CAR_Public/160802.mbx              C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

              Tuesday, August 2, 2016, Vol. 18, No. 153




                            Headlines


ALLTITE INC: Court Rules on Class Certification Bid in "Stockton"
AMERICAN PIPE: Lower Courts Split Over Class Action Tolling Issue
AMGEN INC: Settles Securities Class Action for $95 Million
ANNEXMED BILLING: Certification of 3 Classes Sought in Holt Suit
ANNEXMED BILLING: Holt Class Cert. Bid Premature, Court Says

APPLE INC: Faces Class Action in California Over AppleCare Plans
APPLIED UNDERWRITERS: Court Dismisses Claims in Insurance Case
ARCHER DANIELS: Faces Class Action Over Horse Feed Advertising
ASSET RECOVERY: Accused of Wrongful Conduct Over Debt Collection
AT&T: "McCarthy" Class Suit Removed to C.D. California

ATHENAHEALTH INC: Settlement of Detroit Police Suit Approved
ATHENAHEALTH INC: St. Louis Heart Center's Suit Remains Stayed
AUSNET SERVICES: Settles Yarram Bushfire Class Suit for A$5.25MM
AUSTRALIA: Williamstown Resident Sue Over Chemical Contamination
AUTOVEST LLC: "Brown" Seeks Certification of 2 Classes

BARRICK GOLD: Bay Street Law Firms Battle for Lead Counsel Role
BERJAC OF OREGON: Class Action Legal Costs Hit Holding Co. Profit
BOEHRINGER INGELHEIM: Faces "Langford" Suit Over Pradaxa(R)
BOEHRINGER INGELHEIM: Faces "Williamson" Suit Over Pradaxa(R)
BOLLINGER SHIPYARDS: Class of Laborers Certified in "Munoz" Suit

BP: Plaintiffs' Attorneys Justify $600MM Fees in Oil Spill Case
BRIGHTON TOWNSHIP, MI: Begins Discussions in Tax Refund Case
BUTLER & HOSCH: Bid for Class Certification in "Regal" Granted
CAFE LUNA: Biller Seeks to Certify Collective Action
CAIRO CO: "Wilda" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages

CALDERA MEDICAL: Fails to Get Final OK of Federal Suit Settlement
CANADA: Class Action Mulled Over Gov't Employees Privacy Breach
CASSELS BROCK: Supreme Court Sticks with Traditional Forum Rules
CHIPOTLE: Non-GMO Advertising Misleading, Suit Alleges
COCA-COLA CO: Enslins Seek to Certify 2 Classes of Employees

COLLECTO INC: Faces TCPA Class Action in California
COMMUNITY PHYSICAL: Faces Class Action Over Unpaid Overtime Wages
CREDIT MANAGEMENT: Bid for Class Cert. in "Powers" Suit Granted
DANA HOLDING: $64MM Settlement Gets Preliminary Court Approval
DISH NETWORK: Second Phase of Bench Trial Set for October 2016

DOUGLAS KNIGHT: Faces "Greisman" Class Suit in E.D. New York
DRILTECH LLC: Bid for Conditional Cert. in "Baker" Suit Granted
EBAY INC: Class Action Dismissed with Leave to Amend
EKF DIAGNOSTICS: Obtains Favorable Ruling TCPA Class Action
EMERGENT BIOSOLUTIONS: Faces Securities Class Action

ESTENSON LOGISTICS: Certification in "Pole" Suit Under Submission
EUREKA, CA: Seeks Dismissal of PalCo Marsh Eviction Suit
EVERQUOTE INC: TCPA Class Certification Sought in "Friedman" Suit
EXPEDITORS AND PRODUCTION: Parties in "Cox" Agree to Class Cert.
FITBIT: Judge Allows Sleep Tracking Claims to Move Forward

GAHANNA, OH: Payouts in Income Tax Class Action Set to Begin
GEICO GENERAL: VIP Auto Class Suit Removed to M.D. Florida
GENERAL MOTORS: Class Certification Affirmed in FDUPTA Case
GOOGLE INC: Battles Over Damages in Adwords Suit to Resume
HAKKASAN NYC: Faces "Zhu" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages

HEALEON MEDICAL: Physicians Healthsource Seeks to Certify Class
HUBBARD HOUSE: Court Strikes Class Cert. in American Legal Suit
IKO MANUFACTURING: "Brown" Suit Transferred to C.D. Illinois
ILLINOIS WORK RESOURCE: PRS Bid to Continue Class Cert. Granted
INDONESIA: Bukit Duri Residents No Rights Over Land, Jakarta Says

JACKSON COUNTY, MI: Hill Renews Bid for Class Certification
JACKSON COUNTY, MI: Schwab Renews Bid for Class Certification
K12 INC: Sept. 19 Class Action Lead Plaintiff Motion Deadline Set
KANSAS: ACLU Files Class Action Over Election Rule
KISLING NESTICO: Illegally Collects Investigation Fees, Suit Says

KROGER CO: Faces Class Action in Cincinnati Over FCRA Violation
L&L TRAVEL: Faces "Wu" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages
LANCASTER, PA: Fails to Provide Refugee Students with ESL Classes
LIBERTY POWER: Certification of 2 Classes Sought in "Moore" Suit
LOS ANGELES FEDERAL: Faces "Gray" Suit Over Overdraft Fees

MAGNACHIP SEMICONDUCTOR: Final Approval Hearing Set for Nov. 21
MARCOAH GROUP: Byer Clinic Seeks to Certify Class
MARVELL TECHNOLOGY: Hearing Held on Bid to Dismiss Class Suit
MASTERCARD: Damages Claim in Card Charges Suit May Reach GBP19BB
MAX ULTIMATE: Sued Over Failure to Pay Employees Gratuities

METROPOLITAN WASHINGTON: Faces Class Action Over Dulles Toll Road
MICROFIBRES INC: Trustee Seeks Dismissal of Class Action
MODESTO IRRIGATION: Consolidation of Two Class Actions Mulled
MSS GOLDEN: Faces Sky Management Class Suit in S.D. New York
NATIONWIDE DEBT: Accused of Wrongful Conduct Over Debt Collection

NEW HAMPSHIRE: PFOA Plaintiffs Want to Remand Class Action
NORTH CAROLINA: Landowners Win Map Act Class Action Against NCDOT
PACIFIC SUNWEAR: Viability of Class Proofs of Claim Reaffirmed
PLASTIPAK HOLDINGS: Hall Seeks Certification of FLSA Class
PRINCE EDWARD: Faces Class Action Over Disability Support Program

PROJECT INVESTORS: Leidel et al. Seek Class Certification
RAYTHEON COMPANY: Sued Over Failure to Handle Retiree Benefits
RCM TECHNOLOGIES: Faces "McNeal" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT
REGULATORY TECHNOLOGY: Casano Seeks Certification of Two Classes
RESTORATION HARDWARE: Supreme Court to Review Class Action Ruling

S2VERIFY LLC: FCRA Claims Class Certified in "Hawkins" Suit
SALEM INT'L: Arguments in Nurses' Class Action Set for October
SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS: Sued Over Defective Washing Machines
SOUTHWEST CREDIT: Illegally Collects Debt, "Stuppiello" Suit Says
ST. JUDE MEDICAL: WeissLaw LLP Files Securities Class Action

STATE FARM: Bid for Class Certification in "Labrier" Granted
TARGET CORP: Faces ERISA Class Action in Minnesota
TEACHERS INSURANCE: Cummings Seeks to Certify Settlement Class
THERANOS: Faces Another Class Action Over Blood Tests
TRI MARINE: No Longer Defendant in U.S. Tuna Price-Fixing Suit

TRUMP UNIVERSITY: Bondi Gets Donations After Opting Not to Sue
UBER TECHNOLOGIES: Riders to Get Refund Tip Case Settlement
UNION PACIFIC: Preparing for Class Certification Hearing
UNITED STATES: Court Tosses NFB's Challenge to DOT Final Rule
UNITED STATES: Ex-Inmate Can Still Represent Prison Class Action

UTAH: Certification of Indigent Adults Class Sought in "Remick"
VOLKSWAGEN AG: Emissions-Cheating Scandal Hits 2nd Quarter Profit
WAL-MART: Former Employees File New Discrimination Class Action
WEST VIRGINIA: Greer Seeks Certification of Class
WESTERN DENTAL: Faces TCPA Class Action in California

WHIRLPOOL CORP: Oct. 11 Settlement Claims Filing Deadline Set
WILLIAM C GROSSMAN: Illegally Collects Debt, Action Claims
WORLD COURIER: Sued in Cal. Over Failure to Provide Rest Breaks

* Money Managers with In-House 401(k) Plans Face Litigation Risk


                            *********


ALLTITE INC: Court Rules on Class Certification Bid in "Stockton"
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The Hon. Judge J. Thomas Marten, entered an order in the lawsuit
styled JOE STOCKTON, the Plaintiff, v. ALLTITE, INC., the
Defendant, Case No. 6:15-cv-01278-JTM-JPO (D. Kan.), denying the
Plaintiff's motion to certify a class of "all tools salespersons
employed by Alltite."  The Court further granted the motion to
dismiss the Kansas Wage Payment Act (KWPA) claim.

With respect to the claim under the Fair Labor Standards Act
raised on behalf of plaintiff himself, the court denied the motion
to dismiss. Although Stockton supplies little in the way of
detail, he does allege specific allegations as to his own job
duties which, if true, might entitle him to recover overtime
compensation, the Court said.

A copy of the Order is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=V0jC5THD


AMERICAN PIPE: Lower Courts Split Over Class Action Tolling Issue
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Jaculin Aaron, Esq. -- jaaron@shearman.com -- Stuart J. Baskin --
sbaskin@shearman.com -- Esq., Brian G. Burke, Esq., Matthew L.
Craner, Esq., Agnes Dunogue, Esq., and H. Miriam Farber, Esq., of
Shearman & Sterling LLP, in an article for Lexology, report that
the tolling rule established by the Supreme Court in American Pipe
& Construction Co. v. Utah generally provides that the
commencement of a class action in federal court suspends the
applicable statute of limitations for all members of the proposed
class.  Lower courts are divided over whether American Pipe
tolling applies to statutes of repose.  In 2014, the Supreme Court
granted certiorari to review the Second Circuit's holding in
Police & Fire Retirement System of City of Detroit v. IndyMac MBS,
Inc. that American Pipe tolling does not apply to the statute of
repose in Section 13 of the Securities Act of 1933, but
subsequently dismissed the writ as improvidently granted after the
IndyMac parties resolved that litigation.  Two recent decisions
from the Second Circuit, however, may provide new opportunities
for the Supreme Court to consider the issue.  In In re Lehman
Brothers Securities & ERISA Litigation, No. 15-1879, 2016 WL
3648259 (2d Cir. July 8, 2016), the Second Circuit re-affirmed its
IndyMac holding, expressly acknowledged that IndyMac had created a
circuit split on the issue, and suggested that the question was
ripe for Supreme Court review.  The next week, in SRM Global
Master Fund Limited Partnership v. Bear Stearns Companies, No. 14-
507, 2016 WL 3769735 (2d Cir. July 14, 2016), the Second Circuit
extended the rationale of IndyMac to the Securities Exchange Act
of 1934, holding that American Pipe tolling does not apply to the
five-year repose period established by 28 U.S.C. Sec. 1658(b)(2)
for claims under Section 10(b) of the Exchange Act.

Background

The issue in IndyMac was whether the tolling rule announced in
American Pipe -- that the filing of a class action tolls 5 the
statute of limitations for all members of the proposed class --
applied to Section 13's statute of repose.  The IndyMac Court
stressed the key differences between statutes of limitations and
statutes of repose in holding that American Pipe tolling did not
apply to the latter.  Specifically, the IndyMac Court noted that
because statutes of limitations limit the availability of
remedies, they may be subject to equitable considerations, such as
tolling; in contrast, statutes of repose create a substantive
right in those protected to be free from liability after a
legislatively determined period of time and thus run without
interruption once the necessary triggering event has occurred,
even if equitable considerations would warrant tolling.6 Given
these differences, the IndyMac Court held that the American Pipe
tolling rule for statutes of limitations could not apply to
Section 13's statute of repose.  First, if American Pipe tolling
is considered "equitable," it could not be applied to affect a
legislatively-enacted statute of repose.  Second, if American Pipe
tolling is considered "legal" (as based upon Rule 23, governing
class actions), then extending it to Section 13's statute of
repose would contravene the Rules Enabling Act because it would
result in applying Rule 23 so as to modify the substantive right
embodied in Section 13's statute of repose.8

The Lehman Brothers Decision

The Lehman Brothers decision concerned claims under Section 11 of
the Securities Act asserted by the California Public Employees'
Retirement System ("CalPERS") in connection with offerings dated
July 12 and December 17, 2007.  However, CalPERS did not file its
complaint until February 25, 2011 -- more than three years after
the securities were offered to the public -- and the district
court (Kaplan, J.) therefore dismissed CalPERS' complaint as time-
barred.

On appeal, CalPERS argued that the statute of repose on its claim
was tolled while it was a member of a timely filed putative class
action (from which CalPERS later opted-out to file its own
complaint).  Specifically, CalPERS argued that, unlike the
situation in IndyMac, the putative class action was commenced by a
named plaintiff with proper standing and, therefore, its claims
were actually asserted within the three-year statute of repose.
The Second Circuit rejected this argument as inconsistent with and
irrelevant to the reasoning of IndyMac.  The Court explained that,
under IndyMac, the inapplicability of American Pipe tolling to a
statute of repose "turns on the nature of the tolling rule and its
ineffectiveness against statutes of repose," not on whether the
named plaintiff had proper standing to assert claims on behalf of
a class.  The Court went on to observe that the IndyMac decision
had created a circuit split on an issue that implicates the very
nature of American Pipe tolling, and that the question accordingly
"may be ripe for resolution by the Supreme Court."

The Bear Stearns Decision

The Bear Stearns decision concerned claims under Section 10(b) of
the Exchange Act asserted against Bear Stearns Companies L.L.C.
("Bear"), Bear's officers, and Bear's auditor, Deloitte & Touche
L.L.P. ("Deloitte").  Following Bear's collapse in 2008, a series
of securities fraud putative class actions were filed against Bear
and the individual defendants; the actions were subsequently
consolidated and the consolidated class action lawsuit also named
Deloitte as a defendant.  The consolidated class action complaint
asserted claims on behalf of all persons and entities that had
acquired Bear common stock or other equities between December 14,
2006 and March 14, 2008.  In May 2012, the parties reached a
settlement that was later approved by the district court.

In August 2012, SRM Global Master Fund Limited Partnership ("SRM")
requested exclusion from the class action settlement.  It filed
its own complaint on April 24, 2013, asserting, among other
things, Section 10(b) claims that were based on many of the same
allegations as were made in the consolidated class action
complaint.  The defendants moved to dismiss SRM's complaint as
time-barred under the five-year repose period for Section 10(b)
claims established by 28 U.S.C. Sec. 1658(b).  The district court
(Sweet, J.) held that the logic and rationale of IndyMac
foreclosed SRM's attempt to invoke American Pipe tolling, and thus
granted the motion.12

The Second Circuit affirmed. It held that Section 1658(b)(2), as a
statute of repose, "'defines the right involved in terms of the
time allowed to bring suit.'"  The Bear Stearns Court rejected the
argument that the textual differences between Section 13 and
Section 1658(b)(2) should preclude application of IndyMac to
Section 1658(b)(2),14 and thus held that, for the same reasons
provided in IndyMac, American Pipe tolling does not apply to
Section 1658(b)(2).  First, as a statute of repose, Section
1658(b)(2) is not subject to equitable tolling; and second, it
creates a substantive right in defendants to be free from
liability after five years -- a right that American Pipe tolling
cannot modify without running afoul of the Rules Enabling Act.

Looking Ahead

The Lehman Brothers and Bear Stearns decisions provide the Supreme
Court with an opportunity to consider the same issue that the
Court appeared willing to address when it granted certiorari in
IndyMac.  Whether the changed composition of the Court might
affect the Court's willingness to grant certiorari on the issue
again remains to be seen, but the issue of whether American Pipe
tolling extends to statutes of repose continues to divide the
lower courts.  Especially in light of recent Supreme Court
authority discussing the distinction between statutes of
limitations and statutes of repose, it will be of great interest
to securities issuers and underwriters whether the Supreme Court
remains inclined to address whether American Pipe tolling extends
to statutes of repose.


AMGEN INC: Settles Securities Class Action for $95 Million
----------------------------------------------------------
State Treasurer Denise L. Nappier on July 20 that Amgen Inc. has
agreed to pay $95 million to settle a class action suit filed on
behalf of investors who bought Amgen securities between April 2004
and May 2007.

"As lead plaintiff, we have diligently pursued this action for
nearly a decade.  This settlement will assist institutional and
individual investors in recovering some of their lost assets,"
said Treasurer Nappier.

The suit alleged that Amgen, a California-based global
biotechnology company, and certain of its former executives made
misleading statements and omissions concerning the safety and
marketing of two of its flagship products -- anti-anemia drugs
Aranesp and Epogen -- including statements that were at odds with
clinical studies.

Settlement documents were filed with the U.S. District Court for
the Central District of California on July 20.  The settlement is
subject to court approval.

The case began in 2007, at which time District Court Judge Philip
S. Gutierrez appointed the Connecticut Retirement Plans and Trust
Funds, of which Treasurer Nappier is principal fiduciary, to serve
as the lead plaintiff on behalf of investors who purchased the
publicly traded securities of Amgen during the period from April
22, 2004 through May 10, 2007.

Once the settlement is approved, members of this class of
investors will have an opportunity to participate in a claims
process to recover a pro rata share of their losses.  How much
each investor receives will depend on the number of claims filed
and how the court apportions the $95 million.

With less than a month before trial and after completing
discovery, which entailed analyzing nearly 23 million pages of
documents, taking or defending 52 depositions, and reviewing 36
expert reports, the parties reached a tentative agreement to
settle the case.

A major contributing factor to the length of the case was Amgen's
efforts to block getting securities class actions certified.  The
company appealed a 2009 order by the District Court to certify the
class, which eventually led to Amgen filing a petition requesting
that the U.S. Supreme Court review its appeal.  In 2013, the
State's litigation team secured a landmark ruling in its favor
from the Supreme Court, rejecting Amgen's appeal.

"Whenever we believe that our state's pension fund losses are
attributable to corporate malfeasance, we go after the money.  In
the Amgen matter, we fought all the way to the Supreme Court,"
said Treasurer Nappier.

Class litigation is a part of the Treasury's Asset Recovery and
Loss Prevention program, the most comprehensive of its kind in the
history of Connecticut state government.  This unprecedented
initiative, established in 2000, includes the Office's commitment
to taking a measured approach to seeking plaintiff status and has
resulted in the recovery of more than a billion dollars for the
State's pension funds since inception.

"After more than nine years of earnest litigation, asset recovery
validates the decision to serve as lead plaintiff.  Of longer-term
value is the Supreme Court opinion, which preserves shareholder
rights into the future," said Catherine E. LaMarr, General Counsel
to the Office of the Treasurer.

Treasurer Nappier thanked the Office of Attorney General George
Jepsen for lending support with respect to the Supreme Court
appeal and in settlement discussions.  She also praised the
litigation team at Labaton Sucharow LLP for the firm's tenacious
dedication to this matter.

The team of Labaton Sucharow attorneys included partners Thomas A.
Dubbs, Christopher J. McDonald, Louis Gottlieb, and James W.
Johnson, with assistance from attorneys Richard T. Joffe, Irina
Vasilchenko, James Ostaszewski, and Jeffrey A. Dubbin.


ANNEXMED BILLING: Certification of 3 Classes Sought in Holt Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Holt Healthcare Management Services, Inc., asks the Court to enter
an order determining that the action captioned HOLT HEALTHCARE
MANAGEMENT SERVICES, INC., on behalf of plaintiff and the class
members defined herein v. ANNEXMED BILLING SERVICES, INC., f/k/a
DPRO TECHNOLOGIES, INC., and JOHN DOES 1-10, Case No. 1:16-cv-
07554 (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. Section 1658), (c) were sent faxes by
     or on behalf of defendant Annexmed Billing Services, Inc.,
     f/k/a DPRO Technologies, Inc., promoting its goods or
     services for sale (d) which did not contain a compliant opt
     out notice. By "compliant opt out notice" is meant one (i)
     on the first page of the fax (ii) that states that the
     recipient may make a request to the sender not to send any
     future unsolicited advertisements to a telephone facsimile
     machine (iii) that states that failure to comply, within the
     shortest reasonable time, as determined by the Federal
     Communications Commission, is unlawful; (iv) that provides
     instructions on how to submit an opt out request and (v)
     that includes a domestic contact telephone and facsimile
     machine number and a cost-free mechanism for the recipient
     to transmit such a request to the sender that permit a
     request to be made at any time on any day of the week.

     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 Annexmed Billing Services, Inc.,
     f/k/a DPRO Technologies, Inc., promoting its goods or
     services for sale (d) which did not contain a complaint 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 Annexmed
     Billing Services, Inc., f/k/a DPRO Technologies, Inc.,
     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.

A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=2PJOwtVE

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


ANNEXMED BILLING: Holt Class Cert. Bid Premature, Court Says
------------------------------------------------------------
The Hon. Joan B. Gottschall entered an order in the class action
lawsuit styled Holt Healthcare Management Services, Inc., the
Plaintiff(s), v. Annexmed Billing Service, Inc., et al,
Defendant(s), Case No. 1:16-cv-07554 (N.D. Ill.), denying
Plaintiff's motion for class certification without prejudice as
premature.

The court further denied Plaintiff's motion to continue as moot.

A status Hearing is set for September 30, 2016 at 11:00 a.m.  If,
by the date of the scheduled status hearing Defendants have not
been served, the Plaintiff should call the courtroom deputy and
reset the status date. No status hearing should be held until the
Defendants have been served.

The Parties are directed to discuss settlement and whether they
consent to proceed before the Magistrate Judge. They are further
directed to meet and confer regarding a proposed discovery plan.

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


APPLE INC: Faces Class Action in California Over AppleCare Plans
----------------------------------------------------------------
Buster Hein, writing for Cult of Mac, reports that Apple was hit
with a new class action lawsuit on July 20 in California by
customers who have purchased the company's AppleCare and
AppleCare+ plans to cover damages on iPhones and iPads.

At the heart of the lawsuit is Apple's long-held policy to replace
broken devices with units that the company claims are good as new
in performance and reliability, even though they're second-hand
refurbished models.

The lawsuit was filed on June 20 in the Northern California
District Court by Vicky Maldonado and Joanne McRight who are
bringing the action on behalf of all persons who purchased an
AppleCare and AppleCare+ plan for an iPhone, iPad or iPod Touch
after July 11, 2011.

The two defendants both purchased iOS devices and AppleCare+ and
argue that they were negatively impacted economically when Apple
swapped their devices for refurbished units that they claim cannot
be considered new.

"'New' means a Device that has never been utilized or previously
sold and consists of all new parts," the defendant's lawyers claim
in court documents obtained by Cult of Mac.  "The word
'refurbished' appears only once in the AppleCare+ terms and
conditions even though the printed booklet is 33 pages long.  The
word is not even used to reference a device, but a part."

Apple is being sued for breach of warranty, fraud and violations
of the Consumers Legal Remedies Act.  The group says that
AppleCare+ is false advertisement as well because Apple charges
customers $79.99 to replace devices that suffer accidental damage,
but the replacements are not "equivalent to new" as promised,
because "refurbished devices can never be the equivalent to new in
performance and reliability."

If Apple loses it could face a multi-billion-dollar fine to
compensate customers who purchased AppleCare+ on their iOS
devices, based on the damages claimed by the lawsuit.


APPLIED UNDERWRITERS: Court Dismisses Claims in Insurance Case
--------------------------------------------------------------
Jeanne M. Kohler, Esq. of Carlton Fields, in an article for
Lexology, reports that in this class action lawsuit in a
California federal court, Shasta Linen Company and all those
similarly situated brought an action against Applied Underwriters,
Inc. and its affiliate entities.  Shasta Linen alleges that the
"EquityComp" workers' compensation insurance program marketed and
sold by Applied Underwriters violated the California Insurance
Code and Regulatory provisions by unlawfully using a Reinsurance
Participation Agreement ("RPA") to control workers' compensation
rates (and thus, charged higher rates) without first having the
RPA filed and approved by the Department of Insurance as required
by law.

Defendants filed a motion to dismiss Shasta Linen's claims to the
extent that they seek to invalidate the RPA's rates on the theory
that the RPA is an unfiled plan pursuant to Section 11735 of the
California Insurance Code because according to the defendants, "an
unfiled rate is not an unlawful rate."  The court noted that
Section 11735 requires every insurer to "file with the
Commissioner all rates, rating plans, and supplementary rate
information that are to be used." Section 11737 additionally
provides that "[t]he Commissioner may disapprove a rate if the
insurer fails to comply with the filing requirements under Section
11735."  The court then noted that under Section 11737, the use of
a rate that has not been filed is not an unlawful rate unless and
until the Commissioner conducts a hearing and disapproves a rate.
As the Complaint did not allege that the Commissioner conducted a
hearing and disapproved the RPA's rates, the court held that
Shasta Linen fails to state a claim that the RPA's rates are void
based on the defendants' failure to comply with Section 11735, and
thus dismissed the claims to the extent they seek to void the
RPA's rates on the theory that defendants did not comply with
Section 11735.  The court however noted that Shasta Linen's claims
based on California's Unfair Competition Law and its fraud claims
are not limited to the grounds that defendants did not comply with
Section 11735, and thus defendants' motion to dismiss was denied
with regard to those claims.

Shasta Linen Supply, Inc. v. Applied Underwriters, Inc., et al.,
No. 2:16-158 (E. D. Cal. June 20, 2016).


ARCHER DANIELS: Faces Class Action Over Horse Feed Advertising
--------------------------------------------------------------
Scott Holland, writing for Cook County Record, reports that
what's good for the goose is good for the gander, but what might
nourish cows might poison horses, and two horse owners have sued
ADM for making their feeds for the different livestock species in
the same building, potentially putting horses at risk.

Plaintiffs Beth Berarov, of Michigan, and Annelisa Bindra, of
South Carolina, filed a putative class action lawsuit in federal
court in Chicago on July 19, accusing Illinois-based Archer
Daniels Midland of negligence and false advertising of its horse
feed products, alleging the agribusiness giant knew it could be
posing a fatal risk by making its horse feed in the same facility
it used for other animal products.

Ms. Berarov and Ms. Bindra said they each lost horses after
feeding them an ADM product containing a compound known as
monensin, which the complaint described as "a chemical additive
used to increase weight and market value in cattle."  Making horse
feed in the same facility as cattle feed containing the additive,
they alleged, "poses an extraordinarily high, unacceptable and
undisclosed risk of cross-contamination."

The women say monensin poisoning can be detected in live horses
only a few days after consumption.  The usual method for detection
is during a necropsy.

"Harm to horses that ingest monensin sometimes occurs gradually,
depending on the level of exposure," per the complaint, "as
monensin destroys a horse's heart fibers, creating a potential for
sudden and unexpected heart failure that jeopardizes the lives and
safety of both horse and rider."  Animals that survive exposure
generally cannot be ridden or worked due to the degree to which
the chemical weakens their systems, the complaint said.

In their complaint, the women said the U.S. Food and Drug
Administration requires livestock feeds containing monensin to
carry a warning about exposure to horses and "also recognizes the
particular risk of cross-contamination of medical additives in
animal feed."

The complaint cited verbatim quotes from ADM's promotional
materials touting the health and safety of its livestock food
products, as well as a press release issued in response to a horse
death at Camelot Farms, where Bindra stabled her horse.  In that
release, "ADM stated unreservedly and in bold print, 'Generations
of healthy, winning horses have shown that horse feed produced in
multi-species facilities is safe.'"

Berarov, who owns and operates Moonlyte Equestrian Center in
Carleton, Mich., said she owned 13 horses and cared for six
others, all fed exclusively ADM products.  In March 2015, she
discovered "several of her horses were becoming ill, with symptoms
including 'tying-up' after little or no exertion, tachycardia,
backline deformities, irritability, lethargy and severe weight
loss."  Nine of her horses were euthanized, all having "permanent
cardiac and skeletal muscle damage as a result of ingesting the
(ADM) products," she alleged.

ADM issued a statement in response.

"We believe the claims are meritless, and we will vigorously
defend ourselves," said ADM spokesperson Jackie Anderson.  "At ADM
Alliance Nutrition, we have been providing safe and nutritious
feed and feed ingredients for more than 100 years. Our processes
comply with FDA guidelines, and we are confident that our feeds
are safe."

The plaintiffs are asking the judge to certify a class of
additional plaintiffs, which would include anyone who bought an
ADM horse food or supplement.  The complaint did not specify the
time span within which potential class members may have purchased
the horse feed.

Formal allegations against ADM in the complaint included breach of
the Illinois Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act, violation of the
Illinois Consumer Fraud and Deceptive Business Practices Act,
negligent products representation, strict products liability,
unjust enrichment and breach of express warranties.

In addition to class certification and a jury trial, the
plaintiffs seek a court order requiring ADM to remove the
offending statements from its marketing materials and engage in a
corrective advertising campaign, and to force ADM to modify its
manufacturing process or at least label packaging to inform
consumers of the alleged potential harm.  They also want
restitution, including actual, statutory and punitive damages, and
have asked the court to order ADM to repay all profits from the
products in question.

Representing Ms. Berarov and Ms. Bindra in this action are
attorneys with the firm of Bailey & Glasser, with offices in
Chicago and Charleston, W.Va.


ASSET RECOVERY: Accused of Wrongful Conduct Over Debt Collection
----------------------------------------------------------------
Sharon N. Ford, on behalf of herself and all other similarly
situated consumers v. Asset Recovery Solutions, LLC, Case No.
1:16-cv-03904 (E.D.N.Y., July 13, 20160, seeks to stop the
Defendant's unfair and unconscionable means to collect a debt.

Asset Recovery Solutions, LLC operates an asset recovery
management company in New York.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

AT&T: "McCarthy" Class Suit Removed to C.D. California
------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit captioned Ralph E. McCarthy, individually
and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. AT&T, AT&T
Mobility, LLC, a subsidiary of AT&T; DirecTV, (DirecTV), a
subsidiary of AT&T; Prime Communications, Jessica McCown, and
Nickolas Corey, Experian, National Collection Bureau, Inc. and
Credence Resource Management, LLC, Does 1 through 100, inclusive,
Case No. 16CVP-0137, was removed from the Superior Court of the
State of California for the County of San Luis to the U.S.
District Court Central District of California. The District Court
Clerk assigned Case No. 2:16-cv-05159 to the proceeding.

AT&T Corp. operates a telecommunications corporation with its
headquarters and principal place of business in New Jersey.

AT&T Mobility LLC is the second largest wireless
telecommunications provider in the United States.

DirecTV is an American direct broadcast satellite service provider
and broadcaster based in El Segundo, California.

The Defendant is represented by:

     John Nadolenco, Esq.
     Jeff R. R. Nelson, Esq.
     MAYER BROWN LLP
     350 South Grand Avenue, 25th Floor
     Los Angeles, CA 90071-1503
     Telephone: (213) 229-9500
     Facsimile: (213) 625-0248
     E-mail: jnadolenco@mayerbrown.com
             jnelson@mayerbrown.com


ATHENAHEALTH INC: Settlement of Detroit Police Suit Approved
------------------------------------------------------------
athenahealth, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on July 21, 2016, for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2016, that a court has certified a
settlement class, entered final approval of the settlement, and
dismissed with prejudice the lawsuit by the Police and Fire
Retirement System of the City of Detroit.

The Company said, "On March 1, 2013, a complaint was filed in the
United States District Court for the Northern District of
California captioned Police and Fire Retirement System of the City
of Detroit v. Epocrates, Inc. et al., Case No. 5:13-cv-945, on
behalf of a putative class of Epocrates' stockholders against
Epocrates and its former officers and directors. The complaint
asserted claims under sections 11, 12, and 15 of the Securities
Act of 1933 on behalf of all stockholders that purchased Epocrates
stock in its initial public offering ("IPO") and claims under
sections 10(b) and 20 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 on
behalf of all stockholders that purchased shares between February
2, 2011 (the day after the IPO) and August 9, 2011. On October 8,
2013, plaintiffs filed an amended complaint, alleging only claims
under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and voluntarily
dismissing a number of the individual defendants. Plaintiffs
allege that Epocrates made false or misleading statements with
respect to the fact that Epocrates' pharmaceutical clients were
awaiting guidance from the Food and Drug Administration on the use
of advertising and social media, which caused the clients to delay
marketing and negatively impacted the timing of Epocrates' sales
and revenue growth. On September 22, 2015, the parties reached an
agreement in principle on a comprehensive settlement of all claims
asserted in the lawsuit with no admission of liability by any
defendants and with any settlement amounts being funded by
insurance. On May 17, 2016, the court certified a settlement
class, entered final approval of the settlement, and dismissed the
case with prejudice."


ATHENAHEALTH INC: St. Louis Heart Center's Suit Remains Stayed
--------------------------------------------------------------
athenahealth, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on July 21, 2016, for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2016, that the stay of the lawsuit
by the St. Louis Heart Center, Inc. remains in effect.

The Company said, "On May 21, 2015, a class action petition was
filed by St. Louis Heart Center, Inc. in the State Circuit Court
of St. Louis County, Missouri, against athenahealth. The petition
alleges we violated the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (the
"TCPA"). Following service, we removed the case to federal court
in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of
Missouri, Case No. 4:15-cv-01215. On our motion, the federal court
initially stayed further proceedings (pending the United States
Supreme Court's decision in Campbell-Ewald v. Gomez, No. 14-857),
but lifted that stay on February 3, 2016."

"We filed our Answer in the case on March 8, 2016. Subsequently,
on March 14, 2016, we moved for an additional stay pending a
decision by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit in Bais
Yaakov of Spring Valley v. FCC, No. 14-1234 regarding the validity
of a regulation promulgated by the Federal Communications
Commission relating to the claims asserted in the petition. On May
16, 2016, the federal court granted the motion for a further stay,
which remains in effect."


AUSNET SERVICES: Settles Yarram Bushfire Class Suit for A$5.25MM
----------------------------------------------------------------
Nisha Ramchandani, writing for The Business Times, reports that
power company AusNet Services has settled a class action relating
to the 2014 Yarram Bushfire, which will cost the company A$5.25
million (S$5.34 million).

The total settlement is for A$10.50 million (inclusive of legal
cost and interest), with the remaining A$5.25 million to be paid
by Gippsland Contracting.

"The settlement is without admission of liability by AusNet
Services or any other party," said AusNet in a release to
Singapore Exchange on July 20.  "AusNet Services maintains that
there was no negligence on the part of AusNet Services which
caused, or contributed to, the Yarram bushfire. AusNet Services
accepts that litigation involves some uncertainty and subject to
Court approval, this settlement avoids the need for ongoing
litigation."

Provision had previously been made in AusNet Services' accounts
for litigation costs up to the A$10 million insurance deductible.

The settlement is subject to court approval; the date for hearing
the application for court approval has not been fixed as yet.

The bushfire, which took place in Australia in February 2014,
torched more than 22,000 hectares, according to a 2014 report by
Australia's The Age newspaper.  It allegedly started when
vegetation made contact with a distribution line.


AUSTRALIA: Williamstown Resident Sue Over Chemical Contamination
----------------------------------------------------------------
Dan Cox, writing for ABC Newcastle, reports that Williamtown
resident David Vial says he has no choice but to sign up for a
class action against the Federal Government after chemical
contamination rendered his property almost worthless.

Mr. Vial is scathing of the Defence Department, saying nothing has
happened in the 10 months since news broke that firefighting
chemicals had leached into ground and surface water.

Law firm Gadens said around 450 people and business owners have
expressed interest, and more than 200 have signed up before the
July 31 deadline.

In a social media video, Gadens partner Ben Allen --
ben.allen@gadens.com -- said residents believed the current
government plans did not offer long-term proposals to deal with
the issue or provide locals with adequate financial compensation.

"The closure of the waterways has abruptly killed the livelihoods
of many in the area," he said.

"Those in and around the red zone have also seen their house and
land values plummet, as a result of the stigma of the
contamination.

"Gadens shares the concern of residents that almost 12 months have
now elapsed since the announcement of the contamination, with no
clear path to resolution.

"Class action provides a clear path to compensation, that many see
as the most effective and productive way in order to hold those
responsible accountable."

'Our property is worthless': resident

Mr. Vial said he had given up on negotiating with the government.

"I was pretty quick to sign up because I could see what was going
to happen," he said.

"Defence has been sitting on this, and they haven't acted in any
way in the 10 months.

"I mean, our property in the post code 2318 has virtually become
worthless.  We moved up there seven years ago for the lifestyle."

Mr. Vial said a class action is the only option.

"The class action is the only just way that we can go," Mr. Vial
said.
"I don't want to talk to them, especially after the visit from the
Defence Minister just before the election.

"You just can't play with people's lives like they have been; the
stress that a lot of people are under is just not fair.

"We're standing up for our rights, like every Australian citizen
should," he said.

'I moved my family into a toxic wasteland': resident

Salt Ash man Nick Marshall said he had signed up for the class
action because everything he had ever worked for was in his
contaminated property.

Mr. Marshall said he had had no idea about the chemicals, and felt
guilty for moving his young family into the area.

"We would not have moved anywhere near the place, full stop," he
said.

"You're supposed to be looking after your family and you've gone
and moved them into, basically, a toxic wasteland [and]
unfortunately, now we're stuck there.

"This is where the compensation, or class action, comes into it --
we can't sell the house now.

"We poured our life savings, all our equity, everything, all we've
worked for is in that property.

"We can't just walk away, we've got nowhere to go; we're going to
have to wait for them to try and sort this mess out."


AUTOVEST LLC: "Brown" Seeks Certification of 2 Classes
------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit styled SCOTT BROWN, on behalf of
himself and class, the Plaintiff, v. AUTOVEST LLC, and DYNAMIC
RECOVERY SOLUTIONS, LLC., the Defendants, Case No. 1:16-cv-07534
(N.D. Ill.), Mr. Scott Brown asks the Court to certify:

     "class A consisting of (a) all individuals in one of the
      applicable jurisdictions (b) to whom a letter was sent on
      behalf of Autovest, LLC to collect a debt (c) which debt
      was an auto retail installment contract or lease debt on
      which the last payment or activity had occurred more than
      four years prior to the letter, (d) which letter was sent
      on or after a date one year prior to the filing of this
      action and on or before a date 21 days after the filing of
      this action"; and

     "class B consisting of (a) all individuals in one of the
      applicable jurisdictions (b) to whom Dynamic Recovery
      Solutions, LLC sent a letter to collect a debt, (c) which
      debt was an auto retail installment contract or lease debt
      on which the last payment or activity had occurred more
      than four years prior to the letter, (e) which letter was
      sent on or after a date one year prior to the filing of
      the action and on or before a date 21 days after the
      filing of the action."

The Plaintiff further requests 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=S7p9bdI0

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Daniel A. Edelman, Esq.
          Cathleen M. Combs, Esq.
          James O. Latturner, Esq.
          Francis R. Greene, 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


BARRICK GOLD: Bay Street Law Firms Battle for Lead Counsel Role
---------------------------------------------------------------
Yamri Taddese, writing for Legal Feeds, reports that two groups of
Bay Street law firms are battling for the right to represent the
plaintiffs in a multi-billion-dollar securities class action
against Barrick Gold Corporation.

In what's believed to be the first carriage matter to reach the
Ontario Court of Appeal, the court awarded the case to a group of
firms led by Rochon Genova LLP instead of another group of law
firms led by Koskie Minsky LLP.  If it's certified, the Barrick
Gold case will be one of the largest securities class actions in
Canada.

"The Class Proceedings Act was proclaimed and enforced in 1992 and
since then, the Court of Appeal has never addressed the issue of
carriage," says Jay Strosberg, partner at Sutts Strosberg LLP,
which is part of the Koskie Minsky group.

In Mancinelli v. Barrick Gold Corporation, the Court of Appeal
said the lower court judge was correct to give carriage to Rochon
Genova, which presented a broader claim than Koskie Minsky and had
done "more extensive preparation" on the file.

Koskie Minsky had argued its claim was more "workable" than Rochon
Genova's and that "less is more" when it comes to the scope of an
action.  But in choosing Rochon Genova's action, the court said
the term "workability" is not found anywhere in the authorities.
"While some cases have given preference to 'lean' actions over
more comprehensive ones, I would reject any firm rule that 'less
is more' or, indeed, that 'more is better,'" said appeal court
Justice George Strathy, who wrote on behalf of the court.  "The
ultimate question is whether the proposed strategy is reasonable
and defensible."

Joel Rochon, partner at Rochon Genova, says Strathy carefully
reviewed the factors to be considered.  "He has also taken pains
to emphasize that the list of factors is not exhaustive and there
may be other factors to be considered depending on the unique
circumstances of the case."

Meanwhile, Paul Pape, who represented Koskie Minsky, said his
clients are considering an appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada.
"I am unable to comment on the reasons as the Koskie Minsky group
is considering an application for leave to appeal to the Supreme
Court of Canada," Mr. Pape said in an e-mail to Legal Feeds.

To Mr. Strosberg, this case was a missed chance for the Court of
Appeal to clarify a confusing and inconsistent area of the law.
Rather than highlighting the important factors to consider when it
comes to awarding carriage, the Court of Appeal simply deferred to
the lower court judges' opinion on which factors were important in
this case, Mr. Strosberg adds.

"We now have close to a 20-part test on a carriage motion. That
test, at best, is applied inconsistently," Mr. Strosberg
continues.  "From the perspective of a class action plaintiffs'
lawyer, preparing for these cases has become somewhat of a moving
target in that you have so many factors but . . . there is no one
test that's consistently applied.

"The Court of Appeal had an opportunity to establish a coherent
framework to resolving carriage disputes and in my view, it did
not do so," Mr. Strosberg adds.

Koskie Minsky argued that in its attempt to win carriage, Rochon
Genova disclosed its preliminary expert reports against the
interest of the class.  According to Mr. Strosberg, the court of
appeal should have weighed in on this issue.  He says disclosing
an expert report so early in the case is "a tactical mistake" that
prejudices the class.

"What happens is you've effectively given the defendants a draft
expert report, which they're not entitled to see," he says.  "You
have to understand that a carriage motion is a very early
procedural motion that has nothing to do with the defendants."

Mr. Strosberg says in every single carriage dispute going forward,
plaintiffs' counsel will be forced to reveal their draft expert
report in an attempt to show the extent of their preparation.

But Mr. Rochon says preliminary expert reports provide an
important glimpse into a considerable preparation.  It shows the
court that "you're on top of this and you've done your homework,"
he says.

"My view is that this is an important yardstick to apply when
considering which firm should get carriage," Mr. Rochon adds.  "It
may not be appropriate in every case but in a significant, complex
securities case such as this, the degree of preparation and
understanding the overall case was at the heart of the carriage
decision."

In this dispute, Koskie Minsky said the court shouldn't award
Rochon Genova the case because of the history of judicial
criticism of the Merchant Law Group, one of the members of the
Rochon consortium.  The Merchant Law Group has gotten a lot of
flak from the courts for its fee-sharing arrangements.

"The appellants' position with respect to Merchant is
hypocritical, Mr. Rochon says, given that members of the Koskie
consortium had their own history of co-counsel agreements with
Merchant," Justice Strathy said.

"The motion judge was clearly aware of these duties and of
Merchant's history and I am not prepared to say that he erred in
the exercise of his discretion in awarding carriage to Rochon in
spite of Merchant's participation in that consortium,"
Justice Strathy also said.


BERJAC OF OREGON: Class Action Legal Costs Hit Holding Co. Profit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Ed Russo, writing for The Register-Guard, reports that unusual
expenses, including the money needed to buy two banks and to pay
for litigation costs related to the Berjac of Oregon financial
collapse, caused second-quarter profits to plunge by nearly half
for the holding company of Pacific Continental Bank.

Eugene-based Pacific Continental Corp. on July 20 reported a net
profit of $2.6 million in the three months ended June 30, a 48
percent drop from the $5 million in net profit during the second
quarter of 2015.

The company said its bottom line was affected by an increase in
noninterest expenses of $2.9 million compared to the first
quarter.

Increased expenses mainly came from "extraordinary items,"
including $1.9 million in costs associated with the acquisitions
of Foundation Bank in Bellevue, Wash., and Capital Pacific Bank in
Portland, "legal costs related to litigation, and high claim
activity on our partially self-funded insurance plan," the company
said in a news release.

Litigation costs that affected the bank holding company's profits
relate to Pacific Continental being sued in a class-action lawsuit
in Multnomah County Circuit Court, and another lawsuit brought by
the U.S. Bankruptcy Court trustee who is overseeing the
liquidation of Berjac.  Berjac's alleged Ponzi scheme cost
hundreds of investors millions of dollars.

Eugene-based Berjac filed for bankruptcy nearly four years ago,
after being slapped with a $900,000 fine by state regulators for
selling unregistered securities without a license and failing to
inform investors of the risks of those investments.

The class-action lawsuit is seeking $44 million from Pacific
Continental Bank, Bergac founder Fred "Jack" Holcomb, the Holcomb
Family Limited Partnership, Umpqua Bank and Jones & Roth P.C.

The trustee's lawsuits alleged that Berjac's lenders, including
Pacific Continental Bank and Portland-based Umpqua Bank, and its
accounting firm, Jones & Roth, helped prop up Berjac's Ponzi
scheme.  The trustee's lawsuit seeks up to $7.7 million from
Pacific Continental Bank, Pacific Continental said in its annual
report.

The three firms have denied responsibility and have tried to get
the federal case dismissed.

In its annual report, Pacific Continental said that on April 20,
it reached a tentative settlement of the class-action and trustee
lawsuits.  The company did not disclose the settlement amount in
the filing.  The class action suit will require approval of a U.S.
Circuit Court judge, according to the company's filing.  The
tentative settlements have not yet been entered into the public
court files.

"The settlement is not expected to have a material adverse effect
on the company's financial condition," the company said.

On a per share basis, the bank's second-quarter profit equaled 13
cents per diluted share, compared with 26 cents per share in the
same quarter in 2015.

Pacific Continental Corp. reported that its total assets grew by
10.6 percent compared to the year-earlier quarter, reaching $2
billion for the first time.

The "high claim activity" on its partially self-funded insurance
plan cost the firm about $550,000, a company spokesman said.

Also, Pacific Continental incurred $240,000 in legal and
professional fees, related to its "annual stock grant" to its 11
board members, who received stock on May 1.

Pacific Continental Corp. said its second-quarter deposits fell by
$125.9 million, to $1.51 billion, compared to the first quarter.
About 65 percent of the decrease, or $81.8 million, came because a
"large local client" withdrew funds sooner than expected after it
was acquired by a "national entity," Pacific Continental said.

In spite of the deposit decline, the company said it produced
record quarterly loan growth of $54.8 million compared to the
first quarter of 2016.

"While deposits declined, these decreases came from a very limited
number of clients, and were mostly expected," Chief Operating
Officer Casey Hogan said in a statement.  "We continue to focus on
growing earning assets and driving future revenue."

Pacific Continental operates 14 banks and three loan offices in
three markets -- Eugene, Portland and Seattle.

The bank's financial results were released after stock trading
closed.  The company's stock closed at $16.44 per share, up 7
cents.  The stock, which trades on the Nasdaq exchange under the
symbol PCBK, has traded between $12.63 and $17.02 per share for
the past 52 weeks.


BOEHRINGER INGELHEIM: Faces "Langford" Suit Over Pradaxa(R)
-----------------------------------------------------------
Terry Langford v. Boehringer Ingelheim Pharmaceuticals, Inc. and
Boehringer Ingelheim International GMBH, Case No. HHD-CV-16-
6069737-S (Conn. Super. Ct., July 13, 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 -

      Brian J. Perkins, Esq.
      MEYERS & FLOWERS, LLC
      3 North Second Street, Suite 300
      St. Charles, IL 60174
      Telephone: (630) 232-6333
      Facsimile: (630) 845-8982
      E-mail: bjp@meyers-flowers.com


BOEHRINGER INGELHEIM: Faces "Williamson" Suit Over Pradaxa(R)
-------------------------------------------------------------
Doris Williamson v. Boehringer Ingelheim Pharmaceuticals, Inc. and
Boehringer Ingelheim International GMBH, Case No.______ (Conn.
Super. Ct., July 13, 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 -

      Brian J. Perkins, Esq.
      MEYERS & FLOWERS, LLC
      3 North Second Street, Suite 300
      St. Charles, IL 60174
      Telephone: (630) 232-6333
      Facsimile: (630) 845-8982
      E-mail: bjp@meyers-flowers.com


BOLLINGER SHIPYARDS: Class of Laborers Certified in "Munoz" Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Hon. Patrick J. Hanna conditionally certified to proceed as a
collective action the lawsuit entitled SILVIA MUNOZ, on behalf of
herself and other persons similarly situated v. BOLLINGER
SHIPYARDS, LLC and GURO ENTERPRISE, LLC and CESAR GUERRERO and JAG
PREMIER, INC. and JORGE GUERRERO, Case No. 6:15-cv-02328-RGJ-PJH
(W.D. La.), defining this class:

     "All individuals who worked performing manual labor under
      the Master Work Contract of July 22, 2014, between Guro
      Enterprise L.L.C. and Bollinger Shipyards Inc."

Judge Hanna directed the Defendants to provide the Plaintiff with
the name, last known address, and telephone number of potential
collective action plaintiffs within 20 days of the entry of the
Order.  Judge Hanna also directed the Plaintiff to mail the
Proposed Class Notice and its Spanish translation to the addresses
of the potential collective action plaintiffs within 10 days of
receiving the information from the Defendants.  Potential class
members may opt in to the collective action if: (1) they have
mailed or faxed their consent form to counsel for the class within
60 days after the notice and consent forms have been mailed out to
the class; or (2) they show good cause for any delay.

A copy of the Order is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=IAr0C6Ub


BP: Plaintiffs' Attorneys Justify $600MM Fees in Oil Spill Case
---------------------------------------------------------------
Greg LaRose, writing for NOLA.com, reports that when BP and other
companies involved agreed to settle class action claims for the
2010 Deepwater Horizon explosion and oil spill, it included a $600
million cap for attorney fees and expenses.  The 107 law firms
that make up the Plaintiffs Steering Committee spelled out just
how much work they have done in a court petition filed on July 15.

The filing with U.S. District Judge Carl Barbier and Magistrate
Judge Sally Shushan indicates lawyers have logged more than
527,000 work hours since April 20, 2010 -- collectively more than
60 years -- attempting to recover damages for common and
collective benefit plaintiffs.  Their clients comprise some
130,000 individuals, businesses, and governmental entities that
elected to take part in the multi-district litigation (MDL) rather
than pursue their claims on an individual basis.

"With just over a year from the formation of the MDL to complete
all discovery and otherwise prepare for a massive two-phase
comprehensive liability trial, dozens of Common Benefit Attorneys
essentially gave up their entire practices to live and work in New
Orleans on exclusively the Deepwater Horizon Litigation . . ." the
petition said.

The first phase of the trial was to determine whether BP,
Transocean, Halliburton and other companies were grossly negligent
in contributing to the conditions that led to the rig explosion
that killed 11 workers and the spill that tarnished the Gulf
Coast.  The second phase examined just how much oil was spilled
and the damage it caused.  Fines were determined in the third and
final phase of the trial.

Common benefits attorneys have recovered more than $25 billion in
the BP trial, including $10 billion to $13 billion for those
seeking economic and medical damages.

The 107 firms in the multi-district litigation spent $45 million
of their own money on that time, according to the petition.  That
would leave $555 million to cover actual fees.

How much money each firm will receive still has to be determined.
As part of the settlement, attorneys agreed to the creation of a
court-appointed fee committee.  Its members will make a
recommendation to the judge on how the money should be split.

The petition goes into great depth to justify the fees attorneys
are seeking, although it is highly unlikely BP or the other
companies will challenge them because they fall under the $600
million ceiling.  The $555 million fee award requested comes to
6.59 percent of the benefits paid under BP class settlements to
date and 4.25 percent of the estimated economic and medical
payouts, the filing says.

For individual claims, the settlement placed a 25 percent cap on
attorneys' contingency fees.  Judge Barbier has emphasized that
lawyers can charge less, especially for simple claims.

According to the petition, the common benefit law firms compiled
7,407 exhibits, 2,739 hours of video and 130,642 pages from
depositions.  They deposed 65 experts who offered 35 days worth of
expert testimony, most of it between November 2011 and February
2012 during the first phase of the trial.

Anyone opposing the facts submitted in the petition has until
August to challenge them in court.  It's expected that Judge
Barbier will consider the submission by early fall, after which
the fee committee would begin its work.

Judge Barbier can adjust the fee committee's determinations if he
deems it necessary, and firms can challenge the amounts awarded to
them if they feel their compensation isn't adequate.


BRIGHTON TOWNSHIP, MI: Begins Discussions in Tax Refund Case
------------------------------------------------------------
WHMI reports that legal discussions have begun in regards to the
class-action lawsuit filed against Brighton Township by residents
wanting sewer tax refunds.  On July 18, the Brighton Township
Board of Trustees met in closed executive session for over an hour
for confidential attorney/client communication.  The class-action
lawsuit against Brighton Township was filed recently in U.S.
District Court, on behalf of over 1,350 sanitary sewer system
users who believe they are paying exorbitant sewer rates.  The
problem, as both the township and the affected residents see it,
is that the sewer system was built in 2003 based on projections
which showed a significant population increase, and therefore a
major increase in the number of sewage treatment system users
based on new homes coming in.  However the recession hit a few
years later, and the township population stagnated. Because there
were few new hookups, the system has been running at about 40% of
capacity.  The lawsuit asks that the court order the township to
refund all charges collected and pay into a common fund for the
benefit of the sewer customers and the overcharges to which they
may be entitled, permanently enjoin the township from imposing
further overcharges and end all liens against property.  Township
Manager Brian Vick says he cannot expound on the issue or the
closed session anymore then what was briefly listed in the
meeting's agenda.


BUTLER & HOSCH: Bid for Class Certification in "Regal" Granted
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Hon. Beth Bloom granted Plaintiffs' unopposed motion for class
certification in the lawsuit styled STEPHEN REGAL, GIANNA HILLIS,
and MATTHEW WILLIAMS, the Plaintiffs, v. BUTLER & HOSCH, P.A., the
Defendant, Case No. 0:15-cv-61081-BB (S.D. Fla.).

The class of at least 606 members is defined as:

     "All former employees, excluding part-time employees, of
      Butler & Hosch, P.A. who were terminated from their
      employment at Butler & Hosch without receiving sixty (60)
      days written notice of a mass layoff before the date of
      termination."

The Plaintiffs alleged in their Amended Consolidated Class Action
Complaint, that Defendant decided to terminate Plaintiffs and the
proposed class members without the requisite written notice on May
14, 2015.

A copy of the Order is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=z7lb65GP


CAFE LUNA: Biller Seeks to Certify Collective Action
----------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned KRISTEN BILLER on her own
behalf and all similarly situated individuals, the Plaintiff, v.
CAF  LUNA OF NAPLES, INC., a Florida Profit Corporation, CAF  LUNA
EAST, a Florida Limited Liability Company, EDWARD J. BARSAMIAN,
Individually, and SHANNON RADOSTI, individually, the Defendants,
Case No. 2:14-cv-00659-JES-MRM (M.D. Fla.), the Plaintiff filed a
second renewed motion to conditionally certify the collective
action and to facilitate notice to potential class members and
incorporated memorandum of law.

The Plaintiff seeks to facilitate notice to the limited class of
Servers who were not paid at least minimum wages as required by
the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA), because they participated in
Defendants' tip pool with employees who do not customarily and
regularly receive tips and/or were not allowed by Defendants to
retain all of their tips as required by the FLSA.

A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=vk5Fd4Ov

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Andrew R. Frisch, Esq.
          MORGAN & MORGAN
          600 N. Pine Island Road, Suite 400
          Plantation, FL 33324
          Telephone: (954) WORKERS
          Facsimile: (954) 327 3013
          E-Mail: afrisch@forthepeople.com


CAIRO CO: "Wilda" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages
-------------------------------------------------------------
Lindsey M. Wilda, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated v. Cairo Co LLC, d/b/a BB's Build-a Breakfast, Build-a-
Burger, Alaa Musa, Omar Amin, and Mona Kayali, Case No. 2:16-cv-
00912-DEJ (E.D. Wis., July 13, 2016), seeks to recover unpaid
minimum wages, unpaid overtime compensation, illegal deductions
from pay, liquidated damages, costs, attorneys' fees, and any such
other relief pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act.

The Defendants operate a restaurant located at 633 West Wisconsin
Avenue, in Milwaukee, Wisconsin.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Larry A. Johnson, Esq.
      Summer H. Murshid, Esq.
      Timothy P. Maynard, Esq.
      B. Michele Sumara, Esq.
      HAWKS QUINDEL, S.C.
      PO Box 442
      Milwaukee, WI 53201-0442
      Telephone: (414) 271-8650
      Facsimile: (414) 271-8442
      E-mail: ljohnson@hq-law.com
              smurshid@hq-law.com
              tmaynard@hq-law.com


CALDERA MEDICAL: Fails to Get Final OK of Federal Suit Settlement
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The Honorable Stephen V. Wilson enters an order in the lawsuit
styled Federal Insurance Company v. Caldera Medical, Inc., et al.,
Case No. 2:15-cv-00393-SVW-PJW (C.D. Cal.), denying:

   -- motion for final settlement approval and class
      certification; and

   -- motion for attorneys' fees as moot.

Judge Wilson will issue an order on the pending motion for summary
judgment, according to the civil minutes.  Following the ruling,
the parties will meet and confer to discuss whether a revised
class settlement is viable.

The underlying allegations stem from injuries caused by Claimant-
Defendant Caldera Medical, Inc.'s transvaginal mesh devices.
According to the Civil Minutes, there are currently no fewer than
2,710 individuals asserting claims against Caldera for injuries
caused by its TVM products.  The majority of the lawsuits are
currently being litigated within a joint coordinated proceeding
pending in the California Superior Court for the County of Los
Angeles and entitled In Re Transvaginal Mesh Litigation, Case No.
JCCP 4733.

Claimant-Plaintiff Federal Insurance Company issued various
insurance policies to Caldera between 2008 and 2011.  The policies
have "burning-limits" provisions, meaning all sums paid by Federal
to defend Caldera or other insureds liable for injuries caused by
Caldera's TVM products erode the limits available to pay judgments
or settlements on the TVM claims.  In light of the multiple and
competing demands for the proceeds of the insurance policies, on
January 20, 2015, Federal initiated the present interpleader
action.

Although the policies collectively have a total of $35,000,000 in
limits of liability, all parties agree that the maximum that might
potentially be available is $25,000,000.  Federal contends that
there is a maximum of only $20,000,000 in limits potentially
responsive to TVM claims, of which Federal has already paid
approximately $7,275,000 in defense costs and settlements.

In the Civil Minutes, Judge Wilson opined that the requirements of
a Rule 23(b)(1)(B) class have not been satisfied because there is
no "definitely ascertained" limited fund that has been entirely
placed into the settlement sum.  Although the Court agrees that a
$20 million valuation is a fair calculation of the value of the
Policies discounted by the risk attached to the pending motion for
summary judgment, the Supreme Court's narrow construction of Rule
23 (b)(1)(B) classes in Ortiz v. Fibreboard Corp., 527 U.S. 815,
834 (1999), does not permit certification for an estimated fund,
however fairly or reasonably calculated, Judge Wilson explained.
Judge Wilson added that the parties have not pointed to any
authority interpreting Ortiz in a broader fashion.

In addition, Judge Wilson pointed out, given that Caldera remains
a solvent, operational business, without evidence regarding
Caldera's potential liquidated value, it is not clear that the
policies are the only available funds to contribute to the
settlement.  The Court recognizes that Caldera's records
demonstrate that it only has enough cash on hand and net income to
cover payroll and operating expenses, that it has no net profits
and no liquid funds to contribute to a settlement, and that it has
significant debt secured by its assets preventing it from
borrowing additional funds.

A copy of the Civil Minutes is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=saBnSC7f


CANADA: Class Action Mulled Over Gov't Employees Privacy Breach
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Canadian Press reports that the office that advises the prime
minister and his cabinet on government operations is taking over
efforts to fix the dysfunctional pay system that has short-changed
tens of thousands of civil servants, Justin Trudeau said on July
20.

The prime minister said it was unacceptable that a "troubling
number" of civil servants have not received paycheques as a result
of problems with the Phoenix system.

"We are working right away on helping the most vulnerable while we
make sure that the system functions for everyone," Mr. Trudeau
said at a news conference in Gatineau, Que.

"And it's something I have engaged in personally and tasked the
clerk of the Privy Council to oversee."

Hundreds haven't been paid at all

It was revealed that more than 80,000 civil servants are impacted
by the snafu.  Among them are 720 people who haven't received
paycheques at all, in some cases for months, forcing many to
borrow money or max out credit cards to pay their bills.

Unions representing federal workers have demanded that those
responsible for implementing the new pay system be held
accountable for the breakdown, but the prime minister said sorting
out whether anyone should face consequences is taking a back seat,
for now, to ensuring people get paid.

"There will be time for 'lessons learned' down the road," said Mr.
Trudeau.

"We're taking this very, very seriously and ensuring that people
get the support and the pay that they are owed."

What will also have to wait is sorting out whether government
employees were out-of-pocket for credit card charges and other
expenses directly linked to the pay problems.

But anyone who incurred expenses that were no fault of their own
should be reimbursed eventually, Public Services and Procurement
Minister Judy Foote told The Canadian Press on July 19.

Another glitch has breached privacy

The CBC also reported on July 19 that a glitch in the new Phoenix
system has allowed widespread access to employees' personnel
records, including social insurance numbers, citing documents
obtained under the Access to Information Act.

That potential privacy breach could result in legal action against
the government if anyone's private information was compromised,
said Gilles LeVasseur at the University of Ottawa's Telfer School
of Management.

"If something is misused for whatever reason, and it's a leak that
you have concealed or not properly dealt with, you're also liable
for future consequences," he said.

"And that may bring, for example, a possible class-action if
there's any damages that people may have suffered from that."
Government officials were aware that the system might cause
privacy breaches as early as January 2016, yet said in May it was
secure, said the Public Service Alliance of Canada.

"This is serious and unacceptable," SAC national president Robyn
Benson said in a statement.

"The private information of our members and all public service
workers should not be in the hands of anyone who does not need
it."

The union, which represents the vast majority of Canada's 300,000
federal civil servants, called for a government hotline employees
could use to find out what personal information was shared and how
to protect their identities.

IBM, which designed the Phoenix program, would not comment about
the system's problems on July 20.

A spokeswoman said the company doesn't speak publicly about the
specifics of its client agreements.

The auditor general and the privacy commissioner have both been
asked to investigate how the pay system failed.


CASSELS BROCK: Supreme Court Sticks with Traditional Forum Rules
----------------------------------------------------------------
Gavin Giles, Esq., of McInnes Cooper, in an article for Mondaq,
reports that on July 15, 2016 the Supreme Court of Canada, in a
long-awaited decision, resisted the invitation to re-write the
traditional rules for the establishment of forum non-conveniens,
and enhanced the applicability of the "presumptive connecting
factor" requirement: "a contract connected with the dispute was
made in the province".  The decision is heavily fact-specific, but
underscores that the Court is not -- at least at this time --
prepared to change its "presumptive jurisdiction" tests.

The case, Lapointe Rosenstein Marchand Melan‡on LLP v. Cassels
Brock & Blackwell LLP, arose out of the well-known Ontario class
action in which some 207 General Motors of Canada dealers saw
their dealerships closed as a consequence of the 2008 Federal
Government of Canada GMC bailout.  Those dealers later joined
together and launched a class action against law firm Cassels
Brock.  The class action alleged negligent advice and
representation respecting the execution of so-called Wind-Down
Agreements between GMC and the affected dealers; through an
industry association, Cassels Brock had advised the affected
dealers and ultimately counselled their entry into the Wind-Down
Agreements.  The class action also alleged that Cassels Brock was
in a conflict of interest.  The dealers' claims exceeded $750
million.  Cassels Brock defended the class action, and commenced
third party proceedings in Ontario against some 150 law firms
that, in addition to Cassels Brock, had individually advised the
dealers and executed certificates of independent legal advice
respecting the dealers' executions of the Wind-Down Agreements. Of
those 150 law firms, 32 were in Quebec.  The Quebec firms sought
to oust the Ontario courts' jurisdiction over Cassels Brock's
third party claims on the basis of forum non-conveniens. The
Quebec firms failed at the Ontario Superior Court of Justice and
at the Ontario Court of Appeal -- and ultimately at the Supreme
Court of Canada.

The Supreme Court of Canada re-stated the tests for forum non-
conveniens that it set out in its 2012 decision, Club Resorts Ltd.
v. Van Breda.  On the basis of those tests, jurisdiction can be
established where the defendant carries on business in the
province in which the third party proceedings are commenced, the
tort alleged was committed or the contract in issue was made.  The
Court parenthetically re-stated its long-held view that to
establish forum non-conveniens, the party seeking to oust the
assumed jurisdiction must demonstrate there is another
jurisdiction "clearly more appropriate" for the dispute in issue.
Applying this test, the Court noted, amongst other things, that
all the subject Wind-Down Agreements were, according to their
unique terms, made in Ontario.  Though some of the Agreements were
executed in Quebec, the Agreements expressly stated they didn't
take effect until GMC had provided written notice that they had
been accepted -- and in every case, GMC provided this written
notice in Ontario.

The Court additionally re-stated its earlier approach to
flexibility and commercial efficiency in addressing issues of
contested jurisdiction, confirming that a connection between the
claim and the contract made in the province where the party seeks
jurisdiction to be assumed is enough -- and "a connection" did
"not necessarily require that an alleged tortfeasor be a party to
the contract."


CHIPOTLE: Non-GMO Advertising Misleading, Suit Alleges
------------------------------------------------------
J.R. Pegg, writing for Food Chemical News, reports that
Chipotle consumers say polls support their view that the
restaurant chain's non-GMO advertising is misleading and argue
their lawsuit has merit because there is ample disagreement over
how a "reasonable consumer" interprets the issue.


COCA-COLA CO: Enslins Seek to Certify 2 Classes of Employees
------------------------------------------------------------
Pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 23(a), and (b)(2) and
(b)(3), Plaintiff Shane K. Enslin and his wife -- who seeks to be
added as a plaintiff via amendment to the Complaint -- move the
Court for an order certifying the action styled SHANE K. ENSLIN,
on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. THE
COCA-COLA COMPANY, et al., Case No. 2:14-cv-06476-JFL (E.D. Pa.),
as a class action, and appointing the Enslins as Class
Representatives.

The Plaintiffs ask that the Court certify two classes of current
and former Coke employees whose confidential information was
compromised by the Defendants' alleged breach of their promise of
information security contained in their policies and procedures.

A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=rSAOUK6W

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Donald E. Haviland, Jr., Esq.
          Jay W. Chamberlin, Esq.
          HAVILAND HUGHES
          201 South Maple Avenue, Suite 110
          Ambler, PA 19002
          Telephone: (215) 609-4661
          Facsimile: (215) 392-4400
          E-mail: haviland@havilandhughes.com
                  chamberlin@havilandhughes.com


COLLECTO INC: Faces TCPA Class Action in California
---------------------------------------------------
Wadi Reformado, writing for Northern California Record, reports
that two California residents have filed a class-action complaint
against a debt collector alleging it made harassing phone calls.

Kalisha Johnson and Johnetta Mingo filed a complaint on behalf of
all others similarly situated on July 19 in the U.S. District
Court for the Northern District of California against Collecto
Inc., doing business as EOS CCA, alleging violation of the
Telephone Consumer Protection Act.

According to the complaint, the plaintiffs allege that between
2015 and 2016, they suffered damages from being called several
times by the defendant.  The plaintiffs hold Collecto Inc.
responsible because the defendant allegedly contacted both
plaintiffs several times using an automatic dialing system despite
their requests for it to stop calling them.

The plaintiffs request a trial by jury and seek injunctive relief,
$1,500 as treble damages for each and every call, $500 in
statutory damages for each and every call, damages, all legal fees
and any other relief as the court deems just.  They are
represented by L. Timothy Fisher, Annick M. Persinger and Yeremey
O. Krivoshey of Bursor & Fisher PA in Walnut Creek and Scott A.
Bursor of Bursor & Fisher PA in New York, New York.

U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California Case
number 3:16-cv-04063


COMMUNITY PHYSICAL: Faces Class Action Over Unpaid Overtime Wages
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Scott Holland, writing for Cook County Record, reports that a
physical therapist who alleged she and potentially more than 100
others like her were not paid the overtime wages due them will be
allowed to proceed with her federal class action wage lawsuit
against her former employer.

Federal Magistrate Judge Mary M. Rowland issued an opinion and
order July 12 granting plaintiff Nancy Girolamo conditional class
certification in her complaint against Community Physical Therapy
& Associates and its president, Robert Tripicchio.

Ms. Girolamo, who worked for CPT's Alden of Waterford facility in
Aurora from 2008 through 2015, alleged the firm failed to
sufficiently pay employees for overtime hours and that she faced
retaliation for complaining about the situation.

In May, U.S. District Judge Andrea R. Wood had granted a motion to
dismiss three counts of Ms. Girolamo's second amended complaint;
Rowland's opinion addressed a third amended complaint filed by Ms.
Girolamo.

The underlying problem, per Ms. Girolamo's complaint, is CPT's
productivity requirements, which she alleged effectively required
therapy assistants to work off the clock by establishing set time
percentages such workers are required to be engaged with patients.
These standards, Ms. Girolamo wrote, are related to changes in
Medicare billing procedures, dating to October 2011. CPT's
response was to require employees to spend 90 percent of their
time on billable tasks.

Since Ms. Girolamo and more than 100 other similar employees also
had other required tasks that could not be completed within the
allotted 40 hours, the result was doing such work on nights and
weekends.  In her opinion, Judge Rowland wrote that a CPT "senior
vice president of corporate operations, testified that she
receives complaints of off-the-clock work from management staff
three to four times per year, including from locations where Ms.
Girolamo did not work."

CPT argued Judge Rowland should not certify the class of
additional plaintiffs because Ms. Girolamo had an opportunity to
conduct discovery.  However, Rowland noted there still is not "a
list of potential plaintiffs, and the parties have not had an
opportunity to engage in discovery with the potential class
members."

There remains a lack of clarity about the distinction between job
duties of therapists and therapy assistants, but Judge Rowland
said she would not apply a stricter review standard at this point.
Testimony from two CPT supervisors showed each knew "both therapy
assistants and therapists were working off-the-clock," the judge
said.  One of the supervisors is also classified as a therapist,
and testified at a deposition that she works when not clocked in.

The defendants also argued the class should be narrowed to exclude
part-time employees as well as anyone who did not work at the
Alden of Waterford facility.  Judge Rowland said the Fair Labor
Standards Act applies to any employee who works more than 40 hours
a week regardless of employer classification.  She also noted Ms.
Girolamo's testimony showed evidence of company-wide practice
sufficient to extend class membership to employees of other CPT
facilities.

In addition to granting conditional class certification for
therapists and assistants who were paid an hourly wage going back
three years, Judge Rowland ordered CPT to provide an electronic
list of all such workers including names, mailing and email
address, telephone numbers and employment dates.  She ordered the
information to be provided by July 26.

In her second amended complaint, Judge Girolamo included a count
regarding CPT's regular payment schedule as violating the Illinois
Wage Payment and Collection Act.  In arguing for dismissal of that
count, CPT noted all workers, including those whose CPT employment
ends, are paid eventually.  Wood said the firm's "interpretation
of the IWPCA contradicts the plain language of the statute.  If
the Illinois legislature desired to allow a cause of action only
for wage payments never made or only for wages paid more than a
month late, it could have so written the statute."

But whereas Judge Wood refused to dismiss Judge Girolamo's
complaint regarding the IWPCA, she did grant a motion to dismiss a
similar claim under the FLSA, which "does not specify a particular
time in which an employee must be compensated."

In Judge Rowland's opinion on the third complaint, she ordered the
phrase "and to timely pay" be stricken from the sentence: "The
lawsuit is about whether (CPT) failed to pay overtime and to
timely pay its therapists and therapy assistants."

CPT is defended in the case by attorneys with the firm of Nixon
Peabody LLP, of Chicago.

Judge Girolamo is represented by The Fish Law Firm, of Naperville.


CREDIT MANAGEMENT: Bid for Class Cert. in "Powers" Suit Granted
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Hon. Robert F. Rossiter, Jr. entered an order in the class
action lawsuit styled LAURA POWERS, on behalf of herself and all
others similarly situated; NICHOLE PALMER; and JASON PALMER, the
Plaintiffs, v. CREDIT MANAGEMENT SERVICES, INC. (CMS); DANA K.
FRIES; JESSICA L. V. PISKORSKI; BRADY W. KEITH; MICHAEL J.
MORLEDGE; and TESSA HERMANSON, the Defendants, Case No. 8:11-cv-
00436-RFR-TDT (D. Nebr.), granting Plaintiffs' unopposed motion
for class certification and for preliminary approval of class
action settlement.

For the purposes of settlement, the parties agree to certification
of the following class:

     "(i) All persons with addresses in Nebraska upon whom
      Defendants served county court collection complaint in the
      form of Exhibit C after January 1, 2008, for purposes of
      the Nebraska Consumer Protection Act (NCPA), and after
      December 18, 2010, for purposes of the Fair Debt Collection
      Practices Act (FDCPA) (ii) which sought to recover
      attorneys' fees, prejudgment interest, and costs, (iii)
      where CMS did not personally provide the ninety-day
      presentation of the claim (iv) in an attempt to collect an
      alleged debt which, as shown by the nature of the alleged
      debt, defendants' records, or the records of the original
      creditors, was primarily for personal, family, or household
      purposes."

      and

     "(i) All persons with addresses in Nebraska upon whom
      Defendants served a county court collection complaint in
      the form of Exhibit A after January 1, 2008, for purposes
      of the NCPA, and after December 18, 2010, for purposes of
      the FDCPA (ii) which sought to recover prejudgment interest
      in an attempt to collect an alleged debt which, as shown by
      the nature of the alleged debt, Defendants' records, or the
      records of the original creditors, was primarily for
      personal, family, or household purposes."

A copy of the Order is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=W710W1bU


DANA HOLDING: $64MM Settlement Gets Preliminary Court Approval
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Blade reports that a federal judge has given preliminary
approval to a $64-million settlement to be paid to investors by
two former Dana Holding Corp. top executives who were the target
of a securities-fraud class action lawsuit.

Judge James Carr of the U.S. District Court in Toledo tentatively
approved the settlement and scheduled a hearing for Nov. 18.  In
the meantime, the judge ordered several actions take place before
the hearing.

A proof-of-claim form is to be sent to all class members who can
be identified, a notice of the settlement is to be published in
two publications and released to a news service, and class members
are to be given an opportunity to object and opt out of the class
action.

The settlement would resolve a class-action lawsuit filed by union
pension groups in 2005 that accuses Michael Burns, Dana's former
chief executive, and Robert Richter, the former chief financial
officer, of knowingly misleading investors about financial woes at
Dana in the years leading up to its bankruptcy in 2006.

Mr. Burns, the CEO from 2004 to 2008, left when the company
emerged from Chapter 11 reorganization.  Mr. Richter, CFO and vice
president from 1999 to 2006, retired just days before Dana filed
for bankruptcy.  The lead plaintiffs were the Plumbers & Pipe
fitters National Pension Fund, SEIU Pension Plans Master Trust,
and West Virginia Laborers Pension Trust Fund.


DISH NETWORK: Second Phase of Bench Trial Set for October 2016
--------------------------------------------------------------
DISH Network Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on July 21, 2016, for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2016, that the Court has scheduled
a second phase of the bench trial in the Do Not Call Litigation
for October 2016.

The Company said, "On March 25, 2009, our wholly-owned subsidiary
DISH Network L.L.C. was sued in a civil action by the United
States Attorney General and several states in the United States
District Court for the Central District of Illinois, alleging
violations of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act and the
Telemarketing Sales Rule ("TSR"), as well as analogous state
statutes and state consumer protection laws.  The plaintiffs
allege that we, directly and through certain independent third-
party retailers and their affiliates, committed certain
telemarketing violations.  On December 23, 2013, the plaintiffs
filed a motion for summary judgment, which indicated for the first
time that the state plaintiffs were seeking civil penalties and
damages of approximately $270 million and that the federal
plaintiff was seeking an unspecified amount of civil penalties
(which could substantially exceed the civil penalties and damages
being sought by the state plaintiffs).  The plaintiffs were also
seeking injunctive relief that if granted would, among other
things, enjoin DISH Network L.L.C., whether acting directly or
indirectly through authorized telemarketers or independent third-
party retailers, from placing any outbound telemarketing calls to
market or promote its goods or services for five years, and enjoin
DISH Network L.L.C. from accepting activations or sales from
certain existing independent third-party retailers and from
certain new independent third-party retailers, except under
certain circumstances.  We also filed a motion for summary
judgment, seeking dismissal of all claims."

"On December 12, 2014, the Court issued its opinion with respect
to the parties' summary judgment motions.  The Court found that
DISH Network L.L.C. is entitled to partial summary judgment with
respect to one claim in the action.  In addition, the Court found
that the plaintiffs are entitled to partial summary judgment with
respect to ten claims in the action, which includes, among other
things, findings by the Court establishing DISH Network L.L.C.'s
liability for a substantial amount of the alleged outbound
telemarketing calls by DISH Network L.L.C. and certain of its
independent third-party retailers that were the subject of the
plaintiffs' motion.  The Court did not issue any injunctive relief
and did not make any determination on civil penalties or damages,
ruling instead that the scope of any injunctive relief and the
amount of any civil penalties or damages are questions for trial.

"In pre-trial disclosures, the federal plaintiff indicated that it
intended to seek up to $900 million in alleged civil penalties,
and the state plaintiffs indicated that they intended to seek as
much as $23.5 billion in alleged civil penalties and damages.  The
plaintiffs also modified their request for injunctive relief.
Their requested injunction, if granted, would enjoin DISH Network
L.L.C. from placing outbound telemarketing calls unless and until:
(i) DISH Network L.L.C. hires a third-party consulting
organization to perform a review of its call center operations;
(ii) such third-party consulting organization submits a
telemarketing compliance plan to the Court and the federal
plaintiff; (iii) the Court holds a hearing on the adequacy of the
plan; (iv) if the Court approves the plan, DISH Network L.L.C.
implements the plan and verifies to the Court that it has
implemented the plan; and (v) the Court issues an order permitting
DISH Network L.L.C. to resume placing outbound telemarketing
calls.  The plaintiffs' modified request for injunctive relief, if
granted, would also enjoin DISH Network L.L.C. from accepting
customer orders solicited by certain independent third-party
retailers unless and until a similar third-party review and Court
approval process was followed with respect to the telemarketing
activities of its independent third-party retailer base to ensure
compliance with the TSR.

"The first phase of the bench trial took place January 19, 2016
through February 11, 2016.  In closing briefs, the federal
plaintiff indicated that it still is seeking $900 million in
alleged civil penalties; the California state plaintiff indicated
that it is seeking $100 million in alleged civil penalties and
damages for its state law claims (in addition to any amounts
sought on its federal law claims); the Ohio state plaintiff
indicated that it is seeking approximately $10 million in alleged
civil penalties and damages for its state law claims (in addition
to any amounts sought on its federal law claims); and the Illinois
and North Carolina state plaintiffs did not state the specific
alleged civil penalties and damages that they are seeking; but the
state plaintiffs have taken the general position that any damages
award less than $1.0 billion (presumably for both federal and
state law claims) would not raise constitutional concerns.  Under
the Eighth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, excessive fines may
not be imposed.

"The Court scheduled a second phase of the bench trial for October
2016, which is planned to cover the plaintiffs' requested
injunctive relief, as well as DISH Network L.L.C.'s response to
certain evidence that the state plaintiffs presented in the first
phase.  On April 20, 2016, the Court denied the federal
plaintiff's motion seeking to cancel the separate hearing on the
plaintiffs' requested injunctive relief.

"We may also from time to time be subject to private civil
litigation alleging telemarketing violations.  For example, a
portion of the alleged telemarketing violations by an independent
third-party retailer at issue in the case described in the
previous paragraph are also the subject of a certified class
action filed against DISH Network L.L.C. in the United States
District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina.

"We intend to vigorously defend these cases.  We cannot predict
with any degree of certainty the outcome of these suits or
determine the extent of any potential liability or damages."


DOUGLAS KNIGHT: Faces "Greisman" Class Suit in E.D. New York
------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been commenced against Douglas Knight &
Associates, Inc.

The case is captioned Shmuly Greisman, on behalf of himself and
all other similarly situated consumers v. Douglas Knight &
Associates, Inc., Case No. 1:16-cv-03896 (E.D.N.Y., July 13,
2016).

Douglas Knight & Associates, Inc. operates an insurance company
headquartered at 1201 6th Ave W #201, Bradenton, FL 34205.

Shmuly Greisman is a pro se plantiff.


DRILTECH LLC: Bid for Conditional Cert. in "Baker" Suit Granted
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit styled KELLY BAKER, individually and
on behalf of all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v.
DRILTECH, L.L.C., Case No. 6:16-cv-00309-SMH-CBW (W.D. La.), the
Court granted conditional certification of:

     "all MWD Operators of Driltech, LLC employed from July 20,
      2013 to the present."

The Plaintiff is authorized to disseminate by first class U.S.
Mail and by e-mail the proposed Notice and Consent to Join Forms.

A copy of the Order is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=Q6JwYZWt


EBAY INC: Class Action Dismissed with Leave to Amend
----------------------------------------------------
eBay Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on July 21, 2016, for the quarterly period
ended June 30, 2016, that a class action lawsuit was recently
dismissed with leave to amend.

The Company said, "In May 2014, we publicly announced that
criminals were able to penetrate and steal certain data, including
user names, encrypted user passwords and other non-financial user
data. Upon making this announcement, we required all buyers and
sellers on our platform to reset their passwords in order to log
into their account. The breach and subsequent password reset have
negatively impacted the business. In July 2014, a putative class
action lawsuit was filed against us for alleged violations and
harm resulting from the breach. The lawsuit was recently dismissed
with leave to amend. In addition, we have received requests for
information and are subject to investigations regarding this
incident from numerous regulatory and other government agencies
across the world."


EKF DIAGNOSTICS: Obtains Favorable Ruling TCPA Class Action
-----------------------------------------------------------
Mike Beve, writing for insiderARM.com, reports that Dr Barry
Sartin, a pathologist in Metairie, Louisiana, filed a class-action
lawsuit against EKF Diagnostics for "allegedly [sending]
unsolicited fax advertisements," in violation of the TCPA --
specifically, the "Junk Fax Prevention Act of 2005."

Though Dr. Sartin received only "a single unsolicited fax
advertisement" (per an article posted on Lexology.com; the case,
too, only references one fax, submitted into evidence, by
Dr. Sartin), the class-action case was built on the assumption
that Dr. Sartin's single fax was part of a larger fax campaign.

The fax to Dr. Sartin was sent on September 24, 2014.  The case
was filed on July 5, 2016, at the United States District Court
Eastern District of Louisiana.

The Court found for the defendant, EKF Diagnostic, who sent the
fax, and not for the plaintiffs, Dr Barry Sartin, et al.

Defendant EKF Diagnostics is not a collection agency, it's "a
global medical diagnostics business with a long history in point-
of-care testing and central laboratory manufacturing."

Why did the plaintiffs lose? Because the Court used Spokeo as the
basis of its decision, and because the plaintiffs could not show
any actual damage or harm in receiving the fax.  In Spokeo, that
ruling established that "Article III standing requires a concrete
injury even in the context of a statutory violation" (per both
Lexology and the Spokeo case).  The Court made this explicit in
its decision: "The complaint does not explain what factual harm,
in Dr. Sartin's view, lawmakers 'contemplated' when enacting the
TCPA.  Thus, its vague reference to Congress and the FCC provides
no factual material from which the Court can reasonably infer what
specific injury, if any, Dr. Sartin sustained through defendants'
alleged statutory violations.  Absent supporting factual
allegations, Dr. Sartin's bare assurance that an unspecified
injury exists is insufficient to establish Article III standing."

insideARM Perspective: Spokeo is an interesting and exciting new
development in TCPA cases because of this requirement of actual
damages, rather than one-off accidental missteps.  Actual changes
to the TCPA may or may not be in the works; in the meantime, we
have Spokeo.

Seeing other industries outside debt collection use -- and succeed
with -- Spokeo is a positive development.  We'll continue to
monitor such cases, both in- and outside the ARM space.


EMERGENT BIOSOLUTIONS: Faces Securities Class Action
----------------------------------------------------
Lundin Law PC on July 19 announced a class action lawsuit has been
filed against Emergent BioSolutions, Inc. ("Emergent" or the
"Company") concerning possible violations of federal securities
laws between January 11, 2016 and June 21, 2016 (the "Class
Period"). Investors who purchased or otherwise acquired shares
during the Class Period should contact the Firm before the lead
plaintiff deadline 60-days from July 19, 2016.

To participate in this class action lawsuit, you can call Brian
Lundin, Esquire, of Lundin Law PC, at 888-713-1033, or e-mail him
at brian@lundinlawpc.com

No class has been certified in the above action.  Until a class is
certified, you are not considered represented by an attorney. You
may also choose to do nothing and be an absent class member.

According to the Complaint, Emergent issued materially false and
misleading statements about its business and financial prospects,
specifically relating to future lucrative contract renewals and
demand from the U.S. government for its anthrax vaccine BioThrax.
These statements caused the Company's common stock to trade at
artificially inflated prices, which certain defendants were able
to sell.

Lundin Law PC was created by Brian Lundin, a securities litigator
based in Los Angeles.


ESTENSON LOGISTICS: Certification in "Pole" Suit Under Submission
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The Honorable Dean D. Pregerson has taken under submission the
Plaintiff's motion for class certification filed in the lawsuit
titled Sharon Pole v. Estenson Logistics, LLC, Case No. 2:15-cv-
07196-DDP-E (C.D. Cal.).

According to the Court's civil minutes, Judge Pregerson and the
parties' counsel confer as reflected on the record.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          John M. Bickford, Esq.
          R. REX PARRIS LAW FIRM
          43364 10th St. W
          Lancaster, CA 93534
          Telephone: (661) 949-2595
          Facsimile: (661) 949-7524
          E-mail: jbickford@rrexparris.com

The Defendant is represented by:

          Marlene S. Muraco, Esq.
          Littler Mendelson, P.C.
          50 W San Fernando St., 14FL
          San Jose, CA 95113-2431
          Telephone: (408) 998-4150
          Facsimile: (408) 288-5686
          E-mail: mmuraco@littler.com

A copy of the Civil Minutes is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=z5VcNIoB


EUREKA, CA: Seeks Dismissal of PalCo Marsh Eviction Suit
--------------------------------------------------------
Thadeus Greenson, writing for North Coast Journal, reports that
the city of Eureka is asking a federal judge to dismiss the
lawsuit brought by 11 people challenging the city's May 2 eviction
of the PalCo Marsh homeless encampments.

Meanwhile, Peter Martin, an attorney representing the plaintiffs,
has informed the court he intends to turn the case into a class
action suit, which could bring in additional plaintiffs and
increase potential liability for the city.

The suit, filed on behalf of 11 homeless former PalCo Marsh
campers, alleged the city was violating federal law by enforcing
its no camping ordinance and clearing the marsh area, where a
cluster of homeless encampments had been located for years.
Mr. Martin argued in the suit that the city's action would
essentially criminalize the status of homelessness, as there's
inadequate shelter space in the city to accommodate everyone
currently homeless within city limits.

The city countered that the there was ample space to take in the
people living in the marsh, and that there was a public interest
in clearing out the encampments, and the environmental damage and
unsafe conditions they caused.  Further, the city argued that a
failure to clear the marsh of campers could cause the city to lose
millions of dollars in grant funding for a trail project and
expose it to ongoing liabilities, all of which would not be in the
public interest.

On the eve of the evictions, federal judge Jeffrey S. White issued
a ruling that allowed the city to proceed with clearing the marsh,
but only on the condition that it first secure shelter for the 11
plaintiffs in the case and that it store their personal
belongings.

The city has now filed a motion asking the court to dismiss the
lawsuit, arguing that because it aimed to halt the May 2
evictions, which have now passed, the suit doesn't seek an outcome
that can be granted by the court.  "The law is clear that a case
should be dismissed as moot where an act which was sought to be
enjoyed (sic) has already occurred," City Attorney
Cyndy Day-Wilson argued in her motion.

Further, Ms. Day-Wilson argues that plaintiffs' allegation that
the city's enforcing its no-camping ordinance constitutes cruel
and unusual punishment, violating plaintiffs' Eighth Amendment
rights, is hollow given that the "statute has been repeatedly held
to be constitutional" by the Humboldt County Superior Court. She
goes on to argue that the plaintiffs' arguments that the evictions
violated their protections under the federal Uniform Relocation
Assistance Act and the due process clause of the constitution are
without merit.

In a reply brief, Mr. Martin counters that the suit is really
about Eureka's enforcement of its no-camping ordinance, not the
May 2 evictions specifically.  Further, Mr. Martin argued that
some of his plaintiffs were never sheltered by the city and are
currently subject to the no-camping ordinance with few options of
safe places to go.  And, he continued, even some of those who were
sheltered by the city at the privately operated converted shipping
container community on Third Street will soon be forced to move
on, as they will reach the 90-day stay limit.

"The plaintiffs currently housed in the shipping container
facility will be forced to leave in just a matter of weeks and at
present have no alternative prospects of shelter or housing after
that time; once evicted, they will again be subject to potential
citation and arrest under the ordinance for camping within the
Eureka city limits, and will face summary seizure, impoundment
and/or destruction of their personal property," Mr. Martin wrote.

The matter was set for arguments on Aug. 5 but both Mr. Martin and
Ms. Day-Wilson are now asking the court in a joint stipulation to
vacate that court date, as Martin has informed Ms. Day-Wilson and
the court that he intends to file an amended complaint in the
coming weeks and move to have the case certified as a class action
against the city.


EVERQUOTE INC: TCPA Class Certification Sought in "Friedman" Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The Plaintiff in the lawsuit captioned TODD FRIEDMAN v. EVERQUOTE,
INC., D/B/A CHEAPERAUTOCOVERAGE.COM; CLICK CASH MANAGEMENT, INC.
and DOES 1-10, inclusive, and each of them, Case No. 2:16-cv-
01269-SVW-FFM (C.D. Cal.), moves the Court to certify a class
consisting of:

     All persons within the United States who received any
     unsolicited text messages and/or any other unsolicited text
     messages from Defendants without prior express consent.

Todd Friedman also moves the Court for appointment of the
Plaintiff as Class Representative, and for appointment of the
Plaintiff's attorneys as Class Counsel.

The lawsuit was filed over alleged violations of the Telephone
Consumer Protection Act.  The Plaintiff files the Motion for Class
Certification to procedurally preserve the Plaintiff's rights
pursuant to the decision in Genesis Healthcare Corp. v. Symczyk,
133 S. Ct. 1523 (U.S. 2013), although the Plaintiff disagrees that
the Genesis decision applies to class actions pursuant to Fed. R.
Civ. P. 23.

The Court will commence a hearing on April 3, 2017, 1:30 p.m., to
consider the Motion.

A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=fHLgIbx7

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Joseph Miskabi, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF JOSEPH MISKABI, APC
          8730 Wilshire Blvd, Suite 310
          Beverly Hills, CA 90211
          Telephone: (424) 245-5740
          Facsimile: (866) 202-9176
          E-mail: joseph@miskabilaw.com


EXPEDITORS AND PRODUCTION: Parties in "Cox" Agree to Class Cert.
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Parties in the class action lawsuit styled THOMAS COX,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, the
Plaintiff, v. EXPEDITORS AND PRODUCTION SERVICES COMPANY AND, EPS
FLOWBACK SERVICES, LLC, the Defendant, Case No. 6:16-cv-00454-PJH
(W.D. La.), ask the Court to authorize notice to the following
class:

     "All Flowback Operators and Pump Operators of EPS Flowback
      Services, LLC employed from July 26, 2013 to the present."

Mr. Thomas Cox filed his motion for conditional certification on
June 6, 2016. The Defendant filed its response on July 18, 2016.
Since the filings, the Parties have reached an agreement regarding
conditional certification.

The Parties also request the Court approve the notice and consent
to Join Forms to the proposed 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=StrH3AHo

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


FITBIT: Judge Allows Sleep Tracking Claims to Move Forward
----------------------------------------------------------
David Kravets, writing for Ars Technica, reports that a proposed
class-action lawsuit accusing Fitbit of misrepresenting the
ability of its wearable fitness products to track sleep can move
forward, a federal judge has ruled.

The San Francisco federal lawsuit claims that Fitbit materially
misrepresented on its packaging the ability of the Flex product to
track users' hours slept, times woken up, and sleep quality. The
suit alleges false advertising, unfair trade practices, fraud, and
a host of other claims.

US District Judge James Donato did not rule on the merits of the
case but instead refused to toss the lawsuit as Fitbit had wanted.
Now Fitbit, which claimed the allegations were based on "bad
science," according to the judge, must mount another defense to
the allegations.  The case could still be dismissed at a later
stage, and it might also go to a trial or settle.

"Fitbit's dismissal request is focused on attacking the
plaintiffs' evidence as bad science and proffering a compilation
of studies that it believes validates the efficacy of
accelerometer-based sleep tracking," the judge wrote.  "Fitbit
disputes those allegations and the parties clearly have sharply
divergent views about sleep monitoring technology and what works
and what does not, but those issues of fact are far beyond the
scope of this motion to dismiss.  And even if Fitbit's studies
might validate the use of accelerometers for sleep monitoring,
plaintiffs' claims arise out of Fitbit's representations on
product packaging and similar sources.  Consumers are not expected
to do research 'beyond misleading representations on the front of
the box.'"

Fitbit said in a statement that it would "vigorously" defend the
case, which it said has "no merit."

The lawsuit, which was filed last year and amended, cites a 2012
study in the journal Sleep Health as evidence that the Fitbit
allegedly does not adequately track sleep.

The judge gave Fitbit until July 29 to respond to the ruling.


GAHANNA, OH: Payouts in Income Tax Class Action Set to Begin
------------------------------------------------------------
Alissa Widman Neese, writing for The Columbus Dispatch, reports
that if you live in the city but work elsewhere where the income-
tax rate is higher, you could be eligible to receive a share of
$12 million from a class-action lawsuit regarding overpaid Gahanna
income taxes.

Notices were to be mailed on July 20 to each of the more than
16,650 people in the plaintiff class.  Franklin County Common
Pleas Judge Kimberly Cocroft approved the move July 6 and
appointed KCC Class Action Services as the case's class-action
administrator, according to court records.  She also ordered that
a lengthier notice be posted in Gahanna City Hall, in the July 21
ThisWeek Rocky Fork Enterprise, and on a website,
gahannataxlawsuit.com, which was set to be launched on July 20.

"We're pleased the class, which has largely been in the dark, will
finally be receiving these notices," said Todd Neuman --
neuman@aksnlaw.com -- one of the plaintiffs' two attorneys from
Allen Kuehnle Stovall and Neuman law firm.

The lawsuit covers a period from 2009 to 2014.

Those who receive a letter in the mail already are class members.
They aren't required to do anything to receive a reimbursement,
but if they don't want to be involved, they must opt out.

Each class member's payment will vary, depending on income.  Class
members who earn $100,000 annually can expect to receive about
$250 for each year they filed a tax return, said
Rick Ashton, the plaintiffs' other attorney.

It's not yet known when payments could arrive because one of the
lawsuit's claims, strict liability, is scheduled for trial
Jan. 17.  Appeals are possible, too.  A date for a damages hearing
hasn't been set, either, and some tax records still are being
collected.

Gahanna residents Douglas and Karla LaBorde, both of whom work in
Columbus, filed the lawsuit in 2012 alleging that Gahanna and the
Regional Income Tax Authority overcharged them for income tax owed
to the suburban city.

Gahanna has a 1.5 percent income-tax rate; Columbus' tax is 2.5
percent.  Gahanna gives its residents an 83.3 percent credit for
the tax they pay other municipalities.

The LaBordes allege that the city improperly applied its tax code,
which, as it was written, actually gave full credit for taxes paid
elsewhere.  Cocroft ruled in favor of the LaBordes in 2014, but
the case is still slowly making its way through the court system
after numerous appeals. The city, shortly after Cocroft's 2014
ruling, reworked the language of its tax ordinance to match the
amount of taxes it collects.

Gahanna city attorney Shane Ewald contends that the city has
always applied its ordinance properly since adopting it in 1989.
The case involves a "difference of interpretation," he said.

"The city, over the last 27 years and two administrations, has
consistently applied the law," Mr. Ewald said.

Initial estimates suggested that Gahanna owed about $11 million to
its taxpayers and that 12,000 people were affected, but that
number probably has swelled to $12 million to $14 million in
damages and more than 16,650 class members.


GEICO GENERAL: VIP Auto Class Suit Removed to M.D. Florida
----------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit captioned VIP Auto Glass, Inc.,
individually, as assignee, and on behalf of all those similarly
situated v. GEICO General Insurance Company, Case No. 16-CA-
005203, was removed from the Hillsborough County, Florida to the
U.S. District Court Middle District of Florida (Tampa). The
District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 8:16-cv-02012-MSS-JSS to
the proceeding.

GEICO General Insurance Company operates an insurance company
headquartered at 5260 Western Avenue Chevy Chase, MD 20815.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      David M. Caldevilla, Esq.
      PEARLMAN & CLARK, PA
      10812 Gandy Blvd N Ste A
      St Petersburg, FL 33702-1425
      Telephone: (813) 229-2775
      Facsimile: (813) 229-2712
      E-mail: dcaldevilla@dgfirm.com

         - and -

      James Dan Clark, Esq.
      Matthew A. Crist, Esq.
      CLARK & MARTINO, PA
      3407 W Kennedy Blvd
      Tampa, FL 33609-2905
      Telephone: (813) 879-0700
      Facsimile: (813) 879-5498
      E-mail: dclark@clarkmartino.com
              mcrist@clarkmartino.com

The Defendant is represented by:

      Edward Keenan Cottrell, Esq.
      John Patrick Marino, Esq.
      Lindsey R. Trowell, Esq.
      SMITH, GAMBRELL & RUSSELL, LLP
      Suite 2600, 50 N Laura Street
      Jacksonville, FL 32202
      Telephone: (904) 598-6132
      Facsimile: (904) 598-6232
      E-mail: ecottrell@sgrlaw.com
              jmarino@sgrlaw.com
              ltrowell@sgrlaw.com


GENERAL MOTORS: Class Certification Affirmed in FDUPTA Case
-----------------------------------------------------------
Erin E. Bohannon, writing for Law.com, reports that when it comes
to consumer class actions, recent Florida precedent swings in
favor of plaintiffs seeking class certification.  On May 17, the
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit affirmed class
certification in the case of Carriuolo v. General Motors, an
action brought pursuant to the Florida Deceptive and Unfair Trade
Practices Act.

In Carriuolo, the Eleventh Circuit construed FDUPTA to focus on
whether a practice is deceptive or misleading to the objectively
"reasonable consumer" rather than focusing on the subjective
reliance of each consumer when purchasing a product.  As such, the
Carriuolo decision favors aggrieved consumers who wish to bring
class action claims by reducing defendants' ability to challenge
the "predominance" requirement for class certification. The
"predominance" requirement tests whether "questions of law or fact
common to class members predominate over any questions affecting
only individual members" and is often the toughest obstacle in
obtaining class certification. Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(b)(3); see also
Fla. R. Civ. P. 1.220(b)(3)(setting forth state court counterpart
for class certification).  As a result, Carriuolo is an important
decision and represents the most recent ruling in a line of cases
that broadly construe FDUPTA and promote class action litigation
as a mechanism to effect FDUPTA's broad, remedial purpose of
consumer protection.

In Carriuolo, the plaintiff alleged that General Motors
misrepresented safety information for the 2014 Cadillac GTS by
including a Monroney window sticker conveying inaccurate
government safety ratings from the National Highway Traffic Safety
Administration.  At the time of purchase, the Monroney stickers on
certain 2014 Cadillac GTS's reported perfect "government five star
safety ratings" in three categories.  In reality, the NHSTA had
not assigned any safety rating to the 2014 GTS and had not even
tested the vehicles at the time of sale.  As to class
certification, the district court found that the predominance
requirement was met by a common question to each class member:
"whether the inaccurate Monroney sticker provided by General
Motors constitutes a misrepresentation prohibited by FDUPTA."

On appeal, General Motors argued that the "predominance"
requirement for class certification was not met because "the
buying and leasing experiences of each proposed class member were
not uniform" and that the damages would vary by class member.  The
Eleventh Circuit rejected General Motor's argument, noting that
General Motors essentially sought to impose an individual reliance
requirement that is not mandated by the FDUPTA scheme or Florida
state and federal case law.  In support, the Eleventh Circuit
cited to Davis v. Powertel, holding that the mental state of each
class member is irrelevant in FDUPTA cases, and Fitzpatrick v.
General Mills, vacating a class certification order that
improperly took into account consumers' individual reliance on
labeling in making purchases.

As to damages, the Eleventh Circuit noted that the injury is not
determined by the plaintiff's subjective reliance on the
mislabeling and is instead measured by the price difference
between the product as advertised (a Cadillac GTS with perfect
safety ratings) versus the product as delivered (a Cadillac GTS
with no safety ratings).  In Carriuolo, it seems that General
Motors attempted to conflate causation (whether the
misrepresentation caused the harm) and reliance (whether
individual purchasers relied on the misrepresentations). The
Eleventh Circuit saw through the defendant's argument in affirming
class certification.

The Carriuolo decision is important precedent for plaintiffs
seeking certification as aggrieved consumers under FDUPTA --
particularly those who claim that a seller or manufacturer's
unfair practice, misrepresentation, or mislabeling allow it to
"command a price premium and to overcharge customers
systematically."

Based on this precedent and the line of cases before it,
plaintiffs will continue to bring class action claims for
deceptive and misleading product labeling and will face less
challenges to the "predominance" requirement for class
certification that are based on the individual conduct or reliance
of class members.  Likewise, defendants will have to implement new
strategies that do not focus on the subjective metal state of
individuals if they wish to successfully challenge the
"predominance" requirement for these claims.

The continued use of FDUPTA in class action litigation is also
significant from a policy standpoint.  Consumers rely heavily on
representations and sales practices in determining which products
to purchase for themselves and their family.  Consumers should be
able to rely on product labeling regarding the safety of the
vehicles they trust with their lives, the foods they eat, or the
products they bring into their home.  By rejecting improper
challenges to class certification of FDUPTA claims, Florida Courts
uphold the purpose of FDUPTA and promote protections for the
public.


GOOGLE INC: Battles Over Damages in Adwords Suit to Resume
----------------------------------------------------------
Justin Hibbard, writing for Forward Forensics, reports that an
eight-year-old class action alleging Google overcharged
advertisers will resume in U.S. District Court in San Jose, CA
after the U.S. Supreme Court refused to hear Google's appeal.

Google had argued that the District Court should deny class
certification because the plaintiffs couldn't possibly use one
method to calculate damages for potentially hundreds of thousands
of advertisers who had each paid different prices for different
ads.  Although District Court Judge Edward J. Davila agreed with
Google, the Ninth Circuit reversed his decision, prompting
Google's appeal to the SCOTUS.  With the appeals process
exhausted, battles over damages theories will likely begin again.

The dispute centers on allegations that Google placed ads on
millions of web sites that were error pages or parked domains
without telling advertisers, who believed their ads would appear
only on web sites with relevant, high quality content.  The
plaintiffs claim Google improperly charged them when users clicked
on such ads.  Google says it disclosed throughout its web site
that ads may appear on error pages or parked domains and that such
ads often deliver more value to advertisers than other ads.

Complex Auctions

Google sells ads through an auction system in which advertisers
bid on keywords that users enter in Google's search engine.  Ads
appear on the page of results that Google serves up after someone
enters a certain keyword.  In addition, Google places ads on
publishers' web pages by matching advertisers' selected keywords
to words on the pages and in web site addresses.  Advertisers pay
the amount of their winning bid each time someone clicks on their
ad.

The plaintiffs' damages expert, Stan V. Smith, Ph.D., an economist
at Smith Economics Group, Ltd., estimated the prices advertisers
would have paid per click had they known their ads were placed on
error pages and parked domains.  Using pricing data produced by
Google in discovery, he based his estimates on Google's Smart
Pricing method, which discounts an advertiser's cost-per-click
based on the likelihood that a click from a certain page will
result in a desired action, such as a sale.  The difference
between Smith's estimates and the actual prices advertisers paid
constituted damages, Smith said.

Google's outside counsel, Cooley LLP, and Google's chief
economist, Hal Varian, Ph.D., argued that Google's auction pricing
method was too complex for anyone to accurately calculate prices
that advertisers would have paid under hypothetical circumstances.
What's more, each advertiser values an ad according to unique
objectives, such as selling products online, gathering email
addresses, or building brand awareness. Therefore, it's impossible
to use one method to calculate the price each advertiser would
have paid, they argued.

Class action precedent

A uniform damages theory is one of four criteria for class
certification under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(a).  The
rule states that the named plaintiffs' claims must be "typical" of
the claims of all class members. On this point, Judge Davila found
merit in Google's argument that the prices advertisers paid, or
would have paid, were too heterogeneous to be typical. In his
order denying class certification, he acknowledged that "[d]amages
calculations alone . . . cannot defeat certification," citing
Yokoyama v. Midland Nat'l Life Ins. Co., 594 F.3d 1087, 1094 (9th
Cir. 2010).  But he said that principle didn't apply to this
situation, given the complexity of determining each class member's
claim.

The Ninth Circuit disagreed with Judge Davila's departure from
Yokoyama.  The three-judge panel also dismissed Google's argument
that the U.S. Supreme Court's recent opinion in Comcast Corp. v.
Behrend, 133 S. Ct. 1426, 569 U.S., 185 L. Ed. 2d 515 (2013),
called Yokoyama into question. "Yokoyama remains the law of this
court, even after Comcast," Circuit Judge Richard A. Paez wrote in
the appeals court's opinion.  The Ninth Circuit reversed the
denial of class certification and remanded the case for further
proceedings.  The U.S. Supreme Court upheld the Ninth Circuit's
opinion in refusing to hear the case.

The parties are scheduled for a case management conference with
Judge Davila on August 25 to chart a course toward a trial.
Schubert Jonckheer & Kolbe LLP is lead counsel for the plaintiffs
in the consolidated case, In Re Google AdWords Litigation.


HAKKASAN NYC: Faces "Zhu" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Suqin Zhu, individually and on behalf of all other employees
similarly situated v. Hakkasan NYC LLC, Hakkasan Holdings, LLC,
Case No. 1:16-cv-05589 (S.D.N.Y., July 13, 2016), is brought
against the Defendants for failure to pay overtime wages in
violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act.

The Defendants own and operate Hakkasan New York restaurant
located at 311 West 43rd Street, New York, NY 10036.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


HEALEON MEDICAL: Physicians Healthsource Seeks to Certify Class
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Plaintiff in the class action lawsuit styled PHYSICIANS
HEALTHSOURCE, INC., an Ohio corporation, individually and as the
representative of a class of similarly-situated persons, the
Plaintiff, v. HEALEON MEDICAL, INC., et al., the Defendants, Case
No. 1:16-cv-07474 (N.D. Ill.), submits to the Court its "Damasco"
motion for a class certification and requests for status
conference.

The Plaintiff asks the Court to certify the class, appoint
Plaintiff as the class representative, and appoint
Plaintiff's attorneys as class counsel.

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=ES0uAvt4

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Brian J. Wanca, Esq.
          ANDERSON & WANCA
          3701 Algonquin Road, Suite 500
          Rolling Meadows, IL 60008
          Telephone: (847) 368 1500
          Facsimile: (847) 368 1501
          E-mail: bwanca@andersonwanca.com


HUBBARD HOUSE: Court Strikes Class Cert. in American Legal Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Hon. Rebecca R. Pallmeyer entered an order in the class action
lawsuit styled American Legal Forms, LLC, the Plaintiff, v.
Hubbard House Restaurant, LLC, et al., the Defendant, Case No.
1:15-cv-10575 (N.D. Ill.), dismissing Plaintiff's individual
claims against Defendant with prejudice, and with each party
bearing its own costs.

According to the docket entry made by the Clerk on July 25, 2016,
motion for class certification and status hearing set for July 26,
2016, are stricken.

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


IKO MANUFACTURING: "Brown" Suit Transferred to C.D. Illinois
------------------------------------------------------------
Kevin Brown, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. IKO Manufacturing Inc., IKO Industries Inc., IKO
Midwest Inc., IKO Production Inc., and IKO Industries Ltd., Case
No. 1:16-cv-00436, was transferred from the District of New York
Western to the U.S. District Court Central District of Illinois.
The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:16-cv-02217-HAB to
the proceeding.

The case asserts product-liability claims.

The Defendants are manufacturers and suppliers of residential and
commercial roofing products, waterproofing, insulation systems and
accessories.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Charles J. LaDuca, Esq.
      CUNEO GILBERT & LADUCA LLP
      Suite 810, 8120 Woodmont Avenue
      Bethesda, MD 20814
      Telephone: (202) 789-3960
      Facsimile: (202) 789-1813
      E-mail: charlesl@cuneolaw.com


ILLINOIS WORK RESOURCE: PRS Bid to Continue Class Cert. Granted
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Hon. Thomas M. Durkin entered an order in the class action
lawsuit styled PRS, LLC, the Plaintiff, v. Central Illinois Work
Injury Resource Center, LLC, et al., the Defendant, Case No. 1:16-
cv-07497 (N.D. Ill.), granting the Plaintiffs' motion to enter and
continue its motion for class certification.

According to the docket entry made by the Clerk on July 27, 2016,
no appearance is required on August 1, 2016.

A copy of the Order is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=xQs6kiNq


INDONESIA: Bukit Duri Residents No Rights Over Land, Jakarta Says
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Agnes Anya, writing for The Jakarta Post, reports that
Bukit Duri residents face a long and rocky road in defending their
land rights as their class action lawsuit against the Ciliwung
normalization project was rejected by the Jakarta administration.

At the fourth hearing at Central Jakarta District Court on
July 19, the defendants, the Jakarta administration, the Ciliwung-
Cisadane Flood Control Office (BBWSCC) and the South Jakarta
municipality, claimed the lawsuit was not in accordance with
procedural law, since the residents, as plaintiffs, had no
legitimate proof of land ownership.

"Residents only provided property tax [statements to prove their
ownership].  According to government regulations, only a land
certificate can legitimately prove land ownership, where only 11
houses out of some 400 [in the area] hold one," said the
defendants' attorney, Firman Candra, referring to Article 32 of a
1997 government regulation on land rights.

Presiding judge Riyono determined that the plaintiffs could
respond to the rejection in the next hearing scheduled on
July 26.

As the defendants are likely to carry out a planned eviction
during trial, Riyono said the defendants would be taking a risk.

"The defendants know that the trial is still ongoing, so if they
execute the eviction it could potentially violate the law.
However, we cannot stop them as the court has not handed down a
verdict," he said.

The plaintiffs' attorney, Vera Soemarwi, said the class action
lawsuit had been appropriate with an ordinance from the Supreme
Court.

"The defendants said our lawsuit was unreasonable.  We insisted it
was in line with regulation from the Supreme Court," she said
after the hearing.

Vera continued that the Ciliwung normalization program reached its
expiry date on Oct. 5, 2015.

"The project was scheduled to start and finish from Oct. 4, 2012
to Oct. 5, 2015, so the project has to be stopped," she said.

According to a 2012 gubernatorial decree on land usage planning
for public purpose along the Ciliwung River from Manggarai sluice
gate to Kampung Melayu, Article 3 states the city administration
has no more than three years to carry out infrastructure projects
on land it does not own.

Bukit Duri residents filed the class action on May 10 in aim of
protecting themselves from the intended eviction to make way for
the river's normalization project.

Meanwhile, the Jakarta administration is unlikely to postpone the
planned eviction to avoid delay in the flood mitigation project,
as stated by Jakarta Governor Basuki "Ahok" Tjahaja Purnama.

"Now, you can see which parts of the capital get inundated? South
and East Jakarta.  This is because the Ciliwung River overflows
from the many people still occupying its banks," Ahok said,
claiming that floods did not occur in Central and North Jakarta
because the administration had managed to revitalize the river
banks there.

Moreover, Ahok added that the eviction could proceed in Bukit Duri
because 84 families in the area had agreed to be relocated to a
Rawa Bebek low-cost rental apartment (rusunawa) in Cakung, East
Jakarta.


JACKSON COUNTY, MI: Hill Renews Bid for Class Certification
-----------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit styled TERRENCE HILL, the Plaintiff,
v COUNTY OF JACKSON, the Defendant, Case No. 2:14-cv-11072-SJM-DRG
(E.D. Mich.), the Plaintiff filed a renewed motion for class
certification and asks the Court for an oral argument.

Since January 1, 2011, more than 680 properties have been
condemned, and 367 have been demolished, including Ms. Schwab's
property. The County has acquired and sold at auction many
properties, Plaintiff's among them. The County has, upon
information and belief, violated the rights of dozens and dozens,
if not hundreds, of their citizens, of whom Plaintiff is just one.

A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=QMIUEvJ0

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Thomas H. Blaske, Esq.
          John F. Turck IV, Esq.
          BLASKE & BLASKE, P.L.C.
          Attorneys for Plaintiff
          500 South Main Street
          Ann Arbor, MI 48104
          Telephone: (734) 747-7055
          E-mail: thb@blaske.com
                  jt4@blaske.com


JACKSON COUNTY, MI: Schwab Renews Bid for Class Certification
-------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit styled MONIKA SCHWAB, the Plaintiff,
v. COUNTY OF JACKSON, the Defendant, Case No. 2:14-cv-11074-SJM-
DRG (E.D. Mich.), the Plaintiff filed a renewed motion for class
certification and asks the Court for an oral argument.

Since January 1, 2011, more than 680 properties have been
condemned, and 367 have been demolished, including Ms. Schwab's
property. The County has acquired and sold at auction many
properties, Plaintiff's among them. The County has, upon
information and belief, violated the rights of dozens and dozens,
if not hundreds, of their citizens, of whom Plaintiff is just one

A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=L8Gmcu3L

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Thomas H. Blaske, Esq.
          John F. Turck IV, Esq.
          BLASKE & BLASKE, P.L.C.
          Attorneys for Plaintiff
          500 South Main Street
          Ann Arbor, MI 48104
          Telephone: (734) 747-7055
          E-mail: thb@blaske.com
                  jt4@blaske.com


K12 INC: Sept. 19 Class Action Lead Plaintiff Motion Deadline Set
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Gainey McKenna & Egleston on July 20 disclosed that a class action
lawsuit has been filed against K12, Inc. ("K12" or the "Company")
(NYSE:LRN) in the United States District Court for the Northern
District of California on behalf of purchasers of common stock of
K12 between November 7, 2013, and October 27, 2015, inclusive (the
"Class Period"), seeking to pursue remedies under the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 (the "Exchange Act").

According to the Complaint, Defendants made false and/or
misleading statements and/or failed to disclose: (i) that Company
was publishing misleading advertisements about students' academic
progress, parent satisfaction, their graduates' eligibility for
University of California and California State University
admission, class sizes, the individualized and flexible nature of
K12's instruction, hidden costs, and the quality of the materials
provided to students; (ii) that the Company submitted inflated
student attendance numbers to the California Department of
Education in order to collect additional funding; (iii) that, as a
result of the aforementioned practices, the Company was open to
potential civil and criminal liability; (iv) that the Company
would likely be forced to end these practices, which would have a
negative impact on K12's operations and prospects, and/or that K12
was, in fact, ending the practices; and (v) that, as a result of
the foregoing, Defendants' statements about K12's business,
operations, and prospects, were false and misleading and/or lacked
a reasonable basis.

If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no
later than September 19, 2016.  A lead plaintiff is a
representative party acting on behalf of other class members in
directing the litigation.  If you wish to join the litigation, or
to discuss your rights or interests regarding this class action,
please contact Thomas J. McKenna, Esq. or Gregory M. Egleston,
Esq. of Gainey McKenna & Egleston at (212) 983-1300, or via
e-mail at tjmckenna@gme-law.com or gegleston@gme-law.com

Please visit our website at http://www.gme-law.comfor more
information about the firm.


KANSAS: ACLU Files Class Action Over Election Rule
--------------------------------------------------
Roxana Hegeman, writing for The Associated Press, reports that the
American Civil Liberties Union filed a class-action lawsuit on
July 19 seeking to block a Kansas election rule that could throw
out thousands of votes in state and local races by people who
registered at motor vehicle offices or used a federal form without
providing documents proving U.S. citizenship.

The temporary rule, sought by Republican Secretary of State
Kris Kobach and approved by the State Rules and Regulation Board,
will count votes only for federal races by that segment of new
Kansas voters through Nov. 8, the date of the general election.

It comes in response to a federal judge's recent decision that
voters do not need to show citizenship papers to register for
federal elections as required by a 2013 Kansas law.

If allowed to stand, thousands of Kansas voters will be denied
their right to vote in state and local elections in a year when
all 165 seats of the Kansas Legislature are up for election, the
ACLU argued in its lawsuit.

As of July, it would affect about 17,000 people who registered at
state motor vehicle offices but didn't provide proof of
citizenship, though as many as 50,000 prospective voters could be
affected in the November election.

In addition, the lawsuit seeks to restore full voting rights to
another 383 Kansas residents who used a federal form to register.
Among that group is Marvin Brown, a 90-year-old Army Corps veteran
who is a plaintiff in the lawsuit.

"My family has been in Kansas since about 1850," Mr. Brown said.
"It's wrong that a bunch of so-called leaders would tell me that I
have to show a bunch of extra documents before I can vote. As a
military veteran who fought to protect our democracy, it's
particularly offensive."

In a phone interview from the Republican National Convention in
Cleveland, Mr. Kobach said the ACLU's action was not surprising.

"It's the latest in a series of ACLU lawsuits trying to kill off
the proof-of-citizenship law by a thousand cuts.  This one is
particularly weak," Mr. Kobach said.

The conservative Republican contends proving citizenship is
"absolutely essential," because every time a noncitizen votes it
cancels out the vote by a citizen and disenfranchises them.

"I know it's something that Kansans would want me to fight for,"
he said.

But critics of the law contend voter fraud is not a problem, and
say the requirement suppresses voter turnout, particularly among
young and minority voters.

Kansas opened advance voting for its Aug. 2 primary.

Temporary rules are allowed without public comment if an agency,
such as Mr. Kobach's office, sees quick action as necessary to
preserve "the public peace, health, safety or welfare."

Under the policy, affected voters will receive provisional
ballots, which election officials will examine later to count
their votes for president, U.S. Senate and Congress but not for
state and local races or local ballot questions.

A state court concluded in January that such "post-vote editing"
violates the secrecy of the ballot and that Mr. Kobach doesn't
have legislative authority to create a dual system, the ACLU noted
in its lawsuit.

"(Kobach's) flagrant disregard of the court's findings means that
Kansans still face unnecessary barriers to voting," said
Sophia Lakin, attorney with the ACLU's voting rights project.

The Kansas proof-of-citizenship law has been at the center of
multiple lawsuits.  In May, U.S. District Judge Julie Robinson
ruled that federal law allows people who register at motor vehicle
offices to cast ballots in federal races, regardless of whether
they've met Kansas' proof-of-citizenship requirement.

Alabama, Arizona and Georgia have similar registration
requirements on the books, but Alabama and Georgia are not
currently enforcing their proof-of-citizenship law.  Arizona does
not require additional citizenship papers from people registering
at motor vehicle offices.


KISLING NESTICO: Illegally Collects Investigation Fees, Suit Says
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Member Williams v. Kisling, Nestico & Redick, LLC, Alberto R.
Nestico, and Kisling Legal Group, LLC, Case No. CV-16-866123 (Ohio
Cmmw Pl., July 13, 2016), alleges that the Defendants are engaged
in a deliberate scheme to defraud clients by charging them
"expenses" for so-called "investigations" that are never actually
performed.

The Defendants operate an Ohio law firm focusing on personal-
injury cases, mainly representing car-accident victims.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Subodh Chandra, Esq.
      Donald Screen, Esq.
      Peter Pattakos, Esq.
      THE CHANDRA LAW FIRM, LLC
      1265 W. 6th St., Suite 400
      Cleveland, OH 44113-1326
      Telephone: (216) 578-1700
      Facsimile: (216) 578-1800
      E-mail: Subodh.Chandra@ChandraLaw.com
              Donald.Screen@ChandraLaw.com
              Peter.Pattakos@ChandraLaw.com


KROGER CO: Faces Class Action in Cincinnati Over FCRA Violation
---------------------------------------------------------------
Dan Monk, writing for WCPO, reports that two years after she said
the Kroger Co. rejected her job application, a Virginia woman has
filed a class-action lawsuit alleging the Cincinnati-based grocery
chain systematically violated the Fair Credit Reporting Act.

It's the second class-action lawsuit since February to challenge
the employment practices of Kroger, which has hired more than
30,000 new employees in the last three years and received 116,000
applications in a 35-state job fair May 14.

Delores Reid of Newport News claims Kroger rejected her
application based on erroneous information in a consumer report
prepared by its South Carolina-based vendor, General Information
Services.  The lawsuit alleges Ms. Reid wasn't permitted to
correct the report before a hiring decision was made.

"Every year, thousands of consumers who have applied to Kroger for
employment have been similarly aggrieved," said the lawsuit, filed
June 30 in Hamilton County Common Pleas Court.

Kroger said it doesn't comment on pending legal matters. GIS did
not return a call seeking comment.

WCPO Insiders will learn the details of Ms. Reid's complaint and
see how Kroger responded in court to a class-action suit about
overtime pay at a Blue Ash call center.


L&L TRAVEL: Faces "Wu" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages
--------------------------------------------------------------
Cui Ping Wu, on her own behalf and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. L&L Travel Enterprises, Inc. d/b/a LLTours,
Mark Qian, Kevin Doe, Richard Doe, Grace Li, John Doe and Jane Doe
#1-10, Case No. 1:16-cv-03902 (E.D.N.Y., July 11, 2016), is
brought against the Defendants for failure to pay overtime wages
in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act.

The Defendants own and operate an international travel agency
business with offices in New York and Queens and has its principal
place of business located at 87 Bowery Suite 301, New
York, NY ZIP 10002.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


LANCASTER, PA: Fails to Provide Refugee Students with ESL Classes
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Dale Mezzacappa, writing for thenotebook, reports that a federal
lawsuit filed on July 19 alleges that the School District of
Lancaster, Pa., puts older immigrant students with limited English
skills in a privately operated alternative school rather than in
its regular high school -- or refuses to enroll them at all.

The complaint says that the district fails to provide these
students with bilingual classes or with instruction in English as
a second language, as mandated by federal and state law.  State
law requires that every person from age 6 to 21 has the right to a
"free public education" in the child's district of residence.

The plaintiffs include six refugees, from Somalia, Sudan,
Democratic Republic of Congo, and Burma.  The suit was filed by
the ACLU of Pennsylvania, the Education Law Center (ELC), and pro
bono counsel from Pepper Hamilton LLP.

The lead plaintiff, Khadidja Issa, is an 18-year-old refugee from
Sudan who arrived in September 2015.  The Lancaster School
District at first would not enroll her at all, but then placed her
at Phoenix Academy, where she is not getting help with English and
where nobody speaks the languages she does, Arabic and Fur, an
indigenous language of Darfur, Sudan.

The plaintiffs are seeking to make this a class action.

In an emailed response, a Lancaster district spokesperson said the
district "believes the complaint is without merit."

Lancaster "looks forward to providing our students with
educational services that meet their individual needs consistent
with the legal obligations imposed by state and federal law," said
the statement.  "The district will continue to be on the cutting
edge in developing programs that are unique, such as establishing
our Refugee Welcoming Center, after school programs and special
summer programs for refugee students."

The complaint alleges that the district would not enroll the
plaintiffs in its McCaskey High School, even though the school has
a transitional program for English language learners who have just
arrived in the country.  Students who insisted on placement were
diverted to Phoenix Academy, operated by Camelot Education, which
the complaint says "is run more like a disciplinary school" with
pat-down searches, bans on personal items including books and
cash, and color-coded shirts corresponding to behavior records.

Phoenix Academy does not provide any transitional programming for
students who don't speak English and does not have any certified
ESL teachers.  Many of the English language learners drop out due
to bullying "in a severe authoritarian environment" that is
especially unsuited to refugees who have already endured war,
violence, and persecution, according to the complaint.

"We are asking the court to uphold the clear right of these
children to a meaningful and equal education in their few
remaining school years, to give them the chance to learn English
and build essential skills and knowledge," Maura McInerney, senior
staff attorney at ELC, said in a statement.  "By refusing to
enroll these students or placing them in an inferior educational
program that cannot meet their language and learning needs, the
district deprives them of the opportunity to make a successful
life in their new country."

The lawsuit was filed in U.S. District Court, Eastern District of
Pennsylvania.


LIBERTY POWER: Certification of 2 Classes Sought in "Moore" Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Plaintiff in the lawsuit titled GEORGE MOORE, individually and
on behalf of others similarly situated v. LIBERTY POWER HOLDINGS
LLC, a Delaware limited liability company, Case No. 1:16-cv-07553
(N.D. Ill.), moves the Court to enter an order certifying these
two classes:

     Artificial Voice Class:

     All persons within the United States who received, since
     July 26, 2012, one or more telephone calls by, or on behalf
     of, Liberty Power Holdings LLC ("Defendant"), that were made
     using an artificial or prerecorded voice and for which (a)
     the called telephone numbers appear in the records of
     Defendant, Defendant's third party telephone carrier(s) or
     the third party telephone carriers of Defendant's call
     centers or (b) for which the called persons' own records
     prove that they received such calls; and


     DNC Class:

     All persons within the United States who received, since
     July 26, 2012, more than one telephone call within any
     12-month period by, or on behalf of, Liberty Power Holdings
     LLC ("Defendant") to a residential telephone line that was
     registered with the national Do Not Call registry maintained
     by the Federal Government and for which (a) the called
     telephone numbers appear in the records of Defendant,
     Defendant's third party telephone carrier(s) or the third
     party telephone carriers of Defendant's call centers or (b)
     for which the called persons' own records prove that they
     received such calls.

The Plaintiff's claims are based on the failure to comply by
Liberty with various requirements under the Telephone Consumer
Protection Act.  Because the TCPA claim at issue arises from the
Defendant's standardized conduct in calling residential telephone
lines using artificial/prerecorded voices and calling residential
telephone lines on the Do Not Call registry to sell the
Defendant's electricity services, the Court should certify two
classes, the Plaintiff argues.

George Moore also asks the Court to be appointed as class
representative and to appoint Markoff Leinberger LLC as class
counsel.

A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=8vmNGkWH

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Paul F. Markoff, Esq.
          Karl G. Leinberger, Esq.
          MARKOFF LEINBERGER LLC
          134 N LaSalle St., Suite 1050
          Chicago IL 60602
          Telephone: (312) 726-4162
          Facsimile: (312) 674-7272
          E-mail: paul@markleinlaw.com
                  karl@markleinlaw.com


LOS ANGELES FEDERAL: Faces "Gray" Suit Over Overdraft Fees
----------------------------------------------------------
Mary Gray, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. Los Angeles Federal Credit Union and Does 1-10, Case
No. BC625500 (Cal. Super. Ct., July 13, 2016), arises from the
Defendants' practice of charging improper overdraft fees against
credit union members who did not opt in to Los Angeles Federal
Credit Union's overdraft program.

Los Angeles Federal Credit Union is a state credit union
headquartered in Los Angeles, California.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Richard D. McCune, Esq.
      MCCUNEWRIGHT LLP
      2068 Orange Tree Lane, Suite 216
      Redlands, CA 92374
      Telephone: (909) 557-2150
      Facsimile: (909) 557-1275
      E-mail: rdm@mccunewright.com


MAGNACHIP SEMICONDUCTOR: Final Approval Hearing Set for Nov. 21
---------------------------------------------------------------
MagnaChip Semiconductor Corporation said in its Form 8-K Report
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on July 21,
2016, that a final settlement approval hearing is to be held on
November 21, 2016.

On December 10, 2015, MagnaChip Semiconductor Corporation (the
"Company") and certain of its current and former officers and
directors entered into a Memorandum of Understanding with the
plaintiffs' representatives to memorialize an agreement in
principle to settle the consolidated securities class action
lawsuit, Thomas, et al. v. MagnaChip Semiconductor Corp. et al.,
Civil Action No. 3:14-CV-01160-JST (the "Class Action
Litigation"), pending in the United States District Court for the
Northern District of California (the "Court"). On July 18, 2016,
the Court issued an order preliminarily approving the proposed
settlement. The proposed settlement releases all claims asserted
against all defendants in the Class Action Litigation except for
Avenue Capital Management II, L.P. and is more fully described in
the Company's Current Report on Form 8-K filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on December 11, 2015. Among other things,
the Court's order provides for notice to be given to potential
settlement class members, a period for opt outs and a final
approval hearing to be held on November 21, 2016.


MARCOAH GROUP: Byer Clinic Seeks to Certify Class
-------------------------------------------------
The Plaintiff in the class action lawsuit styled BYER CLINIC OF
CHIROPRACTIC, LTD., an Illinois corporation, individually and as
the representative of a class of similarly-situated persons, the
Plaintiff, v. MARCOAH GROUP USA LLC, NAOUM ZARCADOOLAS, JONATHAN
SEGAL and JOHN DOES 1-10, the Defendants, Case No. 1:16-cv-05318
(N.D. Ill.), submits to the Court its "Damasco" motion for a class
certification and requests for status conference.

The Plaintiff asks the Court to certify the class, appoint
Plaintiff as the class representative, and appoint
Plaintiff's attorneys as class counsel.

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=Z7bYIzBx

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Brian J. Wanca, Esq.
          ANDERSON & WANCA
          3701 Algonquin Road, Suite 500
          Rolling Meadows, IL 60008
          Telephone: (847) 368 1500
          Facsimile: (847) 368 1501
          E-mail: bwanca@andersonwanca.com


MARVELL TECHNOLOGY: Hearing Held on Bid to Dismiss Class Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
Marvell Technology Group Ltd. said in its Form 10-K Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on July 21, 2016, for
the fiscal year ended January 30, 2016, that the hearing on the
motions to dismiss the shareholders' litigation was set for July
29, 2016.

On September 11, 2015, Daniel Luna filed an action asserting
putative class action claims on behalf of the Company's
shareholders in the United States District Court for the Southern
District of New York ("S.D. of New York"). This action was
consolidated with two additional, nearly identical complaints
subsequently filed by Philip Limbacher and Jim Farno. The
complaints asserted violations of federal securities laws based on
allegations that the Company and certain of its officers and
directors (Sehat Sutardja, Michael Rashkin, and Sukhi Nagesh)
made, caused to be made, or failed to correct false and/or
misleading statements in the Company's press releases and public
filings. The complaints request damages in unspecified amounts,
costs and fees of bringing the action, and other unspecified
relief.

On November 18, 2015, the S.D. of New York granted the Company's
motion to transfer the consolidated cases to the N.D. of
California. On December 21, 2015, the N.D. of California granted
the Company's motion to deem the consolidated cases related to the
Saratoga litigation. On February 8, 2016, the N.D. of California
granted an unopposed motion to appoint Plumbers and Pipefitters
National Pension Fund as Lead Plaintiff. On March 19, 2016, Lead
Plaintiff filed a consolidated amended complaint. On April 29,
2016, Marvell and each of the individual defendants each filed
motions to dismiss; Lead Plaintiff's oppositions were filed on
June 10, 2016; and defendants' replies are due by July 15, 2016.
The hearing on the motions to dismiss was set for July 29, 2016.


MASTERCARD: Damages Claim in Card Charges Suit May Reach GBP19BB
----------------------------------------------------------------
BBC reports that around 40 million shoppers could be eligible for
GBP450 each, if a landmark 'class action' against MasterCard is
successful.

MasterCard is facing a multi-billion pound damages claim that
could reach GBP19 billion for imposing allegedly illegal card
charges that were passed on to shoppers between 1992 and 2008.  So
could you be one of the 40 million people in line for a refund?

What's going on then?
Over a 16-year period, it is alleged that MasterCard charged
retailers excessive fees when shoppers used their credit and debit
cards.  You might not realise this, but when you pay by card in a
shop, the retailer is required to pay your credit or debit card
company a fee for each transaction.

These fees are called 'interchange' fees and according to experts,
retailers can whack them into the price of the goods, driving up
the prices we pay.  It's allegation that we've all been paying
higher prices due to these fees that is the basis for this case.

Who started all of this?
Former financial services ombudsman Walter Merricks has brought
the claim in what is called a "class action".  In the past, he has
overseen complaints and investigations regarding some of the
largest mis-selling cases by financial institutions and has helped
consumers receive billions of pounds in compensation.

Mr. Merricks told BBC, "The prices of everything we all bought
from 1992 and 2008 were higher than they should have been, as a
result of the unlawful conduct of MasterCard."

He also says, "To be clear, there is no question that MasterCard
acted illegally in the way it conducted its business, a business
that affects all of us.  Although most of us did not know this,
experts who study the retail economy knew it was happening -- and
so did MasterCard.  My aim is to get the redress to which UK
consumers are entitled and to ensure that MasterCard cannot hold
on to the illegal profits made."

If the claim is successful, will I be eligible for compensation?
If you were working and living in the UK between 1992 and 2007,
you will probably be automatically represented in the case, unless
you opt out.

Should I do anything now?
No. Walter Merricks is planning to file a claim in the autumn.  A
timetable will then be set to take the claim through to a trial
around mid-2018, unless MasterCard makes a settlement offer before
that.  f the claim is successful, you're looking at 2-3 years
before any compensation is paid.

But keep your eye out -- if the case is successful, you'll have to
make a claim within a set time period.  According to Walter
Merricks: "It will be a simple process for consumers to get
compensation without using claim management companies."

What does MasterCard say?
Mark Barnett, President, United Kingdom and Ireland for MasterCard
says, "Currently, no lawsuit has yet been filed against us, but we
firmly disagree with the arguments levelled against us.

"MasterCard offers value by powering the way people pay -- in
store and online.  We're constantly innovating to keep payments
safe and secure, while making the experience as convenient as
possible.  Think how contactless has made life easier by reducing
queues and offering faster payments on public transport.

"Any type of payment has a cost.  In our system, those costs are
shared by banks, retailers and MasterCard -- as together with
consumers, we all benefit from the payment.

"Cash is no solution for online shopping and isn't free either.
Shops must pay people to count, secure and transport cash.  This
is often overlooked or simply accepted as a cost of doing
business."


MAX ULTIMATE: Sued Over Failure to Pay Employees Gratuities
-----------------------------------------------------------
Alex Alderete, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated v. Max Ultimate Food Inc., Neal Balkowitsch, and Daniel
R. Mathieu, Case No. 16-2194A (Mass. Super. Ct., July 13, 2016),
is brought against the Defendants for failure to pay gratuities on
a timely basis and failure to distribute gratuities as required by
the Tips Law.

The Defendants operate a catering company in Boston,
Massachusetts.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Stephen Churchill, Esq.
      FAIR WORK, P.C.
      192 South Street, Suite 450
      Boston, MA 02111
      Telephone: (617) 607-3260
      E-mail: steve@fairworklaw.com


METROPOLITAN WASHINGTON: Faces Class Action Over Dulles Toll Road
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Adam Tuss, writing for NBC Washington, reports that drivers headed
to Dulles International Airport on the Dulles Toll Road pay to
ride -- $2.50 at the main toll plaza and $1 at the off-ramps.  And
some of that money has helped fund what will be a new way to get
to Dulles: Metro's Silver Line.

But a new lawsuit claims it's not fair to charge drivers for rail
transportation.

"Money is being taken from folks to pay for a mode of
transportation they are not using and may never use," said
Robert Cynkar, the attorney who is suing the Metropolitan
Washington Airports Authority.  "And that seems unfair to folks."

Mr. Cynkar says hundreds of millions of dollars should go back
into the pockets of drivers who have used the Dulles toll road in
recent years.  Mr. Cynkar filed the case as a putative class
action lawsuit, which indicates he plans to ask the court to grant
class-action status.

The airports authority declined comment on this case, saying it is
an ongoing legal matter.

Opinions of drivers interviewed on July 20 were mixed.  "I'm not a
Metro person," one said. "I don't like taking the Metro."

"If it can reduce the traffic that would be a good thing --
especially for the residents in this area," said another.
This is not the first time that the authority has faced a lawsuit
like this, and all previous suits have not been successful.

But Mr. Cynkar's effort has a new wrinkle: He's also taking aim at
the airports authority itself, which he says faces no real
oversight.

Members are not elected; they are appointed by the U.S. president,
the governors of Maryland and Virginia, and the mayor of D.C.

"If they are going to take money from you, you get to vote the
bums out if you don't like what they are doing.  And MWAA or this
authority is structured to be independent from all other forms of
government.  They have no check on them," Mr. Cynkar said.  "No
one can vote them out.  They are like little emperors within their
facility."


MICROFIBRES INC: Trustee Seeks Dismissal of Class Action
--------------------------------------------------------
Richard Craver, writing for Winston-Salem Journal, reports that
former employees of defunct Microfibres Inc. have asked a U.S.
Bankruptcy Court judge to decline the request of the trustee to
dismiss one of the plaintiffs in a potential class-action lawsuit.

The company, based in Pawtucket, R.I., filed for Chapter 7
voluntary bankruptcy protection Jan. 29 with plans to liquidate
its assets -- the same day it closed its Winston-Salem and
Pawtucket plants.

The company ended U.S. production in response to domestic and
global textiles challenges.

The local workforce at the 3821 Kimwell Drive plant was at 270
employees as recently as 2004.  About 125 employees in Winston-
Salem and 60 in Pawtucket are projected to be covered by WARN
protections.

Two Winston-Salem employees, Dawn Phillips and Cedric Williams,
filed an amended Worker Adjustment and Retraining Notification
(WARN) Act complaint Feb. 9.  The plaintiffs request at least $1.5
million in damages. Their class-action request was filed in May.

Trustee Joseph DiOrio told the judge June 16 that he wants
Phillips removed as a plaintiff because he determined she
voluntarily left the company on Jan. 26 -- two days before the
plant was shut down.

Mr. DiOrio also wants the bankruptcy judge to determine whether
the complaint "adequately preserves the terminated Microfibres
employees' WARN Act claims."

Attorneys for the plaintiffs said Phillips is a proper
representative for the class action because she was among the
employees directly affected by the plant shutdown.  They said
Mr. DiOrio based his determination on "hearsay" evidence.

The plaintiffs' attorneys said that the WARN Act covers employees
who make a voluntary departure after being told of a business
closing.

The WARN Act was enacted in 1989 with the intent of preventing
situations where rank-and-file employees show up for work only to
discover that their employer has shut down without notice.

The act does this by requiring companies that are planning large
job cuts -- defined as more than 50 employees -- to notify their
state and local governments, as well as affected workers, at least
60 days in advance.  The act provides certain benefits to laid-off
workers, such as 60 days of pay and benefit contributions if the
closing is immediate, and access to COBRA insurance benefits for
60 days.

However, the U.S. Labor Department has no authority to enforce
WARN regulations, hear employee complaints, investigate potential
wrongdoing or file lawsuits representing employees.  Employees
must file a lawsuit in federal court to assert WARN rights.

Mr. DiOrio has asked the bankruptcy judge to dismiss the lawsuit.
He claimed in his May 6 response that the company is not
financially liable to the workforce "because it was a faltering
business when it ceased operations."

Mr. DiOrio said Microfibres acted in good faith toward its
employees, including paying them "in full for compensation they
were owed."

The plaintiffs want priority administrative claim status for
employees, meaning they typically would be first in line after
secured creditors are paid.  They want the first $12,745 of each
employee's claim listed as a priority administrative claim, and
the remaining amount as a general unsecured claim.


MODESTO IRRIGATION: Consolidation of Two Class Actions Mulled
-------------------------------------------------------------
Garth Stapley, writing for The Modesto Bee, reports that two
class-action lawsuits against the Modesto Irrigation District
should join forces in a united effort, both suing parties agree in
a request to the judge overseeing both cases.

Both ask that MID stop illegally inflating power bills to
subsidize farm water prices, and both seek unspecified refunds for
tens of thousands of electricity customers.  Although similar and
filed at nearly the same time, the lawsuits were prepared by two
law firms working independently of each other -- until now.

The lawsuits are "effectively identical," reads a motion filed by
plaintiff Dave Thomas' attorneys, purporting buy-in from the other
plaintiff, Andrew Hobbs.  Both allege that MID essentially
"imposes and collects illegal taxes," the motion reads, by
subsidizing farm water while overcharging electricity customers,
without seeking voter approval for the arrangement.

Consolidating would streamline things for all involved and produce
one trial instead of two, says the request, to be heard by
Stanislaus Superior Court Judge William Mayhew on Aug. 19.

MID does not contend that both plaintiffs "assert virtually
identical claims," the utility's attorneys say in court papers.
But the consolidation issue won't matter, MID says, if the judge
throws out the Thomas lawsuit on a technicality because it
allegedly was filed 13 days late.

Mr. Hobbs sued 119 days after the MID board in November
restructured its electricity rates, beating a 120-day statute of
limitation by a single day, MID's motion says.  But Mr. Thomas's
lawsuit came 133 days after the MID board vote and should be
tossed, the utility contends.

State lawmakers established the time limit for suing because
"irrigation districts are entitled to certainty when setting
electricity rates, so they may rely on projected revenues,
stabilize their finances and make their services more efficient,"
MID lawyers said in the motion.

MID's statute-of-limitation strategy is "misguided," Mr. Thomas'
side says in court papers.

Although the lawsuits are similar, Mr. Hobbs also accused MID of
overcharging residential customers to subsidize businesses paying
lower electricity rates.  If allowed to consolidate, the two camps
would align their claims in new wording, they say.

The district has balked at pinpointing its electricity profit,
which is used to repay debt, build reserves and cover the farm
water subsidy, amounting to $17 million this year.  Bonding
documents last year put the district's yearly electricity profit
at more than $90 million.

MID "denies any and all wrongful conduct," its lawyers say in a
separate court document.  The utility "did not act arbitrarily,
capriciously or wholly without evidentiary support, did not abuse
its discretion," and the board embraced rates "supported by
substantial evidence," the court papers read.

The utility asks that Judge Mayhew find that MID's prices are
legal, and "to the extent those rates generate funds used to
underwrite irrigation water service, that use of those funds may
continue."


MSS GOLDEN: Faces Sky Management Class Suit in S.D. New York
------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been commenced against MSS Golden Eagle
Construction USA Co., Inc., Raghbir Singh and John Does 1-10.

The case is captioned Sky Management Corporation, individually and
as the representative of a class of similarly situated persons v.
MSS Golden Eagle Construction USA Co., Inc., Raghbir Singh and
John Does 1-10, Case No. 1:16-cv-05565 (S.D.N.Y., July 13, 2016).

The Defendants own and operate a construction company located at
3005 125th St., Jamaica, NY 11420.

Sky Management Corporation is a pro se plaintiff.


NATIONWIDE DEBT: Accused of Wrongful Conduct Over Debt Collection
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Jodie Flynn, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. Nationwide Debt Management Solutions, LLC and
Brightwater Capital LLC, Case No. 2:16-cv-03876-ADS-AYS (E.D.N.Y.,
July 13, 2016), seeks to stop the Defendant's unfair and
unconscionable means to collect a debt.

The Defendants own and operate a debt collection firm in New York.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Joseph Mauro, Esq.
      THE LAW OFFICE OF JOSEPH MAURO, LLC
      306 McCall Avenue
      West Islip, NY 11795
      Telephone: (631) 669-0921
      Facsimile: (631) 669-5071
      E-mail: JoeMauroesq@hotmail.com


NEW HAMPSHIRE: PFOA Plaintiffs Want to Remand Class Action
----------------------------------------------------------
HarrisMartin reports that plaintiffs asserting PFOA water
contamination claims have moved to remand their suit, contending
in part that the defendant chose to operate its facility in New
Hampshire "in part to avoid Vermont's stricter environmental
requirements which would have limited the amount of PFOA released
into the environment."

In the July 11 motion filed with the U.S. District Court for the
District of New Hampshire, the plaintiffs additionally maintained
that the federal court can decline to exercise jurisdiction over
the class action suit when greater than two-thirds of the members
of all proposed classes are citizens of the state.


NORTH CAROLINA: Landowners Win Map Act Class Action Against NCDOT
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Deana Carpenter, writing for Legal Newsline, reports that
approximately 800 members in a class action lawsuit recently won a
case against the North Carolina Department of Transportation
(NCDOT) and its Roadway Corridor Official Map Act.

The decision in the case, Kirby v. NCDOT, was made June 10 by the
North Carolina Supreme Court.  The court ruled that limitations
handed down on property owners under the Map Act established a
taking of their property.  The state Supreme Court's ruling also
requires NCDOT to compensate the landowners.

The Map Act states that when North Carolina is planning for a
highway project, the owners of property in the path of the highway
corridor are not allowed to improve, develop or subdivide the
property, even though they are the owners of the property.

"That would put some limits on the property owners,"
Tony Lathrop, of the law firm Moore and Van Allen in Charlotte,
told Legal Newsline.

He said the court's decision basically held that the state cannot
just take the property.

NCDOT must file highway corridor maps with the register of deeds
in the county where it plans to build a road.  When this happens,
building permits cannot be granted to the properties within the
proposed highway corridor.  Also, even though restrictions are
placed on properties within proposed highway corridors, NCDOT is
not required to build the specific highway project.

Mr. Lathrop said the case originally was brought as a class action
suit due to the Northern Beltway highway project that was planned
near Winston-Salem.

The case was based on whether the Map Act and its restrictions
were an exercise of the power of the police, in which property is
taken because it would benefit the public or if it was an act of
eminent domain.

The state Supreme Court in its ruling said that restrictions on
property owners under the Map Act "are not a valid, regulatory
exercise of police power."

"The court basically held that it (NCDOT's Map Act) was taking the
property without just compensation," Mr. Lathrop said.

He added that two previous decisions, Breoth Oil Co. v. NCDOT in
2012 and 2014, are related to the Map Act case in that they set
class action jurisprudence.  Both cases reassured that the trial
courts held discretion concerning class action certification and
the importance of determining class action certification.

Mr. Lathrop said that in the eyes of the courts, the Map Act is a
"cost controlling mechanism" allowing the state of North Carolina
to lower the price it would have to pay for the land that's needed
for future highways.

"Basically, the affect is DOT can't do that anymore," he said.

Mr. Lathrop said that individual monetary compensations under the
class action settlement have not been determined.

"They sent it back to the trial court for individual damages,"
Lathrop said.

"It was so big.  There was so much money involved.  It affects
hundreds and hundreds of property owners," he said.


PACIFIC SUNWEAR: Viability of Class Proofs of Claim Reaffirmed
--------------------------------------------------------------
Todd E. Phillips, Esq. -- tphillips@capdale.com -- Kevin C.
Maclay, Esq. -- kmaclay@capdale.com -- and Sally J. Sullivan, Esq.
-- ssullivan@capdale.com -- of Caplin & Drysdale, in an article
for Lexology, report that on June 22, 2016, the Bankruptcy Court
for the District of Delaware allowed a putative creditor class to
file a class proof of claim in the In re Pacific Sunwear of
California, Inc., et al., bankruptcy proceedings.  In granting the
motion, the bankruptcy court applied its discretion to certify a
class of retail employees holding claims alleging violations of
state labor laws, and rejected the Debtors' assertion that the
Third Circuit had categorically prohibited class proofs of claim
in bankruptcy.  This ruling should serve as a warning that
bankruptcy is not a surefire recipe to avoid class treatment, and
will serve as an arrow in the quiver of the class action
plaintiffs' bar to the extent their cases are pulled into the
bankruptcy realm.

Background

In January 2011, Charles Pfeiffer filed an action against PacSun
entities alleging violations of the California Labor Code Private
Attorneys General Act of 2004 ("PAGA").  Later in 2011, Tamaree
Beeney filed a separate suit, as a putative class action, against
PacSun, alleging violations of California labor law, in addition
to claims pursuant to PAGA.  The two lawsuits, along with a third
similar suit, were coordinated pursuant to California procedural
law.  Nearly five years later, following discovery and oral
argument, on February 26, 2016, the Superior Court for the County
of Los Angeles, entered an order granting class certification.

Less than two months after the California state court granted
class certification, on April 7, 2016, PacSun and related entities
("Debtors"), filed for bankruptcy in Delaware.  On the same day,
Debtors filed a plan of reorganization and an accompanying
disclosure statement.  Debtors then moved successfully for the
approval of a general bar date, which was set for June 13, 2016.
However, Debtors deliberately did not serve the members of the
certified class with notice of the bar date but instead
"unilaterally chose to limit notice of the Bar Date to employees
who worked for PacSun in the two years prior to the filing of the
petition."  Despite the limited notice program, Plaintiffs
Pfeiffer and Beeney timely filed representative proofs of claim on
behalf of their respective classes.  Plaintiffs then petitioned
the bankruptcy court for an order approving the filing.

In their motion for leave to file class proofs of claim,
Plaintiffs argued that allowing the filing would "merely
maintain[] the status quo," which was warranted given that: (1)
Debtors willfully failed to notice the class claimants of the bar
date; (2) the class certification was won "after years of arduous
litigation"; (3) PAGA claims did not require certification;[7] and
(4) Plaintiffs Pfeiffer and Beeney were appropriate
representatives to file such class proofs of claim.[8]

Debtors maintained that the class proofs of claim were
inappropriate.  They argued that: (1) the Third Circuit previously
rejected "the importation of class action principles into
bankruptcy cases"; (2) there was no authority for permitting a
PAGA claimant to file a representative claim in bankruptcy; (3)
the motion was a collateral attack on the Bar Date Order; (4) the
requirements of Bankruptcy Rule 7023 were not satisfied; and (5)
the court should exercise its discretion to reject the filing.

The Bankruptcy Court's Opinion

Importantly, the court first rejected the Debtors' contention that
the Third Circuit had categorically prohibited the filing of class
proofs of claim in bankruptcy.[10]  Debtors relied primarily on
SEC v. Aberdeen Securities Co., for this proposition.  In
Aberdeen, while the Third Circuit affirmed the district court's
refusal to treat claims as part of a class action, it made no per
se announcement that class proofs of claim were impermissible in
bankruptcy.  Rather, it simply affirmed the district court's
discretionary decision to reject a class action claim explaining
that "petitioners have failed to show that the method they
advocated [class treatment] was superior to the procedures being
followed by the Bankruptcy Court."  Hence, the Delaware Bankruptcy
Court found that Aberdeen did "not stand for the principle that
class claims are, as a rule, impermissible in bankruptcy cases."

The court then analyzed the proposed filing under Bankruptcy Rule
7023, which governs Class Proceedings in bankruptcy.  Rule 7023
states: "Rule 23 F.R.Civ.P. applies in adversary proceedings."
Thus, the court's task was to determine whether the requirements
of Rule 23 had been satisfied such that a class proof of claim
could be properly filed in the proceeding.

First, the court analyzed whether it should exercise its
discretion to apply Rule 7023.  It explained that it would follow
the three-factor framework developed in Musicland to guide its
discretion in determining whether Rule 7023 should be extended in
the instant case.  Those factors include: (1) whether the class
was certified pre-petition; (2) whether the members of the
putative class received notice of the bar date; and (3) whether
class certification would adversely affect the administration of
the estate.

The court easily dispensed with the first two factors as it was
undisputed that the class was certified in February 2016 and that
the Debtors did not provide notice to all claimants in the
certified class.  As to the third, whether certification would
adversely affect administration of the estate, the court found
that "application of Rule 7023 will not hinder the chapter 11
process, but rather will promote efficiency by placing potentially
thousands of individual claims before the court in a single class
claim with competent counsel representing the interests of the
class."

After deciding to exercise its discretion and apply Rule 7023, the
court then turned to a substantive analysis of whether the
elements of Rule 23 were satisfied.  Rule 23 requires a showing of
numerosity, commonality, typicality, and adequacy of
representation.  The court found that numerosity, commonality, and
typicality were easily satisfied given that the class appeared to
be in excess of 20,000 members, all members were subject to the
same companywide policies that allegedly violated California law,
and Plaintiff Beeney's claims and legal theory were "not only
typical of the claims of the unnamed class members, they are
identical to their claims."

However, the court found a wrinkle with respect to the adequacy of
representation requirement.  This element requires that the
representative plaintiff's interests and incentives align with the
rest of the class.  The court found that putative members of the
class certified by the California state court may ultimately have
divergent interests based on how their claims are categorized
pursuant to the Bankruptcy Code.  While Plaintiff Beeney, and
those similarly situated, would likely hold general unsecured
claims in the bankruptcy proceedings, current employees may hold
either wage priority or administrative claims.  Thus, a structural
problem existed within the class which could prevent Plaintiff
Beeney from adequately representing those claimants who held
different classes of claims.  The court thus limited the class
certification in the bankruptcy proceeding to those unnamed class
members who, like Plaintiff Beeney, would hold general unsecured
claims.

Although the Debtors aggressively asserted the notion that class
proofs of claim are impermissible in the Third Circuit, the
bankruptcy court squarely rejected such a view.  This ruling
further substantiates the viability of class proofs of claim in
the bankruptcy arena as a tool for effectively addressing
potential bankruptcy claims that may number in the hundreds or
thousands, when claimants meet the requisite elements for class
certification.  Such treatment may promote the same efficiency and
cost-sharing goals that class plaintiffs enjoy outside of
bankruptcy and the ruling should prove a boon to the class action
plaintiffs' bar when seeking class treatment, and the resultant
benefits that flow therefrom, in bankruptcy cases.


PLASTIPAK HOLDINGS: Hall Seeks Certification of FLSA Class
----------------------------------------------------------
The Plaintiffs in the class action lawsuit styled ROBERT HALL,
EBONY MARTIN, RODERICK SMARTT, JASON TRENT, AND STEVE TRENT, on
behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, the
Plaintiffs, v. PLASTIPAK, PLASTIPAK HOLDINGS, INC., PLASTIPAK
PACKAGING, INC., PLASTIPAK TECHNOLOGIES, LLC, and WILLIAM C.
YOUNG, the Defendants, Case No. 2:15-cv-11428-RHC-MKM (E.D.
Mich.), ask the Court to conditionally certify a Fair Labor
Standards Act (FLSA) class of:

     "all individuals who performed work for compensation for
      Defendants after April 20, 2012, who worked hours in excess
      of forty per week but were not paid one and one half times
      their regular rate for overtime hours."

The Plaintiffs allege they consistently worked over 40 hours in a
week, and were just paid their regular hourly rate for all hours
for which they were compensated. The Defendants' method of paying
Plaintiffs and Class Members in violation of the FLSA was willful
and not based on a good faith and reasonable belief that its
conduct complied with the FLSA.

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

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Maia Johnson Braun, Esq.
          David A. Hardesty, Esq.
          GOLD STAR LAW, P.C.
          2701 Troy Center Dr., Ste. 400
          Troy, MI 48084
          Telephone: (248) 275-5200
          E-mail: mjohnson@goldstarlaw.com
                  dhardesty@goldstarlaw.com

The Defendant is represented by:

          Ronald G. Acho, Esq.
          CUMMINGS, McCLOREY,
          DAVIS & ACHO, PLC
          33900 Schoolcraft
          Livonia, MI 48150
          Telephone: (734) 261 2400
          E-mail: cracho@cmda-law.com


PRINCE EDWARD: Faces Class Action Over Disability Support Program
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Teresa Wright, writing for The Guardian, reports that two P.E.I.
residents who have been denied access to disability payments
because their mental illnesses do not qualify under P.E.I.'s
support program have filed a proposed class action lawsuit against
the Prince Edward Island government.

Laura King and Nathan Dawson have filed a statement of claim in
the Supreme Court of P.E.I. claiming the P.E.I. government has
breached the Charter of Rights and Freedoms by denying disability
support benefits to individuals with mental illness.

They want the province to change its policy and allow Islanders
with mental disabilities access to disability support payments.
They are also asking a judge to certify their proceeding as a
class action suit.

Earlier this year, the P.E.I.  Human Rights Commission delivered a
45-page decision stating the disability support program's
exclusion of mental illness was discriminatory.  This decision was
in response to a complaint filed by Ms. King's mother, Millie
King, on behalf of her daughter Laura, who has been diagnosed with
paranoid schizophrenia.

The province has since filed for a judicial review of this
decision.

But Ms. King and Mr. Dawson are not waiting for that legal
proceeding to unfold.  Their lawyer, Mike Dull --
mike@valentlegal.ca -- of Valant Legal in Halifax, says his
clients are confident a judge will uphold the Human Rights
Commission's findings and, in the meantime, they want to fight for
a change to P.E.I.'s policy.

"Laura and Nathan have sort of banded together to seek justice on
behalf of all others in P.E.I. who suffer with similar afflictions
and yet are left to their own devices to deal with it," Dull said.

"It needs to be noted that P.E.I. is the only province that,
according to the Human Rights Comission, arbitarily excludes
people with mental disabilities from disability supports."

Mr. Dull says so far 30 individuals have expressed interest in
joining as class members of this lawsuit.

P.E.I. does not have class action legislation, so this proceeding
will proceed by way of common law, but this still requires the
court's endorsement of a class action.

If province contests this case being certified as a class action,
Mr. Dull says he believes it will be the first hearing of its kind
in P.E.I.

The Island's disability support program has an annual budget of
about $13 million and serves roughly 1,300 clients a year.

It was created to supplement other supports available to people
with disabilities.

In its decision delivered in March, the Human Rights Commission
panel said the provincial government did not show there was a
reasonable explanation for the exclusion of people with mental
illness or that inclusion wasn't possible without undue hardship.

The panel ordered the disability support program to stop excluding
people with mental illness.

Premier Wade MacLauchlan has defended the fact his government is
now seeking a judicial review, saying it is necessary to determine
whether this quasi-judicial body has the right to dictate
government policy.

"In this case it is really to clarify," Mr. MacLauchlan said May 5
in the P.E.I. legislature.

"It's an important precedent involved in this case when you have
the Human Rights Commission, in effect, overturning government
policy.  It's very important to know and to clarify exactly what
the implications are of that precedent."

Neither Ms. King nor Mr. Dawson is agreeing to do media interviews
at this time.  Their statement of claim says they are seeking
"compensatory damages" deemed appropriate by the court.

The province has not yet filed defense in court.


PROJECT INVESTORS: Leidel et al. Seek Class Certification
---------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit styled BRANDON LEIDEL, and MICHAEL
WILSON, individually, and on behalf of All Others Similarly
Situated, the Plaintiffs, v. PROJECT INVESTORS, INC. d/b/a
CRYPTSY, a Florida corporation, PAUL VERNON, an individual, and
LORIE ANN NETTLES, an individual, the Defendants, Case No. 9:16-
cv-80060-KAM (S.D. Fla.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court to grant
their unopposed motion to certify a class:

     "All CRYPTSY account owners who held Bitcoins, alternative
      cryptocurrencies, or any other form of monies or currency
      at CRYPTSY as of November 1, 2015 to the present. Excluded
      from the Class are: (1) employees of CRYPTSY, including its
      shareholders, officers and directors and members of their
      immediate families; (2) any judge to whom this action is
      assigned and the judge's immediate family; and (3) persons
      who timely and validly opt to exclude themselves from the
      Class."

A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=AYp2oXZu

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Marc A. Wites, Esq.
          WITES & KAPETAN, P.A.
          4400 N. Federal Highway
          Lighthouse Point, Florida 33064
          Telephone: (954) 570 8989
          Facsimile: (954) 354 0205
          E-mail: mwites@wklawyers.com

               - and -

          David C. Silver, Esq.
          Scott L. Silver, Esq.
          Jason S. Miller, Esq.
          SILVER LAW GROUP
          11780 W. Sample Road
          Coral Springs, FL 33065
          Telephone: (954) 755 4799
          Facsimile: (954) 755 4684
          E-mail: DSilver@silverlaw.com
                  SSilver@silverlaw.com
                  JMiller@silverlaw.com


RAYTHEON COMPANY: Sued Over Failure to Handle Retiree Benefits
--------------------------------------------------------------
Daniel Moore, on behalf of himself and a class of persons
similarly situated v. Raytheon Company, Xerox Corporation, Bank of
New York Mellon Corporation, John Does I-X, Jane Does I-X, ABC
Corporations, and XYZ Partnerships, Case No. 4:16-cv-00470-RM (D.
Ariz., July 13, 2016), seeks to recover retiree medical benefits
and pension benefits that the Defendants wrongfully withheld or
diminished or otherwise failed to properly administer or disburse,
in violation of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act.

The Defendants operate a defense and industrial corporation with
core manufacturing concentrations in weapons and military and
commercial electronics.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Robert M. Gregory, Esq.
      THE GREGORY LAW GROUP
      1425 W. Elliot Road, Suite 201
      Gilbert, AZ 85233
      Telephone: (480) 664-0855
      E-mail: Robert@gregorylawaz.com


RCM TECHNOLOGIES: Faces "McNeal" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT
------------------------------------------------------------
Jermaine McNeal and Genoa Sosa, on behalf of themselves and all
other similarly situated v. RCM Technologies USA Inc. and Does 1-
100, inclusive, Case No. 2:16-cv-05170-ODW-SS (C.D. Cal., July 13,
2016), is brought against the Defendants for failure to pay
overtime wages in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act.

RCM Technologies USA Inc. is a provider of business and technology
solutions.

The Plaintiff is represented by:
      Jessica Lee Riggin, Esq.
      Peter S. Rukin, Esq.
      RUKIN HYLAND DORIA AND TINDALL LLP
      100 Pine Street Suite 2150
      San Francisco, CA 94111
      Telephone: (415) 421-1800
      Facsimile: (415) 421-1700
      E-mail: jriggin@rhdtlaw.com
              prukin@rhdtlaw.com


REGULATORY TECHNOLOGY: Casano Seeks Certification of Two Classes
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Plaintiff in the lawsuit styled RAY CASANO, on behalf of
himself and on behalf of all others similarly situated v.
REGULATORY TECHNOLOGY CORPORATION, Case No. 8:16-cv-00096-MSS-AEP
(M.D. Fla.), asks the Court to certify the Fair Credit Reporting
Act case as a class action for the class of similarly-situated
persons:

     Proposed National Class as to RTS: All REGULATORY TECHNOLOGY
     CORPORATION ("RTS") employees or prospective employees in
     the United States who were the subject of a consumer report
     that was procured by RTS (or that RTS caused to be
     procured), within five years of the filing of the complaint
     through the date of final judgment in this action.

     Proposed National Class as to Accuscreen: All persons
     residing in the United States (including all territories and
     other political subdivisions of the United States) as to
     whom Accu-Screen, Inc., furnished consumer reports for
     employment purposes within the period prescribed by FCRA, 15
     U.S.C. Section 1681p without first obtaining from the person
     to whom Accu-Screen, Inc., furnished such consumer report a
     certification that such person had complied with its
     obligations under Section 1681b(b)(2) as to the subject of
     the consumer report.

Mr. Casano also asks the Court to appoint him as class
representative, and appoint the law firm Wenzel, Fenton, Cabassa,
P.A. as class counsel.

A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=VV3Y0VxU

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Donna V. Smith, Esq.
          Brandon J. Hill, Esq.
          WENZEL FENTON CABASSA P.A.
          1110 N. Florida Avenue, Suite 300
          Tampa, FL 33602
          Telephone: (813) 386-0995
          Facsimile: (813) 229-8712
          E-mail: dsmith@wfclaw.com
                  bhill@wfclaw.com

The Defendant is represented by:

          Nolan Klein, Esq.
          Jordan Richards, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF NOLAN KLEIN, P.A.
          Wells Fargo Tower - Suite 1500
          One East Broward Blvd.
          Fort Lauderdale, FL
          E-mail: klein@nk-legal.com
                  richards@nklegal.com


RESTORATION HARDWARE: Supreme Court to Review Class Action Ruling
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Dawn Geske, writing for Northern California Record, reports that a
class-action judgment will be reviewed by the California Supreme
Court examining a 74-year-old law that requires objectors to
procedurally intervene.

Unnamed class member Francesca Muller is appealing how the
attorney fees were determined in a class-action suit against
Restoration Hardware in the case of Hernandez v. Muller.
Ms. Muller filed a complaint that class members were not given
notice of the attorneys' fee application in the lawsuit that
challenged the retailer over its use of zip codes.

While Ms. Muller stated that she didn't object to the $9.1 million
sought by the counsel for the $36.4 million judgment, she has
filed two complaints.  One complaint challenges whether class
members were entitled to notice of the fee request of the judgment
and the other argues how the attorney fees were calculated.

Ms. Muller's right to appeal the case has been moved to review by
the California Supreme Court, which the objector is at odds over
with a 74-year-old case that the Supreme Court still uses.

"There's a 74-year-case the California Supreme Court decided a
long time ago that said unnamed class members in class action have
to formally intervene to be able to appeal," said
Lawrence Schonbrun, executive director of Class Action Watch and
attorney for the objector, told the Northern California Record.
"What's happened is in spite of the fact that the California
Supreme Court said that a long time ago, numerous courts of appeal
in California have adopted the federal approach, which is that you
don't have to formally intervene and just have to file an
objection and appear at the fairness hearing."

The appeals court has dismissed the appeal stating that the
objector hasn't followed the proper procedures as required for an
unnamed class member.  The appeal is being challenged in the
California Supreme Court, which may or may use the 74-year-old
case as a guideline.

"If the Supreme Court of California is going to make this old case
the law or is going to adopt a more modern view, which many other
appellate courts have adopted," said Mr. Schonbrun.  "The court of
appeals refused to get to the merits of either argument. They
dismissed the appeal saying you haven't formally intervened and
they cited this 74-year-old California Supreme Court case to
support their dismissal of the appeal on procedural grounds."

Through the appeal to the Supreme Court, Mr. Schonbrun on behalf
of his client is looking to throw out the 74-year old case and
prove that his client has followed procedures based upon current
modern laws.

"We're seeking to have the court of appeals be required to rule on
the merits of the objection and we're asking the Supreme Court to
acknowledge its 74-year-old decision is no longer good law," he
said.

While attorney fees are commonly taken from the class settlement
under the common settlement fund, Ms. Muller wants the fees
examined to decide if they should be taken a percentage of the
settlement or should be based on the amount of time put into the
case by the attorneys, whichever is more appropriate.


S2VERIFY LLC: FCRA Claims Class Certified in "Hawkins" Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------
The Hon William Alsup entered an order in the lawsuit entitled
REGMON L. HAWKINS v. S2VERIFY, Case No. 3:15-cv-03502-WHA (N.D.
Cal.), certifying a statutory damages class for claims asserted
pursuant to the Fair Credit Reporting Act.  The Court certified
this statutory damages class:

     (1) Regmon L. Hawkins and (2) all other natural persons
     within the United States (including all territories and
     other political subdivisions of the United States) (a) who
     were the subject of aconsumer report S2VERIFY furnished to
     Chase Professionals, IPC International, Inc., Foodtemps,
     Inc. d/b/a Foodstaff, Mississippi Gaming Commission,
     StaffMasters, Inc., T&T Staff Management, Inc., Tarrant
     Regional Water District, TRC Staffing Services, or United
     Refining Company, (b) from June 16, 2013 through
     February 28, 2014, and (c) whose report contained any public
     record of criminal arrest, charge, information, indictment,
     or other adverse item of information other than records of
     an actual conviction of a crime, which antedated the report
     by more than 7 years.

     Excluded from the class definition are any employees,
     officers, or directors of S2VERIFY, any attorneys appearing
     in this case, and any judges assigned to hear this case as
     well as their immediate family and staff.

Regmon Hawkins is appointed as class representative of all
plaintiff classes.  Caddell & Chapman and DHF Law, P.C. are
appointed as class counsel, with Caddell & Chapman to serve as
lead counsel.

Judge Alsup ordered the parties that by August 12, 2016, by noon,
they jointly submit a proposal for class notification, with the
plan to distribute notice by September 6, 2016.

A copy of the Order is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=jJ5qEMbb


SALEM INT'L: Arguments in Nurses' Class Action Set for October
--------------------------------------------------------------
Matt Harvey, writing for The Exponent Telegram, reports that the
state Supreme Court will hear arguments in October about an issue
in a Harrison County class action lawsuit against Salem
International University.

Former students in the registered nurse associate degree program
sued in 2013 over the university's loss of accreditation.

The issue before the justices is Harrison Circuit Judge James A.
Matish's refusal to submit the case to arbitration.

Salem International's lawyers, Mike Garrison, Kelly Kimble and
Eric Iskra of Spilman Thomas and Battle, say the judge was
required by law to do so.

But Charles "Rusty" Webb of the The Webb Law Firm insists Matish
correctly ruled that while the arbitration agreement was generally
enforceable, it was ambiguous concerning the waiver of class
action claims.

The case is No. 2 on the argument docket beginning at 10:00 a.m.
Oct. 11.

The lawsuit contends Salem International officials assured
students the nursing program "was in sound shape, when in fact,
such was not true."

It accuses the university of violating the West Virginia Consumer
Credit and Protection Act and seeks punitive as well as
compensatory damages.

The associate degree in nursing program was first approved for
provisional status in June 2010.  The associate degree in science
of nursing lost its accreditation in February 2013, Webb asserted.


SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS: Sued Over Defective Washing Machines
---------------------------------------------------------
Carrie Salls, writing for PennRecord, reports that a class action
lawsuit filed June 30 against Samsung in the U.S. District Court
for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania centers on an alleged
defect that attorneys believe has affected hundreds of thousands
of people nationwide.

"This concerns a defective drain pump (that) causes leaks and that
can explode, causing damages," Greg Coleman, founder and managing
partner of Greg Coleman Law PC, told the Pennsylvania Record.

The lawsuit, filed by lead plaintiff Rose Wagner of Downingtown,
alleges breach of implied warranty, design defect, failure to
warn, negligence and product liability.  Ms. Wagner alleged in her
complaint that Samsung knew the washing machines it manufactured
were defective, but that the company sold them to customers
anyway.

Ms. Wagner said a washing machine she bought in 2015 caused
roughly $25,000 of damage to her home, stemming from a leak that
rendered the machine unusable without substantial repairs,
including replacement of the pump and realignment.  Ms. Wagner
alleges the damage also prevented her washing machine from
spinning and draining water.

Mr. Coleman said Ms. Wagner's is not the only case of its kind.
Greg Coleman Law and Berger & Montague are two of three firms
representing the class in the Wagner lawsuit.

"There are some other cases, but no way to tell if they will be
consolidated at this point," Mr. Coleman said.

Michael Fantini -- mfantini@bm.net -- of Berger & Montague, said
his firm is aware of one other lawsuit filed against Samsung
earlier this year in connection with allegations of damage caused
by exploding washing machines, but he could not say whether that
case and any others like it will be consolidated with the Wagner
class action.

"We make similar allegations of fact," Mr. Fantini told the
Pennsylvania Record.  "It may be similar in nature to the others."

According to Ms. Wagner's lawsuit, Samsung started receiving
complaints in 2011 that some models of its top-loading washing
machines had serious defects, but the company did not stop selling
the machines or issue a recall.

"Samsung received high numbers of consumer complaints related to
models within its WA400 and WA500-series washing machines for
problems with their spin cycles, high vibrations, breaking springs
and even 'explosions' related to the washing machines' spin
cycles," the lawsuit said.

The plaintiffs in the Wagner class action allege that the design
of the machines is defective because the position and location of
the drain pump causes high-stress concentrations that result in
fracturing and separation of the drain pump assembly's motor
housing from its mounting base.  The suit also alleges that
Samsung made errors in the manufacturing process or workmanship.

The complaint alleges that the machines' highly touted digital
inverter motor, which allows the machines to spin at high speeds,
and the machines' wash motor parts "are simply too powerful for
the materials selected for use in the rest of the washing
machines," including the pump assembly.

The complaint alleges that the defect in the machines can cause
significant water leakage and washing machine explosions,
potentially resulting in property damage and personal injury.

"We believe that this has affected a large number of people across
the country," Mr. Fantini said.


SOUTHWEST CREDIT: Illegally Collects Debt, "Stuppiello" Suit Says
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Matthew Stuppiello, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. Southwest Credit Systems, L.P., Case No.
3:16-cv-01811-H-JMA (S.D. Cal., July 13, 2016), seeks to stop the
Defendant's unfair and unconscionable means to collect a debt.

Southwest Credit Systems, L.P. operates a debt collection firm in
California.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Jared M. Hartman, Esq.
      SEMNAR & HARTMAN LLP
      400 South Melrose, Suite 209
      Vista, CA 92081
      Telephone: (951) 234-0881
      Facsimile: (888) 819-8230
      E-mail: jared@sandiegoconsumerattorneys.com

ST. JUDE MEDICAL: WeissLaw LLP Files Securities Class Action
------------------------------------------------------------
WeissLaw LLP on July 20 disclosed that it filed a class action in
the United States District Court of Minnesota on behalf of
shareholders of St. Jude Medical, Inc., seeking to pursue remedies
under the Securities and Exchange Act of 1934 and state law in
connection with the proposed acquisition of St. Jude by Abbott
Laboratories.

On April 28, 2016, St. Jude and Abbott announced that they had
entered into a definitive agreement pursuant to which St. Jude
shareholders will receive $46.75 in cash and 0.8708 shares of
Abbott common stock for each share of St. Jude common stock they
own ("Proposed Transaction").  The complaint seeks injunctive
relief on behalf of the named plaintiff and all St. Jude
shareholders.  The plaintiff is represented by WeissLaw, which has
expertise in prosecuting investor class actions and extensive
experience in actions involving financial fraud.

The complaint alleges that certain defendants breached their
fiduciary duty of disclosure owed to St. Jude shareholders and, as
a result, violated applicable Minnesota law.  Further, it alleges
that in an attempt to secure shareholder approval for the merger,
the defendants filed a Registration Statement with the SEC which
omitted and/or misrepresented information material to St. Jude
shareholders' ability to make an informed decision whether to
approve the Proposed Transaction.

If you wish to discuss this action or have any questions
concerning this notice or your rights or interests, please contact
plaintiff's counsel, Joshua M. Rubin of WeissLaw at 888.593.4771,
or by e-mail at stockinfo@weisslawllp.com
Any member of the putative class may move the Court to serve as
lead plaintiff through counsel of their choice, or may choose to
do nothing and remain an absent class member.  If you wish to
serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no later than
sixty days from July 20, 2016.

WeissLaw LLP -- http://www.weisslawllp.com-- has litigated
hundreds of stockholder class and derivative actions for
violations of corporate and fiduciary duties.


STATE FARM: Bid for Class Certification in "Labrier" Granted
------------------------------------------------------------
The Hon. Nanette K. Laughrey granted Plaintiff's motion for class
certification in the lawsuit styled AMANDA M. LABRIER,
individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated, the
Plaintiff, v. STATE FARM FIRE AND CASUALTY COMPANY, the Defendant,
Case No. 2:15-cv-04093-NKL (W.D. Mo.).

The class is defined as:

     "All State Farm Fire and Casualty Company property insurance
      policyholders who submitted a claim for structural damage
      to a property in Missouri, and whose actual cash value
      (ACV) payment was reduced by the withholding of labor
      depreciation, during the time period from March 30, 2005 to
      the date of trial, inclusive."

The class includes policyholders who submitted claims for which
the first ACV payment was made on or after March 30, 2005. The
class also includes any policyholder who received no payment from
State Farm solely because the withholding of labor depreciation
caused the value of the claim to drop below the applicable
deductible.

A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=eo8I6DR7


TARGET CORP: Faces ERISA Class Action in Minnesota
--------------------------------------------------
Carmen Castro-Pagan, writing for Bloomberg BNA, reports that a
group of participants in Target Corp.'s 401(k) plan filed a
proposed class action against the company for allegedly breaching
its ERISA fiduciary duties by failing to remove Target stock from
the plan (Simmons v. Target Corp. , D. Minn., No. 0:16-cv-02421,
complaint filed 7/15/16 ).

A similar Employee Retirement Income Security Act lawsuit against
the retailer was filed, also in the U.S. District Court for the
District of Minnesota.  The new lawsuit filed July 15 alleges that
misleading statements about Target's expansion into Canada caused
the company's stock to trade at artificially inflated prices.
Meanwhile, plan fiduciaries invested millions of dollars in plan
assets in the artificially inflated company stock, causing
participants to lose their investment when its value subsequently
declined, the complaint said.

As of 2012, the plan held over $2 billion in Target stock and
allegedly acquired hundreds of millions of dollars of company
stock while it was artificially inflated, the complaint said.

The participants allege that in 2013 and 2014, the plan bought
more than $628 million in company stock.

Despite allegedly knowing that between February 2013 and May 2014
Target stock was artificially inflated, fiduciaries permitted the
plan to continue to offer company stock as an investment option to
participants, the complaint said.

The class could comprise tens of thousands of Target employees who
participated in the plan and whose accounts were invested in
company stock, the complaint said.

Participants seek to recover the financial losses allegedly
suffered by the plan as a result of the diminution in value of
Target stock invested in the plan during 2013 and 2014. They also
seek to restore to the plan funds that participants would have
received if the plan's assets had been invested prudently.

David E. Krause Law Office, Chtd. represents the participants.


TEACHERS INSURANCE: Cummings Seeks to Certify Settlement Class
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned SARAH E. CUMMINGS, on behalf
of herself and all other similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v.
TERACHERS INSURANCE AND ANNUITY ASSOCIATION OF AMERICA - COLLEGE
RETIREMENT AND EQUITIES FUND (TIAA-CREF), COLLEGE RETIREMENT AND
EQUITIES FUND (CREF), TERACHERS INSURANCE AND ANNUITY ASSOCIATION
OF AMERICA (TIAA), TIAA-CREF INVESTMENT MANAGEMENT, LLC (TCIM),
TEACHERS ADVISORS, INC (TAI), and TIAA-CREF INDIVIDUAL &
INSTITUTIONAL SERVICES, LLC, the Defendants, Case No. Case 1:12-
cv-00093-jgm (D. Vt.), the Plaintiff moves the Court to:

     1. preliminarily approve a class action settlement;

     2. schedule a hearing to consider whether the settlement is
        fair, reasonable, and adequate;

     3. direct notice of the settlement and hearing to the class;
        and

     4. certify the settlement class.

The complaint defines the settlement class as:

     "All persons, including all persons who at any time during
      the Class Period requested a transfer or distribution of
      funds held in a TIAA or CREF variable annuity account: (i)
      whose request was not transmitted or settled in accordance
      within the time limits established by the Securities and
      Exchange Commission and industry practice; and (ii) whose
      funds generated investment gains during the period of
      delay; but (iii) excluding members of the class in the Rink
      v. CREF, No. 07-CI-10761 (Ky. Cir.) and members of the
      class whose claims were entirely released in Bauer-Ramazani
      v. TIAA-CREF, No. 1:09-CV-190 (D. Vt.)."

A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=B9LdC0E4

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Thomas A. Tucker Ronzetti, Esq.
          Kenneth Hartmann, Esq.
          KOZYAK TROPIN & THROCKMORTON, PA
          2525 Ponce de Leon, 9th Floor
          Miami, FL 33134
          E-mail: tr@kttlaw.com
                  krh@kttlaw.com

               - and -

          Norman Williams, Esq.
          Robert B. Hemley, Esq.
          Gravel & Shea PC
          76 St. Paul Street, 7th Floor,
          PO Box 369
          Burlington, VT 05402-0369
          Telephone: (802) 658 0220
          E-mail: nwilliams@gravelseha.com
                  rhemley@gravelseha.com


THERANOS: Faces Another Class Action Over Blood Tests
-----------------------------------------------------
Beth Mole, writing for Ars Technica, reports that there's yet
another unhappy Theranos customer.

In a lawsuit filed on July 18 in the US District Court in Arizona,
an ex-customer alleges that bum blood tests performed by the
beleaguered biotech company directly led to him having a heart
attack.  The test results were later voided by the company,
independent of any involvement from the plaintiff, identified only
as R.C. in the lawsuit.

R.C. joins at least nine other ex-customers suing the company over
faulty tests and the company's lofty but unfulfilled claims. Each
lawsuit is seeking class-action status.

R.C.'s blood tests, which were intended to accurately survey his
blood's lipid and sugar levels, were ordered by his doctor as part
of routine heart monitoring.  The Theranos test results came back
normal, effectively giving R.C. an "all clear."  This led R.C.'s
doctor to recommend that he stick with his current medication
regimen to maintain his healthy status, the lawsuit claims.  But
less than a month later, R.C. suffered a heart attack, leading to
a hospitalization during which doctors had to implant two stents
into R.C.'s arteries.

It was then that R.C. and his doctor began to seriously question
the Theranos test results, the lawsuit explains.

"Additional blood work performed during his hospitalization
strongly suggested that the near-contemporaneous Theranos blood
test was inaccurate and that R.C. and his cardiologist's reliance
on the Theranos' test results was potentially inaccurate or even
harmful," the lawsuit states.  Their doubts solidified when
Theranos later voided the results as it voided or corrected tens
of thousands of other results.  The massive sweep by the company
was an attempt to appease concerned federal regulators, who have
since imposed heavy sanctions against the company for its shoddy
lab practices and tests.

In light of the voided results, R.C. is seeking class-action
status for the lawsuit, as well as costs, restitution and punitive
damages in an amount that will be determined at trial.

While R.C. is certainly not the first to file suit against
Theranos, which is facing extensive legal and regulatory troubles,
the lawsuit is one of the first to provide a clear example of how
the faulty tests may have directly put patients in harm's way.  In
several of the other lawsuits, plaintiffs complain of being duped
into using the company's services, having to reorder tests, and
being inconvenienced or distressed by erroneous results.

One common thread throughout the lawsuits, however, is an apparent
bait-and-switch in the customer experience.  Many of the
plaintiff's say there were drawn to using Theranos' blood tests
because the company touted that it only required a few drops of
blood from a quick and painless finger prick rather than large,
venous blood draws.  Central to this claim is the company's
proprietary blood testing devices, Edison machines, which media
and regulatory reports have since described as being inaccurate
and unreliable.

In the lawsuits, ex-customers repeatedly complained that once they
arrived in the clinic, those effortless finger pricks turned into
torturous ordeals or were ditched all together for traditional
venous blood draws.  In the new lawsuit, R.C. reported that "the
phlebotomist struggled to secure enough blood from R.C.'s finger
and had to repeat the painful process several times before
collecting enough to test."

Since the experience, R.C. and all of the other ex-customers have
switched back to standard blood testing services.

Theranos, meanwhile, is still reeling from federal sanctions that
stand to shut down their remaining blood testing operations and
ban its CEO and founder, Elizabeth Holmes, from the medical
testing business for at least two years.  While the company has
shut down testing at its California lab, operations continue at
its Arizona blood testing facility.  The sanctions that stand to
close the lab are currently set to take effect September 5.


TRI MARINE: No Longer Defendant in U.S. Tuna Price-Fixing Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Tom Seaman, writing Undercurrent News, reports that Tri Marine is
no longer a defendant in amended civil lawsuits alleging price
fixing in the US shelf stable tuna sector.

The vertically integrated tuna firm was listed as a defendant in
some of the complaints filed last year, along with Bumble Bee
Foods, Starkist and parent Dongwon Industries, Thai Union Group
and its Chicken of the Sea brand, but is no longer named in any of
the four "tracks" the cases have been divided down into, a lawyer
involved told Undercurrent News.

"Each council would have had to come to his or her own conclusion"
on Tri Marine no longer being a defendant," said Christopher
Lebsock -- clebsock@hausfeld.com -- of law firm Hausfeld, which is
overseeing the class action track for direct buyers, such as Olean
Wholesale Grocery Cooperative.

He declined to comment further on the reason for Tri Marine no
longer being a defendant.

Joe Hamby, chief operating officer of Tri Marine, declined to
comment to Undercurrent.

Tri Marine is still mentioned in some of the amended complaints,
which have been divided down into tracks for class actions for
direct buyers, end consumers and catering companies, as well as
one for direct buyers who have chosen not to be part of a class
action.

A complaint from retailer Winn-Dixie Stores and its parent Bi-Lo
Holding states that, on Oct 13, 2015, it was revealed Tri Marine
had received a subpoena in connection with the Department of
Justice (DOJ) criminal investigation of price fixing in the
sector.

The amended class action complaint for the end consumers uses Tri
Marine as an example of the high barriers to entry in the sector,
particularly if the allegations of price fixing against the top
three brands are true.

"Even an industry player with decades of experience faces
formidable obstacles in establishing a consumer brand," the
complaint stated.


TRUMP UNIVERSITY: Bondi Gets Donations After Opting Not to Sue
--------------------------------------------------------------
Libby Nelson, writing for Vox, reports that Florida Attorney
General Pam Bondi, who is speaking tonight at the Republican
National Convention, has one major connection to Donald Trump: She
could have sued him over the Trump University scam -- but chose
not to under controversial circumstances.

In 2013, according to the Associated Press, Ms. Bondi announced
that she was considering joining a lawsuit that New York Attorney
General Eric Schneiderman was filing against Trump University.

Then, four days later, a $25,000 check from Trump to Bondi's
reelection campaign showed up.  Ms. Bondi ended up not suing Trump
after all, even though she had plenty of reason to do so. Florida
had received complaints about Mr. Trump's series of real estate
seminars, and a class-action lawsuit on behalf of students in the
state is currently in progress in federal court in New York.

It's not the only time that Mr. Trump has donated to prosecutors
who declined to prosecute him.  In 2010, Texas's then-Attorney
General Greg Abbott declined to pursue a potential $5.4 million
lawsuit against Trump University that the state's consumer
protection division had put together.  Three years later, when Mr.
Abbott was running for governor, Mr. Trump donated $35,000. (Mr.
Abbott won.)

Meanwhile, when Mr. Schneiderman filed New York's lawsuit over
Trump University, Mr. Trump initially said that Mr. Schneiderman
was seeking campaign donations from him and his daughter Ivanka
while the complaint was pending -- implying that Mr. Schneiderman
wanted Mr. Trump to donate to him in order to get him to drop the
case. (An ethics panel didn't substantiate the complaint, and
Mr. Schneiderman lost a lawsuit against Trump.)


UBER TECHNOLOGIES: Riders to Get Refund Tip Case Settlement
-----------------------------------------------------------
Ben Hancock, writing for The Recorder, reports that Uber riders
who paid a 20 percent premium on their fare and were told it was a
tip for the driver will be refunded some of that money under a
settlement announced on July 20.

The peace deal, which still needs court approval, would end a
lawsuit brought against Uber Technologies Inc. in 2014 by three
law firms in Chicago and San Francisco.  The suit claims the ride-
hail giant misrepresented the premium as a "tip" but then kept
roughly half of that money, in violation of California law.
The deal was filed on July 20 in federal court in San Francisco,
about seven months after a class was certified by U.S. District
Judge Edward Chen of the Northern District of California.

"After years of hard-fought litigation, the parties have reached a
settlement that provides plaintiff and the class with essentially
a full refund of the amount at issue in this suit," the filing
says.  The class is represented by Ram, Olson, Cereghino &
Kopczynski of San Francisco, Chicago-based solo Hall Adams, and
Myron M. Cherry & Associates, also of Chicago.

Uber, which is represented by Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan in
the litigation, did not immediately respond to an email seeking
comment.

Riders shouldn't expect a big payday.  The settlement fund is
roughly $344,000, and that will be divided up among the nearly
47,000 class members eligible to receive a payment.  The class
includes customers who received emails from Uber characterizing
the premium as a tip that would go to the driver and subsequently
booked rides between April 2012 and March 2013.

Class counsel are requesting about $431,000 in attorneys fees, the
filing says.  Caren Ehret, the named plaintiff, would get $10,000.
A hearing on the proposed settlement has been set for September.

Judge Chen is also scrutinizing a much larger settlement in a set
of class actions brought on behalf of Uber drivers that could be
worth up to $100 million.  In June, he prodded the lawyers who
negotiated that deal for more information about the impact the
settlement would have on other pending litigation.  They submitted
a response and are now awaiting his decision.


UNION PACIFIC: Preparing for Class Certification Hearing
--------------------------------------------------------
Union Pacific Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on July 21, 2016, for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2016, that the Company is in the
process of preparing for the class certification hearing in the
antitrust litigation by 20 rail shippers.

The Company said, "As we reported in our Quarterly Report on Form
10-Q for the quarter ended June 30, 2007, 20 rail shippers (many
of whom are represented by the same law firms) filed virtually
identical antitrust lawsuits in various federal district courts
against us and four other Class I railroads in the U.S. Currently,
UPRR and three other Class I railroads are the named defendants in
the lawsuit. The original p laintiff filed the first of these
claims in the U.S. District Court in New Jersey on May 14, 2007.
The number of complaints reached a total of 30. These suits allege
that the named railroads engaged in price-fixing by establishing
common fuel surcharges for certain rail traffic."

"In addition to suits filed by direct purchasers of rail
transportation services, a few of the suits involved plaintiffs
alleging that they are or were indirect purchasers of rail
transportation and sought to represent a purported class of
indirect purchasers of rail transportation services that paid fuel
surcharges. These complaints added allegations under state
antitrust and consumer protection laws. On November 6, 2007, the
Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation ordered that all of the
rail fuel surcharge cases be transferred to Judge Paul Friedman of
the U.S. District Court in the District of Columbia for
coordinated or consolidated pretrial proceedings. Following
numerous hearings and rulings, Judge Friedman dismissed the
complaints of the indirect purchasers, which the indirect
purchasers appealed. On April 16, 2010, the U.S. Court of Appeals
for the District of Columbia affirmed Judge Friedman's ruling
dismissing the indirect purchasers' claims based on various state
laws.

"On June 21, 2012, Judge Friedman issued a decision that certified
a class of plaintiffs with eight named plaintiff representatives.
The decision included in the class all shippers that paid a rate-
based fuel surcharge to any one of the defendant railroads for
rate-unregulated rail transportation from July 1, 2003, through
December 31, 2008. This was a procedural ruling, which did not
affirm any of the claims asserted by the plaintiffs and does not
address the ability of the railroad defendants to disprove the
allegations made by the plaintiffs. On July 5, 2012, the defendant
railroads filed a petition with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the
District of Columbia requesting that the court review the class
certification ruling. On August 28, 2012, a panel of the Circuit
Court of the District of Columbia referred the petition to a
merits panel of the court to address the issues in the petition
and to address whether the district court properly granted class
certification. The Circuit Court heard oral arguments on May 3,
2013. On August 9, 2013, the Circuit Court vacated the class
certification decision and remanded the case to the district court
to reconsider the class certification decision in light of a
recent Supreme Court case and incomplete consideration of errors
in the expert report of the plaintiffs. On October 31, 2013, Judge
Friedman approved a schedule agreed to by all parties for
consideration of the class certification issue on remand.

"On October 2, 2014, the plaintiffs informed Judge Friedman that
their economic expert had a previously undisclosed conflict of
interest. Judge Friedman ruled on November 26, 2014, that the
plaintiffs had until April 1, 2015, to file a supplemental expert
report to support their motion for class certification. The
plaintiffs filed their supplemental expert report on April 1,
2015. Judge Friedman issued a scheduling order on June 19, 2015,
scheduling a class certification hearing for November 2, 2015.
Judge Friedman then vacated the hearing date in an Order on
September 28, 2015 because of the potential impact resulting from
the decision of the U.S. Supreme Court case, Tyson Foods v.
Bouaphakeo, related to class action certification and damages. The
U.S. Supreme Court issued a decision in that case on March 22,
2016.  After reviewing the Supreme Court's decision and related
briefings from the parties, Judge Friedman issued an order
scheduling the class certification hearing for the week of
September 26, 2016.  We are in the process of preparing for the
class certification hearing."


UNITED STATES: Court Tosses NFB's Challenge to DOT Final Rule
-------------------------------------------------------------
Lewis S. Wiener, Esq., and Amy Xu, Esq., of Sutherland Asbill &
Brennan LLP, in an article for Lexology, report that on June 29, a
three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C.
Circuit heard the National Federation of the Blind's (NFB)
challenge to a Department of Transportation (DOT) Final Rule
regarding air carriers' duty to provide blind-accessible kiosks at
domestic airports.  The NFB's complaint alleged, among other
reasons, that the DOT's Final Rule constituted discrimination
against disabled individuals, since it does not require air
carriers to make all airport kiosks accessible to the blind.
Though the D.C. Circuit did not address the NFB's arguments on the
merits and dismissed the challenge, this case is a strong
indication of increased attention on ensuring that public
accommodations are accessible to blind and visually impaired
individuals, especially in the realm of technology.

Disability Rights, Public Accommodations, and Technology in
Context

Patterns in class action litigation and enforcement actions show
an increased focus on ensuring that public accommodations, from
airport kiosks to websites for government agencies to online
retailers, are accessible to blind and visually impaired
individuals.  Companies that fail to accommodate blind and
visually impaired individuals in accessing online content may face
liability from class action suits under the Americans with
Disabilities Act (ADA) and other laws.  In 2010, the Department of
Justice (DOJ) issued an advance notice of proposed rulemaking,
stating that the DOJ was considering amending its regulations to
require public websites that provide products and services to the
public be made accessible and usable by disabled individuals,
which suggests an expansive view of what constitutes a place of
public accommodation.

No organizations, including government agencies, are exempt from
accessibility requirements under the ADA.  In October 2015, the
American Council of the Blind and three blind government
contractors reached a landmark settlement in litigation with the
General Services Administration (GSA) to ensure that the federal
government website, SAM.gov, is accessible to blind federal
contractors.  This agreement emphasizes that all types of entities
may face exposure to litigation and enforcement actions from
alleged violations of accessibility requirements under the ADA and
other laws.  In the private sector, dozens of class action suits
against various companies have been filed across the country,
alleging that the company websites lack the technology to be
accessible to blind and visually impaired individuals and thus
violate the ADA.

The DOT Final Rule at Issue

On December 12, 2013, a DOT Final Rule became effective which
requires that covered air carriers purchase blind-accessible
kiosks until at least 25% of the automated kiosks at each location
in domestic airports are accessible.  The NFB filed its complaint
in district court 71 days (11 days after the 60-day cutoff for
such a challenge) after the DOT issued the Final Rule, stating
that the DOT rule failed to comply with the Air Carrier Access Act
of 1986 (ACAA), which prohibits air carriers from
"discriminat[ing] against any otherwise qualified handicapped
individual" on the basis of disability.  The district court found
that it lacked jurisdiction over the matter, because under 49
U.S.C. Sec 46110(a), the DOT's Final Rule was an "order" that only
the Court of Appeals had jurisdiction to review.

The D.C. Circuit's Ruling

The D.C. Circuit found that first, the district court lacked
jurisdiction over the NFB's complaint; and second, the NFB's
untimely filing was not excused by reasonable grounds.  The
jurisdictional issue centered upon whether a final rule issued by
the DOT constituted an order under section 46110(a), which states
that a person challenging "an order issued by the Secretary of
Transportation . . . may apply for review of the order by filing a
petition for review in the United States Court of Appeals for the
District of Columbia Circuit."  The D.C. Circuit found that
section 46110(a) vests review of the DOT Final Rule in its
exclusive jurisdiction and thus denied NFB's petition for a writ
of mandamus.  The court further found that NFB's uncertainty over
the jurisdictional issue did not constitute reasonable grounds to
excuse its tardy filing of the complaint.  As a result, the D.C.
Circuit dismissed the NFB's challenge of the DOT Final Rule.

Implications

The D.C. Circuit's recent decision in National Federation of the
Blind, et al. v. United States Dept. of Transportation did not
reach the NFB's arguments on the merits regarding whether the
DOT's Final Rule, which does not require air carriers to make all
airport kiosks accessible to the blind, constitutes discrimination
against visually impaired individuals.  Instead, the court found
that the NFB's challenge to the DOT Final Rule was barred, because
the complaint was filed in the incorrect forum and was untimely
without reasonable grounds.  Though the impact of this decision is
limited in scope, it highlights the increased attention on
ensuring that public accommodations, from airports to government
agencies to websites for online retailers, are accessible to blind
and visually impaired individuals.  To minimize exposure to class
action suits and enforcement actions, a company should consider
whether blind and visually impaired individuals are able to access
all of the company's associated technologies that may be
considered public accommodations.


UNITED STATES: Ex-Inmate Can Still Represent Prison Class Action
----------------------------------------------------------------
Perry Cooper, writing for Bloomberg BNA, reports that a prisoner
may continue to represent a class action alleging constitutional
violations at a U.S. penitentiary even though he was moved from
the facility, the Third Circuit held (Richarson v. Dir. Fed.
Bureau of Prisons, 2106 BL 227670, 3d Cir., No. 15-2876, 7/15/16).

"When individual claims for relief are acutely susceptible to
mootness, a would-be class representative may, in some
circumstances, continue to see class certification after losing
his personal stake in the case," Judge D. Brooks Smith wrote July
15 for the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit.

Constitutional Violations Alleged

Sebastian Richardson, a former inmate at the U.S. Penitentiary at
Lewisburg, alleged that prison policies violated his Fifth and
Eighth Amendment rights.

He sought injunctive relief on behalf of all prisoners at the
facility to prevent future constitutional violations.

The defendants argued Mr. Richardson couldn't represent the class
because he was moved from the prison before a class was certified.

The Third Circuit held that Mr. Richardson may still represent the
class even though his own claims became moot when he lost his
personal stake in the litigation.

The court relied on its 2004 holding in Weiss v. Regal
Collections, 385 F.3d 337 (3d Cir. 2004) (05 CLASS 694, 10/8/04).
There the court said that when a plaintiff's individual claim for
relief is "acutely susceptible to mootness" by the actions of a
defendant, he may continue to represent the class after his own
claim is mooted.

'Fair Opportunity.'

The court found that this mootness exception survived the U.S.
Supreme Court's holding in a pick-off mootness case, Campbell-
Ewald Co. v. Gomez, 136 S. Ct. 663 (2016) (17 CLASS 80, 1/22/16).

There, the Supreme Court held that a "class representative with a
live claim of her own must be accorded a fair opportunity to show
that certification is warranted."

The corollary to that holding, the Third Circuit said, is that
when a would-be class representative is not given a fair
opportunity, "she should be permitted to continue seeking class
certification for a some period of time after her claim has become
moot."

This holding should discourage the once-common practice of filing
motions for class certification very early in class litigation,
the court said.

Judges Thomas M. Hardiman and Richard Lowell Nygaard joined the
opinion.

Pennsylvania Institutional Law Project represented Richardson.

The U.S. Attorney in Harrisburg, Pa., represented the prison.


UTAH: Certification of Indigent Adults Class Sought in "Remick"
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Plaintiffs in the lawsuit titled COLTON GUY REMICK; an
individual; SKYLAR W. GARNER, an individual; BRYCE TUCKER LLOYD,
an individual; ANTHONY MURDZAK, an individual; COLTER RICKS, an
individual; BRANDON TIMMS, an individual; and JOHN DOES 1-100 v.
STATE OF UTAH and SEAN D. REYES, in his capacity as Attorney
General of the State of Utah, Case No. 2:16-cv-00789-RJS (D.
Utah), move the Court for an order certifying the case as a class
action.  The Plaintiffs propose that this class of similar
situated individuals be certified by the Court:

     All indigent adults who have been or will be charged with
     one or more crimes in the either District Courts or Justice
     Courts within the State of Utah for which incarceration is a
     potential consequence of a conviction, who have been or will
     be appointed a public defender and who will have a public
     defender appearing on their behalf in their case.

The Plaintiffs contend that they bring the civil rights class
action to remedy the state of Utah's alleged failure to provide
constitutionally adequate legal representation to them and other
indigent adults accused of crimes for which there is a possibility
of incarceration in Utah's District and Justice Courts.  This
failure deprives them of rights guaranteed to them by the Sixth
and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution,
Article I, Section 12 of the Utah Constitution, and Section 77 32-
301, UTAH CODE ANN, the Plaintiffs add.

The Plaintiffs also ask the Court to appoint Colton Guy Remick and
Brandon Timms as Class representatives; and to appoint Holland &
Hart LLP and the ACLU as Class counsel.

A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=lP1XgQ3Y

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          John P. Harrington, Esq.
          Steven G. Jones, Esq.
          HOLLAND & HART LLP
          222 S. Main Street, Suite 2200
          Salt Lake City, UT 84101
          Telephone: (801) 799-5800
          Facsimile: (801) 799-5700
          E-mail: jharrington@hollandhart.com
                  sgjones@hollandhart.com

               - and -

          John Mejia, Esq.
          Leah M. Farrell, Esq.
          AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION OF UTAH
          355 North 300 West
          Salt Lake City, UT 84103
          Telephone: (801) 521-9862
          Facsimile: (801) 532-2850
          E-mail: jmejia@acluutah.org
                  lfarrell@acluutah.org


VOLKSWAGEN AG: Emissions-Cheating Scandal Hits 2nd Quarter Profit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
William Boston, writing for The Wall Street Journal, reports that
Volkswagen AG on July 20 reported its best quarterly profit as
cost-cutting boosted earnings at its core passenger car business,
but half of the gains were wiped away by EUR2.2 billion ($2.4
billion) in diesel-related charges that show the German car maker
has a long way to go to overcome its emissions-cheating scandal.

The fresh charges come after the company set aside EUR16.2 billion
last year and suggest that Chief Executive Matthias Mueller spoke
too soon when he reassured investors in April that there would be
no further significant diesel-related costs.

Volkswagen said operating profit before special items was EUR7.5
billion in the first six months of the year, which implies a
record EUR4.4 billion in operating profit from April to June, a
20% increase from a year earlier.  Investors cheered the profit
surge in its preliminary earnings report, pushing the German car
maker's shares more than 6% higher in early trading.

But the company's report has some investors worried as it suggests
Volkswagen is less optimistic it has contained the costs of the
emissions scandal in the face of a plethora of new financial
risks.

"Despite Dieselgate, VW reported the best quarterly operating
profit ever," said Michael Punzet, an automotive analyst at DZ
Bank AG, but he added the caveat that he maintained a "skeptical
view on VW" because of remaining uncertainties about the fallout
from the scandal.

Volkswagen was plunged into turmoil in September when U.S.
environmental regulators disclosed that the company had rigged
some diesel engines to cheat on emissions tests, forcing the
resignation of Chief Executive Martin Winterkorn and sparking
investigations and civil litigation against the company across the
globe.

New York Attorney General Eric Schneiderman, who filed a complaint
against the company seeking $450 million in penalties, said that
Volkswagen engaged in "egregious and pervasive violations" that
"strike at the heart" of environmental laws.

New York's complaint alleges that Mr. Mueller was aware in 2006 of
the technical troubles that led company engineers to cheat on
emissions.

Volkswagen declined to comment on the allegation.

"There is every chance this will add to the final bill," said
Andrew Edwards, CEO of ETX Capital, a brokerage.  "Dieselgate will
mean a heavy financial burden for the firm for many years to
come."

But some analysts shrugged off the new charges, focusing instead
on the improvement in Volkswagen's underlying performance.

Arndt Ellinghorst, an automotive analyst at Evercore ISI, who has
been bullish on Volkswagen for several months, attributed the
improvement to better pricing, cost-cutting and a recovery of
Volkswagen's crucial business with corporate fleet customers.  He
estimated that the Volkswagen brand's pretax profit margin rose to
3% in the second quarter of 2016, beating forecasts of a 2%
margin.

"We continue to believe that the market is complacent with respect
to the amount and speed of change that the VW new management team
is currently implementing," said Mr. Ellinghorst.

Volkswagen didn't provide any additional details on earnings in
the period, citing the scheduled publication of results on
July 28.


WAL-MART: Former Employees File New Discrimination Class Action
---------------------------------------------------------------
Kevin McGowan, writing for Bloomberg BNA, reports that five female
Wal-Mart Stores Inc. employees who filed the sex discrimination
class action that led to a landmark U.S. Supreme Court ruling
formally dismissed their individual bias claims after reaching
private settlements with the retail giant, the parties said in a
document filed in federal district court in California (Dukes v.
Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., N.D. Cal., No. 01-2252, voluntary dismissal
filed 7/15/16).

The named plaintiffs in the original Wal-Mart class action, filed
in 2001, reached confidential settlements with the company and
stipulated to dismissal of their claims, the parties said in a
July 15 court filing.

But six other former Wal-Mart employees July 14 filed a new class
complaint alleging the company discriminated against women in pay
and promotions in three corporate regions based in California.
Those women, also members of the original class in Dukes v.
Wal-Mart Stores Inc., are asking the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of California to certify a class of female
employees who worked in those regions anytime from Dec. 26, 1998,
until at least June 2004.

If the district court grants their motion to intervene, the new
named plaintiffs would appeal the court's earlier denial of class
certification to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit,
said Joseph Sellers, an attorney representing the former
employees.

The district court in August 2013 denied certification of a
proposed regional class of about 150,000 female former and current
employees in about 200 Wal-Mart and Sam's Club locations in
California (964 F.Supp. 2d 1115, 119 FEP Cases 730 (N.D. Cal.
2013)).

"This matter has been determined and we don't believe jurisdiction
exists to hear the intervenors' claims," Wal-Mart spokesman Randy
Hargrove told Bloomberg BNA July 18.

Regional Suits Followed High Court Ruling

The Supreme Court in 2011 vacated a nationwide class action
against Wal-Mart that would have covered more than 1 million
female current and former employees challenging hundreds of
thousands of employment decisions (564 U.S. 338, 112 FEP Cases 769
(2011)).

The Dukes plaintiffs couldn't show a common question of law or
fact uniting their claims under Rule 23(a) of the Federal Rules of
Civil Procedure, the Supreme Court said in what quickly became a
leading precedent in class action jurisprudence.

The Dukes plaintiffs after the Supreme Court ruling filed a new
class complaint, alleging Wal-Mart managers in the retailer's
California regions systematically discriminated against female
employees.

Four other class actions were filed in federal district courts
across the country, alleging systemic sex discrimination by
Wal-Mart managers and supervisors in other corporate regions.

No district court yet has certified class treatment of a regional
sex discrimination lawsuit filed against Wal-Mart after Dukes.

Ninth Circuit Review Desired

The intervenors' complaint provides a potential path for the Ninth
Circuit to review Judge Charles Breyer's 2013 denial of class
certification in the California regional lawsuit,
Mr. Sellers told Bloomberg BNA July 18.

Judge Breyer had denied Wal-Mart's earlier motion to dismiss the
regional class complaint, meaning he found the complaint legally
sufficient, said Mr. Sellers, a partner with Cohen Milstein
Sellers & Toll in Washington.

But Judge Breyer in denying class certification misinterpreted
some aspects of the Supreme Court's ruling in Dukes, Sellers said.

The regional complaints address the shortcomings enumerated by the
Supreme Court by identifying specific Wal-Mart practices
implemented by named managers causing discriminatory effects at
the regional, district and store levels, he said.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit in 2015 reversed a
district court's dismissal of regional class claims on procedural
grounds in Phipps v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 792 F.3d 637, 127 FEP
Cases 945 (6th Cir. 2015). That case now is pending in a federal
district in Tennessee, which currently is considering Wal-Mart's
motion to dismiss on the merits, Sellers said.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit reversed a
district court's dismissal of named Wal-Mart plaintiff Stephanie
Odle's individual sex bias claims Odle v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc.,
747 F.3d 532, 122 FEP Cases 532 (5th Cir. 2014).  Ms. Odle and
some other women in that regional lawsuit subsequently settled
their individual claims with Wal-Mart, Sellers said.

A lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of
Florida resulted in settlements between Wal-Mart and about 10
former employees on their individual bias claims, Mr. Sellers
said.  A separate group of women in that court has intervened to
appeal the court's denial of class treatment, he said.

"Our hope is that Wal-Mart would show some interest in bringing
all these cases to a close," Mr. Sellers said.

In addition to Cohen Milstein, the Impact Fund, Hadsell Stormer &
Renick LLP, Equal Rights Advocates, the Law Offices of Elizabeth
A. Lawrence and the Law Office of Sheila Thomas represent the
intervenor-plaintiffs in California.  Gibson Dunn & Crutcher LLP
represents Wal-Mart.


WEST VIRGINIA: Greer Seeks Certification of Class
-------------------------------------------------
Mr. BERNARD L. GREER moves the court for class certification in
the lawsuit styled BERNARD L. GREER, On behalf of himself and in
behalf of all others similarly situated, the Plaintiffs, v. STATE
OF WEST VIRGINIA, the Defendant, Case No. 1:16-cv-00142-IMK-MJA
(N.D. W.Va.).

West Virginia is an eastern U.S. state in the tree-covered
Appalachian Mountains.

A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=aiVlzIT7

The Plaintiff appears pro se.


WESTERN DENTAL: Faces TCPA Class Action in California
-----------------------------------------------------
Wadi Reformado, reports that two residents from Sun City and
Lynwood allege that an Orange dental business keeps calling them
despite their requests to stop and has filed a class-action suit.

Maria Bacchus and Tina McDaniel filed a complaint on behalf of all
others similarly situated on July 15 in the U.S. District Court
for the Central District of California against Western Dental
Services Inc. alleging violation of the Telephone Consumer
Protection Act.

According to the complaint, the plaintiffs allege that in April
and May, they were contacted several times on their cellular
telephones despite their requests for the defendant to stop
calling them.  The plaintiffs hold Western Dental Services Inc.
responsible because the defendant allegedly contacted the
plaintiff several times using an automatic dialing system.

The plaintiffs request a trial by jury and seek injunctive relief,
$1,500 as treble damages for each and every call, $500 as
statutory damages for each and every call, all legal fees and any
other relief as the court deems just.  They are represented by L.
Timothy Fisher, Annick M. Persinger and Yeremey O. Krivoshey of
Bursor & Fisher PA in Walnut Creek and Scott A. Bursor of Bursor &
Fisher PA in New York.

U.S. District Court for the Central District of California Case
number 8:16-cv-01335-AG-DFM


WHIRLPOOL CORP: Oct. 11 Settlement Claims Filing Deadline Set
-------------------------------------------------------------
If you purchased, acquired, or received as a gift a new Whirlpool,
Kenmore, or Maytag front-loading washing machine manufactured
between 2001 and 2010, you may be entitled to cash or other
compensation as part of a class action settlement.

A settlement has been reached with Whirlpool Corporation
("Whirlpool") and Sears, Roebuck and Co. ("Sears") (together,
"Defendants") in several class action lawsuits claiming that
certain front-loading washing machines manufactured between 2001
and 2010 fail to adequately self-clean themselves of laundry
residue, resulting in mold or mildew buildup that can cause bad
odors and ruined laundry.  Defendants deny they did anything
wrong."

If you are included in the Settlement, you may qualify for one of
a variety of benefits including a cash payment, a rebate on the
purchase of a new washing machine or dryer, or reimbursement for
out-of-pocket expenses incurred due to past mold or odor problems
in your washing machine.

Your legal rights are affected whether you act or don't act.
Please read the FAQ notice carefully.

CLASS DEFINITION:

All residents of the United States and its territories who (a)
purchased a new Class Washer, (b) acquired a Class Washer as part
of the purchase or remodel of a home, or (c) received as a gift a
new Class Washer not used by the donor or by anyone else after the
donor purchased the Class Washer and before the donor gave the
Class Washer to the Class Member.  Excluded from the Settlement
Class are (a) officers, directors, and employees of Whirlpool or
Sears, or their parents or subsidiaries, (b) insurers of Class
Members, (c) subrogees or all entities claiming to be subrogated
to the rights of a Class Washer purchaser, a Class Washer owner,
or a Class Member, and (d) all third-party issuers or providers of
extended warranties or service contracts for Class Washers.

Your Legal Rights and Options in this Settlement

SUBMIT A CLAIM FORM

Deadline: October 11, 2016

The only way to get a cash payment, a rebate for the purchase of a
new washing machine or dryer, or reimbursement for the repair or
replacement of a washing machine with mold or odor problems.

You must complete and submit a Claim Form, including required
documentation.  Your Claim Form and documentation must be
submitted online no later than, or mailed via U.S. Mail with a
postmark no later than, October 11, 2016.

EXCLUDE YOURSELF

Deadline: August 9, 2016

This is the only option that allows you to ever be part of another
lawsuit against the Defendants about the legal claims resolved by
this Settlement.  If you exclude yourself from this Settlement,
you will not be entitled to any of the benefits from this
Settlement.

To be valid, your Opt-Out Form or request for exclusion must be
sent to the Settlement Administrator at the address below with a
postmark no later than August 9, 2016.

In re Whirlpool Corp. Front-Loading Washers Settlement
ATTN: Exclusion Requests
1801 Market Street, Suite 660
Philadelphia, PA 19103

OBJECT

Deadline: August 9, 2016

The only way to tell the Court that you are unhappy with something
about the Settlement.

To do so, you or your attorney must mail to the Court a written
objection and supporting papers.  Your objection must contain: (1)
the name of this lawsuit (In re Whirlpool Corp. Front-Loading
Washer Products Liability Litigation, Case No. 1:08-WP-65000 (MDL
2001)); (2) your full name and current address; (3) the serial
number and model number of your Class Washer; (4) the specific
reasons for your objection; (5) any evidence and supporting papers
(including, but not limited to, all briefs, written evidence, and
declarations) that you want the Court to consider in support of
your objection; (6) your signature; and (7) the date of your
signature.

You must mail your written objection to the Court at the following
address:

Court
Clerk of the Court
Carl B. Stokes U.S. Courthouse
801 West Superior Avenue
Cleveland, Ohio 44113

Your written objection must be mailed with a postmark no later
than August 9, 2016.

ATTEND THE HEARING

September 21, 2016 at 2:00 p.m. EST

The Court will hold a Fairness Hearing on September 21, 2016, at
2:00 p.m. EST, at the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of Ohio, located at the Carl B. Stokes U.S. Courthouse,
801 West Superior Avenue, Courtroom 15B, Cleveland, Ohio 44113, to
consider whether the Settlement is fair, adequate, and reasonable,
and whether it should be finally approved.  If there are
objections, the Court will consider them.  The Court will listen
to people who have asked to speak at the hearing.  The Court may
also decide the amount of fees, costs and expenses to award Class
Counsel and the payment amount to the Class Representatives.  This
hearing may be continued or rescheduled by the Court without
further notice to the Settlement Class.

DO NOTHING

If you do nothing, you will not receive a cash payment, new washer
or dryer rebate, or reimbursement for repair or replacement
expenses, and you will give up your right to ever be part of
another lawsuit against Defendants about the legal claims resolved
by this Settlement. Please read the FAQ notice carefully.

These rights and options are explained in the FAQ Notice.

The Court in charge of this case still has to decide whether to
approve the Settlement.  Benefits will be issued if you submit a
valid claim, the Court approves the Settlement, and after any
appeals are resolved.  Please be patient.

CONTACT THE SETTLEMENT ADMINISTRATOR

MAIL: In re Whirlpool Corp. Front-Loading Washers Settlement, 1801
Market Street, Suite 660, Philadelphia, PA 19103

EMAIL: info@washersettlement.com

TOLL-FREE: 1-844-824-5781

To file a claim online visit https://washersettlementclaim.com/


WILLIAM C GROSSMAN: Illegally Collects Debt, Action Claims
----------------------------------------------------------
Abraham Feldbrand, on behalf of himself and all other similarly
situated consumers v. William C. Grossman Law, PLLC, Case No.
1:16-cv-03879 (E.D.N.Y., July 13, 2016), seeks to stop the
Defendant's unfair and unconscionable means to collect a debt.

William C. Grossman Law, PLLC operates a law firm located at 5965
Transit Rd Ste 500, East Amherst, NY 14051-1874.

Abraham Feldbrand is a pro se plaintiff.

WORLD COURIER: Sued in Cal. Over Failure to Provide Rest Breaks
---------------------------------------------------------------
Steven Young, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated v. World Courier Ground, Inc., and Does 1 through 50,
inclusive, Case No. RG16823141 (Cal. Super. Ct., July 13, 2016),
is brought against the Defendants for failure to take any action
to provide employees with either meal or rest breaks in violation
of the California Labor Code.

World Courier Ground, Inc. is in the business of providing courier
delivery services.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Robin G. Workman, Esq.
      WORKMAN LAW FIRM, PC
      177 Post Street, Suite 900
      San Francisco, CA 94108
      Facsimile: (415) 788-1028
      Telephone: (415) 782-3660
      E-mail: robin@work.manlawpc.com


* Money Managers with In-House 401(k) Plans Face Litigation Risk
----------------------------------------------------------------
Bruce Kelly, writing for Investment News, reports that asset
managers that limit employee retirement plan investment choices to
proprietary, in-house mutual funds are putting a legal target on
their backs, attorneys said.

In the context of a rash of lawsuits by employees against
financial services companies alleging breach of fiduciary duty in
managing 401(k) plans, asset management companies that populate
their retirement plans solely with house funds could face
potential class action claims from former or current employees,
attorneys said.

Asset management companies with such plans include Waddell & Reed
Financial Inc. and MFS Investment Management.

"If only proprietary products are in a plan line up, that does put
a target on you," said Marcia Wagner, an ERISA attorney.  "The
question is whether it's a bull's-eye or not," she said, adding
that key questions for such plans include whether the fund options
are a breach of fiduciary duty; are fees reasonable; and are the
funds best of class.

"Speaking in general and not about these two plans, the duty of a
fiduciary is the highest duty under the law and requires a
thorough search and prudent options in 401(k) plans and reasonable
fees," said Jerome Schlichter, a leading attorney in employee
class-action claims over excessive fees in 401(k) plans. "It
raises questions on whether there has been a process of comparison
to prudent choices as opposed to proprietary funds."

According to a filing with the Securities and Exchange Commission,
the Waddell & Reed Financial Inc. 401(k) and Thrift Plan had
$201.9 million in assets at the end of last year.  Each of the
investment choices, including shares of company stock, was labeled
as a "party-in-interest investment," according to the filing.  The
vast majority of the plan's assets were in two fund groups: the
Ivy Funds, a unit of the company, and the Waddell & Reed Advisors
Group of Mutual Funds.

At the end of 2014, the Massachusetts Financial Services Company
Pension Plan had $46.8 million in total assets, invested across
seven MFS and Massachusetts Investors branded funds, according to
a filing with the Department of Labor.  The plan has not yet filed
for 2015. Like the Waddell & Reed plan, each of those investment
options were labeled "party-in-interest" funds.

An MFS spokesman, James Aber, said the company had no comment.  A
spokesman for Waddell & Reed, Roger Hoadley, said that the company
did not charge administrative fees on the plan to its employees.

BIG SETTLEMENTS

Several financial services companies recently have been hit with
lawsuits from current or former employees, suing over excessive
fees amidst allegations of self-dealing.  Companies facing the
class-action litigation include American Century Companies Inc.,
Allianz Global Investors, Pacific Investment Management Co and
their parent company Allianz Asset Management.

Others, including Massachusetts Mutual Life Insurance Co and
Transamerica Corp. have recently reached multi-million dollar
settlements with employees.

"What you're discovering is fairly similar among a large number of
mutual funds companies: They use only proprietary funds as options
for employees in retirement plans," said Carl Engstrom, an
attorney at Nichols Kaster, who is involved in several of the
class-action lawsuits cited above.  "This exact style is at issue
in multiple pending lawsuits. We don't believe those practices are
consistent with the plan's fiduciary obligations."

Waddell & Reed also has a $174 million pension plan with assets
"invested in our Asset Strategy style and . . . managed by our in-
house investment professionals," according to the company's annual
report. With $7.9 billion in assets in A shares, the Ivy Asset
Strategy Fund is one of the company's biggest funds.

Investing a pension plan in a manager's proprietary style poses
another potential risk for an asset manager, Mr. Engstrom said.
"The problem of doing everything in-house as an investment firm is
when there are problems, you treat the investments as a parent.
You're rooting it on."

If there is a change of strategy in the pension plan away from a
proprietary style, investors could take it as a signal of a lack
in confidence in the fund, he added.  "It's a conflict of
interest."



                            *********

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  * * *