeffrey A. Lamken, Esq.
          MOLOLAMKEN LLP
          600 New Hampshire Avenue, NW
          Washington, DC 20037
          Telephone: (202) 556-2010
          E-mail: jlamken@mololamken.com

               - and -

          Stephen T. Rodd, Esq.
          ABBEY SPANIER, LLP
          212 East 39th Street
          New York, NY 10016
          Telephone: (212) 889-3700
          E-mail: srodd@abbeyspanier.com

               - and -

          Michael Champlin Spencer, Esq.
          MILBERG LLP
          1 Penn Plaza
          New York, NY 10119
          Telephone: (212) 946-9450
          Facsimile: (212) 273-4395
          E-mail: mspencer@milberg.com

Other Plaintiffs-Appellees include Pensions Management (SWF)
Limited, CI Investments, Inc., Fortis Gesbeta SGIIC S.A., Gam Fund
Management Limited, Scottish Widows PLC, Scottish Widows Unit
Funds Limited, Lloyds TSB Group Pension Scheme No. 1, Lloyds TSB
Group Pension Scheme No. 2, Lloyds TSB Asset Finance Division
Pension Scheme, Lloyds TSB Offshore Funds Limited, Abbey Life
Assurance Company Limited, Irish Life Investment Managers Limited,
Eurizon Capital S.A., Allianz Global Investors France, S.A., WSV,
Norges Bank, and others, and Monte Paschi Asset Management S.G.R.
S.P.A.

Defendant-Appellant Vivendi, S.A., is represented by:

          James W. Quinn, Esq.
          WEIL, GOTSHAL & MANGES LLP
          767 5th Avenue
          New York, NY 10153
          Telephone: (212) 833-3897
          E-mail: james.quinn@weil.com

The other Defendants are Vivendi Universal, Jean-Marie Messier,
Guillaume Hannezo and Vivendi Universal S.A.


WAKE FOREST: Faces "Burkholder" Suit in Southern Dist. Indiana
--------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been commenced against Wake Forest
University, Atlantic Coast Conference, and The National Collegiate
Athletic Association.

The case is captioned Christopher Burkholder, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated v. Wake Forest University,
Atlantic Coast Conference, and The National Collegiate Athletic
Association, Case No. 1:16-cv-01812 (S.D. Ind., July 7, 20160.

Wake Forest University is a private, independent, nonprofit, non-
sectarian, coeducational research university in Winston-Salem,
North Carolina.

Atlantic Coast Conference is a collegiate athletic conference in
the United States of America.

The National Collegiate Athletic Association is an organization
that administers intercollegiate athletics.

Christopher Burkholder is a pro se plaintiff.


WESTERN AND SOUTHERN: Faces "Mancini" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Amy Mancini, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated v. The Western and Southern Life Insurance Company,
Western-Southern Life Assurance Company, W&S Brokerage Services,
Inc., and Does 1 through 20, inclusive, Case No. BC626281 (Cal.
Super. Ct., July 7, 2016), is brought against the Defendants for
failure to pay overtime wages in violation of the California Labor
Code.

The Defendants are in the business of providing insurance products
and services.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Ronald A. Marron, Esq.
      William B. Richards Jr., Esq.
      Skye Resendes, Esq.
      LAW OFFICES OF RONALD A. MARRON, APLC
      651 Arroyo Drive
      San Diego, CA 92103
      Telephone: (619) 696-9006
      Facsimile: (619) 564-6665
      E-mail: ron@consumersadvocates.com
              bill@consumersadvocates.com
              skye@consumersadvocates.com

         - and -

      Jeffrey P. Lendrum, Esq.
      LENDRUM LAW FIRM, APC
      120 Birminghan Dr., Suite 240E
      Cardiff By The Sea, CA 92007
      Telephone: (619) 239-4302
      Facsimile: (619) 239-4307
      E-mail: jpl@lendrumlaw.com


WESTCONSIN CREDIT: Sued Over Fair Credit Reporting Act Violation
----------------------------------------------------------------
Jasper Radunz and Jeremy Swenson, on behalf of themselves and all
others similarly situated v. WESTconsin Credit Union, Case No.
0:16-cv-02344 (D. Minn., July 7, 2016), is brought against the
Defendants for violation of the Fair Credit Reporting Act.

WESTconsin Credit Union is a not-for-profit financial credit
cooperative headquartered in Menomonie, Wisconsin.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


* Class Action Law Now in Force in India Following NCLT Creation
----------------------------------------------------------------
Lalit Kumar, writing for The Financial Express, reports that
class-action -- this buzzword is not new to Indian jurisprudence.
It is already embedded in statutes such as the CPC 1908 and the
Consumer Protection Act 1986, but has been rarely invoked.

Class-action gained popularity only when the Companies Act 2013
introduced it in Section 245.  Concurrent with the establishment
of the National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT) from June 1, 2016,
class-action has also been notified and is now in force.

The rules of the game are now going to change for good with
substantial rights being vested in shareholders and depositors to
file class-action suits with the NCLT over misconduct, not only
against errant companies and directors but also against their
auditors and other advisors, experts and consultants.

In 2005, the JJ Irani Committee voiced the need to introduce
class-action and derivative-action in Indian company law, but
these recommendations remained on the back-burner till India Inc
was shocked by the Satyam scam.

The company law of the day, Companies Act 1956, didn't have any
effective provision for mass shareholder activism and minority
protection.

While many class-action suits were successfully filed in the US by
holders of ADRs of Satyam, nothing could be done here in India as
the Companies Act 1956 did not permit this action.  Thus, the
legislature included specific class-action provisions in the
Companies Act 2013.  Section 245, which applies to all kinds of
companies except banks, meets this deficit.

The section provides that a certain number or percentage of
"members and depositors or any class of them", whichever is less,
can file an application before the NCLT.

The aggrieved members or depositors can seek an order restraining
a company from committing an act which is ultra vires of or is in
breach of the company's charter documents; declaring a resolution
altering the charter documents as void if such resolutions are
passed by superseding material facts or through a misstatement;
restraining the company from doing any act which is contrary to
the Companies Act or any other law; restraining the company from
taking action contrary to any resolution passed by the members; or
awarding damages, compensation demand or any suitable action from
or against the company, its directors, auditors and in some cases
even from experts, advisors or consultants.

In the case of a company and its directors, such damages or
compensation can be ordered for any fraudulent, unlawful or
wrongful act or omission by them; the auditors, on the other hand,
can be held accountable for any improper or misleading statement
in their audit report.

The auditor's liability will be joint, i.e., of both the audit
firm as well as the partner who prepared and signed the report.
To file a class-action suit, the members or depositors will need
to establish that the management's conduct of the company's
affairs are prejudicial to their or the company's interests.
While Section 245 lays the substantive law and provides that any
100 or more members or depositors, as the case may be, can file a
class-action, other aspects such as the minimum percentage of the
total number of the members/depositors that would be required for
filing class-action will be provided through rules that are
forthcoming from the ministry of corporate affairs.

It is suggested that the government should consider providing a
relatively lower threshold to ensure that class-action right is
within the reach of members and depositors.

Interestingly, the provisions for class-action are contained in
the chapter related to prevention of oppression and mismanagement
under the Companies Act 2013; therefore, a question arises what is
the need to have a separate provision for class-action when they
can be covered under the already existing provision of oppression
and mismanagement.

The remedies sought from class-action are very different from the
remedies derived from the general provisions of oppression and
mismanagement.

While, in the class-action, applicants seek an order restraining
the company and its directors from doing certain acts; remedies
under general oppression and mismanagement could be the
acquisition of shares or interest of the other members of the
company, restrictions on transfer or allotment of shares by the
company.

The order of the NCLT in a class-action matter will be binding not
only on the members or depositors who filed the class-action but
on all its members, depositors, auditors and others.

Whereas class-action is now a reality in Companies Act,
derivative-action is still not specifically provided for.
Derivative-action too plays a significant role in corporate
governance; therefore, similar provisions for them could have been
provided in the Companies Act.  However, that's a separate matter
and can be discussed at some other time.


* Draft Rules to Help Defrauded Student Loan Borrowers
------------------------------------------------------
Betsy Mayottem writing for US News, reports that a few weeks ago,
the Student Loan Ranger summarized the Department of Education's
recently proposed draft rules that would make it easier for
defrauded student loan borrowers to have a portion or all of their
federal student loans discharged.

Within that same draft rule, the Department of Education also
proposed some additional changes that are intended to help protect
students and the federal taxpayer by increasing transparency,
installing some financial protections and ensuring that consumers
have multiple avenues for potential relief if something should go
wrong.

These changes will also make it easier for those who pay for
education expenses out of pocket or with private student loans to
obtain relief if their school misrepresents itself or educational
outcomes.

Arbitration is a process where claimants have agreed to have a
third party rule on their dispute.  The draft rule would in some
cases prohibit schools that are participating in the federal
direct loan program from using mandatory predispute arbitration.

Although, as we discuss below, predispute arbitration can be
harmful to consumers, not all arbitration or mediation is bad.
Once finalized, the draft rules will only bring possible relief to
those students who financed their higher education with federal
student loans.

However, defrauded students have often paid for a portion of their
expenses out of pocket or through private or state loans. Because
the discharge rules don't allow for recovery for those amounts,
arbitration or legal proceedings may be students' only way to
possibly receive reimbursement in cases of school fraud or
misrepresentation.

The Trouble With Predispute Arbitration Clauses

In recent years, some industries, including educational
institutions, have begun inserting mandatory predispute
arbitration clauses in their contracts with consumers.  Since 2011
when the Supreme Court affirmed the use of such clauses, hundreds
of higher education institutions have added them, or similar
restrictions, to the enrollment contracts students are required to
sign to attend.

The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau recently found that such
clauses are especially prevalent in the consumer finance area --
with almost half of all credit card accounts subject to mandatory
predispute arbitration clauses.

Courts often encourage arbitration as a way to save costs for both
the claimants and the court system in cases of routine disputes,
especially those that arise between businesses. Opponents of such
clauses claim that mandatory arbitration often favors the business
that required the clause in the first place.

Some arbitration clauses, for example, require the hearing to be
held in a location that may be convenient for the business but
inconvenient to the consumer.  In addition to these travel costs,
some consumers may incur hundreds of dollars in filing fees just
to initiate the process.

In the higher education world, the school often pays for or at
least chooses the third-party arbitrators, making it difficult to
prevent bias if the arbitrator has the possibility to obtain a
repeat customer.

The other problem with these clauses is that they can cost the
consumer many of their rights to bring any future disputes to
court, effectively preventing many class-action suits.

Due to their very nature, though, class-action suits can put the
consumer on more equal ground with the business because they
consolidate resources and the potential evidence related to
multiple claims with the same complaint.  Class-action suits can
also be an effective way for consumers to pursue relief when the
same conduct or behavior has harmed them.

If finalized, the draft rule would prevent a school from forcing
students to use arbitration or an internal process in cases where
students feel they have a case that the school violated state laws
in relation to the students' federal direct loans or the
educational services the school provided.

However, because of the Department of Education's limited
authority, the rule would not prevent a school from requiring
arbitration and prohibiting participation in a class action
lawsuit for other types of claims.

The Case for Arbitration

As mentioned above, the Student Loan Ranger wants to be clear that
not all arbitration or mediation is bad.  In fact, in many cases,
arbitration between two parties who are on equal footing can be a
much more reasonable and even fairer option than going through the
often lengthy and expensive court process.

Many businesses choose to use a mutually agreed-upon arbitrator to
resolve a dispute after it arises to avoid the costs of
litigation.  And many states encourage such action to relieve the
burden of these cases on the court system.

This is why we support that the draft rule does not prevent
arbitration across the board but rather ensures that arbitration
can only be used if both parties are agreeable to it.

Even then, the draft rule would require schools to communicate
such cases of voluntary arbitration to the Department of Education
to ensure the department is aware of any potential borrower
defense claims, even if the borrowers never file for discharge.

Proponents of mandatory arbitration clauses argue that prohibiting
the clauses will put many schools out of business due to increased
legal expenses.  Draft rule supporters, though, point out that a
majority of nonprofit colleges and universities don't have such
clauses and they seem to be doing just fine.

Regardless of how the Department of Education finalizes the draft
rule, the trend for mandatory predispute arbitration clauses in
higher education may be waning.  In May 2016, Apollo Group -- the
University of Phoenix parent company -- announced it would no
longer use these clauses with students.


* New Arbitration Rules Boon for Credit Union Fee Suits
-------------------------------------------------------
Gordon Gibb, writing for LawyersandSettlements.com, reports that
of interest to anyone thinking of bringing a Credit Union
Overdraft Fees lawsuit are potential changes to existing
arbitration agreements that would allow for the possibility and
potential of a class action.

Back in May, the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB)
issued a proposal with regard to arbitration rules.  All too
often, according to the CFPB, clients signing up for a bank or
credit union account would, by default, have to agree to
arbitration as the sole means for settling disputes beyond an
individual Excessive Overdraft Fees Lawsuit -- which plaintiffs
are often loath to undertake alone due to the potential time and
costs associated with litigating a relatively small dispute.

Class actions are more cost-effective, as there is strength in
numbers; a class action can represent and include literally
thousands of similarly situated plaintiffs.  However, the vast
majority of arbitration agreements have clauses that prevent
participation in a class action.

Sign up for an account, and you pretty much sign away your right
to participate in a class-action lawsuit.

Under the CFPB proposal, an intensive document running no fewer
than 377 pages, participation in a class action will no longer be
struck down as an option in the majority of arbitration
agreements.

The proposal has been hailed as a potential victory for consumers
and litigants, and a major setback for credit unions, banks,
credit card companies and other firms in the financial sector.

"Many banks and financial companies avoid accountability by
putting arbitration clauses in their contracts that block groups
of their customers from suing them," said Richard Cordray, the
director of the CFPB, in a press release.  "Signing up for a
credit card or opening a bank account can often mean signing away
your right to take the company to court if things go wrong."

The CFPB proposal would still afford credit unions and banks the
option of arbitration as a means by which to resolve disputes,
such as excessive credit union overdraft fees.  However, the
arbitration process would no longer be mandatory, leaving
consumers with the right to join a class-action Credit Union
lawsuit if they so choose.  Clauses in arbitration agreements
would be required to state, explicitly, that a consumer cannot be
barred from participation in a class action.

"Under the status quo, arbitration agreements obstruct effective
enforcement of the law through class proceedings," the proposal
states.  "This harms consumers in two ways: it makes consumers
both more likely to be subject to potentially illegal conduct
because of underinvestment in compliance activities and deliberate
risk-taking by companies and makes consumers less likely to be
able to obtain meaningful relief when violations do occur."

The proposal would impose increased compliance costs, "including
the costs of forgoing potentially profitable (but also potentially
illegal) business practices that may increase class action
exposure, and in the increased costs to litigation class actions
themselves, including, in some cases, providing relief to a
class," the CFPB says.

Excessive overdraft fees have long been the bane of consumers.
They know that overdrafts are a fact of life in the age of the
debit card, and that a fee for an overdraft is warranted in most
cases.  However, consumers and any plaintiff bringing a Credit
Union Excessive Overdraft Fees lawsuit have been pushing back
against a tendency for banks and credit unions to re-order
transactions to favor the financial institution.  By re-ordering
transactions outside of consumer expectation, it's possible for a
bank or credit union to charge additional fees above what is
actually warranted, based on the dates and actual sequences of
debits.

Forbes (6/11/13) provided an example of how excessive credit union
and bank overdraft fees can occur: a student having $50 in an
account makes three consecutive purchases for $10 each.  That
leaves a balance of $20.  Now, the student needs to purchase a
book for an evening lecture later that day and makes the decision
to buy the book he needs anyway, putting his account into an
overdraft status. He will be charged a one-time fee of $35 for the
overdraft.

He assumes the transactions will be posted in the order in which
they were made.

He assumes wrong.

In actual fact, the credit union begins with the larger
transaction against the $50 balance -- the book costing $40.  That
takes the account down to $10.

Now come the three $10 transactions -- even though they were
actually made prior to the purchase of the book.  As posted in
such fashion, the first debit takes the account down to zero. No
problem there.

The second debit takes the account to minus $10, which triggers a
$35 overdraft fee.

And now comes the third debit, which takes the account down to
minus $20.  That, according to the credit union, is a subsequent
overdraft, which is charged an additional $35 overdraft fee.

Suddenly the student is facing overdraft fees of $70, rather than
$35 -- twice as much.

Little wonder that consumers take to the courts with an Excessive
Overdraft Fees Lawsuit in tow.  If the proposed CFPB platform
becomes law, that litigation may one day include a class-action
Credit Union Lawsuit, while maintaining the basic tenets of an
arbitration agreement no longer barring potential litigants from a
class action.





                            *********

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 2016. 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 Nina Novak at 202-362-8552.



                 * * *  End of Transmission  * * *