CAR_Public/160808.mbx              C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

             Monday, August 8, 2016, Vol. 18, No. 157




                            Headlines


1-800 FLOWERS.COM: Sued by Rodkey on Behalf of Ohio, Ore. Classes
116 3RD AVE: "Xiao" Suit Seeks Minimum, OT, Spread-of-Hours Pay
7-ELEVEN INC: "Badger" Sues Over Discrimination
9GLOBAL INC: Final Settlement Hearing Set for Sept. 8
A PLUS KITCHEN: "Zhu" Files Labor Suit

ABC FINANCIAL: Faces "Salley" Class Action Suit in E.D. Arkansas
ACUITY BRAND: "De La Torre" Suit Remanded
AFFYMETRIX INC: Court Stays All Proceedings in "Douglas" Suit
ALBANY MOLECULAR: Must Defend Against "Gauquie" Class Suit
AMAZON.COM LLC: Jan. 2017 Final Approval Hearing of "Raya" Accord

AMERICAN NATIONAL: Defendant's Protest over Dismissal Denied
ANU INC: "Singh" Class Suit Seeks to Recover Damages Under FLSA
AUTOVEST LLC: Judge Wants Counsel to Address Flaw in FDCPA Suit
BARNES & NOBLE: Removes "Hartpence" Suit to E.D. Pennsylvania
BEST BUFFET: "Xin" Suit Seeks Overtime, Spread-of-Hours Pay

BICYCLE CASINO: Fails to Pay Wages and OT, "Hernandez" Suit Says
BLUE BELL: "Reyes" Suit to Recover Minimum, Overtime Pay
BRINK'S INC: Court Stays Class Claims in "Anderson" Suit
BYRON'S HOT: Vences-Gonzales Seeks Overtime Wages Under FLSA
CBL & ASSOCIATES: Catlin Specialty Sues Over Breach of Contract

CLARK COUNTY: Nevada Riders' Challenge to Helmet Law Tossed
CONGREGATION LUBAVITCH: "Gonzales" Suit to Recover Overtime Pay
CONSTANCE BEARD: "Pielet" Sues Over Excessive Tax Collection
CONVERGENT OUTSOURCING: "Vantuyl" Sues Over Illegal Collection
CORDIS CORP: Court Wants Basis on Jurisdiction in "Dunson" Suit

COWAY USA: Falsely Marketed Filtration Products, "Lee" Suit Says
CPC LOGISTICS: "Edwards" Suit to Recover Minimum, Overtime Pay
CREDIT MANAGEMENT: Nov. 23 Final Hearing on "Powers" Settlement
CYTRX CORP: Faces "Crihfield" Suit Over Securities Law Violations
DEXTER HAWKINS: 1st Cir. Issued Qualified Ruling in "Cole" Suit

DOS COMALES-DOWNTOWN: Accused of Failing to Properly Pay Servers
DYNAMIC PET: Court Trims Down Claims in "Reed" Case
DYNCORP INTERNATIONAL: Law on Forum Mandated Kuwait Courts to Act
EARTH CARE: Judge Certifies "Hernandez" Class Complaint
EFINANCIAL LLC: "Hale" Sues Over Civil Rights Violations

ELIZABETH ARDEN: Hutson Challenges Planned $870MM Sale to Revlon
EROGEN ENTERPRISES: Niles Seeks Unpaid Overtime Wages Under FLSA
EXPERIAN INFORMATION: Judge Delays Ruling on Attorneys' Fees
FACEBOOK INC: "Palomino" Suit Moved from Super. Ct. to N.D. Cal.
FEDERAL NATIONAL: Court Denies Consolidation of Cases

FOX ORTEGA: Hearing Held on Final Settlement Approval
GC SERVICES: Sued in N.J. for Violating Fair Debt Collection Act
GENNARO RESTAURANT: Violates Fair Labor Act, "Rahman" Suit Says
GERBER PRODUCTS: "Slocum" Suit Escapes from Federal Jurisdiction
GRACEY-DANNA INC: Evidence in "Arkin" Suit Has Preservation Order

HILLTOP INVESTMENTS: Connolly Provides Affidavit in "Norfolk"
HOOVESTOL INC: "Terry" Suit to Recover Overtime Pay
HOUSTON FUNDING: Texas Fraudulent Sues Over Illegal Collection
HOUSTON FUNDING II: Texas Fraudulent Sues Over Illegal Collection
IMMEDIATE CREDIT: Accused by Schroeder of Violating TCPA in Cal.

INVESTOR INCOME: "He" Suit Can't Proceed as Class
JACK STEPHAN: "Amador" Suit Seeks Minimum Wage Under Labor Code
JACKPOT JOANIES: Court Consents to Amendments in "Littlefield"
JAGAT ISLAND: Rob Seeks Unpaid Minimum Wages Under FLSA
JEFFERSON CAPITAL: Faces "Matanane" Suit for Violating RICO Act

JOHN MALONE: Sued by Cambridge Over Merger of Starz & Lions Gate
JQD LLC: "Spolar" Files Suit Over FDCPA Violation
KINGS COUNTY, CA: "Acord" Petition Faces Dismissal
LANCASTER SCHOOL DISTRICT: Faces "Issa" Discrimination Suit
LENDINGCLUB CORP: Time to Reply to "Stadnicki" Suit Extended

LIBERTY POINT: Texas Fraudulent Sues Over Illegal Collection
LICCIARDELLO'S SANITATION: Defendants Ordered to Obtain Counsel
LOS ANGELES, CA: Sued Over Improper Repair of Storm Drains
LPL FINANCIAL: Retirement Fund Appointed as Lead Plaintiff
LUMBER LIQUIDATORS: Faces "Bolin" Product Liability Class Suit

LUTEA LLC: Texas Fraudulent Sues Over Illegal Collection
MAIN STREET: Texas Fraudulent Sues Over Illegal Collection
MARGIE'S CANDIES: "Marin" Suit Seeks Overtime Wages Under FLSA
MEADOWBROOK MEAT: Sept. 15 Hearing on Final Settlement Approval
MEDCO HEALTH: Defendants' Calls Are Covered Exception in TCPA

MERRIMAN: Texas Fraudulent Sues Over Illegal Collection
METROPOLITAN PROPERTY: Removes "Ware" Class Suit to M.D. Alabama
MINNESOTA: Human Services Dept. Faces Civil Rights Breach Suit
MISTRAS GROUP: Court Sets Deadlines in "Krueger" Suit
ML AUTOMOTIVE: "Otero" Seeks Unpaid Minimum Wages Under FLSA

MOOKYODONG YOOJUNG: "Lopic" Suit Seeks Unpaid Wages Under FLSA
OLD WEST: Texas Fraudulent Sues Over Illegal Collection
OMNI LIMOUSINE: Court Tosses Protest against Witness's Opinion
ONSTAR LLC: Court Trims Claims in "Duchene" Suit
OPTIO SOLUTIONS: Mendez Wants to Stop Unsolicited Phone Calls

PARADISE COVE: "Jablon" Sues Over Restricted Access
PILOT TRAVEL: "Badger" Sues Over Discrimination
POWERWAVE TECHNOLOGIES: Court Granted Settlement in "Kmiec" Suit
PRE-EMPLOY.COM INC: Reply to "Marchioli" Class Suit Due Aug. 16
PREMIER DISPLAYS: Fails to Pay OT Wages, "Levkovitch" Suit Claims

PROTECT MY CAR: Accused by "Knutson" Class Suit of Violating TCPA
REMX INC: Arbitration Order Non-Appealable, Calif. Judge Says
RHONE CAPITAL: Faces "Stein" Suit Over Sale of Elizabeth Arden
SAN FRANCISCO, CA: Sept. 6 Summary Judgment Hearing in "Stitt"
SERVICE EMPLOYEES: Final Judgment of Dismissal Entered in "Lum"

SONY CORP: "Farrel" Sues Over Breach of Contract
SOUTHEASTERN CONFERENCE: "Miller" Suit Transferred to N.D. Ill.
SWIFT TRANSPORTATION: 9th Cir. Won't Hear Truck Drivers' Suit
SWIFT TRANSPORTATION: Judge Denies Relief for Mandamus
TIME WARNER: Settlement in "Gillings" Case Has Final Approval

UBER TECHNOLOGIES: Refuses to Pay Drivers, "Marc" Suit Alleges
UNITED RECOVERY: Accused of Violating Fair Debt Collection Act
UNITED STATES: Illegally Eliminated Pension, "Turping" Suit Says
UNUM GROUP: Oct. 27 Case Management Conference Set in "Bender"
URBAN OUTFITTERS: District Court Lacks Jurisdiction Over Suit

VICTORIA'S SECRET: "Joaquin" Suit Goes Back to Superior Court
WESTERN ATHLETIC: "Seals" Suit Transferred to N.D. Ill.
ZETA INTERACTIVE: Court Resolves Deposition Issues in "Mora" Case


                            *********


1-800 FLOWERS.COM: Sued by Rodkey on Behalf of Ohio, Ore. Classes
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Pamela Rodkey and Cherie Cummings, on behalf of themselves and all
other similarly situated employees nationwide, and on behalf of
the Ohio and Oregon Classes v. 1-800 Flowers.com, Inc., 1-800
Flowers Team Services, Inc., Harry and David, LLC, Case No. 3:16-
cv-00311-TMR (S.D. Ohio, July 25, 2016), is brought by the
Plaintiffs:

   (a) as an opt-in collective action on behalf of themselves and
       all similarly situated individuals for violations of the
       Fair Labor Standards Act; and

   (b) as an opt-out Rule 23 class action on behalf of all
       similarly situated individuals in the State of Ohio for
       violations of the Ohio Minimum Fair Wage Standards Act,
       and all similarly situated individuals in the State of
       Oregon for violations of the Oregon state law.

1-800 Flowers.com, Inc. is a Delaware corporation headquartered in
Carle Place, New York.  1-800 Flowers Team Services, Inc. is an
operating subsidiary of 1-800 Flowers.com, Inc., and also
headquartered in Carle Place.  According to its 2015 Annual
Report, 1-800 Flowers.com, Inc. is the leading provider of gourmet
and floral gifts for all occasions.  1-800 Flowers.com, Inc.
employs over 4,000 individuals throughout the United States, and
operates under these brands: 1-800 Flowers.com, Harry & David,
Cheryl's, The Popcorn Factory, Fannie May, 1-800 Baskets.com,
Wolferman's, Fruit Bouquets by 1-800 Flowers.com, Stock Yards, and
BloomNet.

Harry and David, LLC is an Oregon limited liability company with
its principal place of business in Medford, Oregon.  Harry and
David, LLC is a subsidiary of Harry & David Holdings, Inc.  On
September 30, 2014, 1-800 Flowers acquired Harry & David Holdings,
Inc. and its subsidiaries, and since that time Harry and David,
LLC has been owned and operated by 1-800 Flowers.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Bruce H. Meizlish, Esq.
          Deborah R. Grayson, Esq.
          MEIZLISH & GRAYSON, INC.
          Second National Building
          830 Main Street, Suite 999
          Cincinnati, OH 45202
          Telephone: (513) 345-4700
          Facsimile: (513) 345-4703
          E-mail: brucelaw@fuse.net
                  drgrayson@fuse.net

           - and -

          Rachhana T. Srey, Esq.
          NICHOLS KASTER, PLLP
          4600 IDS Center
          80 South 8th Street
          Minneapolis, MN 55402
          Telephone: (612) 256-3200
          Facsimile: (612) 215-6870
          E-mail: srey@nka.com

           - and -

          Alan Leiman, Esq.
          Drew G. Johnson, Esq.
          LEIMAN & JOHNSON, LLC
          44 West Broadway, Suite 326
          Eugene, OR 97440
          Telephone: (541) 345-2376
          Facsimile: (541) 345-2377
          E-mail: alan@leimanlaw.com
                  drew@leimanlaw.com


116 3RD AVE: "Xiao" Suit Seeks Minimum, OT, Spread-of-Hours Pay
---------------------------------------------------------------
Xiao Guang Liu, Shou Di Jin, Xiao Dong Wang, Jing Bin Wang and
Gang Ren, individually, and on behalf of others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. 116 3rd Avenue Food Service Inc. and Tsu
Y. Wang, Defendants, Case No. 705635/2016 (S.D.N.Y., June 2,
2016), seeks to recover minimum wages and overtime wages, spread-
of-hours compensation, damages for failure to provide wage
statements, liquidated damages, interest, costs and attorneys'
fees in violation of the New York Labor Law.

Defendants does business as Ollie's Noodle Shop and Grille, a
restaurant located at 1991 Broadway, Front B, New York City, NY
10023, where Plaintiffs worked as delivery personnel and
restaurant staff.

Plaintiffs are represented by:

      Keli Liu, Esq.
      HANG AND ASSOCIATES PLLC
      136-18 39th Ave., Suite 1003
      Flushing NY 11354
      Tel: (718) 353-8588
      Fax: (718) 353-6288


7-ELEVEN INC: "Badger" Sues Over Discrimination
-----------------------------------------------
Josie Badger, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, v. 7-Eleven, Inc., Case No. 2:14-cv-01455 (W.D. Pa.,
July 19, 2016), was filed over violations of the Americans with
Disabilities Act.

7-Eleven operates convenience stores nationwide.

Plaintiff is represented by:

     Benjamin J. Sweet, Esq.
     Carlson Lynch Sweet & Kilpela, LLP
     1133 Penn Avenue, 5th Floor
     Pittsburgh, PA 15222
     Tel: (412) 322-9243
     Fax: (412) 231-0246
     bsweet@carlsonlynch.com


9GLOBAL INC: Final Settlement Hearing Set for Sept. 8
-----------------------------------------------------
Magistrate Judge Maria-Elena James set a Final Settlement Approval
Hearing for September 8, 2016, after granting preliminary approval
of the parties' Settlement Agreement in the case, captioned,
ELIZABETH LLOYD, Plaintiff, v. VIPUL GUPTA, et al., Defendants,
Case No. 15-cv-04183-MEJ (N.D. Calif.).

Judge James added that all the papers in support of approval of
the Settlement shall be filed with the Court and served on all
respective parties at least 21 days prior to the Settlement
Hearing, that is, by August 18, 2016.

Plaintiff has agreed to settle her Individual Claims against
Defendants, including 9Global.  The Settlement Agreement requires
the following compensation to Plaintiff in settlement of her
direct claims (Counts 1-11 and 21):

     1. Vipul Gupta will purchase all 1,690 shares of 9Global
        stock presently owned by Plaintiff for $50,000 in cash.

     2. 9Global, Vipul Gupta, and Nandita Gupta will be jointly
        and severally liable to pay Plaintiff $745,000 in cash,
        allocated as follows:

        a. $150,000 in settlement of Plaintiff's claims regarding
           her un-repaid loans to the Company (Counts 7-8);

        b. $120,000 in settlement of Plaintiff's claims regarding
           unpaid wages (Counts 4-5);

        c. $475,000 to settle the remainder of Plaintiff's
           Individual Claims and related legal fees and costs.

     3. 9Global further agrees to indemnify Plaintiff's
        attorneys' fees and costs up to a cap of $5,000 with
        respect to her responses to an outstanding document and
        deposition subpoena to Plaintiff by Avant Credit
        Corporation ("Avant"), in connection with pending
        litigation between 9Global and Avant.

A copy of the Court's Order dated July 22, 2016, is available at
http://goo.gl/h0QmrFfrom Leagle.com.

Elizabeth Lloyd, Plaintiff, represented by Bahram Seyedin-Noor --
bahram@altolit.com -- Alto Litigation, PC, Bryan Jacob Ketroser
-- bketroser@wsgr.com -- Wilson Sonsini Goodrich & Rosati & James
Banaban de los Reyes -- jdelosreyes@bjg.com -- Alto Litigation,
PC.

Vipul Gupta, et al., Defendants, represented by Robert Graham
Loewy -- rloewy@rloewy.com -- Law Offices of Robert G. Loewy.


A PLUS KITCHEN: "Zhu" Files Labor Suit
--------------------------------------
Guang Ping Zhu and Chi How Cheung, on behalf of themselves and all
other persons similarly situated individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. A Plus Kitchen Inc.,
Defendant, Case No. 1:16-cv-05767 (W.D. Pa., July 19, 2016),
asserts violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act.

A Plus Kitchen is a Chinese Restaurant located at 216 3rd Ave, New
York, NY 10003.

Guang Ping Zhu and Chi How Cheung are pro se plaintiffs.


ABC FINANCIAL: Faces "Salley" Class Action Suit in E.D. Arkansas
----------------------------------------------------------------
Rachel Salley, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. ABC Financial Services Inc., Case No. 4:16-cv-00542-
DPM (E.D. Ark., July 27, 2016), arises from alleged employment
discrimination.

Headquartered in Sherwood, Arkansas, ABC Financial provides health
club software and billing services to the fitness industry
primarily in the United States.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Joshua Sanford, Esq.
          Joshua Lee West, Esq.
          SANFORD LAW FIRM
          One Financial Center
          650 South Shackleford, Suite 411
          Little Rock, AR 72211
          Telephone: (501) 221-0088
          Facsimile: (888) 787-2040
          E-mail: josh@sanfordlawfirm.com
                  west@sanfordlawfirm.com


ACUITY BRAND: "De La Torre" Suit Remanded
-----------------------------------------
In the case, EDUARDO DE LA TORRE, Plaintiff, v. ACUITY BRAND
LIGHTING, INC. Defendant, No. ED CV 16-00525 TJH (KKx), (C.D.
Calif.), Senior District Judge Terry J. Hatter, Jr. granted
Plaintiff's motion to remand after Defendant failed to establish
requirement provided under the Class Action Fairness Act (CAFA).

The Defendant has the burden to establish that the amount in
controversy exceeds $5,000,000.00 to retain the jurisdiction of
the Court.

The Court cited that the Plaintiff calculated the amount in
controversy to be approximately $630,000.00, well below the
$5,000,000 CAFA requirement. The Defendant miscalculated the
potential maximum exposure for rest and meal break violations by
multiplying the potential number of employees in the class by each
employee's hourly rate by each and every rest and meal break
during the class period. In the context of CAFA, the Ninth Circuit
held that an allegation of a "pattern and practice" of violating
labor laws does not necessarily mean that such violations were
incurred by each and every employee on each and every shift.

A copy of the Court's decision dated July 21, 2016 is available at
http://goo.gl/SmRKL6from Leagle.com.

Eduardo De La Torre, Plaintiff, represented by Douglas Han,
Justice Law Corporation -- dhan@justicelawcorp.com -- Edwin
Aiwazian -- edwin@lfjpc.com -- Lawyers for Justice PC, Daniel J.
Park -- dpark@justicelawcorp.com -- Justice Law Corporation &
Shunt Tatavos-Gharajeh -- statavos@justicelawcorp.com -- Justice
Law Corporation.

Acuity Brands Lighting, Inc., Defendant, represented by Paul
Berkowitz -- pberkowitz@sheppardmullin.com -- Sheppard Mullin
Richter and Hampton LLP, Thomas R. Kaufman --
tkaufman@sheppardmullin.com -- Sheppard Mullin Richter and Hampton
LLP & Jason Patrick Brown -- jpbrown@sheppardmullin.com
-- Sheppard Mullin Richter and Hapton LLP.


AFFYMETRIX INC: Court Stays All Proceedings in "Douglas" Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
District Judge William H. Orrick stayed all the proceedings in the
case, GERALD DOUGLAS, Individually and On Behalf of All Others
Similarly Situated, Plaintiff, v. FRANK WITNEY, NELSON CHAN, GARY
GUTHART, JAMI NACHTSHEIM, RICCARDO PIGLIUCCI, MERILEE RAINES,
ROBERT TRICE, and AFFYMETRIX, INC., Defendants, Case No. 16-cv-
921-WHO (N.D. Calif.), pursuant to the parties' stipulation,
pending submission of a stipulation of settlement and motion for
preliminary approval.

The case is a putative class action alleging Defendants violations
of the Securities and Exchange Act of 1934 and breaches of
fiduciary duties in connection with the proposed merger between
Affymetrix and Thermo Fisher Scientific Inc.

The Court further adjourned the Initial Case Management Conference
in the Douglas action until August 9, 2016, pursuant to the
Parties' stipulation.

A copy of the Court's Order dated July 20, 2016 is available at
http://goo.gl/yD2Qfgfrom Leagle.com.

Steven Merola, Plaintiff, represented by Elizabeth K. Tripodi --
etripodi@zlk.com -- Attorney at Law & Adam Christopher McCall --
amccall@zlk.com -- LEVI & KORSINSKY, LLP.

Affymetrix, Inc., et al., Defendants, represented by Neal Alan
Potischman -- neal.potischman@davispolk.com -- Davis Polk &
Wardwell, Andrew David Yaphe -- andrew.yaphe@davispolk.com --
Davis Polk, Jayeeta Kundu -- jayeeta.kundu@davispolk.com -- Davis
Polk and Wardwell LLP & Micah Galvin Block --
micah.block@davispolk.com -- Davis Polk and Wardwell LLP.


ALBANY MOLECULAR: Must Defend Against "Gauquie" Class Suit
----------------------------------------------------------
District Judge Frederic Block of the Eastern District of New York,
denied defendants' motion to dismiss in the case JOHN GAUQUIE,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated,
Plaintiff, v. ALBANY MOLECULAR RESEARCH, INC., WILLIAM MARTH, and
MICHAEL NOLAN, Defendants, Case No. 14 CV 6637 (FB) (SMG)
(E.D.N.Y.)

Albany Molecular Research, Inc. (AMRI) is a contract research
manufacturing company that manufactures and produces injectables,
compounds, and biologics for the pharmaceutical industry.

In 2014, AMRI acquired Oso Biopharmaceuticals Manufacturing, LLC
(OSO), a laboratory in Albuquerque, New Mexico, because of its
top-tier regulatory reputation and ability to expand operations.
Unfortunately, in July 2014, OSO experienced a power failure,
which resulted in the contamination of Suite 152, a section of the
facility that accounted for 45-50% of OSO's sales. AMRI did not
initially release information about the power failure, but instead
extolled the value of the acquisition, as well as OSO's regulatory
compliance reputation.

On November 5, 2014, AMRI announced disappointing results for the
third quarter and lowered its fiscal 2014 guidance because of the
July 2014 power failure, which forced AMRI to discard contaminated
inventory.

Ramesh Patel and Michael Lowery brought a putative class action
against AMRI, William Marth, and Michael Nolan, asserting
violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange
Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 of the Securities and Exchange
Commission.

Plaintiffs allege AMRI falsely and misleadingly touted the added
earnings and manufacturing capability of OSO and provided
misleading financial guidance reports by failing to disclose a
known power failure at OSO, which resulted in the contamination of
40% to 50% of its product and manufacturing delays.  The complaint
points to defendants' positive outlook driven statements during
the August 5 conference call and press release, the August 11 10-Q
form, and the September 30 reiteration of financial guidance, all
of which are contradicted by a confidential witness employee's
observation about the existence of a mold contamination in Suite
152 in August.

Defendants moved to dismiss pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil
Procedure 12(b)(6) plaintiffs' securities claims for failure to
meet the heightened pleading requirements of Federal Rule of Civil
Procedure 9(b) and the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of
1995.

Judge Block denied defendants' motion to dismiss.

A copy of Judge Block's memorandum and order dated July 26, 2016,
is available at http://goo.gl/64eq2Nfrom Leagle.com.

Albany Group, Movant, represented by Phillip Kim --
pkim@rosenlegal.com -- at Rosen Law Firm, P.A.

John Gauquie, Plaintiff, represented by Kevin Koon-Pon Chan --
kchan@rosenlegal.com -- Laurence Matthew Rosen --
lrosen@rosenlegal.com -- Phillip Kim -- pkim@rosenlegal.com -- at
Rosen Law Firm, P.A.

Defendants, represented by Adam Slutsky -- aslutsky@goodwinlaw.com
-- Deborah Sager Birnbach -- dbirnbach@goodwinlaw.com -- Katherine
G. McKenney -- kmckenney@goodwinlaw.com -- at Goodwin Procter LLP


AMAZON.COM LLC: Jan. 2017 Final Approval Hearing of "Raya" Accord
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, SANTIAGO RAYA on behalf of himself and all others
similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. AMAZON.COM, LLC, a Delaware
Limited Liability Company; GOLDEN STATE FC, LLC, a Delaware
Limited Liability Company and, DOES 1 through 10, inclusive,
Defendants, Case No. 15-CV-02005 MMC (N.D. Calif.), District Judge
Maxine M. Chesney on Aug. 5, 2016, entered an order granting
PRELIMINARY APPROVAL OF CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT, CONDITIONAL
CERTIFICATION, APPROVAL OF CLASS NOTICE, AND SETTING OF FINAL
FAIRNESS HEARING.

The Court approves (1) the proposed notice of class action
settlement, and (2) the proposed claim form attached as exhibits.

The motion for fees shall be filed no later than October 14, 2016.
The motion for final approval shall be filed no later than
December 9, 2016.

The Final Approval hearing will be held on January 6, 2017, at
9:00 a.m.

Judge Chesney had granted the parties' request to continue the
hearing on Plaintiff's Motion for Preliminary Approval of Class
Action Settlement on July 29, 2016, from its initial schedule set
for July 22, 2016.  The court found good cause on the parties'
stipulation to move the hearing schedule due to the upper
respiratory illness of Richard G. Rosenblatt, the sole counsel
representing Defendants, which condition prevented his appearance
at the July 22 hearing.

A copy of the Court's Order dated July 21, 2016 is available at
http://goo.gl/Qqae6cfrom Leagle.com.

Santiago Raya, Plaintiff, represented by Isam Charles Khoury --
ikhoury@ckslaw.com -- Cohelan Khoury & Singer, James Jason Hill --
jhill@ckslaw.com -- Cohelan Khoury & Singer, Michael David Singer
-- msinger@ckslaw.com -- Cohelan Khoury & Singer & Diana Marie
Khoury -- dkhoury@ckslaw.com -- Cohelan Khoury & Singer.

Amazon.com LLC, et al., Defendants, represented by Rebecca D.
Eisen -- reisen@morganlewis.com -- Morgan, Lewis & Bockius LLP,
Eric Meckley -- eric.meckley@morganlewis.com -- Morgan, Lewis &
Bockius LLP, Joseph A. Nuccio -- joseph.nuccio@morganlewis.com --
Morgan Lewis and Bockius LLP, Richard G. Rosenblatt --
richard.rosenblatt@morganlewis.com -- Morgan Lewis & Bockius LLP,
pro hac vice, Sacha Marie Steenhoek -- ssteenhoek@morganlewis.com
-- Morgan Lewis & Bockius LLP & Theresa C. Mak --
theresa.mak@morganlewis.com -- Morgan, Lewis & Bockius, LLP.


AMERICAN NATIONAL: Defendant's Protest over Dismissal Denied
------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, JAMES KYZAR AND ANNE AULDS, INDIVIDUALLY, AND AS
REPRESENTATIVES OF THE CLASS v. AMERICAN NATIONAL PROPERTY AND
CASUALTY CO, Civil Action No. 15-527-SDD-EWD (M.D. La.), District
Judge Shelly D. Dick denied the Defendant's objections against the
Plaintiff's Notice of Voluntary Dismissal of the case, contending
that ANPAC Louisiana still remains to be a party, following the
Magistrate Judge's approval of the amended complaint.

The case involves a class of Louisiana homeowner's insurance
policy holders whose property loss claims were allegedly
wrongfully adjusted by the Defendant ANPAC, a Missouri
corporation, which was subsequently amended, as approved by the
Magistrate Judge, naming ANPAC Louisiana as the new Defendant. The
error prompted the Plaintiff to file the controversial Voluntary
Dismissal on the original case.

The Magistrate Judge's Ruling granting the amendment which
permitted the substation of ANPAC Louisiana in the place of the
Defendant ANPAC was not given effect due to ANPAC's Objection, and
the express terms of the Ruling, which prevented the clerk of
court from filing the proposed First Supplemental and Amended
Class Action Complaint until the time for the parties to object to
the ruling has expired, which both circumstances confirmed that
the Amended Complaint was not filed into the record, and ANPAC
Louisiana was not substituted as a party before the Notice of
Dismissal was filed. This countered the contention of the
Defendant, thus, warrants the denial of his motion for
reconsideration and alteration, amendment, and relief from the
Court's ruling.

A copy of the Court's Decision dated July 22, 2016 is available at
http://goo.gl/7H58Tdfrom Leagle.com.

James Kyzar, et al., Plaintiffs, represented by Christopher K.
Jones -- cjones@keoghcox.com -- Keogh, Cox & Wilson, Brent Joseph
Cobb - bcobb@keoghcox.com -- Christian C. Creed, Creed & Creed,
John P. Wolff, III - jwolff@keoghcox.com -- Keogh, Cox & Wilson,
LTD, Sydnee Menou - smenou@keoghcox.com -- Keogh, Cox & Wilson,
Ltd., Virginia J. McLin - jmclin@ keoghcox.com -- Keogh, Cox and
Wilson & Winston Eric White, Louisiana Department of Justice.

American National Property and Casualty Company, et al.,
Defendants, represented by Jay M. Lonero -- jlonero@lpwsl.com --
Larzelere Picou Wells Simpson Lonero, LLC, Christopher R. Pennison
-- cpennison@lpwsl.com -- Larzelere Picou Wells Simpson Lonero,
LLC, Jennifer Ruth Kretschmann -- jennifer.kretschmann@phelps.com
-- Phelps Dunbar LLP & Thomas H. Peyton -- tpeyton@lpwsl.com --
Larzelere Picou Wells Simpson Lonero, LLC.


ANU INC: "Singh" Class Suit Seeks to Recover Damages Under FLSA
---------------------------------------------------------------
ANN SINGH v. ANU, INC d/b/a BOCA INN, a Florida Corporation,
RAMJIT SINGH, individually, TARSEM KAUR SINGH, individually, and
BALJIT SINGH, individually, Case No. 9:16-cv-81323-KAM (S.D. Fla.,
July 25, 2016), seeks to recover damages against the Defendants
for their alleged violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act

The Plaintiff alleges that the Defendants failed to properly
compensate the Plaintiff and other similarly situated employees
for all overtime performed in a workweek for Boca Inn.

Anu, Inc., doing business as Boca Inn, is a Florida corporation
that operates a hotel at its location in Palm Beach, Florida.  The
Individual Defendants own, operate and manage the day-to-day
affairs of the Boca Inn.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          John B. Rosenquest IV, Esq.
          ROSENQUEST LAW FIRM P.A.
          3225 Franklin Avenue, Suite C-101
          Coconut Grove, FL 33133
          Telephone: (305) 607-5115
          Facsimile: (305) 402-8183
          E-mail: jrosenquest@rosenquestlawfirm.com


AUTOVEST LLC: Judge Wants Counsel to Address Flaw in FDCPA Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
SCOTT BROWN, on behalf of himself and the class defined herein,
Plaintiff, v. AUTOVEST LLC, et al., Defendants, Case No. 16 C 7534
(N.D. Ill.), has been brought by one of this judicial district's
most active firms in consumer litigation, acting on behalf of
named plaintiff and proposed class representative Scott Brown
("Brown") against Autovest LLC ("Autovest") and Dynamic Recovery
Solutions, LLC ("Dynamic"). Brown's Complaint charges each
defendant with violations of the Fair Debt Collection Practices
Act (the "Act").

Senior District Judge Milton I. Shadur on July 28 issued a
memorandum order, sua sponte, because of a perceived possible flaw
in the Complaint.  According to the Judge, the Complaint
identifies Autovest as a "debt collector" as defined in the Act,
and in that respect the Complaint alleges that it "regularly uses
the mails and telephones to collect debts," while it also alleges
that it "has filed numerous lawsuits in Illinois seeking to
collect consumer debts." As for Dynamic, its "debt collector"
status is addressed in the Complaint, alleging that it "is engaged
in the business of collecting charged-off consumer debts,
including auto retail installment contract debts."

But all of that said (and accepted for present purposes), what
Brown's counsel glosses over as to Autovest is that the only debt
collection communicated to Brown that has triggered his resort to
the Act is Complaint Ex. A sent by Dynamic, which communication
identifies the original creditor on Brown's now time-barred
indebtedness as Wells Fargo Financial and identifies Autovest as
the "current owner" of that debt. In 42 U.S.C. Sec. 1983("Section
1983") jurisprudence, the fact that a policeman (say) is a "state
actor" when engaged in his or her duties in that position does not
tar any misdeed by the policeman that is committed outside of his
or her official actions in terms that support the invocation of
Section 1983. Although the analogy is of course scarcely a
parallel one, the situation here is conceptually similar -- that
is, any potential for Autovest's liability under the Act, if it
exists, is of a different stripe than that of Dynamic, which
concededly acted as a "debt collector" in transmitting the Ex. A
communication. As for Autovest, by contrast, the fact that it may
in other instances engage in the activities described in the
Complaint is really irrelevant to its potential liability for
having referred Brown's time-barred indebtedness to debt collector
Dynamic.

"What this comes down to is that Brown's counsel has sought to
link two different kinds of asserted Act-violative conduct in this
single lawsuit, rather than filing separate actions against
Autovest and Dynamic. If the latter course of action were to be
undertaken, although the two cases would not qualify for
reassignment on grounds of relatedness under this District Court's
LR 40.4, they would be capable of joint discovery and other common
treatment (normally under the supervision of the judge with the
lower-numbered case) to minimize duplicative lawyer activity -- a
common arrangement in this District Court in comparable
circumstances," the Judge said.

"This Court is not, however, taking any sua sponte action as to
the possible splitting of this action at this time. Instead it is
contemporaneously issuing its conventional initial scheduling
order in this case, but it also sets a brief status hearing at
8:45 a.m. August 5, 2016, at which time Brown's counsel will be
expected to air his or her view on the subject broached here."

A copy of the Court's Memorandum Order is available at
https://is.gd/IGHPs2 from Leagle.com.

Scott Brown, Plaintiff, represented by:

          Daniel A. Edelman, Esq.
          Cathleen M. Combs, Esq.
          Francis Richard Greene, Esq.
          James O. Latturner, Esq.
          Edelman, Combs, Latturner & Goodwin LLC
          20 S Clark St #1500
          Chicago, IL 60603
          Tel: 312-739-4200


BARNES & NOBLE: Removes "Hartpence" Suit to E.D. Pennsylvania
-------------------------------------------------------------
The lawsuit styled Christine N. Hartpence, individually and on
behalf of those similarly situated v. Barnes & Noble, Inc., Case
No. 160503426, was removed from the Court of Common Pleas of
Philadelphia to the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District
of Pennsylvania (Philadelphia).  The District Court Clerk assigned
Case No. 2:16-cv-04034-GEKP to the proceeding.

The lawsuit is brought over alleged violations of the Fair Labor
Standards Act.

Barnes & Noble is a Delaware corporation with its principal place
of business in New York.  Barnes & Noble is a bookseller that
sells books, eBooks, Nook devices (eBook readers), magazines, food
and beverages, and other items.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Thomas More Holland, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF THOMAS MORE HOLLAND
          1522 Locust St.
          Philadelphia, PA 19102
          Telephone: (215) 592-8080
          Facsimile: (215) 592-8550
          E-mail: tmh@tmhlaw.com

The Defendant is represented by:

          Daniel H. Aiken, Esq.
          DRINKER BIDDLE & REATH LLP
          One Logan Square
          18th & Cherry Sts.
          Philadelphia, PA 19103
          Telephone: (215) 988-2942
          E-mail: daniel.aiken@dbr.com


BEST BUFFET: "Xin" Suit Seeks Overtime, Spread-of-Hours Pay
-----------------------------------------------------------
Xin You, individually and on behalf of all other employees
similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. Best Buffet, Inc., Yee Dai
Shek, Sonny Lin, John Doe and Jane Does 1-10, Defendants, Case No.
1:16-cv-04036 (E.D.N.Y., July 20, 2016), seeks unpaid overtime
wages, withheld tips, unpaid spread-of-hours premium, liquidated
damages, prejudgment and post-judgment interest, compensation for
failure to provide wage notice at the time of hiring and failure
to provide paystubs as well as attorneys' fees and costs under the
Fair Labor Standards Act and the New York Labor Law.

Xin You was employed as a Hibachi chef by Best Buffet, Inc.
operating as "110 JAPAN" located at 179 Walt Whitman Rd.,
Huntington Station, NY 11746.

Plaintiff is represented by:

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


BICYCLE CASINO: Fails to Pay Wages and OT, "Hernandez" Suit Says
----------------------------------------------------------------
Tiffany M. Hernandez, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. The Bicycle Casino LP, a California Limited
Partnership; The Bicycle Casino, Inc., a California Corporation
and Does 1 through 25, Case No. BC628414 (Cal. Super. Ct., Los
Angeles Cty., July 26, 2016), accuses the Defendants of violating
the Labor Code by failing to pay wages earned and overtime, among
other violations.

The Bicycle Casino LP is a California limited Partnership.  The
Bicycle Casino, Inc., is a California corporation.  Both Companies
own and operate the Bicycle Casino located in Bell Gardens,
California.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

           - and -

          Marshall A. Caskey, Esq.
          Daniel M. Holzman, Esq.
          Thomas L. Dorogi, Esq.
          CASKEY & HOLZMAN
          24025 Park Sorrento, Suite 400
          Calabasas, CA 91302
          Telephone: (818) 657-1070
          Facsimile: (818) 297-1775
          E-mail: mcaskey@caskeyholzman.com
                  dholzman@caskeyholzman.com
                  tdorogi@caskeyholzman.com


BLUE BELL: "Reyes" Suit to Recover Minimum, Overtime Pay
--------------------------------------------------------
Jesus Reyes and Augusto Reyes, and other similarly situated
individuals, Plaintiff, v. Blue Bell Landscaping, Inc., a Florida
Profit Corporation and Christine Black, Individually, Defendants,
Case No. 6:16-cv-01292 (Fla. Cir., July 20, 2016), seeks to
recover unpaid minimum and overtime wages, damages, attorneys'
fees or costs pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act and the
Florida Minimum Wage Act.

Defendant is a landscaping and maintenance company in Brevard
County FL.

Plaintiff is represented by:

     Jason S. Remer, Esq.
     Brody M. Shulman, Esq.
     REMER & GEORGES-PIERRE, PLLC
     44 West Flagler Street, Suite 2200
     Miami, FL 33130
     Tel: (305) 416-5000
     Fax: (305) 416-5005
     Email: jremer@rgpattorneys.com


BRINK'S INC: Court Stays Class Claims in "Anderson" Suit
--------------------------------------------------------
In the case TYLER ANDERSON, Plaintiff, v. BRINK'S, INCORPORATED, a
Delaware Corporation; and DOES 1 through 50, inclusive,
Defendants, Case No. 2:15-cv-02702-MCE-CKD (E.D. Calif.), District
Judge Morrison C. England, Jr. granted the parties' stipulation to
stay the Class Claims pending a decision in the "Spokeo" case by
the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.

A similar issue of the case remains pending in another case
entitled, "Spokeo, Inc. v. Robbins", on whether a plaintiff who
suffered no actual harm, but sought only statutory damages has
standing to pursue a cause of action for violation of the Fair
Credit Reporting Act.

The Court vacated the scheduling order and ordered the parties to
submit a status report that contains a proposed scheduling order
for the Court's consideration to be filed by August 1, 2016.

A copy of the Court's Order dated July 15, 2016 is available at
http://goo.gl/PWXI4Rfrom Leagle.com.

Tyler Anderson, Plaintiff, represented by Dennis S. Hyun --
dhyun@hyunlegal.com -- Hyun Legal, APC & Zack Broslavsky --
zbroslavsky@bwcounsel.com -- Broslavsky & Weinman LLP.

Brink's Incorporated, Defendant, represented by Becki D. Graham
-- becki.graham@ogletreedeakins.com -- Ogletree, Deakins, Nash,
Smoak & Stewart, P.C. & Patrick F. Hulla --
patrick.hulla@ogletreedeakins.com -- Ogletree Deakins Nash Smoak &
Stewart, P.C., pro hac vice.


BYRON'S HOT: Vences-Gonzales Seeks Overtime Wages Under FLSA
------------------------------------------------------------
Gregorio Vences-Gonzalez individually and on behalf of other
employees similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. Byron's Hot Dog,
Inc. and Michael Payne, individually, the Defendants, the
Defendant, Case No. 1:16-cv-07603 (N.D. Ill., July 27, 2016),
seeks to recover overtime wages, statutory damages, reasonable
attorneys' fees and costs, and further relief as the court deems
just and proper, pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA),
and the Illinois Minimum Wage Law (IMWL).

The Plaintiff worked for Defendants from 2007 to February 23,
2016. He was a cashier, cook, delivery driver, and dishwasher for
Byron's Hot Dogs. The Plaintiff was paid his regular rate in cash
regardless of the hours he worked each week.

Byron's offers no-frills counter-service spot with Chicago-style
hot dogs plus burgers, and salads.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Valentin T. Narvaez, Esq.
          CONSUMER LAW GROUP, LLC
          6232 N. Pulaski, Suite 200
          Chicago, IL 60646
          Telephone: (312) 878 1302
          E-mail: vnarvaez@yourclg.com


CBL & ASSOCIATES: Catlin Specialty Sues Over Breach of Contract
---------------------------------------------------------------
Catlin Specialty Insurance Company, Plaintiff, v. CBL & Associates
Properties, Inc., CBL & Associates Limited Partnership, CBL &
Associates Management, Inc., JG Gulf Coast Town Center, LLC,
Defendants, Case No. N16C-07-166 PRW (Del. Super., July 19, 2016),
seeks reimbursement of overcharged electricity, compensatory, and
special damages, as well as restitution and statutory damages,
treble damages, punitive damages, attorneys' fees and costs, pre-
and post-judgment interest and such other and further relief
resulting from unjust enrichment, breach of contract and violation
of the Federal Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act.

CBL is a real estate investment trust headquartered in
Chattanooga, Tennessee, which was formed on July 13, 1993, to
acquire substantially all of the real estate properties owned by
CBL & Associates, Inc. It is allegedly charging overpriced
electricity to its tenants.

Plaintiff is represented by:

     Megan T. Mantzavinos, Esq.
     Emily K. Silverstein, Esq.
     300 Delaware Avenue, Suite 900
     Wilmington, DE 19801
     Tel: (302) 658-6538


CLARK COUNTY: Nevada Riders' Challenge to Helmet Law Tossed
-----------------------------------------------------------
District Judge Richard F. Boulware II of the District of Nevada,
granted defendants' motions to dismiss in the case DAVID ROY
STILWELL, et al., Plaintiffs, v. CLARK COUNTY, et al., Defendants,
Case No. 2:11-cv-01549-RFB-VCF (D. Nev.)

Nevada's Helmet Law, codified at N.R.S. 486.231 or the Helmet Law,
was enacted in 1971 and required the Department of Motor Vehicles
and Public Safety to adopt standards for protective headgear and
glasses, goggles, or face shields to be worn by motorcycle drivers
and passengers. The Department did not expressly adopt any such
standards until 1994, when it adopted the regulations contained in
49 C.F.R. Section 571.218, the National Highway Transportation and
Safety Administration's (NHTSA) Federal Motor Vehicle Safety
Standard No. 218. The NHTSA Standard establishes a process whereby
a manufacturer can certify, using the DOT symbol and other labels,
that the helmet conforms to the applicable safety standards. NHTSA
does not prescribe the size, weight, or minimum head coverage that
a helmet must have, nor does it require helmets to be tested
before being sold. However, when helmets are tested, the NHTSA
Standard requires that they meet certain requirements with respect
to impact, penetration, retention, configuration, peripheral
vision/brow opening, and labeling in order to be found in
compliance.

Plaintiffs, a group of motorcycle riders residing in Nevada,
challenge the enforcement of a Nevada statute governing the use of
motorcycle helmets, N.R.S. 486.231. Plaintiffs allege that the
entity and supervisory defendants failed to train the individual
officers in how to identify helmets that do or do not comply with
the Helmet Law and how to collect the evidence necessary to
support a citation for violating that law. As a result, plaintiffs
allege, the officers engaged in a pattern and practice of
arbitrary and discriminatory enforcement of the Helmet Law by
issuing citations for violations of that law without probable
cause.

The Defendants are various Nevada municipalities, law enforcement
agencies, and law enforcement officers.  Several defendants filed
motions to dismiss the suit.

Judge Boulware granted defendants' motions to dismiss and
dismissed the suit with prejudice.  The Court finds that
Plaintiffs have failed to state a claim for violation of their
constitutional rights and that further amendment would be futile.
Plaintiffs' claims are therefore dismissed with prejudice.

A copy of Judge Boulware's order dated July 26, 2016, is available
at http://goo.gl/pNfv78from Leagle.com.

Plaintiffs, represented by:

Travis N. Barrick, Esq.
Gallian Welker & Beckstrom, LC
540 East St. St. Louis Ave.
Las Vegas, NV 89104
Telephone: 702-892-3500
Facsimile: 702-386-1946

Officer S. Emery, Officer R. Gibbs, Officer J. Jackson, City of
Boulder City, City of Mesquite, Las Vegas Metropolitan Police
Department, Douglas C. Gillespie, Defendants, represented by Micah
S. Echols -- mechols@maclaw.com -- at Marquis & Aurbach

City of North Las Vegas, Defendant, represented by Sandra Douglass
Morgan -- at City of North Las Vegas; Micah S. Echols --
mechols@maclaw.com -- at Marquis & Aurbach

City of Henderson, Patrick E. Moers, Defendant, represented by
Nancy D. Savage at City of Henderson Attorney's Office

Officer West, Officer Arias, State of Nevada Department of Public
Safety, James D Wright, Defendants, represented by Carolyn L.
Waters at Nevada Attorney General's Office

J Gilliam, William D. Conger, Officer J. Feldman, Troy Tanner,
Joseph Chronister, Defendants, represented by Craig R. Anderson
-- canderson@maclaw.com -- Micah S. Echols -- mechols@maclaw.com
-- at Marquis & Aurbach


CONGREGATION LUBAVITCH: "Gonzales" Suit to Recover Overtime Pay
---------------------------------------------------------------
Rigoberto Buch Gonzalez, Cornelio Buchan, Alexander Buch, Denniz
Perez, Jose Cruz Hernandez Ramirez, Juan Carlos Sut and Jesus
Gonzalez Velasquez, individually and on behalf of all other
collective persons similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. Congregation
Lubavitch Inc. and John Does # 1-10, jointly and severally,
Defendants, Case No. 512440/2016 (N.Y. Sup., July 20, 2016), seeks
appropriate overtime compensation, liquidated damages, interest,
attorneys' fees and costs pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act
and the New York Labor Law.

Defendant is a non-profit corporation located in 383 Kingston
Avenue, Suite 95, Brooklyn, NY 11213 engaged in religious
activities. It employed Plaintiffs as maintenance workers.

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Peter Sim, Esq.
      PARK AND SIM GLOBAL LAW GROUP LLP
      39-01 Main Street, Suite 608
      Flushing, NY 11354
      Tel: (718) 445-1300
      Fax: (718) 445-8616


CONSTANCE BEARD: "Pielet" Sues Over Excessive Tax Collection
------------------------------------------------------------
Nora Pielet, individually and on behalf of others similarly
situated, Plaintiffs, v. Constance Beard, in her official capacity
as Director of the Illinois, Department of Revenue and The
Illinois Department of Revenue, Defendants, Case No. 2016-CH-09535
(Ill. Cir, July 20, 2016), seeks compensatory damages in the
amount of tax revenue Plaintiffs paid as a result of invalid
regulations, prejudgment interest, attorneys' fees and costs of
suit and such other and further relief under the Illinois
Retailers' Occupation Tax Act and the Illinois Use Tax Act.

Plaintiff alleges that excessive taxes were applied to her
purchase of sanitary napkins.

Plaintiff is represented by:

     Edward M. Burke, Esq.
     KLAFTER & BURKE
     225 W. Washington Street, Suite 1701
     Chicago, IL 60606
     Tel: (312)726-7855

        - and -

     Kristin N. Barnette, Esq.
     KRALOVEC, JAMBOIS & SCHWARTZ
     60 West Randolph, 4th Floor
     Chicago, IL 60601
     Tel: (312)782-2525


CONVERGENT OUTSOURCING: "Vantuyl" Sues Over Illegal Collection
--------------------------------------------------------------
Jeremy Vantuyl on behalf of all others similarly situated v.
Convergent Outsourcing Inc. and Galaxy International Purchasing
LLC, Case No. 5:16-cv-00812 (W.D. Okla., July 19, 2016), sues over
violations of the Fair Debt Collection Act.

Convergent is a business process outsourcing firm based in Atlanta
GA.

Galaxy International Purchasing, is a foreign limited liability
company registered in the State of Nevada that is into debt
collection.

Plaintiff is represented by:

     David M. Marco, Esq.
     SMITHMARCO PC
     20 S Clark St., Suite 2120
     Chicago, IL 60603
     Tel: (312) 546-6539
     Fax: (312) 602-3911
     Email: dmarco@smithmarco.com


CORDIS CORP: Court Wants Basis on Jurisdiction in "Dunson" Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, JERRY DUNSON, et al., Plaintiffs, v. CORDIS
CORPORATION, et al., Defendants, Case No. 16-cv-03076-SI (N.D.
Calif.), District Judge Susan Illston ordered Defendants to show
cause, in writing, in no later than July 28, 2016, explaining why
the action should not be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.

The case pertains to the Defendants' allegation, invoking the
Class Action Fairness Act of 2005, which provides that a federal
district court has an original jurisdiction to hear a class action
if the class has more than 100 members. The Court believes that
only 8 plaintiffs are present in the case, disregarding all the
other plaintiffs in 9 separate cases currently pending before 9
different judges in the district.

Pursuant to the Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(h)(3), if the
court determines at any time that the case lacks subject-matter
jurisdiction, the court must dismiss the action.

A copy of the Court's Order dated July 21, 2016 is available at
http://goo.gl/NpYutNfrom Leagle.com.

Jerry Dunson, et al., Plaintiffs, represented by Troy Alexander
Brenes -- tbrenes@breneslawgroup.com -- Brenes Law Group.

Cordis Corporation, Defendant, represented by Andrew D. Kaplan --
akaplan@crowell.com -- Crowell & Moring LLP, pro hac vice, Kevin
Cooper Mayer -- kmayer@crowell.com -- Crowell Moring LLP & Rebecca
B. Chaney -- rchaney@crowell.com -- Crowell & Moring LLP, pro hac
vice.

Confluent Medical Technologies, Inc., et al., Defendants,
represented by Michelle A. Childers -- michelle.childers@dbr.com
-- Drinker Biddle & Reath LLP.


COWAY USA: Falsely Marketed Filtration Products, "Lee" Suit Says
----------------------------------------------------------------
EUN HEE LEE, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated v. COWAY USA, INC; and DOES 1 through 25, inclusive, Case
No. BC628195 (Cal. Super. Ct., Los Angeles Cty.), is brought on
behalf of California consumers who, within the last four years,
purchased or entered into a rental agreement with the Defendants
for their water filtration appliances, whose allegedly false
advertisings repeatedly featured the representations that they can
eliminate contaminants such as heavy metals.

Coway USA, Inc., is a California corporation with its principal
place of business in Los Angeles, California.  The Company
marketed and sold, and continues to market and sell, its water
filtration appliances products nationwide through the
dissemination of advertisements for, and sale of, its water
filtration appliance products.  The true names and capacities of
the Doe Defendants Does are currently unknown to the Plaintiff.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Young W. Ryu, Esq.
          Kelly Kim, Esq.
          LAW OFFICE OF YOUNG W. RYU,
          A PROFESSIONAL LAW CORPORATION
          9595 Wilshire Blvd, Suite 900
          Beverly Hills, CA 90212
          Telephone: (888) 365-8686
          Facsimile: (800) 576-1170
          E-mail: young.ryu@ywrlaw.com
                  kelly.kim@ywrlaw.com


CPC LOGISTICS: "Edwards" Suit to Recover Minimum, Overtime Pay
--------------------------------------------------------------
Bryan Edwards, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, and in behalf of the general public, Plaintiffs v. CPC
Logistics and Does 1-100, Defendants, Case No. RG16823876 (Cal.
Super., July 20, 2016), seeks compensatory damages, interest,
economic and/or special damages, unpaid straight time and overtime
wages, compensation for all time worked, compensation for not
being provided paid rest breaks, compensation for not being
provided paid meal periods, damages and/or monies owed for failure
to comply with itemized wages statement provisions, all waiting
time penalties owed under California Wage and Hours Laws and the
California Labor Code.

CPC owns and operates trucks, industrial trucks, industrial
vehicles and/or industrial work sites where the Plaintiff worked
as a driver.

Plaintiff is represented by:

     William Turley, Esq.
     David Mara, Esq.
     Jill Veccchim Esq.
     CARLSON LYNCH SWEET & KILPELA, LLP
     74-28 Trade Street
     San Diego, CA 92121
     Telephone: (619) 234-2833
     Facsimile: (619) 234-4048


CREDIT MANAGEMENT: Nov. 23 Final Hearing on "Powers" Settlement
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Class Settlement Agreement, in the case, LAURA POWERS, on
behalf of herself and all others similarly situated; NICHOLE
PALMER; and JASON PALMER; Plaintiffs, v. CREDIT MANAGEMENT
SERVICES, INC., et al., Defendants, No. 8:11CV436 (D. Nebr.), is
set for Final Approval Hearing on November 23, 2016, after it
earned a preliminary approval by Nebraska District Court Judge
Robert F. Rossiter, Jr..

For purposes of the proposed settlement, the following settlement
class is certified:

     (1) All persons with addresses in Nebraska against whom
Defendants filed a county court collection complaint in the form
of Exhibit C after January 1, 2008, for purposes of the NCPA, and
after December 18, 2010, for purposes of the FDCPA; which sought
to recover attorneys' fees, prejudgment interest, and costs,
pursuant to Neb. Rev. Stat. Sec. 25-1801 where Defendant CMS did
not personally provide the ninety-day presentation of the claim 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. (The Neb. Rev. Stat. Sec. 25-1801 Class); and

     (2) 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 which sought to
recover prejudgment interest pursuant to Neb. Rev. Stat. Sec. 45-
104 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. (The Neb. Rev. Stat. Sec. 45-104
Class).

The Court ordered that within 10 days of the date of the order,
defendant CMS shall notify the appropriate federal and state
officials of the proposed class settlement pursuant to 28 U.S.C.
Sec. 1715, and shall cause the notice to be delivered to class
members by mail.

A copy of the Court's Order dated July 25, 2016, is available at
http://goo.gl/y67Pnwfrom Leagle.com.

Laura Powers, et al., Plaintiffs, represented by O. Randolph
Bragg, HORWITZ, HORWITZ LAW FIRM, Pamela A. Car -- pacar@cox.net -
- CAR, REINBRECHT LAW FIRM & William L. Reinbrecht, CAR,
REINBRECHT LAW FIRM.

Credit Management Services, Inc., et al., Defendants, represented
by Christopher R. Morris -- cmorris@bassford.com -- BASSFORD,
REMELE LAW FIRM, Jessica L. Klander --  jklander@bassford.com --
BASSFORD, REMELE LAW FIRM, John M. Guthery, Jr. --
jguthery@perrylawfirm.com -- PERRY, GUTHERY LAW FIRM & Michael A.
Klutho -- mklutho@bassford.com -- BASSFORD, REMELE LAW FIRM.


CYTRX CORP: Faces "Crihfield" Suit Over Securities Law Violations
-----------------------------------------------------------------
NICHOLAS CRIHFIELD, Individually and On Behalf of All Others
Similarly Situated v. CYTRX CORPORATION, STEVEN A. KRIEGSMAN, and
JOHN Y. CALOZ, Case No. 2:16-cv-05519 (C.D. Cal., July 25, 2016),
is brought on behalf of persons and entities that acquired CytRx
securities between November 18, 2014, and July 11, 2016,
inclusive, against the Defendants, seeking to pursue remedies
under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.

CytRx is a Delaware corporation with its principal executive
offices located in Los Angeles, California.  CytRx is a
biopharmaceutical research and development company specializing in
oncology.  One of the Company's primary trial drugs is
"aldoxorubicin."  Steven A. Kriegsman was, at all relevant times,
the Chief Executive Officer of CytRx.  John Y. Caloz was, at all
relevant times, Chief Financial Officer of CytRx.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Lionel Z. Glancy, Esq.
          Robert V. Prongay, Esq.
          Lesley F. Portnoy, Esq.
          Charles H. Linehan, Esq.
          GLANCY PRONGAY & MURRAY LLP
          1925 Century Park East, Suite 2100
          Los Angeles, CA 90067
          Telephone: (310) 201-9150
          Facsimile: (310) 201-9160
          E-mail: lglancy@glancylaw.com
                  rprongay@glancylaw.com
                  lportnoy@glancylaw.com
                  clinehan@glancylaw.com


DEXTER HAWKINS: 1st Cir. Issued Qualified Ruling in "Cole" Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Court of Appeals of Louisiana, First Circuit, in the case,
PERRY COLE, v. DEXTER HAWKINS AND GOAUTO INSURANCE COMPANY, No.
2015 CW 1758 (1st Cir.), granted in part and denied in part, the
October 12, 2015 judgment that overruled in part the Defendant's
exception of no cause of action against the Plaintiff's claims.

The First Circuit granted in part the reversal of the judgment
that overruled, in part, the Defendants' exception of no cause of
action as to the plaintiff Perry Cole's demand for class-wide
diminution in value damage.

On the other hand, the First Circuit denied in part the reversal
of the portion of the judgment that overruled the exception of no
cause of action as to plaintiff's individual claim for statutory
penalties and attorney fees.

A copy of the Ninth Circuit's decision dated July 25, 2016 is
available at http://goo.gl/fXKtL2from Leagle.com.


DOS COMALES-DOWNTOWN: Accused of Failing to Properly Pay Servers
----------------------------------------------------------------
JESSICA LUGO, Individually and On Behalf of All Others Similarly
Situated v. DOS COMALES-DOWNTOWN, LLC. D.B.A "DOS COMALES" AND
HONGGUO JIN AND XIAOLI ZHU, Case No. 2:16-cv-00316 (S.D. Tex.,
July 26, 2016), alleges that the Defendants required and permitted
the Plaintiff and kitchen workers to work at their restaurant in
excess of 40 hours per week, but refused to compensate them at the
applicable overtime rates under the Fair Labor Standards Act.

The proposed Class Members are current and former servers employed
by the Defendants at any time three years prior to the filing of
the lawsuit to the present.

Dos Comales-Downtown, LLC, is a domestic, for-profit Texas
corporation.  The Individual Defendants are the owners of the
Company.  The Defendants operate the Dos Comales restaurant in the
greater Corpus Christi area.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Trang Q. Tran, Esq.
          TRAN LAW FIRM L.L.P.
          9801 Westheimer Rd., Suite 302
          Houston, TX 77042
          Telephone: (713) 223-8855
          Facsimile: (713) 623-6399
          E-mail: ttran@tranlawllp.com

           - and -

          Gay E. Gilson, Esq.
          LAW OFFICE OF GAY E. GILSON
          5525 S. Staples, Suite 3B
          Corpus Christi, TX 78411
          Telephone: (361) 887-0552
          Facsimile: (210) 887-0554
          E-mail: gegilson@gilsonlaw.com


DYNAMIC PET: Court Trims Down Claims in "Reed" Case
---------------------------------------------------
In the case, KHRISTIE REED, et al., on Behalf of Herself and All
Others Similarly Situated, Plaintiffs, v. DYNAMIC PET PRODUCTS;
and FRICK'S MEAT PRODUCTS, INC, Defendants, Case No. 15cv0987-WQH-
DHB (S.D. Cal.), District Judge William Q. Hayes granted
Defendants' motions to dismiss against Plaintiffs' claim for
breach of implied warranty, and Plaintiff Rodney Canutt's claim
under Oregon's Unlawful Trade Practices Act, but denied dismissal
in all other claims.

The case is a consumer protection class action where alleged
misrepresentations and omissions were made by Defendants regarding
the Real Ham Bone For Dogs. The proposed class consists of all
persons who purchased one or more Real Ham Bone For Dogs other
than for purpose of resale.

The Court held on the first favorable judgment to the Defendant,
that there is no privity between Plaintiff Reed and Defendants
because Plaintiff purchased the Real Ham Bone For Dogs from Wal-
Mart. Thus, dismissal for breach of implied warranty is granted.
On the second judgment, the Court concludes that Rodney Canutt has
not alleged a claim for relief, thus, granting the Defendants'
dismissal of the claim. A copy of the Court's decision dated July
21, 2016 is available at http://goo.gl/9UYrO7from Leagle.com.

Khristie Reed, et al., Plaintiffs, represented by Leslie E. Hurst
-- lhurst@bholaw.com -- Blood Hurst & O'Reardon LLP & Timothy
Gordon Blood -- tblood@bholaw.com -- Blood Hurst & O'Reardon LLP.

Dynamic Pet Products, et al., Defendants, represented by David
Joseph Aveni -- david.aveni@wilsonelser.com -- Wilson Elser
Moskowitz Edelman & Dicker, LLP & Gregory Dean Hagen --
gregory.hagen@wilsonelser.com -- Wilson Elser Moskowitz Edelman &
Dicker LLP.


DYNCORP INTERNATIONAL: Law on Forum Mandated Kuwait Courts to Act
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit, affirmed the
district court's judgment in the case JONATHAN BARNETT, Plaintiff-
Appellant, v. DYNCORP INTERNATIONAL, L.L.C., Defendant-Appellee.,
No. 15-10757 (5th Cir.).

DynCorp International LLC, a private contractor that provides
logistics support services to the U.S. Army, is an American
company with its principal place of business in Texas. Jonathan
Barnett is a resident of the state of Georgia. In February 2011,
DynCorp extended Barnett an offer to work for DynCorp in Kuwait.
Barnett traveled to Texas and signed a one-year Foreign Service
Employment Agreement drafted by DynCorp in Texas. He signed a
similar one-year contract in February 2012 and extensions of the
second contract in March 2013.

The agreement designated Barnett's geographical location of
employment as Kuwait. Barnett's base wages were set in American
dollars, but his overtime and working holiday compensation were to
be paid at premium rates in accordance with Kuwait Labour Law, No.
6 of 2010. The agreement also incorporated the Kuwait Labour Law
to determine Barnett's work schedule, holidays, medical leave
benefits, circumstances under which he could be terminated, and
compensation due upon termination. Other benefits such as paid
leave were set with reference to U.S. Army contracting policies.
One important provision in the agreement stated that the contract
shall be governed by and interpreted exclusively under the laws of
Kuwait and all disputes between the parties shall be resolved
exclusively in Kuwait.

In a March 2013 letter, DynCorp informed Barnett that his
employment would soon be terminated because DynCorp would no
longer be providing services at Barnett's location.

Barnett filed an action on March 27, 2015, in a federal court in
Texas. He alleges that he never received all of the wages and
benefits DynCorp owes him, and that DynCorp breached the agreement
by failing to provide him in accordance with the Kuwait Labour Law
overtime pay, paid leave, end-of-service payment, and premature
contract termination damages. He also contends that DynCorp failed
to pay him hardship compensation and meal per diems, and did not
provide all of the free housing and transportation required by the
agreement.

DynCorp moved to dismiss on the basis of forum non conveniens,
arguing that the agreement's forum-selection clause mandates that
the action be litigated in Kuwait. Barnett opposed the motion,
responding that the forum-selection clause is void under Texas law
and unenforceable under federal law.

The district court granted the motion, concluding that the forum-
selection clause is valid, enforceable, and requires dismissal.
Barnett appealed.

Circuit Judge Stephen A. Higginson, who wrote the decision,
affirmed the trial court's judgment of dismissal.  A copy of Judge
Higginson's order dated July 26, 2016, is available at
http://goo.gl/Zb1zckfrom Leagle.com.

David William Crowe, for Plaintiff-Appellant

Mark D. Taylor, for Defendant-Appellee

James Clark Wyly, for Plaintiff-Appellant

Michael A. Pollard, for Defendant-Appellee

Sean Fletcher Rommel, for Plaintiff-Appellant

Hirlye R. Lutz, III, for Plaintiff-Appellant

F. Jerome Tapley, for Plaintiff-Appellant

William Ryan Myers, for Plaintiff-Appellant

Adam Wade Pittman, for Plaintiff-Appellant

Kimberly F. Rich, for Defendant-Appellee

Jonathan P. Rosamond, for Defendant-Appellee

The United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit panel consists
of Circuit Judges Stephen A. Higginson, Edith H. Jones and Jacques
L. Wiener.


EARTH CARE: Judge Certifies "Hernandez" Class Complaint
-------------------------------------------------------
Magistrate Judge Elizabeth T. Hey certified the collective action
and the settlement class, in the case, ROGELIO ORTEGA HERNANDEZ,
on behalf of himself and others similarly situated v. EARTH CARE,
INC., SCOTT RISBON, and KIM RISBON, Civil Action No. 15-5091 (E.D.
Pa.).

The class complaint involves the seasonal landscape laborers from
Mexico who were employed by the Defendant Earth Care, Inc. during
2010 through 2014, alleging that Defendants failed to pay the wage
rates required by the visa program that enabled the laborers to
work for Defendants.

The settlement agreement provides for payment of all unpaid
minimum wages and overtime, and the reimbursement of $440 per year
per worker for pre-employment travel and visa costs.

Representative Counsel negotiated their fees independently of the
terms of the settlement for members of the settlement class, and
agreed to cap their fees at $35,000, far below the lodestar value
of the work performed.

The Court held that the Plaintiffs have established to be
similarly situated and the settlement is a fair and reasonable
resolution of the claims asserted by the class for underpaid
wages.

A copy of the Court's Decision dated July 25, 2016 is available at
http://goo.gl/ext1mkfrom Leagle.com.

ROGELIO ORTEGA HERNANDEZ, Plaintiff, represented by ARTHUR N. READ
-- aread@friendsfw.org -- FRIENDS OF FARMWORKERS, INC. & STEPHANIE
DORENBOSCH -- sdorenbosch@friendsfw.org -- FRIENDS OF FARMWORKERS.

EARTH CARE, INC., Defendant, represented by JONATHAN LANDESMAN --
jlandesman@cohenseglias.com -- COHEN SEGLIAS PALLAS GREENHALL &
FURMAN, PC.


EFINANCIAL LLC: "Hale" Sues Over Civil Rights Violations
--------------------------------------------------------
Nathan Hale, Individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. EFinancial LLC, Defendants, Case No. 2:16-
cv-01115 (W.D. Wash., July 22, 2016), asserts civil rights
violations.

Insurance broker EFinancial was accused of recording conversations
without permission while selling insurance.

Plaintiff is represented by:

     Ryan Matthew Pesicka, Esq.
     CONCORD LAW, P.C.
     6608 216th St. SW, Ste. 107-A
     Mountlake Terrace, WA 98043
     Tel: (206) 512-8029
     Email: Ryan@ConcordLawSeattle.com


ELIZABETH ARDEN: Hutson Challenges Planned $870MM Sale to Revlon
----------------------------------------------------------------
ASHLEY HUTSON, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. ELIZABETH ARDEN, INC., E. SCOTT BEATTIE, FRED BERENS,
FRANZ-FERDINAND BUERSTEDDE, MAURA J. CLARK, M. STEVEN LANGMAN,
EDWARD D. SHIRLEY, WILLIAM M. TATHAM, REVLON, INC., REVLON
CONSUMER PRODUCTS CORPORATION, and RR TRANSACTION CORP., Case No.
CACE-16-013566 (Fla. Cir. Ct., Broward Cty., July 25, 2016), is
brought on behalf of the public stockholders of Elizabeth Arden,
Inc. against its Board of Directors for alleged breaches of
fiduciary duties arising out of an ongoing attempt to sell the
Company to Revlon, Inc. by means of a flawed process and for an
inadequate price with inadequate disclosure to the shareholders.

On June 16, 2016, Revlon and the Company announced a definitive
agreement under which Revlon, through its wholly-owned operating
subsidiary, Revlon Consumer Products Corporation ("RCPC"), and a
wholly-owned subsidiary of RCPC, RR Transaction Corp., will
acquire all of the outstanding shares of Elizabeth Arden for
$14.00 per share in cash.  Pursuant to the terms of the Merger
Agreement, Merger Sub will merge with and into the Company, with
the Company surviving as a wholly owned subsidiary of Revlon.  The
Proposed Transaction represents an enterprise value for the
Company of approximately $870 million.

Elizabeth Arden is a Florida corporation with its principal
executive offices located in Miramar, Florida.  Elizabeth Arden is
a global prestige beauty products company with an extensive
portfolio of prestige fragrance, skin care, and cosmetic brands
sold in over 120 countries.  The Individual Defendants are
directors and officers of the Company.

Revlon is a Delaware corporation with its principal executive
offices located in New York City.  Revlon is a global beauty
company that provides a range of cosmetics, hair color, hair care
and hair treatments, beauty tools, men's grooming products,
antiperspirant deodorants, fragrances, skin care, and other beauty
care products.  Revlon is an indirect majority-owned subsidiary of
MacAndrews & Forbes Incorporated.  RCPC is a Delaware corporation
and wholly-owned subsidiary of Revlon.  Merger Sub is a Florida
corporation and wholly-owned subsidiary of RCPC.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Emily C. Komlossy, Esq.
          Ross Appel, Esq.
          KOMLOSSY LAW, P.A.
          4700 Sheridan Street, Suite J
          Hollywood, FL 33021
          Telephone: (954) 842-2021
          Facsimile: (954)416-6223
          E-mail: eck@komlossylaw.com
                  raa@komlossylaw.com

           - and -

          Michael H. Rosner, Esq.
          Justin G. Sherman, Esq.
          LEVI & KORSINSKY LLP
          30 Broad Street, 24th Floor
          New York, NY 10004
          Telephone: (212) 363-7500
          Facsimile: (212) 363-7171
          E-mail: mrosner@zlk.com
                  jsherman@zlk.com


EROGEN ENTERPRISES: Niles Seeks Unpaid Overtime Wages Under FLSA
----------------------------------------------------------------
PRISCILLA NILES, on behalf of herself and those similarly
situated, the Plaintiff, v. EROGEN ENTERPRISES, LLC, a Georgia
Limited Liability Company, and GENEVA HYLTON, individually, the
Defendant, Case No. 1:16-cv-02721-AT (N.D. Ga., July 27, 2016),
seeks to recover unpaid overtime wages, liquidated damages,
declaratory relief, and reasonable attorney fees, pursuant to the
Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA).

From October 2013 to May 2016, the Defendants failed to compensate
the Plaintiff at a rate of one and one-half times Plaintiff's
regular rate for all hours worked in excess of 40 hours in a
single work week.

Erogen is a billing and consulting company.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Andrew R. Frisch, Esq.
          MORGAN & MORGAN, PA
          600 N. Pine Island Road, Suite 400
          Plantation, FL 33324
          Telephone: (954) WORKERS
          Facsimile: (954) 333 3013
          E-mail: Afrisch@forethepeople.com


EXPERIAN INFORMATION: Judge Delays Ruling on Attorneys' Fees
------------------------------------------------------------
District Judge John A. Gibney, Jr. of the Eastern District of
Virginia, Richmond Division deferred ruling on plaintiff's motion
for an award of attorneys' fees in the case MICHAEL T. DREHER,
Plaintiff, v. EXPERIAN INFORMATION SOLUTIONS, INC., Defendant,
Case No. 3:11-cv-624 (E.D. Va.)

Michael Dreher filed a suit under the Fair Credit Reporting Act
(FCRA), 15 U.S.C. Sections 1681 et seq., against Experian and
other credit reporting agencies. After settling with the other
credit reporting agencies, he proceeded with his suit against
Experian. During discovery, Dreher recognized another potential
claim, based on a systemic flaw in Experian's process of reporting
credit information about customers of Advanta Bank. He amended the
complaint to add a claim that Experian falsely told customers that
Advanta provided credit information to Experian, when the
information really came from a different company. The Advanta
claim proceeded as a class action.

The court entered judgment against Experian on the class claim,
which Experian has appealed. During the appeal of the class claim,
the parties resumed their squabble on the individual claim, but
eventually settled the individual claim through an offer of
judgment for $65,000. The judgment included Dreher's costs related
to the individual claim, but not his attorneys' fees.

Dreher filed a motion for an award of attorneys' fees related to
his individual claim.

Judge Gibney deferred ruling on the motion for an award of
attorneys' fees pending receipt of the parties' billing
information.

A copy of Judge Gibney's opinion dated July 26, 2016, is available
at http://goo.gl/KnNpUUfrom Leagle.com.

Michael T. Dreher, Plaintiff, represented by Kristi Cahoon Kelly
-- kkelly@kellyandcrandall.com -- Andrew Joseph Guzzo --
aguzzo@kellyandcrandall.com -- at Kelly & Crandall PLC; Casey
Shannon Nash -- casey@clalegal.com -- Leonard Anthony Bennett --
leonard@clalegal.com -- Matthew James Erausquin --
matt@clalegal.com -- Susan Mary Rotkis -- susan@clalegal.com -- at
Consumer Litgation Associates PC; Ian Bryce Lyngklip -- at
Lyngklip & Associates Consumer Law Center, PLC; Justin Michael
Baxter -- at Baxter & Baxter LLP

Experian Information Solutions, Inc., Defendant, represented by
David Neal Anthony -- david.anthony@troutmansanders.com --
Harrison Scott Kelly -- scott.kelly@troutmansanders.com -- at
Troutman Sanders LLP; Daniel J. McLoon -- djmcloon@jonesday.com --
Hilary Keith Perkins -- hperkins@jonesday.com -- Mark Robert Lentz
-- mrlentz@jonesday.com -- William V. O'Reilly --
woreilly@jonesday.com -- at Jones Day


FACEBOOK INC: "Palomino" Suit Moved from Super. Ct. to N.D. Cal.
----------------------------------------------------------------
JOSE PALOMINO, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, the Plaintiff, v. FACEBOOK, INC., a Delaware
corporation, and DOES 1-50, inclusive, the Defendant, Case No.
16CIV00138, was removed from San Mateo Superior Court, to the
United States District Court for the Northern District of
California. The Northern District Court Clerk assigned Case No.
3:16-cv-04230-MEJ to the proceeding.

The Plaintiff alleges that Facebook's "Statement of Rights and
Responsibilities" contains provisions that violate established
rights of New Jersey residents and states in non-particularized
fashion that they may be void or unenforceable in some
jurisdictions and in violation of the New Jersey Truth-in-Consumer
Contract, Warranty & Notice Act.

Facebook is a for-profit corporation and online social networking
service based in Menlo Park, California, United States.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Michael D. Celio, Esq.
          Benedict Y. Hur, Esq.
          Justina Sessions, Esq.
          KEKER & VAN NEST LLP
          633 Battery Street
          San Francisco, CA 94111-1809
          Telephone: (415) 391 5400
          Facsimile: (415) 397 7188
          E-mail: mcelio@kvn.com
                  bhur@kvn.com
                  jsessions@kvn.com


FEDERAL NATIONAL: Court Denies Consolidation of Cases
-----------------------------------------------------
In the case, ALESSI & KOENIG, LLC, Plaintiff(s), v. ALFRED T.
DOLAN, JR., et al., Defendant(s), Case No. 2:15-CV-805 JCM (CWH),
((D. Nev.), District Judge James C. Mahan denied the intervenor's
motion to consolidate cases, without prejudice. A copy of the
Court's Order dated July 25, 2016, is available at
http://goo.gl/ADZxaufrom Leagle.com.

The case involves a federal foreclosure where the intervenor,
Federal Housing Finance Agency, sought a class consolidation over
the cases involving similar claims, pending appeal on a motion for
class certification.

The Court held that once a notice of appeal is filed, a district
court is divested of jurisdiction over matters being appealed.

The Court further ordered the parties to submit a joint status
report within five days from the order's entry, consistent with
Magistrate Judge Hoffman's January 7, 2016, minute order.

Alessi & Koenig, LLC, Plaintiff, represented by Bradley D. Bace
-- brad@alessikoenig.com -- Alessi & Koenig, LLC & Steven T.
Loizzi -- steve@alessikoenig.com -- Jr., Alessi & Koenig, LLC.

Federal National Mortgage Association, Defendant, represented by
Chelsea Crowton -- ccrowton@wrightlegal.net -- Wright, Finlay &
Zak, LLP & Dana Jonathon Nitz -- dnitz@wrightlegal.net -- Wright,
Finlay & Zak, LLP.

Saticoy Bay LLC Series 10250 Sun Dusk Ln, Defendant, represented
by Michael F. Bohn -- mbohn@bohnlawfirm.com -- Law Office of
Michael F. Bohn.

Sunset Mesa Community Association, Defendant, represented by
Steven T. Loizzi, Jr. -- steve@alessikoenig.com -- Alessi &
Koenig, LLC.


FOX ORTEGA: Hearing Held on Final Settlement Approval
-----------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the Northern District of California
was slated to hold a hearing on July 27, 2016, to consider final
approval of the settlement of a class action lawsuit against Fox
Ortega Enterprises, Inc., dba Premier Cru.

The class action case is, Michael Podolsky, on behalf of himself
and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Michael Kasolas,
Trustee, Defendant, Adv. Pro. No. 16-04033 (Bankr. N.D. Cal.).
Fox Ortega commenced a Chapter 7 liquidation proceeding (Bankr.
N.D. Cal. Case No. 16-40050) on Jan. 8, 2016.  Bankruptcy Judge
William J. Lafferty, III, presides over the case.

Simmone Shah, writing for The Daily Californian, reported that the
lawsuit arrived after several complainants sued Premier Cru for
almost $70 million in October 2015, claiming the company failed to
deliver purchased wine. Shortly after, Fox Ortega Enterprises --
the company which owned Premier Cru -- filed for Chapter 7
bankruptcy.

The Daily Californian said the settlement was reached May 16,
affecting approximately 4,450 Premier Cru customers who were left
without the bottles of wine they paid for before the company
declared bankruptcy.  The report said Michael Kasolas, the Chapter
7 trustee, was given responsibility for liquidating assets and
determining allocations of funds after a creditor's hearing Feb.
24.  On March 29, he filed a motion to liquidate Premier Cru
assets and sell more than 78,800 bottles of wine, using the assets
to repay creditors.  While Kasolas stated that the majority of the
wines stored with Premier Cru were owned by the estate, many
Premier Cru customers, such as Michael Podolsky, said the bottles
belonged to the customers who paid for their orders but never
received them. Podolsky filed a class action lawsuit against
Kasolas in April.

The Daily Californian further reported that both parties reached a
settlement because resolving the dispute would "consume many
months or years of litigation, at much greater expense and at
significant risk of loss," according to a court document. During
this time, the document stated, the cost to continue the court
battle would extinguish the trust funds, making it difficult to
continue storing the bottles. The document further stated that
"there might be nothing left of value to recover" when the case
was finished.

"Judge Lafferty, the bankruptcy judge, suggested the parties
entered judiciary mediation, and we negotiated in that context to
a resolution," said Merle Meyers, an attorney for Meyers Law
Group, one of the firms representing Premier Cru customers,
according to the report.  The mediation occurred intermittently
from May 3 to May 16, when a settlement was reached.

On July 1, 2016, Edwin W. Finch, III, caused the Objection
Regarding the Class Action Pending Stipulation of Settlement, to
be sent, via FedEx, to the Court. The Finch Objection was not
addressed to the Clerk of the Court, did not request that it be
filed, nor was it served upon any other party to this matter.
Although the Finch Objection was "received' on July 5, 2016, it
was not brought to the attention of either the Honorable William
J. Lafferty, III, the presiding Judge in this case, or the Clerk
of Court until today. The Court docketed the Finch Objection and
directed Class Counsel to be prepared to address it at the July 27
hearing.

The Memorandum Regarding Objection of Edwin Finch is available at
https://is.gd/RKkN2f from Leagle.com.

On July 20, 2016, the Court received a letter from Frank L.
D'Elia, who indicated that he was a customer of the Debtor and, as
such, received documents relating to this chapter 7 case. Mr.
D'Elia explained that he has answered correspondence that
requested information from him, but was "unsure what [he] should
do to recover [his] losses." Mr. D'Elia asked the court to
instruct him on what he "must do to recover [his] loss."

The Court cannot provide Mr. D'Elia with legal advice regarding
what actions he can or should take to protect his interests. The
Court understands that Mr. D'Elia is concerned about the cost
associated with engaging an attorney. Nonetheless, the Court would
encourage Mr. D'Elia to engage legal counsel regarding his
concerns.

The Court said Mr. D'Elia may contact Michael G. Kasolas, the
Chapter 7 Trustee, or his counsel, Mark Bostick, Tracy Green, and
Elizabeth Berke-Dreyfuss of Wendel, Rosen, Black and Dean, for
further information regarding the case. Mr. D'Elia may also
contact Merle Meyers of the Meyers Law Group, PC, or Mark A.
Chavez of Chavez & Gertler LLP, counsel for a class consisting of
certain persons who purchased wine from the Debtor, regarding the
case.

A copy of the July 28 Memorandum Responding to Correspondence
Received from Frank L. D'Elia is available at https://is.gd/jjlLNq
from Leagle.com.

Fox Ortega Enterprises, Inc., Debtor, represented by:

         Stephen D. Finestone, Esq.
         Law Offices of Stephen D. Finestone
         456 Montgomery St # 20
         San Francisco, CA 94104
         Tel: 415-421-2624

Michael G. Kasolas, Trustee, represented by Elizabeth Berke-
Dreyfuss -- edreyfuss@wendel.com -- Mark Bostick --
mbostick@wendel.com -- Tracy Green -- tgreen@wendel.com -- Wendel,
Rosen, Black and Dean; and Aram Ordubegian --
aram.ordubegian@arentfox.com -- Arent Fox.


GC SERVICES: Sued in N.J. for Violating Fair Debt Collection Act
----------------------------------------------------------------
Danielle Pisarz, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated v. GC SERVICES LIMITED PARTNERSHIP and JOHN DOES 1-25,
Case No. 3:16-cv-04552-FLW-TJB (D.N.J., July 27, 2016), is brought
over alleged violations of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act.

GC Services, headquartered in Houston, Texas, is a company that
uses the mail, telephone, and facsimile and regularly engages in
business the principal purpose of which is to attempt to collect
debts alleged to be due another.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


GENNARO RESTAURANT: Violates Fair Labor Act, "Rahman" Suit Says
---------------------------------------------------------------
Mohammed B. Rahman, Goni Miah, Shahidul Alam Rony, Mohammed
Hossain, Papu Miah, Hussan Mahmud and Juned Ahmed Swopon, On
behalf of themselves and on behalf of others similarly situated v.
Gennaro Restaurant Inc., Gennaro Picone, In his professional
capacity, Gennaro Picone, In his individual capacity, Maurizo
Bibiano Fortunato, In his professional capacity, and Maurizo
Bibiano Fortunato, In his individual capacity, Case No. 1:16-cv-
06014 (S.D.N.Y., July 27, 2016), alleges violations of the Fair
Labor Standards Act.

Gennaro Restaurant Inc. is a New York domestic business
corporation.


GERBER PRODUCTS: "Slocum" Suit Escapes from Federal Jurisdiction
----------------------------------------------------------------
District Judge Nanette K. Laughrey remanded the case captioned,
JULIE SLOCUM, on behalf of herself and all other similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. GERBER PRODUCTS CO. d/b/a NESTLE
NUTRITION, NESTLE INFANT NUTRITION, and NESTLE NUTRITION NORTH
AMERICA, Defendant, No. 2:16-cv-04120-NKL (W.D. Mo.), to a
Missouri state court following the Defendant's failure to
demonstrate by a preponderance of evidence that a threshold of
US$5 million can be recovered to warrant federal jurisdiction.

The class action involves a claim arising under the Missouri
Merchandising Practices Act (MMPA) where Defendant is alleged to
have falsely and deceptively marketed its Gerber Good Start Gentle
line of infant formula products as the "1st and Only" routine
formula endorsed by the United States Food and Drug Administration
to reduce the risk of developing allergies.

Slocum originally filed this putative class action in the Circuit
Court of Pettis County on March 14, 2016.  On April 16, 2016,
Gerber removed the case to the Western District, contending that
the Court has original jurisdiction over the action pursuant to 28
U.S.C. Sec. 1332(d) and the Class Action Fairness Act of 2005
("CAFA").

The Class Action Fairness Act of 2005 (CAFA) grants subject matter
jurisdiction to federal district courts in class actions where (1)
any plaintiff has diversity of citizenship from any defendant, (2)
the total amount in controversy exceeds $5 million, and (3) the
alleged plaintiff class contains at least 100 members.

The Defendant contended that the Plaintiff's claim is comprised of
three components that together indicate that the amount in
controversy exceeds $5 million: (1) compensatory damages, (2)
punitive damages, and (3) attorneys' fees. However, the Court
finds that punitive damages will not be considered in determining
the amount in controversy since they have not been requested in
the petition. Likewise, even if the attorneys' fees would amount
to $2.7 million, citing the "Rizzo" case, the total amount in
controversy still would not exceed $5 million.

A copy of the Court's Decision dated July 25, 2016 is available at
http://goo.gl/SRBihzfrom Leagle.com.

Julie Slocum, Plaintiff, represented by Christopher S. Shank --
chriss@shankhamilton.com -- Shank & Moore, LLC, Stephen J. Moore -
- sjm@shankhamilton.com --  Shank & Moore LLC & David Lee
Heinemann -- davidh@shankmoore.com -- Shank & Moore, LLC.

Gerber Products Co, Defendant, represented by Geoffrey W. Castello
-- gcastello@kelleydrye.com -- One Jefferson Road, pro hac vice,
Erin M. Naeger -- erin.naeger@stinson.com -- Stinson Leonard
Street LLP & Jeremy A. Root -- jeremy.root@stinson.com -- Stinson
Leonard Street LLP.


GRACEY-DANNA INC: Evidence in "Arkin" Suit Has Preservation Order
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, DR. STEVEN ARKIN, a Florida resident, Individually
and as the representative of a Class of similarly situated
persons, Plaintiff, v. GRACEY-DANNA, INC., et. al., Defendants,
Case No. 8:16-cv-1717-T-35AAS (M.D. Fla.), Magistrate Judge Amanda
Arnold Sansone granted the Plaintiff's Motion to Preserve Evidence
from Westfax, Inc., a third-party fax broadcaster.

The case is a class action complaint alleging that Defendants
faxed advertisements to Plaintiff and others in violation of the
Telephone Consumer Protection Act. The transmission reports and
other electronic data that show which fax numbers received the
advertising faxes are within the possession of a nonparty
corporation, WestFax, Inc.

A federal court may issue preservation orders as part of its
inherent authority to manage its own proceedings. Meanwhile, the
Court held that the Plaintiff had satisfied the tests granting the
request for a preservation order. Thus, the Court directed
WestFax, Inc. to preserve the relevant items during the pendency
of the case.

A copy of the Court's Order dated July 22, 2016, is available at
http://goo.gl/bbjZcYfrom Leagle.com.

Steven Arkin, Plaintiff, represented by Ryan M. Kelly --
RKelly@andersonwanca.com -- Anderson & Wanca & Ross M. Good --
RGood@andersonwanca.com -- Anderson & Wanca.

Gracey-Danna, Inc., Defendant, represented by Jason Michael
Azzarone -- jazzarone@lacavajacobson.com -- La Cava & Jacobson,
PA.

MedPro Group Inc., et al., Defendants, represented by Monica L.
Irel -- monica.irel@dentons.com -- Dentons US LLP.


HILLTOP INVESTMENTS: Connolly Provides Affidavit in "Norfolk"
-------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned NORFOLK COUNTY RETIREMENT
SYSTEM, individually, and on behalf of all those similarly
situated, the Plaintiff, v. JOHN C. MALONE, GREGORY MAFFEI, CHRIS
ALBRECHT, IRVING AZOFF, ANDREW T. HELLER, SUSAN LYNE, JEFF
SAGANSKY, DANIEL SANCHEZ, CHARLES TANABE, ROBERT S. WIESENTHAL,
LESLIE MALONE, TRACY L. NEAL TRUST A, EVAN D. MALONE TRUST A,
ROBERT R. BENNETT, DEBORAH J. BENNETT, HILLTOP INVESTMENTS, LLC,
LIONS GATE ENTERTAINMENT CORP., ORION ARM ACQUISITION INC.,
LIONTREE ADVISORS LLC and STARZ, the Defendants, Case No. 12599
(Del. Chancery Ct., July 27, 2016), Mr. Joseph A. Connolly
provides an affidavit and verification on behalf of Norfolk County
Retirement System.

According to Mr. Connolly's affidavit, neither he nor Norfolk
County have received, been promised or offered and will not accept
any form of compensation directly or indirectly, for prosecuting
or serving as a representative party in this class action except:
(a) such damages or other relief as the Court may award Norfolk
County as a member of the class; (b) such fees, costs or other
payments as the Court expressly approves to be paid to Norfolk
County or on Norfolk County's behalf; or, (c) reimbursement, paid
by Norfolk County's attorneys, of actual and reasonable out-of-
pocket expenditures incurred directly in connection with the
prosecution of the action.

Hilltop is an investor located in Frankfort, Ohio.


HOOVESTOL INC: "Terry" Suit to Recover Overtime Pay
---------------------------------------------------
Richard Terry on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, and on behalf of the general public, Plaintiffs, v.
Hoovestol Inc. and Does 1-100, Defendants, Case No. RG16823879
(Cal. Super., July 20, 2016), seeks damages, injunctive relief,
declaratory relief and restitution for violation of Industrial
Welfare Commission Wage Order No. 9-1998, 9-2000 and 9-2001,
California Labor Code and the California Unfair Competition Law.

Hoovestol Inc., owns and operates trucks and industrial vehicles
at industrial work sites all over California where Plaintiff
worked as a truck driver. He claims to be denied overtime pay.

Plaintiff is represented by:

     William Turley, Esq.
     David Mara, Esq.
     Jill Veccchim Esq.
     CARLSON LYNCH SWEET & KILPELA, LLP
     74-28 Trade Street
     San Diego, CA 92121
     Telephone: (619) 234-2833
     Facsimile: (619) 234-4048


HOUSTON FUNDING: Texas Fraudulent Sues Over Illegal Collection
--------------------------------------------------------------
Texas Fraudulent Judgment Victims and all others similarly
situated v. Houston Funding Corp., Case No. DC-16-08598 (S.D.
Tex., July 18, 2016), seeks equitable relief, attorney's fees and
costs for violation of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act.

Defendant allegedly failed to provide original account-level
documentation in collecting a debt from the plaintiff and used
affidavits with system-generated signatures to deceive Texas
Judges into rendering judgments.

Defendant is a debt collector attempting to enforce and collect
the consumer judgments rendered against Plaintiff.

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Ross Teter, Esq.
      TETER LAW FIRM
      P.O. Box 815823
      Dallas, TX 75381-5823
      Tel: (214) 850-8095
      Fax: (972) 243-2510
      Email: rossteter.attorney@gmail.com


HOUSTON FUNDING II: Texas Fraudulent Sues Over Illegal Collection
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Texas Fraudulent Judgment Victims and all others similarly
situated v. Houston Funding Corp. II, Case No. DC-16-08600 (S.D.
Tex., July 18, 2016), seeks equitable relief, attorney's fees and
costs in violation of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act.

Defendant allegedly failed to provide original account-level
documentation in collecting a debt from the plaintiff and used
affidavits with system-generated signatures to deceive Texas
Judges into rendering judgments.

Defendant is a debt collector attempting to enforce and collect
the consumer judgments rendered against Plaintiff.

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Ross Teter, Esq.
      TETER LAW FIRM
      P.O. Box 815823
      Dallas, TX 75381-5823
      Tel: (214) 850-8095
      Fax: (972) 243-2510
      Email: rossteter.attorney@gmail.com


IMMEDIATE CREDIT: Accused by Schroeder of Violating TCPA in Cal.
----------------------------------------------------------------
David Menno Schroeder, Individually and On Behalf of All Others
Similarly Situated v. Immediate Credit Recovery, Inc., Case No.
3:16-cv-01899-CAB-BLM (S.D. Cal., July 27, 2016), accuses the
Defendant of violating the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of
1991.

Immediate Credit Recovery, Inc. operates a credit reporting agency
in New York.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Abbas Kazerounian, Esq.
          KAZEROUNIAN LAW GROUP, APC
          245 Fischer Avenue, Suite D1
          Costa Mesa, CA 92626
          Telephone: (800) 400-6808
          Facsimile: (800) 520-5523
          E-mail: ak@kazlg.com


INVESTOR INCOME: "He" Suit Can't Proceed as Class
-------------------------------------------------
District Judge James S. Gwin denied the Plaintiffs' motion for
class certification, in the case, RUI HE, et al., Plaintiffs, v.
DAVOR ROM, et al., Defendants, Case No. 15-cv-1869 (N.D. Ohio),
for failing to satisfy the Rule 23(a) requirements.

Plaintiffs Rui He, Xiaoguang Zheng, and Zhenfen Huang represent a
putative class of investors based in China who invested in, and
claimed to have been scammed by, American real estate investor
Davor Rom and his companies Investor Income Properties, LLC, IIP
Ohio, IIP Management, IIP Cleveland Regeneration, LLC, IIP
Cleveland Regeneration 2, LLC, Assets Unlimited, LLC, and IIP
Akron, LLC.

Fed.R.Civ.P. Rule 23(a)(2) provides that a class action may be
maintained only if there are questions of law or fact common to
the class. In the case, the Court found that the Plaintiffs' class
action claims depend on individualized issues of reliance,
causation, and damage. There is no uniform question at issue over
the property purchased of each proposed class members.

In addition, Rule 23(a)(3) provides that a class action may be
maintained only if the claims or defenses of the representative
parties are typical of the claims or defenses of the class. Based
on the findings of the Court, the determination of one plaintiff
might not be binding on another class member who saw wholly
different advertising, and purchased a home based on different
representations. Thus, the Plaintiff has not shown the typicality
required for class certification.

A copy of the Court's Decision dated July 25, 2016, is available
at http://goo.gl/XQ5I9Hfrom Leagle.com.

Rui He, et al., Plaintiffs, represented by David J. Kovach --
djk@licatalaw.com -- Licata Law Group & Lei Jiang.

Davor Rom, Defendant, represented by Jeffrey W. Krueger --
jeffk@condenilaw.com

Investor Income Properties LLC, et al., Defendants, represented by
Jonathan H. Krol -- jkrol@reminger.com -- Reminger & Reminger,
Joseph E. Cavasinni -- jcavasinni@reminger.com -- Reminger &
Reminger & Matthew B. Barbara -- mbarbara@reminger.com -- Reminger
& Reminger.


JACK STEPHAN: "Amador" Suit Seeks Minimum Wage Under Labor Code
---------------------------------------------------------------
RUBEN AMADOR, an individual, STEPHEN BARNES, an individual, JOSE
ALFREDO MORAN, an individual, for themselves and on behalf of
others similarly situated, the Plaintiffs, v. JACK STEPHAN
PLUMBING AND HEATING, INC., a corporation, and DOES 1-10,
inclusive, the Defendants, Case No. BC628401 (Cal. Super. Ct.,
July 27, 2016), seeks to recover minimum wage, liquidated damages,
interest, reasonable attorney's fees, and costs of suit, pursuant
to California Labor Code.

The Defendants required Plaintiffs and the Class to work in excess
of 8 hours per work day and/or 40 hours in one work week without
paying them one-and-one-half times their regular hour rate (or
double time hours for hours worked in excess of 12 hours per day).

Jack Stephan offers plumbing, heating, cooling, drain service
repairs, maintenance or installation.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          James H. Cordes, Esq.
          831 State Street, Suite 205
          Santa Barbara, CA 93101
          Telephone: (805) 965 6800
          Facsimile: (805) 965 5556

           - and -

          Timothy B. Sottile, Esq.
          Michael F. Baltaxe, Esq.
          Jeremy D. Scherwin, Esq.
          Payam I. Aframian, Esq.
          SOTTILE BALTAXE
          4360 Park Terrace Drive, Suite 140
          Westlake Village, CA 91361
          Telephone: (818) 889 0050
          Facsimile: (818) 889 6050


JACKPOT JOANIES: Court Consents to Amendments in "Littlefield"
--------------------------------------------------------------
Magistrate Judge Carl W. Hoffman granted the parties' stipulation
to amend pleadings in the case, HEATHER LITTLEFIELD, an
individual, Plaintiff, v. JACKPOT JOANIES T.J., LLC, et al.,
Defendants, Case No. 2:16-cv-00471-JAD-CWH (D. Nev.). The parties
sought amendments to their pleadings after the exchange of initial
disclosures, which was held pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil
Procedure Rule 26.

The case involves the Defendants' failure to compensate its
employees for all regular and overtime hours worked as required by
the Fair Labor Standards Act.

The Complaint will contain additional facts with respect to
Plaintiff's claims and to include an additional plaintiff.
Defendants, on the other hand, would include a Counterclaim, which
was absent in their initial submission. Pursuant to the
stipulation, Defendants may then file a responsive pleading within
21 days of the date of the Court's Order.

In the case, the Plaintiff asks the Court: (1) For an order
conditionally certifying the Collective Class as a collective
action and certifying the Collective Class as alleged; (2) For an
order certifying the Nevada Class pursuant to Rule 23 of the
Federal Rules of Civil Procedure; (3) Designation of Plaintiffs as
the class representatives for the Collective Class and the Nevada
Class; (4) Compensatory damages for Plaintiffs and the Classes;
(5) For liquidated damages on behalf of Plaintiffs and the
Collective Class pursuant to 29 U.S.C. Sec. 216(b); (6) For
exemplary damages on behalf of Plaintiffs and the Nevada Class;
(7) For disgorgement and/or restitution as the Court deems
appropriate, just, and proper; (8) For reasonable attorney fees
for all services performed by counsel in connection with the
prosecution of these claims; (9) For reimbursement for all costs
and expenses incurred in connection with the prosecution of these
claims; and (10) For any and all other relief this Court may deem
appropriate.

A copy of the Court's order dated July 25, 2016 is available at
http://goo.gl/Q6V2hcfrom Leaagle.com.

Heather Littlefield, et al., Plaintiffs, represented by Jennifer
Fornetti -- jfornetti@bourassalawgroup.com -- The Bourassa Law
Group, LLC,  Trent L. Richards -- trichards@bourassalawgroup.com -
- The Bourassa Law Group, LLC & Mark J. Bourassa --
mbourassa@bourassalawgroup.com  -- The Bourassa Law Group, LLC.

Jackpot Joanies T.J., LLC, et al., Defendants, represented by
Kathryn Blakey -- kblakey@littler.com -- Littler Mendelson, PC &
Wendy M. Krincek -- wkrincek@littler.com -- Littler Mendelson, PC.


JAGAT ISLAND: Rob Seeks Unpaid Minimum Wages Under FLSA
-------------------------------------------------------
MD ABDUR ROB, MOJAMMEL HOSSAIN, and MOHAMMAD ISMAIL, on behalf of
themselves and all other similarly-situated employees, the
Plaintiffs, v. JAGAT ISLAND CORP., UNION ISLAND CORP., RAM JAN OIL
CORP., MARCY AVENUE ISLAND CORP., JAMAICA ISLAND CORP., EASTERN
ISLAND INC., FLUSHING ISLAND CORP., COOPER ISLAND INC., HOLLIS
ISLAND CORP., JAMAICA GAS CORP., ANJALI OIL COMPANY INC., RAM JAN,
in his individual and professional capacities, RAMESH SINGLA, in
his individual and professional capacities, and RAJ
SINGLA, in his individual and professional capacities, the
Defendants, Case No. 1:16-cv-04176 (E.D.N.Y., July 27, 2016),
seeks to recover unpaid minimum wages, unpaid overtime wages,
straight time wages owed, "spread of hours" pay owed, amounts
unlawfully deducted from wages, statutory damages owed, and costs
of cleaning uniforms, plus an additional amount as liquidated
damages, plus attorneys' fees and costs, pursuant to the Fair
Labor Standards Act (FLSA) and the New York Labor Law (NYLL).

The Defendants, who own and operate gas stations located in
Brooklyn and Queens, have flagrantly committed wage and hour
violations against Plaintiffs and the class and collective of
Cashiers, Attendants and Gas Pumpers that Plaintiffs seek to
represent, who have dutifully and loyally worked for and devoted
the vast majority of their waking hours to them for years.

Jagat operates gas & service stations.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          David E. Gottlieb, Esq.
          Tanvir H. Rahman, Esq.
          WIGDOR LLP
          85 Fifth Avenue
          New York, NY 10003
          Telephone: (212) 257 6800
          Facsimile: (212) 257 6845
          E-mail: dgottlieb@wigdorlaw.com
                  trahman@wigdorlaw.com


JEFFERSON CAPITAL: Faces "Matanane" Suit for Violating RICO Act
---------------------------------------------------------------
Martin Matanane and Bridgett Woods, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated v. Jefferson Capital Systems, LLC,
dba Jefferson Capital International, LLC; Edwards Capital, LLC,
dba Flexpoint Ford, LLC; CL Holdings, LLC; Jonathan Kirby; and
Does 1-50, Case No. 3:16-cv-01897-DMS-MDD (S.D. Cal., July 27,
2016), accuses the Defendants of violating the Racketeer
Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act.

Jefferson Capital Systems, LLC, is a Georgia limited liability
company.  Jefferson operates a nationwide debt collection business
and attempts to collect debts from consumers in virtually every
state.  Jefferson is a bad debt buyer that buys large portfolios
of defaulted consumer debts for pennies on the dollar, which it
then collects upon through other collection agencies.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Joshua Swigart, Esq.
          HYDE & SWIGART
          2221 Camino Del Rio South, Suite 101
          San Diego, CA 92108
          Telephone: (619) 233-7770
          Facsimile: (619) 297-1022
          E-mail: josh@westcoastlitigation.com


JOHN MALONE: Sued by Cambridge Over Merger of Starz & Lions Gate
----------------------------------------------------------------
CITY OF CAMBRIDGE RETIREMENT SYSTEM, on behalf of itself and all
other similarly situated stockholder of STARZ v. JOHN MALONE,
GREGORY MAFFEI, CHRIS ALBRECHT, IRVING AZOFF, ANDREW T. HELLER,
SUSAN LYNE, JEFF SAGANSKY, DAN SANCHEZ, CHARLES TANABE, ROBERT S.
WIESENTHAL, LESLIE MALONE, THE TRACEY L. NEAL TRUST A, THE EVAN D.
MALONE TRUST A, ROBERT R. BENNETT, DEBORAH J. BENNETT, HILLTOP
INVESTMENTS, LLC, LIONS GATE ENTERTAINMENT CORP., AND ORION ARM
ACQUISITION INC., Case No. 12598 (Del. Ch., July 26, 2016),
accuses the Defendants of breaching their fiduciary duties (or
aiding and abetting such breaches) in connection with the proposed
merger between Starz and Lions Gate.

The City of Cambridge Retirement System is a Starz Series A
stockholder.

Non-Party Starz is a publicly-traded corporation organized and
existing under the laws of the state of Delaware and headquartered
in Englewood, Colorado.  Starz has two classes of shares
outstanding: Series A and Series B.  Series A shares have one vote
per share on matters presented to stockholders and Series B shares
have 10 votes per share.

John Malone owns 5,832,000 Starz Series B shares which, in
combination with an irrevocable voting proxy from Lions Gate,
constitute 48.1% of Starz's voting power.  He is a director of
Lions Gate.  He served as a director of Starz from December 2010
to January 2013.  The other Individual Defendants are directors
and officers of Starz.

In addition to securing a deal that favors his own interests if it
is consummated, Mr. Malone entered into a "Stock Exchange
Agreement" with Lions Gate that deters potential alternative
bidders from making a superior proposal and coerces public
stockholders into voting in favor of the Proposed Transaction that
will give him voting stock in the combined company, the Plaintiff
alleges.

Hilltop Investments, LLC is a private investment company
controlled by Robert R. Bennett.  Hilltop is a party to the Stock
Exchange Agreement.

Lions Gate Entertainment Corp. is incorporated in Vancouver,
British Columbia, Canada, and headquartered in Santa Monica,
California.  Mr. Malone is a director of Lions Gate.  Orion Arm
Acquisition Inc. is a Delaware corporation and an indirect wholly
owned subsidiary of Lions Gate formed for the purpose of
effectuating the Proposed Transaction.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Stuart M. Grant, Esq.
          John C. Kairis, Esq.
          Jeremy S. Cole, Esq.
          GRANT & EISENHOFER P.A.
          123 Justison Street
          Wilmington, DE 19801
          Telephone: (302) 622-7000
          Facsimile: (302) 622-7100
          E-mail: sgrant@gelaw.com
                  jkairis@gelaw.com
                  jcole@gelaw.com

           - and -

          Mark Lebovitch, Esq.
          Jeroen van Kwawegen, Esq.
          John Vielandi, Esq.
          BERNSTEIN LITOWITZ BERGER & GROSSMANN LLP
          1251 Avenue of the Americas
          New York, NY 10020
          Telephone: (212) 554-1400
          Facsimile: (212) 554-1444
          E-mail: markl@blbglaw.com
                  jeroen@blbglaw.com
                  john.vielandi@blbglaw.com


JQD LLC: "Spolar" Files Suit Over FDCPA Violation
-------------------------------------------------
Steven A. Spolar, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. JQD, LLC, and Does 1 through 10,
inclusive, Defendants, Case No. RG16823925 (Cal. Super., July 20,
2016), seeks declaratory and injunctive relief, restitution,
statutory damages, pre-judgment and post-judgment interest and
reasonable attorney's fees for violation of the Fair Debt
Collection Act.

JQD, LLC operates as Pro Solutions, a California limited liability
company with principal place of business in Pittsburg, California
and is engaged in debt collection activities throughout the State
of California.

Plaintiff received collection letters from the Defendant bearing
the statement "HOA ASSESSMENT COLLECTION" on the envelope and
alleges that it caused embarrassment, emotional harm and invasion
of his privacy.

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Monique Olivier, Esq.
      J. Erik Heath, Esq.
      DUCKWORTH PETERS LEBOWITZ OLIVER LLP
      100 Bush Street, Suite 1800
      San Francisco, CA 94104
      Telephone: (415) 433-0333
      Facsimile: (415) 449-6556
      Email: monigue@dplolaw.com
             erik@dplolaw.com

        - and -

      Geoffrey E. Wiggs (SBN 276041)
      LAW OFFICES OF GEOFF WIGGS
      1900 South Norfolk Street, Suite 350
      San Mateo, CA 94403-1171
      Telephone Number: (650) 577-5952
      Facsimile Number: (650) 577-5953
      Email: geoff@wiggslaw.com


KINGS COUNTY, CA: "Acord" Petition Faces Dismissal
--------------------------------------------------
In the case, RICHARD C. ACORD, Petitioner, v. KINGS COUNTY, CA,
Respondent, Case No. 1:16-cv-00987-JLT (E.D. Calif.), Magistrate
Judge Jennifer L. Thurston dismissed Petitioner's habeas corpus
petition, absent showing of any requested relief that would affect
the Petitioner.

A habeas corpus petition is the correct method for a prisoner to
challenge the legality or duration of his confinement. However,
the petition does not challenge the fact or duration of the
Petitioner's confinement. The petition even lacks allegation that
the Petitioner is the one who would benefit from the proposed
public defender's office.

The Court held that a petition should be dismissed if it plainly
appears from the face of the petition that the petitioner is not
entitled to relief.

The Court further orders the Petitioner to avail other legal
avenue such as civil rights complaint or a class action suit,
should the Petitioner wish to pursue his claims against the
Defendant.

A copy of the Court's Order dated July 25, 2016 is available at
http://goo.gl/A9ylWMfrom Leagle.com.


LANCASTER SCHOOL DISTRICT: Faces "Issa" Discrimination Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------
Khadidja Issa, Q.M.H., a minor, individually by and through his
parent Faisa Ahmed Abdalla, Alembe Dunia, V.N.L. a minor
individually by and through her parent, Mar Ki, Sui Hnem Sung and
all others similarly situated, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. The School District of
Lancaster, Defendants, Case No. 5:16-cv-03881 (E.D.P.A., July 19,
2016), sues over discrimination in violation of civil rights.

The School District of Lancaster allegedly refused to enroll older
immigrant students with limited English proficiency rather than
allowing them to attend the district's regular high school. The
plaintiffs include six refugees aged 17-21 from Somalia, Sudan,
Democratic Republic of Congo and Burma.

Plaintiff is represented by:

     Eric J. Rothschild, Esq.
     PEPPER, HAMILTON AND SCHEETZ
     3000 Two Logan Square
     Philadelphia, PA 19103-2799
     Tel: (215) 981-4750


LENDINGCLUB CORP: Time to Reply to "Stadnicki" Suit Extended
------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, BART STADNICKI, Derivatively and on Behalf of Nominal
Defendant LENDINGCLUB CORPORATION, Plaintiff, v. RENAUD LAPLANCHE,
et al., Defendants, and LENDINGCLUB CORPORATION, a Delaware
corporation, Nominal Defendant, Case No. 16-CV-3072-JCS (N.D.
Calif.), District Judge Joseph C. Spero granted the parties'
stipulation to extend time to respond on a consolidated complaint
to be filed following the August 15, 2016 appointment of the lead
plaintiff.

The Court ordered that: (1) No later than 30 days after the filing
of the consolidated complaint in the related Class Actions,
Plaintiff will either file an amended derivative complaint or
notify Defendants of his intention to proceed with the existing
complaint; (2) No later than 30 days after Plaintiff has either
filed an amended derivative complaint or notified Defendants of
his intention to proceed with the existing complaint, LendingClub
will file a motion to dismiss the Derivative Action for failure to
allege demand futility (Demand Futility Motion); and (3) None of
the Defendants need to respond to the operative complaint pending
resolution of the Demand Futility Motion.

The deadlines for Defendants to move, answer or otherwise respond
to the complaint in the Derivative Actions, prior to the
consolidation, are initially set for August 12, 2016 and August
15, 2016, respectively.

A copy of the Court's decision dated July 21, 2016 is available at
http://goo.gl/HAQVPMfrom Leagle.com.

Bart Stadnicki, Plaintiff, represented by Frank James Johnson --
frankj@johnsonandweaver.com -- Johnson & Weaver, LLP, Michael I.
Fistel, Jr. -- michaelf@johnsonandweaver.com -- Johnson & Weaver,
LLP & Phong L. Tran -- PhongT@johnsonandweaver.com -- Johnson &
Weaver LLP.

LendingClub Corporation, et al., Defendants, represented by Kevin
Peter Muck -- kmuck@fenwick.com -- Fenwick & West LLP, Carly Lee
Bittman -- cbittman@fenwick.com -- Fenwick and West LLP, Jay L.
Pomerantz -- jpomerantz@fenwick.com -- Fenwick & West LLP, Nair
Diana Chang -- dchang@fenwick.com -- Fenwick & West LLP &
Sebastian Elan Kaplan -- skaplan@fenwick.com -- Fenwick and West
LLP.


LIBERTY POINT: Texas Fraudulent Sues Over Illegal Collection
------------------------------------------------------------
Texas Fraudulent Judgment Victims and all others similarly
situated v. Liberty Point Funding LLC, Case No. DC-16-08560 (S.D.
Tex., July 18, 2016), seeks equitable relief, attorney's fees and
costs in violation of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act.

Defendant allegedly failed to provide original account-level
documentation in collecting a debt from the plaintiff and used
affidavits with system-generated signatures to deceive Texas
Judges into rendering judgments.

Defendant is a debt collector attempting to enforce and collect
the consumer judgments rendered against Plaintiff.

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Ross Teter, Esq.
      TETER LAW FIRM
      P.O. Box 815823
      Dallas, TX 75381-5823
      Tel: (214) 850-8095
      Fax: (972) 243-2510
      Email: rossteter.attorney@gmail.com


LICCIARDELLO'S SANITATION: Defendants Ordered to Obtain Counsel
---------------------------------------------------------------
Magistrate Judge Philip R. Lammens gave Defendants additional time
to obtain counsel and file a notice of appearance -- on or before
October 14, 2016 -- in the case captioned, ED O'HARA, et al., and
others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. LICCIARDELLO'S
SANITATION SERVICES, INC. and AARON LICCIARDELLO, Defendants, Case
No. 5:16-cv-272-Oc-34PRL (M.D. Fla.).

Granting that Defendants are unable to obtain counsel, Mr.
Licciardello, owner of the Defendant corporation, shall file a
notice advising the Court on or before October 14.

The rule is well established that a corporation is an artificial
entity that can act only through agents, cannot appear pro se, and
must be represented by counsel. In the case, Mr. Licciardello
appeared on behalf of the Defendant corporation addressing the
putative class action filed by Petitioners regarding alleged
unpaid overtime under the Fair Labor Standards Act.

The Court further ordered the following: (1) Plaintiffs' motion to
strike is due to be granted in part. To the extent that
Defendant's motion to dismiss is filed on behalf of the corporate
defendant, Licciardello's Sanitation Services, Inc., it is hereby
stricken, but shall remain as filed; (2) Defendant's Motion to
Dismiss will be addressed by the undersigned in a separate Report
and Recommendation; (3) Plaintiffs' oral motion to strike
Defendant's Verified Summary is granted. The Clerk is directed to
strike and remove from the docket Documents 52-60 of the case,
including any exhibits and attachments;  and (4) Within 14 days of
the date of the Order, Plaintiff Gabriel Nadal shall file Answers
to the Court's Interrogatories, failing which the undersigned will
recommend dismissal of his claim.

A copy of the Court's Order dated July 15, 2016 is available at
http://goo.gl/n8Fdnefrom Leagle.com.

Ed O'Hara, et al., Plaintiffs, represented by Constantine W. Papas
-- cwp@deanpapaslaw.com -- Law Office of Constantine W. Papas, PA.


LOS ANGELES, CA: Sued Over Improper Repair of Storm Drains
----------------------------------------------------------
HOUSHANG AND FARIVASH BEROUKHIM, Individuals and Husband
and Wife, Plaintiffs, v. CITY OF LOS ANGELES, a municipal
corporation; and DOES 1-20, inclusive, the Defendants, Case No.
BC628351 (Cal. Super. Ct., July 27, 2016), seeks compensation and
damages from the harm suffered by Plaintiffs as a result of
Defendants' improper design, construction, installation,
maintenance and repair of the storm drains and sewers located on
Readcrest Drive in the City of Los Angeles.

The Plaintiffs' Property sustained significant damage from
effluence and sewage that poured into the Property as a result of
Defendants' conduct necessitating the immediate removal and
subsequent cleaning, as well as the vacation of the Property by
Plaintiffs for a period of one week while the cleaning was
underway.

Los Angeles is a sprawling Southern California city famed as the
center of the nation's film and television industry.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Glenn T. Rosen, Esq.
          THE ROSEN LAW FIRM
          2001 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 210
          Santa Monica, CA 90403
          Telephone: (310) 857 5299
          Facsimile: (310) 315 1557
          E-mail: glenn@rosenlawfirm.info


LPL FINANCIAL: Retirement Fund Appointed as Lead Plaintiff
----------------------------------------------------------
In the case, CHARTER TOWNSHIP OF CLINTON POLICE AND FIRE
RETIREMENT SYSTEM, Individually and on Behalf of All Others
Similarly Situated, Plaintiff, v. LPL FINANCIAL HOLDINGS INC., et
al., Defendants, Case No. 16cv685 BTM(BGS), (S.D. Cal.), Chief
District Judge Barry Ted Moskowitz approved Soft Drink and Brewery
Workers Union Local 812 Retirement Fund's motion for appointment
as lead plaintiff on behalf of all purchasers of the Defendants'
common stock between the Class Period of December 8, 2015 and
February 11, 2016.

The case involves the alleged artificial inflation of Defendants'
common stock prices.

In a class litigation, the Court shall appoint as lead plaintiff
the member or members of the purported plaintiff class that the
court determines to be most capable of adequately representing the
interests of class members and the one who has the largest
financial interest in the relief sought by the class who otherwise
satisfies the "typicality and adequacy" requirements of Rule 23 of
the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.

The Court upheld Plaintiff Retirement Fund's unopposed belief that
with its losses of approximately $78,902 in connection with its
purchase of 12,500 shares of LPL common stock, it has the largest
financial interest in the relief sought by the class. In addition,
Plaintiff's claims are also the same types of misrepresentations
and omissions and legal theories as the class claims and its
counsel do not conflict with the interests of other class members.

The Court also approved the Retirement Fund's selection of Robbins
Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP as lead counsel.

A copy of the Court's decision dated July 21, 2016 is available at
http://goo.gl/W3x47qfrom Leagle.com.

Charter Township of Clinton Police and Fire Retirement System, et
al., Plaintiffs, represented by David C. Walton --
davew@rgrdlaw.com -- Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP & Tricia L.
McCormick -- triciam@rgrdlaw.com -- Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd
LLP.

LPL Financial Holdings Inc., et al., Defendants, represented by
Richard Lawrence Gallagher -- richard.gallagher@ropesgray.com --
Ropes & Gray LLP.


LUMBER LIQUIDATORS: Faces "Bolin" Product Liability Class Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Billy Bolin an individual, on behalf of himself and all others
similarly situated v. Lumber Liquidators, Inc., Case No. 3:16-cv-
00590-HTW-LRA (S.D. Miss., July 27, 2016), asserts product
liability claims.

Lumber Liquidators is a Delaware corporation with its principal
place of business located in Toano, Virginia.  Lumber Liquidators
is a wholly-owned subsidiary of Lumber Liquidators
Holdings, Inc.  Lumber Liquidators manufactures, designs,
constructs, assembles, markets, distributes, and sells
manufactured composite laminate and engineered wood flooring.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          James R. Reeves, Jr., Esq.
          REEVES & MESTAYER, PLLC
          P.O. Drawer 1388
          Biloxi, MS 39533
          Telephone: (228) 374-5151
          Facsimile: (228) 374-6630
          E-mail: jrr@rmlawcall.com


LUTEA LLC: Texas Fraudulent Sues Over Illegal Collection
--------------------------------------------------------
Texas Fraudulent Judgment Victims and all others similarly
situated v. Lutea LLC, Case No. DC-16-08569 (S.D. Tex., July 18,
2016), seeks equitable relief, attorney's fees and costs in
violation of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act.

Defendant allegedly failed to provide original account-level
documentation in collecting a debt from the plaintiff and used
affidavits with system-generated signatures to deceive Texas
Judges into rendering judgments.

Defendant is a debt collector attempting to enforce and collect
the consumer judgments rendered against Plaintiff.

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Ross Teter, Esq.
      TETER LAW FIRM
      P.O. Box 815823
      Dallas, TX 75381-5823
      Tel: (214) 850-8095
      Fax: (972) 243-2510
      Email: rossteter.attorney@gmail.com


MAIN STREET: Texas Fraudulent Sues Over Illegal Collection
----------------------------------------------------------
Texas Fraudulent Judgment Victims and all others similarly
situated v. Main Street Acquisition Corp., Case No. DC-16-08603
(S.D. Tex., July 18, 2016), seeks equitable relief, attorney's
fees and costs in violation of the Fair Debt Collection Practices
Act.

Defendant allegedly failed to provide original account-level
documentation in collecting a debt from the plaintiff and used
affidavits with system-generated signatures to deceive Texas
Judges into rendering judgments.

Defendant is a debt collector attempting to enforce and collect
the consumer judgments rendered against Plaintiff.

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Ross Teter, Esq.
      TETER LAW FIRM
      P.O. Box 815823
      Dallas, TX 75381-5823
      Tel: (214) 850-8095
      Fax: (972) 243-2510
      Email: rossteter.attorney@gmail.com


MARGIE'S CANDIES: "Marin" Suit Seeks Overtime Wages Under FLSA
--------------------------------------------------------------
Socorro Marin, on behalf of herself and all other similarly
situated persons, known and unknown, the Plaintiffs, v. Margie's
Candies, the Defendant, Case No. 1:16-cv-07629 (N.D. Ill., July
27, 2016), seeks to recover overtime wages for hours worked in
excess of 40 hours in a workweek in violation of the Fair Labor
Standards Act (FLSA) and the Illinois Minimum Wage Law (IMWL).

The Plaintiff also seeks redress under the Municipal Code of
Chicago Minimum Wage Ordinance for Defendant's failure to
compensate her at least the city of Chicago mandated minimum wage
rate.

Margie's Candies is the name of two popular confectioneries on the
north side of Chicago, Illinois. Owned by the same family, each
one is part candy store and part sit-down ice cream parlor.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Raisa Alicea, Esq.
          CONSUMER LAW GROUP, LLC
          6232 N. Pulaski, Suite 200
          Chicago, IL 60646
          Telephone: (312) 800 1017
          E-mail: ralicea@yourclg.com


MEADOWBROOK MEAT: Sept. 15 Hearing on Final Settlement Approval
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, THOMAS D. TAYLOR, JR., an individual, Plaintiff, v.
MEADOWBROOK MEAT COMPANY INC.; and DOES 1-100, inclusive,
Defendant, Case No. 3:15-CV-00132-LB (N.D. Calif.), Magistrate
Judge Laurel Beeler granted the Defendant's Notice of Request
regarding their counsels' appearance by telephone at a hearing
scheduled on September 15, 2016.

The hearing is concerned with the final approval of class action
settlement and the application for attorney's fees, costs,
incentive award, and class administration fee.

A copy of the Court's Order dated July 15, 2016 is available at
http://goo.gl/GwpIjPfrom Leagle.com.

Thomas D Taylor, Jr., Plaintiff, represented by Nicholas John
Scardigli -- nscardigli@mayallaw.com -- Mayall Hurley PC, Salwa
Khader Haddad -- shaddad@mayallaw.com -- Mayall Hurley PC,
Vladimir J. Kozina -- vjkozina@mayallaw.com -- Mayall Hurley, P.C.
& William Joseph Gorham, III -- jabbott@mayallaw.com -- Mayall
Hurley Knutsen Smith & Green.

Meadowbrook Meat Company, Inc., Defendant, represented by Emily
Grace Camastra -- emilycamastra@gmail.com -- Swerdlow Florence
Sanchez Swerdlow Wimmer, Matthew C. Kane -- mkane@mcguirewoods.com
-- McGuireWoods LLP & David Alan Wimmer - Dwimmer@swerdlowlaw.com
-- Swerdlow Florence Sanchez Swerdlow & Wimmer.


MEDCO HEALTH: Defendants' Calls Are Covered Exception in TCPA
-------------------------------------------------------------
District Judge Catherine D. Perry of the Eastern District of
Missouri, Eastern Division, granted defendants' motion for summary
judgment in the case JENNIFER ROBERTS, individually and on behalf
of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. MEDCO HEALTH
SOLUTIONS, INC., et al., Defendants, Case No. 4:15 CV 1368 CDP
(E.D. Mo.)

Jennifer Roberts purchased a pre-paid cell phone and was assigned
a phone number that had previously been assigned to someone else.
Shortly thereafter, she began receiving automated calls from Medco
Health Solutions and Accredo Group, Inc. that were intended to
reach the former owners of the number.

The prior owners of the phone number were family members Wife,
Husband, and Son, for whom defendants, who are pharmacy benefit
managers, provided prescription and health benefit services. Each
of the family members was receiving one or more prescription
medications from defendants that would have been important to
their continued health.

Roberts alleges that defendants Medco and Accredo placed more than
100 calls to her cell phone number without obtaining her consent.
She claims the calls violated the Telephone Consumer Protection
Act, 48 U.S.C. Section 227, as well as the Missouri Merchandising
Practices Act, Mo. Rev. Stat. Section 407.1076, and she has
brought the case both individually and as a class action. Roberts
is claiming only that the defendants violated the TCPA by using an
artificial or prerecorded voice. She has not asserted any TCPA
violation arising from the use of an automatic telephone dialing
system.

The parties filed cross-motions for summary judgment on Robert's
individual claims, and no class certification proceedings have
been held.

Judge Perry granted defendants' motion for summary judgment as to
plaintiff's first cause of action and ordered the dismissal of the
second cause of action without prejudice. All other pending
motions are denied as moot.

The Judge said, "The summary judgment briefing was rife with
disputed facts, including the total number of calls made, whether
the calls were consented to, and whether defendants were on notice
that plaintiff was not the intended call recipient. But the facts
disputed in the briefs are not material to this decision. . . .
[O]nly five phone calls are at issue in this matter, and the
content of those is undisputed. I conclude that all five fall
under the TCPA exception for calls made for an emergency purpose.
Defendants' motion for summary judgment will therefore be granted
as to Roberts' TCPA claim. Additionally, both because the federal
Missouri Merchandising Protection Act claim is now dismissed and
because Roberts' MPA claim raises a novel and complex issue of
state law, I decline to exercise jurisdiction over her Missouri
claim, and it will be dismissed without prejudice. See 28 U.S.C.
Sec. 1367(c)."

A copy of Judge Perry's memorandum and order dated July 26, 2016,
is available at http://goo.gl/r2CxJofrom Leagle.com.

Jennifer Roberts, Plaintiff, represented by Alicia E. Hwang --
ahwang@edelson.com -- Ari J. Scharg -- ascharg@edelson.com -- at
EDELSON PC; Ann E. Callis -- acallis@ghalaw.com -- Kevin Paul
Green -- kevin@ghalaw.com -- Thomas P. Rosenfeld -- tom@ghalaw.com
-- at GOLDENBERG HELLER, PC

Defendants, represented by Christopher A. Smith --
chris.smith@huschblackwell.com -- Matthew D. Knepper --
matt.knepper@huschblackwell.com -- at HUSCH BLACKWELL, LLP


MERRIMAN: Texas Fraudulent Sues Over Illegal Collection
-------------------------------------------------------
Texas Fraudulent Judgment Victims and all others similarly
situated v. Merriman Investments LLC, Case No. DC-16-08565 (S.D.
Tex., July 18, 2016), seeks equitable relief, attorney's fees and
costs in violation of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act.

Defendant allegedly failed to provide original account-level
documentation in collecting a debt from the plaintiff and used
affidavits with system-generated signatures to deceive Texas
Judges into rendering judgments.

Defendant is a debt collector attempting to enforce and collect
the consumer judgments rendered against Plaintiff.

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Ross Teter, Esq.
      TETER LAW FIRM
      P.O. Box 815823
      Dallas, TX 75381-5823
      Tel: (214) 850-8095
      Fax: (972) 243-2510
      Email: rossteter.attorney@gmail.com


METROPOLITAN PROPERTY: Removes "Ware" Class Suit to M.D. Alabama
----------------------------------------------------------------
Metropolitan Property and Casualty Insurance Company, et al.,
removed the lawsuit titled Ware, et al. v. Metropolitan Property
and Casualty Insurance Company, et al., Case No. 62-cv-16-
900062.00, from the Circuit Court of Tallapoosa County, Alabama,
to the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Alabama
(Opelika).  The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 3:16-cv-
00617-CDL-SRW to the proceeding.

Metropolitan Property and Casualty Insurance Company is a Delaware
corporation with its principal place of business in Warwick, Rhode
Island.  The Defendants are insurance companies.

Plaintiffs Gregory Ware and Sharon Ware, individually and on
behalf of all other Alabama residents similarly situated, are
represented by:

          David Paul Martin, Esq.
          THE MARTIN LAW GROUP, LLC
          2117 Jack Warner Parkway; Suite 1
          Tuscaloosa, AL 35401
          Telephone: (205) 343-1771
          Facsimile: (205) 343-1781
          E-mail: davidpmartin@erisacase.com

            - and -

          Erik D. Peterson, Esq.
          M. Austin Mehr, Esq.
          Philip G. Fairbanks, Esq.
          MEHR FAIRBANKS & PETERSON TRIAL LAWYERS PLLC
          201 West Short Street, Suite 800
          Lexington, KY 40507
          Telephone: (859) 225-3731
          Facsimile: (859) 225-3830
          E-mail: edp@austinmehr.com
                  amehr@austinmehr.com
                  pgf@austinmehr.com

Defendants Metropolitan Property and Casualty Insurance Company,
Metropolitan Group Property and Casualty Insurance Company,
Metropolitan Casualty Insurance Company, Metropolitan Direct
Property and Casualty Insurance Company and Metropolitan General
Insurance Company are represented by:

          Edward Morris Holt, Esq.
          Lee Edmundson Bains, Jr., Esq.
          Prim Formby Escalona, Esq.
          Thomas Julian Butler, Esq.
          MAYNARD, COOPER & GALE, P.C.
          1901 Sixth Avenue North
          2400 Regions/Harbert Plaza
          Birmingham, AL 35203-2618
          Telephone: (205) 254-1102
          Facsimile: (205) 254-1999
          E-mail: tholt@maynardcooper.com
                  lbains@maynardcooper.com
                  pescalona@maynardcooper.com
                  tbutler@maynardcooper.com


MINNESOTA: Human Services Dept. Faces Civil Rights Breach Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Kenneth Steven Daywitt and other similarly situated v. Minnesota
Department of Human Services, Minnesota Sex Offender Program,
Emily Johnson Piper, Jannine Hebert, Peter Puffer, Jim Berg, Jerry
Fjerkenstad and Katherine Lockie, in their individual and official
capacities, Case No. 0:16-cv-02541-MJD-LIB (D. Minn., July 27,
2016), alleges violations of the Civil Rights Act.

In 1994, the Minnesota Legislature enacted the Minnesota Civil
Commitment and Treatment Act: Sexually Dangerous Persons and
Sexual Psychopathic Personalities, which provides for the
involuntary civil commitment of any individual, who is found by a
court to be a "sexually dangerous person" or a "sexual
psychopathic personality" to the Minnesota Sex Offender Program.
The MSOP provides housing for its civilly committed residents in
three facilities, which include the secure treatment facility in
Moose Lake, Minnesota; the secure treatment facility in St. Peter,
Minnesota; and the Community Preparation Services, which is
located on the St. Peter site outside of the secure perimeter.
Those who are civilly committed to the MSOP are in the care and
custody of the Minnesota Department of Human Services.

The MSOP Program Theory Manual, the MSOP Treatment Manual, and the
MSOP Clinician's Guide describe the MSOP's program model.  The
stated goal of the MSOP's treatment program is to treat and safely
reintegrate committed individuals at the MSOP back into the
community.


MISTRAS GROUP: Court Sets Deadlines in "Krueger" Suit
-----------------------------------------------------
The Court does not find the dates proposed by counsel to be
reasonable in the case, DAVID KRUEGER, individually, Plaintiff, v.
MISTRAS GROUP, INC.; and DOES 1-50, inclusive, Defendants, Case
No. 1:15-cv-00997-JLT (E.D. Calif.). Thus, Magistrate Judge
Jennifer L. Thurston amended the parties' stipulation which
continues the deadlines in the October 28, 2015 Scheduling Order
and the November 16, 2015 Minute Order.

Having reviewed the parties' stipulation, the Court amended the
case schedule as follows:

   * Non-expert discovery: October 7, 2016

   * Expert discovery: November 11, 2016

   * Non-dispositive motion deadlines:

     -- Filing: November 23, 2016
     -- Hearing: December 21, 2017, at 8:30 a.m.

   * Dispositive motion deadlines:

     -- Filing: January 13, 2017
     -- Hearing: February 20, 2017

   * Pre-trial conference: April 20, 2017 at 8:30 a.m. at
     the United States Courthouse located at 510 19th
     Street, Bakersfield, CA

   * Trial: June 20, 2017 at 8:30 a.m. at the United States
     Courthouse located at 510 19th Street, Bakersfield, CA

A copy of the Court's Order dated July 22, 2016 is available at
http://goo.gl/Xe7DIxfrom Leagle.com.

David Krueger, Plaintiff, represented by Carolyn H. Cottrell --
ccottrell@schneiderwallace.com -- Schneider Wallace Cottrell
Konecky Wotkyns, LLP & Nicole Nellessen Coon --
ncoon@schneiderwallace.com -- Schneider Wallace Cottrell Konecky
Wotkyns, LLP.

Mistras Group, Inc., Defendant, represented by Joseph A.
Schwachter -- jschwachter@littler.com -- Littler Mendelson, P.C. &
Richard Keith Chapman -- kchapman@littler.com -- Littler
Mendelson, P.C..


ML AUTOMOTIVE: "Otero" Seeks Unpaid Minimum Wages Under FLSA
------------------------------------------------------------
Eduardo Otero and Hilario Gonzalez, individually, and on behalf of
others similarly situated, the Plaintiffs, v. ML AUTOMOTIVE GROUP,
LLC, a Florida limited liability company, d/b/a "Palmetto57 Auto
Group"; NM1, LLC, a Florida limited liability
company, d/b/a "Palmetto57 Auto Group" and "Palmetto57 NISSAN";
VW1, LLC, a Florida limited liability company, d/b/a "Palmetto57
Auto Group" and "Palmetto57 VOLKSWAGEN", the Defendants, Case No.
1:16-cv-23239-JEM (S.D. Fla., July 27, 2016), seeks to recover
money damages for unpaid minimum wages pursuant to the Fair Labor
Standards Act (FLSA).

Since July 27, 2013 through the present, the Defendants violated
the provisions of the FLSA, by failing to pay the Plaintiffs, and
other similarly situated salespersons, a minimum hourly wage
during numerous applicable pay periods by, among other factors:
(a) failing to finally and unconditionally pay at least the
applicable minimum hourly wage for every hour worked during
numerous covered pay periods as required by law; (b) making
unjustified deductions and reductions from earned compensation to
minimize payroll obligations, and; (c) failing to pay the required
wages on the date due.

ML Automotive is a new and used car dealers located in Miami
Gardens, Florida.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Anthony F. Sanchez, Esq.
          ANTHONY F. SANCHEZ, P.A.
          6701 Sunset Drive, Suite 101
          Miami, FL 33143
          Telephone: (305) 665 9211
          Facsimile: (305) 328 4842
          E-mail: afs@laborlawfla.com


MOOKYODONG YOOJUNG: "Lopic" Suit Seeks Unpaid Wages Under FLSA
--------------------------------------------------------------
Juan Lopic, on behalf of himself and all other persons similarly
situated, the Plaintiff, v. Mookyodong Yoojung Nakjie Inc. d/b/a
Dae Jang Geum and John Does No. 1-10, the Defendants, Case No.
1:16-cv-04179 (E.D.N.Y., July 27, 2016), seeks to recover
compensation for wages paid at less than the statutory minimum
wage, unpaid wages for overtime work for which they did not
receive overtime premium pay as required by law, and liquidated
damages pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards (FLSA).

Mookyodong is a restaurant in Flushing, New York City.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          David Stein, Esq.
          SAMUEL & STEIN
          38 West 32nd Street, Suite 1110
          New York, NY 10001
          Telephone: (212) 563-9884
          E-mail: cdstein@samuelandstein.com


OLD WEST: Texas Fraudulent Sues Over Illegal Collection
-------------------------------------------------------
Texas Fraudulent Judgment Victims and all others similarly
situated v. Old West Capital Company, Case No. DC-16-08594 (S.D.
Tex., July 18, 2016), seeks equitable relief, attorney's fees and
costs in violation of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act.

Defendant allegedly failed to provide original account-level
documentation in collecting a debt from the plaintiff and used
affidavits with system-generated signatures to deceive Texas
Judges into rendering judgments.

Defendant is a debt collector attempting to enforce and collect
the consumer judgments rendered against Plaintiff.

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Ross Teter, Esq.
      TETER LAW FIRM
      P.O. Box 815823
      Dallas, TX 75381-5823
      Tel: (214) 850-8095
      Fax: (972) 243-2510
      Email: rossteter.attorney@gmail.com


OMNI LIMOUSINE: Court Tosses Protest against Witness's Opinion
--------------------------------------------------------------
A Defendant's Motion to Strike the Opinions of Plaintiffs' Expert
Witness is denied without prejudice as premature, in the case
captioned, CHRISTY MCSWIGGIN, et al., Plaintiff(s), v. OMNI
LIMOUSINE, Defendant(s), Case No. 2:14-cv-02172-JCM-NJK (D. Nev.).

The case involves various claims against the Defendant for the
alleged unpaid wages and unpaid overtime hours as per the opinion
of the Plaintiff's expert witness.

Magistrate Judge Nancy J. Koppe found that the opinions are still
subject to any obtained information from the prospective class
members who have not yet been afforded an opportunity to opt-in
the litigation.

In the case, a Motion for an Order Extending Time for Providing
Notice and Opting-in to Litigation remains pending, as are the
parties' respective motions regarding certification.

A copy of the Court's Decision dated July 25, 2016 is available at
http://goo.gl/dTVRl0from Leagle.com.

Christy McSwiggin, et al., Plaintiffs, represented by Joshua D.
Buck -- josh@thiermanbuck.com -- Thierman Buck, LLP, Leah Lin
Jones -- leah@thiermanbuck.com -- Thierman Buck, LLP, Mark R.
Thierman -- mark@thiermanbuck.com -- Thierman Buck, LLP & Joshua
R. Hendrickson, Thierman Buck, LLC.

Omni Limousine, Defendant, represented by Anthony L. Hall -
ahall@hollandhart.com -- Holland and Hart LLP & Rico Cordova -
rncordova@hollandhart.com -- Holland & Hart LLP.


ONSTAR LLC: Court Trims Claims in "Duchene" Suit
------------------------------------------------
Chief District Judge Denise Page Wood of the Eastern District of
Michigan, Southern Division, granted in part and denied in part
defendant's renewed motion to dismiss in the case DANIEL DUCHENE,
Plaintiff, v. ONSTAR, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 15-13337 (E.D.
Mich.)

Daniel Duchene is an individual residing in Ada, Minnesota, while
defendant OnStar, LLC is a Delaware business entity with a
principal place of business in Detroit, Michigan.

In August of 2015, Duchene began receiving calls on his cellular
telephone at telephone number 218-xxx-0230. The calls were from
telephone number 972-372-1723, a telephone number owned by
defendant. When Duchene answered the calls, no human being spoke
to him but instead, Duchene would hear complete silence before the
call terminated without anyone coming on the line.

On September 14, 2015, Duchene, individually and purportedly on
behalf of all others similarly situated, filed a two-count
complaint in violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act
against OnStar in the Western District of Michigan. Duchene's
cause of action was transferred to the Eastern District of
Michigan on September 22, 2015, and OnStar filed a motion to
dismiss on November 25, 2015. Duchene filed an amended complaint
on December 21, 2015, alleging violations of 47 U.S.C. Section 227
(b)(1)(A) (count I) and count II alleges a claim for willfulness
under the TCPA. Section 227(b)(3) of the TCPA. OnStar filed a
renewed motion to dismiss on January 7, 2016.

Chief District Judge Wood granted in part and denied in part
defendant's renewed motion to dismiss. It is denied with respect
to count I and granted with respect to count II.

A copy of Chief District Judge Hood's order dated July 26, 2016,
is available at http://goo.gl/483CmKfrom Leagle.com.

Daniel Duchene, Plaintiff, represented by:

Sergei Lemberg, Esq.
Lemberg Law, LLC
06987, 43 Danbury Rd.
Wilton, CT 06897
Telephone: 855-301-2100

Onstar, LLC, Defendant, represented by Andrew B. Bloomer --
andrew.bloomer@kirkland.com -- Jordan M. Heinz --
jordan.heinz@kirkland.com -- Megan M. New --
megan.new@kirkland.com -- R. Allan Pixton --
allan.pixton@kirkland.com -- at Kirkland & Ellis LLP


OPTIO SOLUTIONS: Mendez Wants to Stop Unsolicited Phone Calls
-------------------------------------------------------------
SARAH MENDEZ, on behalf of herself, and all others similarly
situated v. OPTIO SOLUTIONS, LLC, dba QUALIA COLLECTION SERVICES,
Case No. 3:16-cv-01882-AJB-KSC (S.D. Cal., July 25, 2016), is
brought to stop the Defendant's alleged practice of making
unsolicited phone calls to telephones of consumers nationwide in
violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act and to obtain
redress for all persons injured by its conduct.

Optio is a Delaware business entity that maintains a business
office in Petaluma, California.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Ronald A. Marron, Esq.
          Alexis Wood, Esq.
          Kas Gallucci, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF RONALD A. MARRON
          651 Arroyo Drive
          San Diego, CA 92103
          Telephone: (619) 696-9006
          Facsimile: (619) 564-6665
          E-mail: ron@consumersadvocates.com
                  alexis@consumersadvocates.com
                  kas@consumersadvocates.com

           - and -

          Albert R. Limberg, Esq.
          LAW OFFICE OF ALBERT R. LIMBERG
          3667 Voltaire Street
          San Diego, CA 92106
          Telephone: 619-344-8667
          Facsimile: 619-344-8657
          E-mail: alimberg@limberglawoffice.com


PARADISE COVE: "Jablon" Sues Over Restricted Access
---------------------------------------------------
Douglas Jablon, individually and on behalf of all similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. Paradise Cove Land Co. LLC, The Kissel Co.
and Does 1-10, Plaintiff, Case No. BC627756, (Cal. Super., July
20, 2016), seeks preliminary and permanent enjoinment from further
restriction of access, restitution, attorneys' fees and costs,
prejudgment and post-judgment interest and such other and further
relief pursuant to the California Unfair Competition Law and the
California Coastal Act of 1976.

Defendants are into land development and own and manage parks in
the area. They developed Paradise Cove Beach and began to restrict
public access.

Plaintiff is represented by:

     Barry Himmelstein, Esq.
     HIMMELSTEIN LAW NETWORK
     2000 Powell St., Suite 1605
     Emeryville, CA
     Tel: (510) 450-0782
     Fax: (510) 924-0403
     Email: barry@himmellaw.com

        - and -

     Alexander Stern, Esq,
     STERN LEGAL SERVICES
     1988 Martin Luther King Jr. Way, No. 314A
     Berkley CA 94704-1668
     Tel: (415) 964-1115
     Fax: (510) 924-0403
     Email: alexanderstern@sternlegalservices.com


PILOT TRAVEL: "Badger" Sues Over Discrimination
-----------------------------------------------
Josie Badger, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, v. Pilot Travel Centers, LLC Case No. 2:16-cv-01051
(W.D. Pa., July 19, 2016), was filed over violations of the
Americans with Disabilities Act.

Private Travel operates gas and service stations and convenience
stores nationwide.

Plaintiff is represented by:

     Benjamin J. Sweet, Esq.
     Carlson Lynch Sweet & Kilpela, LLP
     1133 Penn Avenue, 5th Floor
     Pittsburgh, PA 15222
     Tel: (412) 322-9243
     Fax: (412) 231-0246
     bsweet@carlsonlynch.com


POWERWAVE TECHNOLOGIES: Court Granted Settlement in "Kmiec" Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, PAWEL I. KMIEC, Individually and on Behalf of All
Others Similarly Situated, Plaintiff, v. POWERWAVE TECHNOLOGIES
INC., et al., Defendants, No. 8:12-cv-00222-CJC(JPRx), (C.D.
Calif.), District Judge Cormac J. Carney granted the parties'
Stipulation of Settlement pursuant to the hearing conducted on
December 4, 2015.

The case defined the Class as all Persons who, between October 28,
2010 and October 18, 2011, inclusive, purchased or otherwise
acquired the common stock of Powerwave.

The Court authorizes and directs implementation and performance of
all the terms and provisions of the Stipulation, except as to any
individual claim of those Persons who have validly and timely
requested exclusion from the Class.

Without affecting the finality of the Judgment in any way, the
Court hereby retains continuing jurisdiction over: (a)
implementation of the settlement and any award or distribution of
the Settlement Fund, including interest earned thereon; (b)
disposition of the Settlement Fund; (c) hearing and determining
applications for attorneys' fees and expenses in the Litigation;
and (d) all parties hereto for the purpose of construing,
enforcing and administering the settlement.

The Court has considered the objection to the settlement filed by
Roy Tom Coyle Jr., and finds it to be without merit. It is
therefore overruled in its entirety.

A copy of the Court's Order dated July 18, 2016 is available at
http://goo.gl/jA5Ztmfrom Leagle.com.

Pawel I Kmiec, Plaintiff, represented by Robert Russell Henssler,
Jr. -- bhenssler@rgrdlaw.com -- Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP,
Ryan A. Llorens -- ryanl@csgrr.com -- Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd
LLP, Tricia L. McCormick -- triciam@rgrdlaw.com -- Robbins Geller
Rudman and Dowd LLP, Darren J. Robbins -- darrenr@rgrdlaw.com --
Robbins Geller Rudman and Dowd LLP, David C. Walton --
davew@rgrdlaw.com -- Robbins Geller Rudman and Dowd LLP, Ellen
Anne Gusikoff Stewart -- elleng@rgrdlaw.com -- Robbins Geller
Rudman & Dowd LLP, Eric Niehaus -- ericn@rgrdlaw.com -- Robbins
Geller Rudman and Dowd LLP, Marc L. Godino --
mgodino@glancylaw.com -- Glancy Prongay & Murray LLP, Matthew
Isaac Alpert - malpert@rgrdlaw.com -- Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd
LLP, Samuel H. Rudman - SRudman@rgrdlaw.com -- Robbins Geller
Rudman and Dowd LLP, pro hac vice & X. Jay Alvarez --
jaya@rgrdlaw.com -- Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP.

Ronald J Buschur, et al., Defendants, represented by Abby F.
Rudzin - arudzin@omm.com -- O'Melveny and Myers LLP, pro hac vice,
Alec Johnson, O'Melveny and Myers LLP & Seth A. Aronson --
saronson@omm.com -- O'Melveny and Myers LLP.


PRE-EMPLOY.COM INC: Reply to "Marchioli" Class Suit Due Aug. 16
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, MARC MARCHIOLI, Plaintiff, v. PRE-EMPLOY.COM, INC.,
EISENHOWER MEDICAL CENTER, and DOES 1 THROUGH 10, Defendants, Case
No. 2:16-cv-01115-MCE-AC (E.D. Calif.), District Judge Morrison C.
England, Jr. granted the parties' stipulation to extend the
Defendant's answer to the complaint until August 16, 2016.

The 21-day extension to file and serve a responsive pleading or
motion to Plaintiff's putative Class Action Complaint is the
Defendant's second request following a prior 28-day extension.

A copy of the Court's Order dated July 25, 2016 is available at
http://goo.gl/yjh8xtfrom Leagle.com.

Marc Marchioli, Plaintiff, represented by Anna Marie Rossi --
amrossi@amrossilaw.com -- Rossi & MacDonald, Duncan Scott
MacDonald -- dmacdonald@ardmlaw.com -- Rossi & Macdonald, APC,
Edward Zusman -- ezusman@mzclaw.com -- Markun Zusman Freniere &
Compton LLP & Kevin Karwing Eng -- keng@mzclaw.com -- Markun
Zusman Freniere & Compton LLP.

Pre-Employ.Com, Inc., Defendant, represented by Lawrence Borys --
lawrence.borys@rmkb.com -- Ropers Majeski Kohn & Bentley.

Eisenhhower Medical Center, Defendant, represented by Adam Ryan
Rosenthal -- arosenthal@sheppardmullin.com -- Sheppard Mullin
Richter & Hampton LLP.


PREMIER DISPLAYS: Fails to Pay OT Wages, "Levkovitch" Suit Claims
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Alexander C. Levkovitch, on behalf of himself and all others
similarly situated v. Premier Displays & Exhibits, Inc.; and Does
1 through 100, Inclusive, Case No. BC628412 (Cal. Super. Ct., Los
Angeles Cty., July 26, 2016), alleges that the Defendants fail to
pay minimum and overtime wages.

Premier Displays & Exhibits, Inc., a California corporation,
designs, fabricates and manages trade show exhibits, displays,
etc.  The true names and capacities of the Doe Defendants are
currently unknown to the Plaintiff.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Michael Nourmand, Esq.
          James A. De Sario, Esq.
          THE NOURMAND LAW FIRM, APC
          8822 West Olympic Boulevard
          Beverly Hills, CA 90211
          Telephone: (310) 553-3600
          Facsimile: (310) 553-3603
          E-mail: mnourmand@nourmandlawfirm.com
                  jdesario@nourmandlawfirm.com


PROTECT MY CAR: Accused by "Knutson" Class Suit of Violating TCPA
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Erik Knutson, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. Protect My Car II, LLC, Case No. 3:16-cv-01898-BTM-BGS
(S.D. Cal., July 27, 2016), arises from alleged violations of the
Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991

Protect My Car II, LLC is a Florida limited liability company
based in Clearwater, Florida.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Joshua Swigart, Esq.
          HYDE & SWIGART
          2221 Camino Del Rio South, Suite 101
          San Diego, CA 92108
          Telephone: (619) 233-7770
          Facsimile: (619) 297-1022
          E-mail: josh@westcoastlitigation.com


REMX INC: Arbitration Order Non-Appealable, Calif. Judge Says
-------------------------------------------------------------
Justice Mark B. Simons of the Court of Appeals of California,
First District Division Three, dismissed an appeal in the case
VANESSA YOUNG, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. REMX, INC., et al.,
Defendants and Respondents, No. A143786 (Cal. Ct. App.)

Vanessa Young, a former employee of Remx, Inc. filed a complaint
against the latter alleging that Remx failed to timely pay her all
of her final wages. The complaint asserts, on behalf of plaintiff
and a putative class, a cause of action for failure under Labor
Code sections 201 through 203. The complaint also asserts a
representative Private Attorneys General Act of 2004 (PAGA) claim
seeking civil penalties on behalf of plaintiff and other aggrieved
employees.

Defendants filed a motion to compel individual arbitration,
dismiss plaintiff's class claims, and bifurcate and stay the PAGA
claim. In support of the motion, defendants submitted an
arbitration agreement signed by plaintiff. The arbitration
agreement provides that any disputes arising out of or relating to
the employment or the termination of the employment will be
submitted to arbitration.

Plaintiff opposed the motion, arguing that the arbitration
agreement only identifies a nonparty entity called RXOS, and
therefore does not extend to disputes with defendants, that the
agreement is unenforceable and that the agreement is
unconscionable.

The trial court granted defendants' motion. The order compelled
arbitration of plaintiff's individual claim, dismissed the class
claims, bifurcated the representative PAGA claim, and stayed the
PAGA claim pending the completion of arbitration. Young appealed.

Justice Simons dismissed Young's appeal concluding that the order
is non-appealable.  A copy of Justice Simons's opinion dated July
26, 2016, is available at http://goo.gl/i9AQrgfrom Leagle.com.

The Court of Appeals of California, First District Division Three
panel consists of Presiding Justice Barbara J.R. Jones and
Justices Mark B. Simons and Henry E. Needham.


RHONE CAPITAL: Faces "Stein" Suit Over Sale of Elizabeth Arden
--------------------------------------------------------------
SHIVA STEIN, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly
Situated v. RHONE CAPITAL L.L.C., NIGHTINGALE ONSHORE HOLDINGS
L.P., NIGHTINGALE OFFSHORE HOLDINGS L.P., REVLON, INC., REVLON
CONSUMER PRODUCTS CORPORATION, RR TRANSACTION CORP., E. SCOTT
BEATTIE, FRED BERENS. FRANZ-FERDINAND BUERSTEDDE, MAURA J.
CLARK, M. STEVEN LANGMAN, EDWARD D. SHIRLEY. WILLIAM M. TATHAM,
Case No. CACE-16-013580 (Fla. Cir. Ct., Broward Cty., July 25,
2016), is a proposed shareholder class action filed against the
Defendants to enjoin a proposed acquisition of the Company by
Revlon pursuant to an Agreement and Plan of Merger.

On June 16, 2016, the Company announced that it has entered into
the Merger Agreement with the Revlon Defendants.  The Proposed
Merger has been unanimously approved by the Board.

Elizabeth Arden is a corporation organized and existing under the
laws of the state of Florida, headquartered in Pembroke Pines,
Florida.  Elizabeth Arden is a global prestige beauty products
company with an extensive portfolio of prestige beauty brands sold
in over 120 countries.  The Company's brand portfolio includes
Elizabeth Arden skin care, color and fragrance products; its
professional skin care line.

The Rhone Defendants are common and preferred shareholders,
holding a substantial share in Elizabeth Arden.  The Individual
Defendants are directors and officers of Elizabeth Arden.

Revlon, Inc. is incorporated under the laws of the state of
Delaware with its headquarters in New York City.  Revlon Consumer
Products Corporation is incorporated under the laws of the state
of Delaware and is a wholly owned subsidiary of Revlon, Inc.  RR
Transaction Corp. is incorporated under the laws of the state of
Florida and is a wholly owned subsidiary of Revlon Consumer
Products Corporation.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Emily Komlossy, Esq.
          Ross Appel, Esq.
          KOMLOSSY LAW P.A.
          4700 Sheridan St., Suite J
          Hollywood, FL 33021
          Telephone: (954) 842-2021
          Facsimile: (954) 416-6223
          E-mail: ekomlossy@komlossylaw.com
                  raa@komlossylaw.com

           - and -

          Gustavo F. Bruckner, Esq.
          Darya Kapulina-Filina, Esq.
          POMERANTZ LLP
          600 Third Avenue, 20th Floor
          New York, NY 10016
          Telephone: (212) 661-1100
          Facsimile: (917) 463-1044
          E-mail: gfbruckner@pomlaw.com


SAN FRANCISCO, CA: Sept. 6 Summary Judgment Hearing in "Stitt"
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, DARRYL A. STITT, on behalf of himself and all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. THE SAN FRANCISCO MUNICIPAL
TRANSPORTATION AGENCY; CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO; AND DOES
1-20, Defendants, Case No. 12-CV-03704 YGR (N.D. Calif.), District
Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers will hold a hearing on the summary
judgment motion on September 6, 2016, along with the other
schedules set after the summary judgment pre-filing conference
held on July 20.

The Court orders that the summary judgment and decertification
briefing shall adhere to this schedule:

   -- Defendant shall file its motion for summary judgment no
later than August 2, 2016, and shall not exceed 30 pages;

   -- Plaintiffs' opposition and cross-motion for summary
judgment, if any, shall be filed no later than August 16, 2016.If
filed as just an opposition, it shall not exceed 30 pages; if
filed as a combination opposition and cross-motion, the document
shall not exceed 35 pages;

   -- If no cross-motion for summary judgment is filed, Defendant
shall file its reply, not to exceed 15 pages, no later than August
23, 2016; if a cross-motion is filed, Defendant shall file its
reply and opposition, not to exceed 30 pages, no later than August
30, 2016;

     -- Plaintiffs' reply on their cross-motion, if any, shall be
filed no later than September 6, 2016.

     -- The hearing on the summary judgment motion(s) will remain
on September 6, 2016, at 2:00 p.m., subject to modification
depending on the motions at issue. The Court will notify the
parties of any different hearing date;

     -- Defendant has filed its Motion to Decertify Collective
Action and Class Action.  Based upon the parties' stipulation and
request at the conference, the Court modifies the briefing
schedule previously set such that Plaintiffs' opposition to the
Motion to Decertify is due August 2, 2016, and Defendant's reply
is due August 23, 2016.

The Court also directed the parties to submit the summary judgment
briefs and separate statements of fact to Chambers in an
electronic medium (CD/DVD or "thumb drive") in which evidence
citations are hyperlinked to the underlying evidence.

A copy of the Court's decision dated July 21, 2016 is available at
http://goo.gl/i8VGN6from Leagle.com.

Darryl A. Stitt, et al., Plaintiffs, represented by Steven Gregory
Tidrick -- sgt@tidricklaw.com -- The Tidrick Law Firm

The San Francisco Municipal Transportation Agency, et al.,
Defendants, represented by Linda Margaret Ross --
lross@publiclawgroup.com -- Renne Sloan Holtzman Sakai LLP, Arthur
A. Hartinger -- ahartinger@publiclawgroup.com -- Renne Sloan
Holtzman Sakai LLP & Kevin P. McLaughlin --
kmclaughlin@publiclawgroup.com -- Renne Sloan Holtzman Sakai LLP.


SERVICE EMPLOYEES: Final Judgment of Dismissal Entered in "Lum"
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, JEFFREY LUM, et al., Plaintiffs, v. SERVICE EMPLOYEES
INTERNATIONAL UNION, LOCAL 521, et al., Defendants, No. 14-CV-
05230 LHK (N.D. Calif.), District Judge Lucy H. Koh ordered final
judgment of dismissal of the case, having granted final approval
of the Settlement Agreement and Release of Counts II and III of
the First Amended Complaint between the Parties on June 30, 2016.

The Court adjudged that: (1) Count I of the action is dismissed
without prejudice, subject to the tolling agreement and waiver
agreed to by Parties; (2) Counts II and III are dismissed with
prejudice subject to the terms and conditions of the Settlement
Agreement and Release of Counts II and III of the First Amended
Complaint (Settlement Agreement) and the provisions of the
Settlement Agreement not explicitly set forth in the Final
Judgment of Dismissal shall be incorporated into the Judgment; (3)
Pursuant to Paragraph 18 of the Settlement Agreement, the Court
will retain jurisdiction of the interpretation and enforcement of
the terms of the Settlement Agreement and for whatever else is
provided for in the Settlement Agreement; (4) The Clerk shall
close the case file.

Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(c)(3)(A), class
members in the case are: All nonmember Employees who, between
December 1, 2012, and the date of final approval of the Agreement
by the District Court, have timely and properly objected to paying
non-chargeable fees to Local 521. Employee is defined as a public
sector employee who is represented in collective bargaining by
Local 521.

A copy of the Court's Order dated July 21, 2016 is available at
http://goo.gl/JnIFomfrom Leagle.com.

Jeffrey Lum, et al., Plaintiffs, represented by Steven Richard
Burlingham, Gary Till and Burlingham, Milton L. Chappell, National
Right to Work Legal & Nathan John McGrath, pro hac vice.

Service Employees International Union Local 521, Defendant,
represented by Kerianne Ruth Steele -- ksteele@unioncounsel.net
-- Weinberg, Roger & Rosenfeld, Jeffrey B. Demain --
jdemain@altshulerberzon.com -- Altshuler Berzon LLP & Scott Alan
Kronland -- skronland@altshulerberzon.com -- Altshuler Berzon LLP.

County of Santa Clara, et al., Defendants, represented by Nancy
Joan Clark, Office of County Counsel & Michael Joseph Leon-
Guerrero -- michael.leonguerrero@cco.sccgov.org -- Santa Clara
County Counsel's Office.


SONY CORP: "Farrel" Sues Over Breach of Contract
------------------------------------------------
Lawrence Farrell, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. Sony Corporation of America, Sony
Interactive Entertainment LLC and Sony Interactive Entertainment
America LLC, Defendants, Case No. 2:16-cv-04391 (D.N.J., July 19,
2016), was filed for breach of contract.

Defendants manufacture and develop electronic games.

Plaintiff is represented by:

     Robert J. Berg, Esq.
     DENLEA & CARTON LLP
     2 Westchester Park Drive, Suite 410
     White Plains, NY 10604
     Tel: (914) 331-0105
     Fax: (914) 331-0105
     Email: rberg@denleacarton.com


SOUTHEASTERN CONFERENCE: "Miller" Suit Transferred to N.D. Ill.
---------------------------------------------------------------
Joseph Miller, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. Southeastern Conference and National
Collegiate Athletic Association, Defendants, Case No. 1:13-cv-
09116 (S.D. Ind., May 17, 2016), was transferred to the Northern
District of Illinois on July 19, 2016 under Case No. 1:16-cv-
01222.

Plaintiff is a former college football player who accuses the
Defendants of failing to protect the safety of student-athletes
from the dangers of repeated head injuries.

Plaintiff is represented by:

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

Defendant is represented by:

     Robert W. Fuller, Esq.
     ROBINSON, BRADSHAW & HINSON, PA
     101 N Tryon St., Suite 1900
     Charlotte, NC 28246
     Tel: (704) 377-8324
     Fax: (704) 373-3924
     Email: rfuller@robinsonbradshaw.com

        - and -

     Todd G. Relue, Esq.
     PLEWS SHADLEY RACHER & BRAUN LLP
     1346 North Delaware Street
     Indianapolis, IN 46202
     Tel: (317) 637-0700
     Fax: (317) 968-0976
     Email: trelue@psrb.com


SWIFT TRANSPORTATION: 9th Cir. Won't Hear Truck Drivers' Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
Chief Judge Sidney Thomas of the United States Court of Appeals,
Ninth Circuit, dismissed for lack of appellate jurisdiction the
appellate case, VIRGINIA VAN DUSEN; JOSEPH SHEER; JOHN DOE 1,
individually and on behalf of all other similarly situated
persons, Plaintiffs-Appellees, v. SWIFT TRANSPORTATION COMPANY
INCORPORATED; INTERSTATE EQUIPMENT LEASING INCORPORATED; CHAD
KILLIBREW; JERRY MOYES, Defendants-Appellants, No. 15-15257 (9th
Cir.).

Virginia Van Dusen and Joseph Sheer are interstate truck drivers
who entered into contracts with Swift Transportation Company, Inc.
and Interstate Equipment Leasing, Inc. The contracts designated
Van Dusen and Sheer as independent contractors, not employees.
Each contract also contained a clause to arbitrate all disputes
and claims arising under, arising out of or relating to the
agreement.

Van Dusen eventually terminated her contract with Swift. Swift
separately terminated its contract with Sheer. Van Dusen and Sheer
later filed a collective and class action complaint against Swift,
Interstate, and senior executives at both companies. The complaint
alleged that Swift misclassified Van Dusen and others as
independent contractors. The complaint also alleged violations of
the Fair Labor Standards Act, 29 U.S.C.A. Section 201 et seq., the
California Labor Code, New York labor laws, state and federal
minimum wage laws, and laws prohibiting forced labor, among other
claims.

The lawsuit was filed in the Southern District of New York and
later transferred to the District of Arizona. In Arizona, Swift
moved to compel arbitration and dismiss or stay the district court
action. Van Dusen objected that Section 1 of the FAA prevented the
district court from compelling arbitration. The district court
granted Swift's motion to compel arbitration.
Van Dusen petitioned the 9th Cir. for a writ of mandamus and
argued that the district court committed clear error when it
referred the Section 1 issue to the arbitrator. The petition was
denied.

Van Dusen moved for reconsideration of the order compelling
arbitration, or, in the alternative, to certify an interlocutory
appeal. The district court denied the portion of the motion
requesting reconsideration, noting that it continued to believe
its original opinion referring the Section 1 inquiry to an
arbitrator was correct, particularly in light of the fact that the
parties agreed to arbitrate questions of arbitrability. The
district court then certified an interlocutory appeal.

On appeal, the 9th Cir. clarified that the district court not an
arbitrator must decide the Section 1 issue. Swift petitioned the
Supreme Court for a writ of certiorari and was denied.

The district court then set out to determine the Section 1
exemption issue. It issued a scheduling order for discovery and a
trial to determine issues relating to plaintiffs' status as
employees or independent contractors. Swift moved for an order to
stay proceedings, including discovery, and for an order setting a
briefing schedule to determine the Section 1 issue without resort
to discovery and trial. The court denied Swift's motion. It also
concluded that the order was not immediately appealable. An
interlocutory appeal followed but the district court did not
certify the order for appeal.

Accordingly, Chief Judge Thomas dismissed the appeal for lack of
appellate jurisdiction.  A copy of Chief Judge Thomas's opinion
dated July 26, 2016, is available at http://goo.gl/Tpby35from
Leagle.com.

Ronald J. Holland -- rholland@sheppardmullin.com -- Ellen M.
Bronchetti -- ebronchetti@sheppardmullin.com -- Paul S. Cowie --
pcowie@sheppardmullin.com -- at Sheppard, Mullin, Richter &
Hampton LLP, for Petitioners-Appellants

For Plaintiffs-Appellants:

Edward Tuddenham, Esq.
Dan Getman, Esq.
Lesley Tse, Esq.
Getman & Sweeney PLLC
228 West 137th Street
New York, NY 10030
Telephone: 212-234-4443
Facsimile: 845-255-8649

     - and -

Jennifer Kroll, Esq.
Susan Martin, Esq.
Martin & Bonnett PLLC
1850 N. Central Avenue, Suite 2010
Phoenix, AZ 85004
Telephone: 602-240-6900
Facsimile: 602-240-2345


SWIFT TRANSPORTATION: Judge Denies Relief for Mandamus
------------------------------------------------------
Judge Andrew Davis Hurwitz of the United States Court of Appeals,
Ninth Circuit, denied petitioners' writ of mandamus in the case
entitled IN RE SWIFT TRANSPORTATION COMPANY INCORPORATED;
INTERSTATE EQUIPMENT LEASING INCORPORATED; CHAD KILLIBREW; JERRY
MOYES, SWIFT TRANSPORTATION COMPANY INCORPORATED; INTERSTATE
EQUIPMENT LEASING INCORPORATED; CHAD KILLIBREW; JERRY MOYES,
Petitioners, v. UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF
ARIZONA, PHOENIX, Respondent, VIRGINIA VAN DUSEN, individually and
on behalf of all other similarly situated persons; JOSEPH SHEER,
individually and on behalf of all other similarly situated
persons; JOSE MOTOLINA; VICKII SCHWALM; PETER WOOD, Real Parties
in Interest, No. 15-70592 (9th Cir.)

Virginia Van Dusen and Joseph Sheer entered into contracts with
Swift that designated them as independent contractors and also
contained a clause requiring them to arbitrate all disputes and
claims arising under, arising out of or relating to the
agreements. After contract termination, Van Dusen filed a
collective and class action complaint against Swift alleging that
Swift misclassified Van Dusen and others as independent
contractors.

Swift moved to compel arbitration and dismiss or stay the district
court action. Van Dusen objected that Section 1 of the Federal
Arbitration Act prevented the district court from compelling
arbitration. The district court granted Swift's motion to compel
arbitration. The court also determined that an arbitrator should
decide whether the Sec. 1 exemption applies. The court
subsequently denied Van Dusen's motion to reconsider or certify an
appeal. Van Dusen petitioned the 9th Circuit Court for a writ of
mandamus.

The 9th Circuit denied the mandamus petition and remanded the case
to the district court. The district court denied Van Dusen's
motion for reconsideration, reiterated its original opinion, and
certified an interlocutory appeal.

On appeal, the 9th Circuit held that the district court, not an
arbitrator, should decide the Section 1 exemption in the first
instance and remanded again the suit  with instructions to
determine whether the contractor agreements between each appellant
and Swift are exempt under Section 1 of the fair Arbitration Act
before considering Swift's motion to compel. On remand, the
district court issued a case management order that included a
discovery schedule, motion deadlines, and set a potential trial
date.

Swift moved the court for a stay of proceedings and for an order
determining the Section 1 issue without discovery or trial. Swift
filed an interlocutory appeal, which the 9th Circuit dismissed for
lack of jurisdiction.

Swift then seeks a writ of mandamus ordering the district court to
vacate its case management order and decide the petition to compel
arbitration without discovery or trial.

Judge Hurwitz denied the petition for writ of mandamus.

A copy of Judge Hurwitz's opinion dated July 26, 2016, is
available at http://goo.gl/BjPWzufrom Leagle.com.

Ronald J. Holland -- rholland@sheppardmullin.com -- Ellen M.
Bronchetti -- ebronchetti@sheppardmullin.com -- Paul S. Cowie --
pcowie@sheppardmullin.com -- at Sheppard, Mullin, Richter &
Hampton LLP, for Petitioners-Appellants

For Plaintiffs-Appellants:

Edward Tuddenham, Esq.
Dan Getman, Esq.
Lesley Tse, Esq.
Getman & Sweeney PLLC
228 West 137th Street
New York, NY 10030
Telephone: 212-234-4443
Facsimile: 845-255-8649

     - and -

Jennifer Kroll, Esq.
Susan Martin, Esq.
Martin & Bonnett PLLC
1850 N. Central Avenue, Suite 2010
Phoenix, AZ 85004
Telephone: 602-240-6900
Facsimile: 602-240-2345


TIME WARNER: Settlement in "Gillings" Case Has Final Approval
-------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, EVE NERCIA GILLINGS, et al., individually, and on
behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. TIME
WARNER CABLE, LLC, et al., Defendants, Case No. CV 10-5565-AG
(RNBx), (C.D. Calif.), District Judge Andrew J. Guilford has
approved the Plaintiffs' Motion for Final Approval of Class Action
Settlement and Plaintiffs' Motion for Attorneys' Fees and Costs.

Judge Guilford Class awarded the Counsel $275,000 for attorneys'
fees, while the Class Representatives are granted $13,895.73 as
reimbursement of litigation costs and expenses, and $5,000 amount
for enhancement awards.

Payment for class administration services to Settlement Services,
Inc. in the amount of their charges for administering the case are
approved up to the maximum amount of $40,000.

The Court approves the settlement of claims under the California
Labor Code Private Attorneys General Act ("PAGA"), California
Labor Code Sec. 2698, et seq., and the allocation of $7,500.00
from the Maximum Settlement Amount to the California Labor &
Workforce Development Agency ("LWDA") as the LWDA's share of the
Settlement attributable to civil penalties under the PAGA.

A copy of the Court's Judgment dated July 15, 2016 is available at
http://goo.gl/mVF5GUfrom Leagle.com.

Eve Nercia Gillings, Plaintiff, represented by Howard Scott
Leviant -- hsleviant@law111.com -- BERNS WEISS LLP, Dennis Frank
Moss -- dennis@dennismosslaw.com -- Dennis Moss Law Offices & Ira
Spiro -- ira@spirolawcorp.com -- Spiro Law Corp..

Patrice Hayes, et al., Plaintiffs, represented by Howard Scott
Leviant -- hsleviant@law111.com -- BERNS WEISS LLP, Dennis Frank
Moss -- dennis@dennismosslaw.com -- Dennis Moss Law Offices, Ira
Spiro -- ira@spirolawcorp.com -- Spiro Law Corp. & Linh Hua --
lhua@gordonrees.com -- Gordon & Rees LLP.

Time Warner Cable LLC, et al., Defendants, represented by Joseph
Scott Carr -- scarr@kcozlaw.com -- Kabat Chapman & Ozmer LLP,
Joseph W. Ozmer, II - jozmer@kcozlaw.com -- Kabat Chapman and
Ozmer LLP, pro hac vice, Joseph D. Wargo -- jwargo@wargofrench.com
-- Wargo & French LLP, pro hac vice, Michael D. Kabat -
mkabat@kcozlaw.com -- Kabat Chapman & Ozmer LLP, pro hac vice &
Nathan D. Chapman - nchapman@kcozlaw.com -- Kabat Chapman & Ozmer
LLP, pro hac vice.


UBER TECHNOLOGIES: Refuses to Pay Drivers, "Marc" Suit Alleges
--------------------------------------------------------------
Anise Marc, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. Uber Technologies, Inc.; Rasier, LLC; and Does 1-50,
inclusive, Case No. 2:16-cv-00579-UA-MRM (M.D. Fla., July 25,
2016), is brought on behalf of individuals, who have worked or are
currently working in the state of Florida as drivers for the
Defendants, for the Defendants alleged refusal to pay the drivers
a living wage.

Uber is a Delaware corporation headquartered in San Francisco,
California.  Uber provides a service where individuals can login
to a software application on their smartphone, request a ride, and
be paired with an available driver.

Rasier, LLC, a Delaware limited liability company, is a subsidiary
of Uber and is its equivalent for purposes of the action.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Jordan L. Chaikin, Esq.
          CHAIKIN LAW FIRM, PLLC
          12800 University Drive, Suite 600
          Fort Meyers, FL 33907
          Telephone: (239) 470-8338
          Facsimile: (239) 433-6836
          E-mail: Jordan@chaikinlawfirm.com

           - and -

          Charles E. Schaffer, Esq.
          LEVIN, FISHBEIN, SEDRAN & BERMAN
          510 Walnut Street, Suite 500
          Philadelphia, PA 19106-3697
          Telephone: (215) 592-1500
          Facsimile: (215) 592-4663
          E-mail: cschaffer@lfsblaw.com

           - and -

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

           - and -

          Michael McShane, Esq.
          S. Clinton Woods, Esq.
          AUDET & PARTNERS, LLP
          711 Van Ness Avenue, Suite 500
          San Francisco, CA 94102-3229
          Telephone: (415) 568-2555
          Facsimile: (415) 568-2556
          E-mail: mmcshane@audetlaw.com
                  cwoods@audetlaw.com


UNITED RECOVERY: Accused of Violating Fair Debt Collection Act
--------------------------------------------------------------
Claire Zitronenbaum, on behalf of herself and all other similarly
situated consumers v. United Recovery Systems, L.P., Case No.
1:16-cv-04172 (E.D.N.Y., July 27, 2016), alleges violations of the
Fair Debt Collection Practices Act.

United Recovery Systems, L.P., is a Texas-based Limited
Partnership headquartered in Houston, Texas, with offices in
Arizona, Kentucky, and Oklahoma.  URS provides collection services
to its clients.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


UNITED STATES: Illegally Eliminated Pension, "Turping" Suit Says
----------------------------------------------------------------
Peter Turping, Dick Cartmell, Philip Isaacs, Greg Brown, John
Bongers; and other similarly situated persons v. THE UNITED
STATES, Case No. 1:16-cv-00872-SGB (Fed. Cl., July 25, 2016),
alleges that the Plaintiffs are entitled by the Tucker Act and the
Takings Clause of the Fifth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution to
obtain just compensation from the United States of America.

The case is filed on behalf of the Plaintiffs whose property
interests in their pension retirement benefits were illegally
eliminated, discontinued, or substantially reduced and taken by
the Government contrary to its own policies and the regulations of
an executive department, the United States Department of Energy,
according to the complaint.

The Plaintiffs are all present and former employees of Boeing
Computer Services, Richland, Westinghouse Hanford Company and
Kaiser Engineering Hanford at the Department of Energy's Hanford
Nuclear Reservation, who were transferred to Lockheed Martin
Services, Inc.

The Defendant is the United States of America together with its
controlled entity and agent, The Hanford Multi-Employer Pension
Plan, Engineering and Operations, which the Plaintiffs allege is
entity completely controlled by the United States Department of
Energy to such an extent that it is in fact and law a part of the
Government.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Douglas E. McKinley, Esq.
          DOUGLAS E. MCKINLEY, ATTORNEY AT LAW
          P. O. Box 202
          Richland, WA 99352
          Telephone: (509) 628-0809
          Facsimile: (509) 392-8083
          E-mail: doug@mckinleylaw.com


UNUM GROUP: Oct. 27 Case Management Conference Set in "Bender"
--------------------------------------------------------------
District Judge Phyllis J. Hamilton ordered that a Case Management
Conference shall be held on October 27, 2016, in the case, ELLEN
BENDER, Plaintiff, v. UNUM GROUP, et al., Defendants, Case No. 16-
cv-03990-PJH (N.D. Calif.). A copy of the Court's Order issued on
July 22, 2016, is available at http://goo.gl/iHu1U9from
Leagle.com.

Pursuant to Civil Local Rule 16-9, parties are required to file a
joint case management statement addressing each of the items
listed in the "Standing Order For All Judges of the Northern
District -- Contents of Joint Case Management statement," as
attached in the order and which can also be found on the court's
website. Following the conference, the court will enter its own
Case Management and Pretrial Order.

Ellen Bender, Plaintiff, represented by Ryan Hideki Opgenorth --
ropgenorth@pillsburycoleman.com -- Pillsbury & Coleman LLP &
Terrence J. Coleman -- tcoleman@pillsburycoleman.com -- Pillsbury
& Coleman LLP.

Unum Group, et al., Defendants, represented by Kristin Paige Kyle
de Bautista -- kkyledebautista@bwslaw.com -- Burke, Williams &
Sorensen, LLP & Daniel William Maguire, Esq. --
dmaguire@bwslaw.com -- Burke Williams & Sorensen, LLP.


URBAN OUTFITTERS: District Court Lacks Jurisdiction Over Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
Circuit Judge Patricia A. Millett of the United States Court of
Appeals, District of Columbia Circuit vacated the district court's
judgment and remanded the case of WHITNEY HANCOCK, ON BEHALF OF
HERSELF AND ALL OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED, AND JAMIE WHITE, ON
BEHALF OF HERSELF AND ALL OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED, Appellants,
v. URBAN OUTFITTERS, INC. AND ANTHROPOLOGIE, INC., Appellees, No.
14-7047 (D.C. Cir.).

Whitney Hancock and Jamie White made purchases with their credit
cards at two clothing stores in the District of Columbia. Hancock
made a credit card purchase at an Anthropologie retail clothing
store while White made two credit card purchases at an Urban
Outfitters retail clothing store. As part of those credit-card
transactions, the cashiers asked each for her zip code, and each
provided it.

Hancock and White filed a putative class action in the United
States District Court for the District of Columbia. They allege
that Urban Outfitters' and Anthropologie's zip code requests
violated the Identification Act and the Consumer Protection Act.
Hancock and White allege that, because their zip codes are part of
their addresses, the stores' request for zip codes violated the
Identification Act's ban on obtaining addresses as a condition of
a credit card transaction. They also allege that the requests for
their zip codes violated the Consumer Protection Act by (i)
falsely implying to consumers that disclosure of their zip codes
is required to complete their credit-card transactions; (ii)
failing to state the material fact that the provision of a zip
code is optional; and (iii) deceptively representing that requests
for zip codes are legal and necessary to complete credit-card
transactions.

The district court dismissed the complaint with prejudice for
failure to state a claim. Hancock and White appealed.

Judge Millett, who penned the Appeals Court's decision, vacated
the district court's judgment on the merits, saying the district
court lacked jurisdiction over the subject matter; and remanded
the case with instructions to dismiss the complaint.

A copy of Judge Millet's order dated July 26, 2016, is available
at http://goo.gl/nOscFifrom Leagle.com.

Mikhael D. Charnoff -- mike@perrycharnoff.com -- Scott M. Perry
-- scott@perrycharnoff.com -- at Perry Charnoff PLLC, for
appellants

For Appellees:

James M. Burns, Esq.
N New Warrington Rd #2
Pensacola, FL 32506
Telephone: 850-457-60002

The United States Court of Appeals, District of Columbia Circuit
panel consists of Circuit Judges Harry T. Edwards, David B.
Sentelle and Circuit Judge Patricia A. Millett.


VICTORIA'S SECRET: "Joaquin" Suit Goes Back to Superior Court
------------------------------------------------------------
District Judge Fernando M. Olguin remanded the case, entitled,
MARIA YESENIA JOAQUIN, Plaintiff, v. VICTORIA'S SECRET STORES,
LLC, Defendant, Case No. CV 16-4890 FMO (AJWx), (C.D. Calif.), to
the Superior Court of the State of California for the County of
Los Angeles after the Defendant failed to prove diversity
jurisdiction grounds in removing the case.

Complete diversity, as a ground for a removal of a case to federal
court, applies only to cases in which the citizenship of each
plaintiff is diverse from the citizenship of each defendant.

The Court held that the Defendant failed to show the existence of
a complete diversity of the parties, as when it did not show the
citizenship of each of its owners and/or partners. Thus, the Court
concluded that there is no basis for diversity jurisdiction.

A copy of the Court's Order dated July 25, 2016 is available at
http://goo.gl/jMdC56from Leagle.com.

Maria Yesenia Joaquin, Plaintiff, represented by Carney R.
Shegerian -- cshegerian@shegerianlaw.com -- Shegerian and
Associates Inc & Jerry L. Webb, Webb Law Firm.

Victorias Secret Stores, LLC, Defendant, represented by Lindsay
Ann Ayers -- layers@cdflaborlaw.com -- Carothers DiSante and
Freudenberger & Andrew C. Smith -- acsmith@vorys.com -- Vorys
Sater Seymour and Pease LLP, pro hac vice.


WESTERN ATHLETIC: "Seals" Suit Transferred to N.D. Ill.
-------------------------------------------------------
Richard Seals, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. Western Athletic Conference and National
Collegiate Athletic Association, Defendants, Case No. 1:13-cv-
09116 (D. Utah., May 17, 2016), was transferred to the Northern
District of Illinois on July 19, 2016 under Case No. 1:16-cv-
07326.

Plaintiff is a former college football player who alleges the
Defendants of failing to protect the safety of student-athletes
from the dangers of repeated head injuries.

Plaintiff is represented by:

     Andrew Philip Slania, Esq.
     Jeffrey Lewis Raizner
     RAIZNER SLANIA LLP
     2402 Dunlavy Street
     Houston, TX 77006
     Tel: (713) 554-9099
     Email: efile@raiznerlaw.com

        - and -

     Mark F. James, Esq.
     HATCH, JAMES & DODGE, PC
     10 W. Broadway, Suite 400
     Salt Lake City, UT 84101
     Tel: (801) 363-6363
     Email: mjames@hjdlaw.com

        - and -

Defendant is represented by:

     Chad S. Pehrson, Esq.
     Jonathan O. Hafen, Esq.
     PARR BROWN GEE & LOVELESS
     101 S 200 E STE 700
     SALT LAKE CITY, UT 84111
     Tel: (801) 257-7989
     Email: cpehrson@parrbrown.com
            jhafen@parrbrown.com


ZETA INTERACTIVE: Court Resolves Deposition Issues in "Mora" Case
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, SERGIO MORA, Plaintiff, v. ZETA INTERACTIVE CORP., et
al., Defendants, Case No. 1:16-cv-00198-DAD-SAB (E.D. Calif.),
Magistrate Judge Stanley A. Boone ordered that during discovery,
Mr. William Ettinger's deposition shall take place before Mr.
Jeffrey Nimeroff's deposition for the parties' and witnesses'
convenience, while both are precluded from attending each other's
depositions.

Mr. Ettinger and Mr. Nimeroff are the Defendants' two persons most
knowledgeable sought in the case involving Defendants' alleged
violations of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA).

The Court found that Plaintiff has shown good cause for precluding
Mr. Ettinger and Mr. Nimeroff from attending each other's
depositions. Counsel may note which questions the deponent did not
have knowledge to answer, so that the other person most
knowledgeable can answer those questions.

A copy of the Court's Order dated July 20, 2016 is available at
http://goo.gl/vYXlWofrom Leagle.com.

Sergio Mora, Plaintiff, represented by Annick Marie Persinger --
apersinger@bursor.com -- Bursor & Fisher, P.A., Joshua Arisohn --
jarisohn@bursor.com -- Bursor & Fisher, P.A., pro hac vice, Julia
A. Luster -- jluster@bursor.com -- Bursor & Fisher, P.A., Scott A.
Bursor -- scott@bursor.com -- Bursor & Fisher PA, Yeremey
Olegovich Krivoshey -- ykrivoshey@bursor.com -- Bursor & Fisher,
P.A. & Lawrence Timothy Fisher -- ltfisher@bursor.com -- Bursor
and Fisher, PA.

Zeta Interactive Corp., Defendant, represented by Derek Alan
Newman -- derek@newmanlaw.com -- Newman Du Wors, LLP, John David
Du Wors -- john@newmanlaw.com -- Newman Du Wors LLP & Samantha
Marie Everett -- samantha@newmanlaw.com -- Newman Du Wors LLP.


                            *********

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  * * *