CAR_Public/160908.mbx              C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

            Thursday, September 8, 2016, Vol. 18, No. 180




                            Headlines


717 PARKING: Faces Class Action Over Deceptive Towing Practices
ADOBE CAFE: Does Not Properly Pay Employees, "Layne" Suit Claims
AGA SERVICE: Settlement Conference Continued to Nov. 17
AJINOMOTO WINDSOR: Certification of Class Sought in "Murphy" Suit
AMERICAN MODERN: Bid for Class Certification in "Green" Granted

AMIRA NATURE: Court Grants Motion to Dismiss Class Action
ANGIE'S LIST: Settles Class Action for $1.4MM, Dec. 5 Hearing Set
ARCELORMITTAL: Mon Valley Alliance Opts Out of Monessen Settlement
ASSET CAMPUS: Bid for Class Certification in "Jang" Suit Denied
ASTORIA FINANCIAL: Settlement in Merger Case Still Pending

AT&T: 9th Circuit Tosses FTC's Data-Throttling Suit
AVALONBAY COMMUNITIES: 19 Suits in Bergen County Pending
AXIALL CORP: West Virginia Residents Sue Over Chlorine Leak
BAE SYSTEMS: "Nunez" Class Suit Removed to S.D. California
BANNER HEALTH: Faces "Vollmer" Class Suit in District Arizona

BAYLOR COLLEGE: Class Cert. Sought in "Aguocha-Ohakweh Suit" Suit
BELLE TIRE: Hach Rose Initiates Consumer Class Action
BILL WHATCOTT: Faces Class Action Over Homophobic Actions
BMO NESBITT: Court Approves Overtime Class Action Settlement
BP PLC: Two Lawyers Sued Over Fraudulent Oil-Spill Claims

BRISTOL-MYERS: N.J. Judge Tosses Majority of Plavix Claims
BRISTOL-MYERS: Calif. Courts Have Jurisdiction Over Plavix Cases
CALIFORNIA: Spectrum Files Disabled Voting Rights Class Action
CARRINGTON MORTGAGE: Class Cert. in "Prindle" Granted in Part
CAVALRY PORTFOLIO: "Olsen" FDCPA Suit Cannot Proceed as Class

CELLULAR BIOMEDICINE: Class Action Litigation Dismissed
CHIPOTLE: About 10,000 Workers Join Suit Over Unpaid Wages
CIS SERVICES: Lockwood Seeks Certification of Adjusters Class
COLLECTO INC: "Tesch" Suit Seeks Certification of Class
CONNECTICUT: Correction Officers Sued Over Civil Rights Violation

CONTINENTAL AUTOMOTIVE: Seeks Dismissal of "West" Suit
CR ENGLAND: "Harper" Suit Removed to Utah Dist. Ct.
CYPRESS MEDIA: Class Cert. Renewed Bid in "O'Shaughnessy" Denied
DALLAS CENTRAL: Faces Hard Six Suit Over Appraisal Policies
DALLAS CENTRAL: Faces Olympus Hotels Suit Over Appraisal Policies

DALLAS CENTRAL: Faces A&B Properties Suit Over Appraisal Policies
DALLAS CENTRAL: Faces PS Business Suit Over Appraisal Policies
DALLAS CENTRAL: Faces Raim Cole Suit Over Appraisal Policies
DALLAS CENTRAL: Faces S&C Spring Suit Over Appraisal Policies
DALLAS CENTRAL: Faces Southwest Suit Over Appraisal Policies

DANIEL KELLERMAN: Loews Class Suit Removed to S.D. Florida
DALLAS CENTRAL: Faces Stone Canyon Suit Over Appraisal Policies
DALLAS CENTRAL: Faces Uptown Village Suit Over Appraisal Policies
DALLAS CENTRAL: Faces Wheatland Suit Over Appraisal Policies
DANIEL KELLERMAN: Loews Class Suit Removed to S.D. Florida

DEMOCRATIC NATIONAL: Sanders Supporters' Class Action Can Proceed
DENTSPLY SIRONA: Appeal in Weinstat-Nathan Case Remains Pending
DENTSPLY SIRONA: Class Certification Bid in "Hildebrand" Pending
DIRECTORS GUILD: Faces "Grossman" Class Suit in C.D. California
DL BUILDERS: Valdovinos Wants to Notify Members of Class Accord

DYNAMIC RECOVERY: Class Certification Hearing Continued to Oct. 2
EASY MOBILE: Court Rules Class Certification in "Freeman" Suit
EDWARD D. JONES: Faces Class Action Over Excessive 401(k) Fees
EMPIRE DISTRICT: MOU Reached to Resolve Kansas Suit
EMSP LLC: Class Certification in "Funez" Suit Partly Granted

ENERGY RECOVERY: Mediation Continued to October 12
ERNST & YOUNG: Class Action Waiver Not Enforceable, Court Rules
ESPN: Ex-College Athlete Loses Bid to Revive Publicity Rights Case
EXECUTIVE CUT: "Ornelas" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime
FIAT CHRYSLER: 6th Cir. Affirms Pacificas Class Action Dismissal

FIFTH THIRD BANCORP: "Klopfenstein" Case in Discovery
FRESENIUS MEDICAL: AG Sues Over Kidney Dialysis Product Risk
GE INSPECTION: Faces Class Action Over Wage Law Violations
GENERAL NUTRITION: Faces "Pasciolla" Suit in W.D. Pennsylvania
GOLDEN GATE: $750,000 Settlement Preliminarily Approved

GOLDMAN SACHS: Judge Casts Doubt on Antitrust Class Action
GREEN TREE: "Kamimura" Case Extends Submission of Discovery Plan
GROUP HEALTH: Faces "Wechsler" Class Suit in S.D. New York
HCA HOLDINGS: Sued Over Americans with Disabilities Act Violation
HM OPERATING: Settlement in "Comeens" Case Has Final OK

HOECHST MARION: Settles Cipro Class Action, Oct. 7 Hearing Set
HORIZON FINANCIAL: Class Certification Sought in "Wandersee" Suit
ICONIX BRAND: Bid to Dismiss Securities Case Pending
INTERNATIONAL PAPER: 7th Cir. Affirmed Class Cert. Ruling
INTERNATIONAL PAPER: No Class Cert. Bid Filed in Tenn. Suit

J CHOO: Court Allows FACTA Class Action to Proceed
JPMORGAN CHASE: Settlement in "Shore" Suit Has Initial Okay
KELLY SERVICES: "Gaffers" Suit Wins Conditional Certification
KILLION & SONS: Status Hearing in "Baughman" Suit on Sept. 16
KOREAN RAMEN: Samyang's Accord with Indirect Buyers Has Final OK

LANDRYS INC: Settlement in "Saechao" Suit Has Final Approval
LINN COUNTY, OR: Court Set to Rule on Motions on September 19
MARGRAF COLLECTION: Bloodworth Seeks Certification of Class
MDL 2196: Mohawk Industries Settled Individual Claims
MCLEOD EXPRESS: Court Denied Class Certification in "Downs" Suit

MENZIES AVIATION: Settles Back-Pay Lawsuit for $8.2 Million
MISSOURI: Jamerson May File Amended Complaint in Hep C Action
MONTEREY FINANCIAL: Dixon May Amend Class Complaint
MORTGAGE ELECTRONIC: Washington County Drops Class Action
NEST LABS: Averts Class Action Over Wi-Fi-Enabled Thermostats

NEW YORK COMMUNITY: Settlement in Merger Case Still Pending
NORTHERN OIL: Faces Securities Class Action in New York
OCEAN STATE: Faces "Hanscome" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
ORRSTOWN FINANCIAL: Bid to Dismiss SEPTA Lawsuit Underway
PACIFIC GAS: Amended Protective Order Adopted in "Greer" Suit

PANERA BREAD: Must Pay $5,578 Bill of Costs in "Boswell" Suit
PHILIP MORRIS: Tobacco Class Action Settlement Gets Prelim. OK
POWER SOLUTIONS: October 21 Lead Plaintiff Motion Deadline Set
QUANTUM LEARNING: Court Seals Deporter's Declaration
RAYONIER INC: Consolidated Securities Suit in Discovery Phase

RED GRANITE: Amanah Seeks Yang's Support for 1MBD Class Action
RJ REYNOLDS: Lawyer Faces Sanctions in Florida Tobacco Case
ROCKET FUEL: Class Certification Sought in Rocket Fuel Litigation
S2VERIFY: Class Notice Plan in "Hawkins" Case Approved
SCRAP INC: Class Cert. Bid in Chicago Car Care Suit Continued

SEPTRAN INC: Barker Seeks Prelim. Approval of Class Settlement
SQUARETWO FINANCIAL: Class Certification Sought in "Maloney" Suit
ST. JUDE MEDICAL: Faces "Ross" Class Suit in C.D. California
ST. JUDE MEDICAL: November 9 Settlement Fairness Hearing Set
STATE FARM: "Dennington" Suit May Proceed as Class Action

SUNPOWER CORP: October 17 Lead Plaintiff Motion Deadline Set
SUNTRUST BANK: Stock-Drop Suit Obtained Class Action Status
SURFSTITCH: More Than 100 Investors to Join Class Action
SYMANTEC CORPORATION: Appeal in Suit Over EDS & NDI Sales Pending
TAMKO BUILDING: Court Grants Page Extension in "Snyder" Suit

TEREX CORPORATION: Still Faces Class Suits in Conn. & Del.
THOROUGHBRED RESEARCH: Has Sent Unsolicited Messages, Suit Claims
TIVO INC: Faces Securities Class Action in California
TRANSENTERIX INC: Bid to Dismiss "Bankley" Still Pending
TRUSTMARK CORP: Bid to Dismiss 2nd Amended Complaint Denied

UBER TECHNOLOGIES: Bid to Intervene in "O'Connor" Suit Denied
UGI CORPORATION: Indirect Purchaser Claims Remain Pending
UGI CORPORATION: New Group of Indirect Buyers Files Class Suit
UNITED RECOVERY: Illegally Collects Debt, "Pacanowski" Suit Says
UNITED STATES: HUD Faces Class Action Over Discriminatory Practice

UNITED TECHNOLOGIES: "Millman" Class Suit Removed to N.D. Indiana
UPS: Triangle Workers Mull Class Action Over Working Conditions
VARITRONICS LLC: Discovery Ruling in Yaakov Case Affirmed
VCA INC: Class Certification & Summary Judgment Bids Underway
VERIZON COMMUNICATIONS: 3rd Cir. Upholds Dismissal of "Berkerey"

VOLARIS: Securities Class Action Dismissed with Prejudice
WELLS FARGO: Settles Student-Loan Case for $4 Million
WHIRLPOOL: Bid to Compel Non-Party Discovery Denied
WIPRO TECHNOLOGIES: Class Certification in "Payala" Suit Denied

* ACA Submits Comments on CFPB's Proposed Arbitration Rule
* Conservative Group Challenges CFPB's Arbitration Rule
* Lawsuits Challenge Universities' 403(b) Retirement Plans
* New Entrants Drives Upward Trend in Australian Class Action Risk
* Report Shows Spike in Shareholder Class Actions in Australia


                            *********


717 PARKING: Faces Class Action Over Deceptive Towing Practices
---------------------------------------------------------------
Noah Pransky, writing for WTSP, reports that law firm Morgan &
Morgan has filed a lawsuit seeking class-action status following a
10Investigates story into questionable towing practices by Tampa-
based 717 Parking Enterprises and its leading towing partner,
Target Recovery & Transport.

The lawsuit accuses 717 and Target Recovery of "unlawful, unfair,
deceptive and unconscionable practices," including failing to
provide parking receipts when drivers paid attendants in cash,
towing away vehicles inappropriately, and overcharging those
drivers in violation of Hillsborough County ordinances.

10Investigates exposed, following a number of viewer complaints,
how Target Recovery improperly assessed after-hours fees at nights
and on weekends, and also charged a prohibited $25 private parking
fine to drivers towed from 717 lots, even in some cases where
those drivers had appeared to pay attendants in cash.

The lawsuit, filed in Hillsborough County, also alleges the
defendants broke the law by "accepting money for the privilege of
towing or removing from a particular location" and seeks "damages
in excess of $15,000, exclusive of interest, attorneys' fees and
costs and jurisdiction properly lies with this Court."

If class action status is granted by the court, any driver
improperly towed or ticketed by Target Recovery or 717 Parking may
be eligible for damages.

When 10Investigates first reported on 717 and Target complaints in
May, the Hillsborough County Public Transportation Commission
(PTC) had done little in reaction to the violations of the county
wrecker rules.

But after the story aired, the Hillsborough PTC audited 30 days'
worth of Target towing receipts and issued fines for improper
after-hours fees and for assessing improper private parking fines
on behalf of 717.  10Investigates continued to expose improper
charges later in the summer as well and the PTC is continuing to
investigate, with additional fines possible.

717 President & CEO Jason Accardi emailed the following statement
to 10Investigates on Aug. 22:

"At Seven One Seven Parking Enterprises, we have built our company
based on providing the best parking services possible, hiring the
best employees and always being accessible and accountable to our
customers.  We promote a professional and engaging atmosphere at
all times.  Our reputation and integrity are of utmost importance
to us and we have experienced great success based upon our great
reputation and how we treat people with dignity and respect in all
situations.  We strive to provide safe & convenient parking
options for the citizens and patrons of the Tampa bay &
surrounding areas."

"However, since this matter is the subject of a pending
litigation, we are unable to comment with specific detail as it
relates to this litigation and we will respond appropriately to
the lawsuit.  We are confident that our position will be clarified
throughout the litigation process and we will continue to manage
and operate all of Seven One Seven Parking's parking facilities
with the utmost integrity and highest quality service, while
treating everyone we encounter with dignity and respect, always
intending to maintain and preserve the safety and best interest of
our valued patrons."

Target Recovery owner Kris Grau did not yet respond to an Aug. 21
email.


ADOBE CAFE: Does Not Properly Pay Employees, "Layne" Suit Claims
----------------------------------------------------------------
Troy Layne, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated
v. Adobe Cafe, Inc., Addison & Herrerrias, Inc. and
Mariano Herrerrias, Case No. 160803648 (Phil. Cmmw. Ct., August
26, 2016), is brought against the Defendants for failure to
properly pay employees in accordance with state wage and hour law.

The Defendants own and operate Adobe Cafe restaurants in
Philadelphia.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Joshua P. Rubinsky, Esq.
      Amy E. Galer, Esq.
      David W. Snyder, Esq.
      BRODIE & RUBINSKY, P.C.
      121 South Broad Street, Suite 800
      Philadelphia, PA 19107
      Telephone: (215) 925-1470
      Facsimile: (215) 925-3748


AGA SERVICE: Settlement Conference Continued to Nov. 17
-------------------------------------------------------
Magistrate Judge Elizabeth D. Laporte granted the parties'
stipulation on a continuance of the Settlement Conference from
September 8, 2016 to November 17, 2016 in the case, FAZILAT
KAZEMINEZHAD, an individual and BRETT W. LASHLEE, an individual,
On Behalf of Themselves and All Others Similarly Situated,
Plaintiffs, v. AGA SERVICE COMPANY, a Virginia corporation (a/k/a
ALLIANZ GLOBAL ASSISTANCE USA) and JEFFERSON INSURANCE COMPANY, a
New York Corporation, Defendants, Case No. 3:15-cv-05087-JD (N.D.
Cal.).

The new schedule would allow for additional data points to be
compiled and analyzed in combination with the current data results
and then for the Parties' to exchange their settlement proposals
and discuss their respective settlement models prior to the
Settlement Conference.

A copy of the Court's Order dated August 18, 2016 is available at
http://goo.gl/pMYKp7from Leagle.com.

Fazilat Kazeminezhad, et al., Plaintiffs, represented by Ingrid M.
Evans -- ingrid@evanslaw.com -- The Evans Law Firm, Lane Lanier
Vines, Berger Montague, P.C., pro hac vice, Michael Aaron Levy --
michael@evanslaw.com -- Evans Law Firm, Inc., Peter Richard Kahana
-- pkahana@bm.net -- Berger Montague, P.C. & Yechiel Michael
Twersky, Berger Montague, P.C., pro hac vice.

AGA Service Company, et al. Defendants, represented by Gayle Irene
Jenkins -- gjenkins@winston.com -- Winston & Strawn, LLP & Navdeep
Kaur Punia -- npunia@winston.com -- Winston Strawn LLP.


AJINOMOTO WINDSOR: Certification of Class Sought in "Murphy" Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit styled James S. Murphy, the Plaintiff, v. Ajinomoto
Windsor, Inc., the Defendant, Case No. 1:15-cv-00120-JAR (E.D.
Mo.), the Plaintiff asks the Court to conditionally certify a
class of:

     "All persons who were employed by Ajinomoto Windsor, Inc.
     and/or Windsor Quality Foods at their Carthage, Missouri, or
     Piedmont, Missouri, facilities as production-floor employees
     at any time from three years prior to June 26, 2015, through
     the present, and who were not compensated at a rate of one
     and one half times their regular rate of pay for hours
     worked over 40 a week for time spent donning and doffing
     protective gear or equipment, performing sanitary activities
     such as washing hands and utilizing a foot sanitizer, and
     walking to or from these activities to the production-line
     floor."

The Plaintiff regularly worked more than 40 hours per week. As a
result, the Plaintiff and similarly situated employees were
entitled to overtime compensation for the above activities.
Because of Ajinomoto's policy of not paying employees for these
required work activities, the Plaintiff and similarly situated
employees did not receive the overtime compensation to which they
were entitled under the FLSA.

The Defendant makes Asian/Ethnic foods and appetizers.

A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=25Xl5bPr

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Matthew T. Swift, Esq.
          John F. Edgar, Esq.
          Michael D. Pospisil, Esq.
          EDGAR LAW FIRM LLC
          1032 Pennsylvania Ave.
          Kansas City, MO 64105
          Telephone: (816) 531-0033
          E-mail: jfe@edgarlawfirm.com
                  mdp@edgarlawfirm.com
                  mts@edgarlawfirm.com

The Defendant is represented by:

          Tracy C. Litzinger, Esq.
          David C. Van Dyke, Esq.
          Emily E. Bennett, Esq.
          HOWARD & HOWARD ATTORNEYS PLLC
          One Technology Plaza
          211 Fulton, Suite 600
          Peoria, IL 61602
          Telephone: (309) 672 1483
          Facsimile: (309) 672 1568
          E-mail: tlitzinger@howardandhoward.com
                  dvandyke@howardandhoward.com
                  ebennett@howardandhoward.com


AMERICAN MODERN: Bid for Class Certification in "Green" Granted
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit captioned PAMELA GREEN individually and on behalf
of others similarly situated PLAINTIFFS v. AMERICAN MODERN HOME
INSURANCE COMPANY, Case No. 4:14-cv-04074-SOH (W.D. Ark.), the
Hon. Judge Susan O. Hickey entered order granting Plaintiff's
motion to certify a class of:

     "All persons and entities that received "actual cash value"
     payments, directly or indirectly, from American Modern for
     loss or damage to a dwelling or other structure located in
     the State of Arkansas, such payments arising from events
     that occurred within the five years preceding the date of
     filing of the Class action complaint, where the cost of
     labor was depreciated."

Excluded from the Class are: (1) all persons and entities that
received payment from American Modern in the full amount of
insurance shown on the declarations page; (2) American Modern and
its affiliates, officers and directors; (3) members of the
judiciary and their staff to whom this action is assigned; and (4)
Plaintiff's counsel.

The Court further entered an order:

     1. denying Defendant's motion for fearing;

     2. approving Pamela Green as class representative; and

     3. appointing law firms of Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check,
        LLP; Keil & Goodson, P.A.; Mattingly & Roselius, PLLC;
        Murphy, Thompson, Arnold, Skinner & Castleberry; Taylor
        Law Partners, LLP; Stephen Engstrom Law Office; Crowley
        Norman LLP; and James M. Pratt, Jr., P.A. as counsel for
        the Class.

A copy of the Order is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=1F0Q5oFx


AMIRA NATURE: Court Grants Motion to Dismiss Class Action
---------------------------------------------------------
Amira Nature Foods Ltd., a global provider of branded packaged
specialty rice, on Aug. 22 disclosed that the court granted the
Company's motion to dismiss class action lawsuit.

In February 2015, two proposed shareholder class action lawsuits
were filed against Amira Nature Foods Ltd. in the United States
District Court for the Central District of California.  The
complaints, which were subsequently consolidated, (the "Class
Action") named as defendants the Company and certain of its
current and former officers and directors.  The Class Action
purported to state claims for violation of Section 11 and Section
15 of the Securities Act and Section 10(b) and Section 20(a) of
the Exchange Act.

The Company contested the allegations in the Class Action and on
October 22, 2015, filed a Motion to Dismiss the Class Action, as
amended.

On July 18, 2016 the Court granted the Company's Motion to Dismiss
the Class Action in its entirety and provided Plaintiffs with a
deadline of August 4, 2016, to re-file an amended complaint which
Plaintiffs failed to do.

                  About Amira Nature Foods Ltd

Founded in 1915, Amira -- http://www.amira.net-- is a global
provider of branded packaged specialty rice, including Basmati and
other food products, with sales across five continents around the
world.  The Company primarily sells Basmati rice, which is a
premium long-grain rice grown only in the geographically indicated
region of the Indian sub-continent, under its flagship Amira brand
as well as under other third party brands.  Amira sells its
products through a broad distribution network in both the
developed and emerging markets.  The Company's global headquarters
are in Dubai, United Arab Emirates, and it also has offices in
India, Malaysia, Singapore, Germany, the United Kingdom, and the
United States.  Amira Nature Foods Ltd is listed on the New York
Stock Exchange (NYSE) under the ticker symbol "ANFI."


ANGIE'S LIST: Settles Class Action for $1.4MM, Dec. 5 Hearing Set
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Jared Council, writing for Indianapolis Business Journal, reports
that Angie's List Inc. has agreed to pay $1.4 million to settle a
class-action lawsuit claiming it manipulated search results and
ratings to favor advertisers -- claims that the home-services
company denies.

Judge Stewart Dalzell of the U.S. District Court of the Eastern
District of Pennsylvania signed off on the settlement proposal in
July and signed a scheduling order earlier in August.  In recent
days, class-action members -- all U.S. citizens who were paid
Angie's List members between March 11, 2009, and July 12, 2016 --
started receiving emails with information about filing settlement
claims.

Indianapolis-based Angie's List agreed to the settlement without
admission or concession of any liability or wrongdoing, according
to court filings, and the court hasn't sided with either party.
However, Angie's List agreed to provide expanded disclosures about
service-provider advertising on its website and in its membership
agreement.

A hearing to finalize the settlement is set for Dec. 5.  Attorneys
in the case are seeking a maximum of $937,500 in legal fees and
the three main plaintiffs are looking to split $12,500.

Class-action members have until Nov. 15 to file claims. Those
individuals are entitled to either a cash payment of $5 or $10, or
"one free month of membership to Angie's List for each full year
he or she paid for membership during the relevant periods."

The case stems in part from a suit filed by a Philadelphia woman
in March 2015 claiming she was swindled by a contractor whose bad
reviews were suppressed on the Angie's List site.  That suit was
merged with two other suits alleging revenue-related manipulation
and was granted class-action status.

Angie's List denied the plaintiffs' claims, according to court
documents, denying that revenue can affect the content of reviews
and ratings.

Angie's List spokeswoman Cheryl Reed sent the following response
to IBJ via email on Aug. 22:

"We are committed to the mission of connecting consumers with
high-quality service providers and doing it with integrity while
striving for transparency and awareness.  We believe that we have
conducted business in this manner, and the proposed settlement is
not an admission that the company has done anything wrong.  As a
company, however, we would rather pursue a settlement at this time
in a manner that provides a benefit to our members rather than
incurring the cost and disruption associated with continued
litigation."

Attorneys with Philadelphia-based Golomb & Honik PC didn't
immediately return phone calls seeking comment.


ARCELORMITTAL: Mon Valley Alliance Opts Out of Monessen Settlement
------------------------------------------------------------------
Scott Beveridge, writing for Observer-Reporter, reports that the
Mon Valley Alliance economic development group has opted out of
receiving a share of a cash settlement a Monessen coke plant
agreed to pay to end a federal Clean Air Act lawsuit.

The alliance announced on Aug. 22 it didn't want to be involved in
the tentative settlement ArcelorMittal reached with local
residents who filed a class action lawsuit in June 2015 over foul
odors the plant emitted after it reopened.

"While we recognize the importance of meeting air quality
standards, we acknowledge the major investment of $50 million by
ArcelorMittal in capital improvements to the Monessen Coke Plant
and the ongoing efforts of ArcelorMittal to address air quality
issues," Mon Valley Alliance Chairman John Easoz stated in a news
release.

The tentative settlement reached in March called for the company
to pay $452,500 to the plaintiffs, $250,500 of which would apply
to attorney fees. The rest of the money would be divided among
those within a 1-1/2-mile radius of the plant at 345 Donner Ave.

The company also agreed to invest another $450,000 in plant
upgrades to reduce emissions.

The alliance formed in a merger in March of the Mon Valley
Progress Council and Middle Monongahela Industrial Development
Association. The alliance made the list of those eligible to
receive a portion of the settlement because the council's offices
were in Monessen.

The Monessen plant employs 179 people, 154 of whom belong to a
union, the alliance said.

"Well-paid manufacturing jobs are the key for economic development
in the mid-Mon Valley. We applaud Mittal's ongoing commitment to
our region," Easoz said.


ASSET CAMPUS: Bid for Class Certification in "Jang" Suit Denied
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit titled Andy Jang, the Plaintiff v. Asset Campus
Housing, Inc., et al., the Defendant, Case No. 2:15-cv-01067-JAK-
PLA (C.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge John A. Kronstadt entered an
order:

     1. denying Plaintiff's motion to certify a class action; and

     2. mooting a motion to strike portions of the reply.

Because Plaintiff does not qualify to seek injunctive relief, he
is not a suitable representative for those putative class members
who are current tenants in units related to Defendants and who
could benefit from injunctive relief.

The court's order provides that, "decisions about former employees
are instructive. They have been deemed inadequate class
representatives for current employees. See Ellis, 657 F.3d at 986
("As former employees, Ellis and Horstman would not share an
interest with class members whose primary goal is to obtain
injunctive relief. Thus, as the class currently stands, Ellis and
Horstman will not adequately protect the interests of the class as
a whole")."

A Status Conference in the matter as to scheduling, is set for
September 19, 2016 at 1:30 p.m . On or before September 9, 2016,
counsel shall submit a joint report with their collective or
respective positions as to scheduling.

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


ASTORIA FINANCIAL: Settlement in Merger Case Still Pending
----------------------------------------------------------
Astoria Financial Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 5, 2016, for
the quarterly period ended June 30, 2016, that the settlement in a
merger class action lawsuit remains pending.

The Company said, "Following the announcement of the execution of
a Merger Agreement, six lawsuits challenging the proposed Merger
were filed in the Supreme Court of the State of New York, County
of Nassau. These actions are captioned: (1) Sandra E. Weiss IRA v.
Chrin, et al., Index No. 607132/2015 (filed November 4, 2015); (2)
Raul v. Palleschi, et al., Index No. 607238/2015 (filed November
6, 2015); (3) Lowinger v. Redman, et al., Index No. 607268/2015
(filed November 9, 2015); (4) Minzer v. Astoria Fin. Corp., et
al., Index No. 607358/2015 (filed November 12, 2015); (5) MSS 12-
09 Trust v. Palleschi, et al., Index No. 607472/2015 (filed
November 13, 2015); and (6) The Firemen's Retirement System of St.
Louis v. Keegan, et al., Index No. 607612/2015 (filed November 23,
2015). On January 15, 2016, the court consolidated the New York
lawsuits under the caption In re Astoria Financial Corporation
Shareholders Litigation, Index No. 607132/2015, and on January 29,
2016 the lead plaintiffs filed an amended consolidated complaint.
In addition, a seventh lawsuit was filed challenging the proposed
transaction in the Delaware Court of Chancery, captioned O'Connell
v. Astoria Financial Corp., et al., Case No. 11928 (filed January
22, 2016). The plaintiff in this case filed an amended complaint
on February 17, 2016. Each of the lawsuits is a putative class
action filed on behalf of the stockholders of Astoria and names as
defendants Astoria, its directors and NYCB, or collectively, the
defendants."

"The various complaints generally allege that the directors of
Astoria breached their fiduciary duties in connection with their
approval of the Merger Agreement because they failed to properly
value Astoria and to take steps to maximize value to Astoria's
public stockholders, resulting in inadequate merger consideration.
The complaints further allege that the directors of Astoria
approved the Merger through a flawed and unfair sales process,
alleging the absence of a competitive sales process and that the
process was tainted by certain alleged conflicts of interest on
the part of the Astoria directors regarding certain personal and
financial benefits they will receive upon consummation of the
proposed transaction that public stockholders of Astoria will not
receive. The complaints also variously allege that the Astoria
directors breached their fiduciary duties because they improperly
agreed to deal protection devices that allegedly preclude other
bidders from making a successful competing offer for Astoria,
including a no solicitation provision that allegedly prevents
other buyers from participating in discussions which may lead to a
superior proposal, a matching rights provision that allows NYCB to
match any competing proposal in the event one is made and a
provision that requires Astoria to pay NYCB a termination fee of
$69.5 million under certain circumstances. In addition, the
lawsuit filed in Delaware also alleges that Astoria's directors
breached their fiduciary duties by causing a false and materially
misleading Form S-4 Registration Statement to be filed with the
SEC. Each of the complaints further alleges that NYCB aided and
abetted the alleged fiduciary breaches by the Astoria directors.

"Each of the actions seek, among other things, an order enjoining
completion of the proposed Merger and an award of costs and
attorneys' fees. Certain of the actions also seek compensatory
damages arising from the alleged breaches of fiduciary duty. The
defendants believe these actions are without merit. Accordingly,
no liability or reserve has been recognized in our consolidated
statement of financial condition at June 30, 2016 with respect to
these matters.

"On April 6, 2016, the defendants and lead plaintiffs for the
consolidated New York lawsuits entered into a memorandum of
understanding, or the MOU, which provides for the settlement of
the New York lawsuits. The MOU contemplates, among other things,
that Astoria will make certain supplemental disclosures relating
to the Merger. Although the defendants deny the allegations made
in the New York lawsuits (including the amended consolidated
complaint) and believe that no supplemental disclosure is required
under applicable laws, in order to avoid the burden and expense of
further litigation, Astoria agreed to make such supplemental
disclosures pursuant to the terms of the MOU. The supplemental
disclosures were made available to Astoria's shareholders on April
8, 2016 through a filing with the SEC by Astoria on a Current
Report on Form 8-K.

"The settlement contemplated by the MOU is subject to confirmatory
discovery and customary conditions, including court approval
following notice to Astoria's stockholders. A hearing will be
scheduled at which the Supreme Court of the State of New York will
consider the fairness, reasonableness and adequacy of the
settlement. If the settlement is finally approved by the court, it
will resolve and release all claims by stockholders of Astoria
challenging any aspect of the Merger, the Merger Agreement, and
any disclosure made in connection therewith, pursuant to terms
that will be disclosed to stockholders prior to final approval of
the settlement. There can be no assurance that the court will
approve the settlement contemplated by the MOU. If the court does
not approve the settlement, or if the settlement is otherwise
disallowed, the proposed settlement as contemplated by the MOU may
be terminated. If the MOU is terminated, no assurance can be given
at this time that the litigation against us will be resolved in
our favor, that this litigation will not be costly to defend, that
this litigation will not have an impact on our financial condition
or results of operations or that, ultimately, any such impact will
not be material."


AT&T: 9th Circuit Tosses FTC's Data-Throttling Suit
---------------------------------------------------
Ross Todd, writing for Law.com, reports that the U.S. Court of
Appeals for Ninth Circuit has clipped the authority of the Federal
Trade Commission when it comes to regulating phone companies.

A three-judge panel sided with AT&T Mobility LLC in its fight with
the agency over the company's practice of slowing down data
service, known as data-throttling, for customers with unlimited
data plans.

Circuit Judge Richard Clifton wrote in a 21-page opinion issued on
Aug. 29 that AT&T's status as a common carrier shielded it from
the enforcement action brought under the FTC Act and ordered the
lower court to dismiss the suit.

AT&T stopped offering new unlimited plans in June 2010, but
grandfathered in customers who already had the plans.  The FTC
complaint, filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of California in 2014, alleged that the company had been
reducing the speed of data service for customers who reached
certain usage thresholds in each cycle, sometimes by almost 90
percent.

AT&T had tried to persuade U.S. District Judge Edward Chen that
the company was exempt from suits brought under Section 5 of the
FTC Act because of the law's carve-out for common carriers.  But
last year, Chen sided with the government agency finding that the
exemption applied to specific common-carrier activities -- such as
providing phone service -- but not to noncommon-carrier
activities, such as data service.

The Federal Communications Commission actually reclassified data
services as a common-carrier activity as part of its "net
neutrality" rules while the FTC case was pending last year.  But
Chen found that even in light of that change the FTC could still
pursue claims related to AT&T's past activity.  Judge Chen cited
prior cases where government regulators had taken action against
common carriers for their noncommon-carrier activities.

In the Aug. 29 opinion, Judge Clifton wrote that Judge Chen's
reliance on those prior cases was misplaced.  "While these cases
recognize a distinction between common carrier and non-common
carrier activities in the regulation of entities with common
carrier status, they do not show that when Congress used the term
'common carrier' in the FTC Act, it could only have meant 'common
carrier to the extent engaged in common carrier activity,' " Judge
Clifton wrote.  "There is no indication that the regulatory
distinction in the cases the district court cited is implicit in
Congress's phrasing of the common carrier exemption" in the FTC
Act, he wrote.

Although the Aug. 29 decision comes as a win for AT&T, the
company's practices haven't escaped all regulatory scrutiny.  In
June 2015, the FCC fined the company $100 million over similar
data-throttling allegations. The company has since raised the
threshold its unlimited-plan customers can reach before it slows
their data speeds.

AT&T's lawyer, Michael Kellogg --
mkellogg@khhte.com -- of Kellogg, Huber, Hansen, Todd, Evans &
Figel, referred a request for comment to a company spokesman.  The
spokesman said in an email that the company is pleased with the
decision, but declined to comment further.

An FTC spokesman said in an email that the agency is "disappointed
with the ruling" is considering "options for moving forward."


AVALONBAY COMMUNITIES: 19 Suits in Bergen County Pending
--------------------------------------------------------
Avalonbay Communities, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 5, 2016, for
the quarterly period ended June 30, 2016, that 20 lawsuits
representing approximately 141 individual plaintiffs have been
filed in the Superior Court of New Jersey Bergen County -- Law
Division and 19 of these lawsuits are currently pending.

In January 2015, a fire occurred at the Company's Avalon at
Edgewater apartment community in Edgewater, NJ. The Company
believes that the fire was caused by sparks from a torch used
during repairs being performed by a Company employee who was not a
licensed plumber. The Company has since revised its maintenance
policies to require that non-flame tools be used for plumbing
repairs where possible or, where not possible inside the building
envelope, that a qualified third party vendor perform the work in
accordance with AvalonBay policies.

The Company is aware that third parties incurred significant
property damage and are claiming other losses, such as relocation
costs, as a result of the casualty loss. The Company has
established protocols for processing claims and has encouraged any
party who sustained a loss to contact the Company's insurance
carrier to file a claim. Through the date of this Form 10-Q, of
the 229 occupied apartments destroyed in the fire, the residents
of approximately 90 units have settled claims with the Company's
insurer, and claims from an additional approximate 27 units are
being evaluated by the Company's insurer.

Three class action lawsuits have been filed against the Company on
behalf of occupants of the destroyed building and consolidated in
the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey.
The Company has agreed with class counsel to the terms of a
proposed settlement which would provide a claims process (with
agreed upon protocols for instructing the adjuster as to how to
evaluate claims) and, if needed, an arbitration process to
determine damage amounts to be paid to individual claimants
covered by the class settlement.

On July 8, 2016, class counsel filed with the court a motion for
preliminary approval of this class settlement, and the Company did
not oppose such motion. However, the Company cannot predict when
or if the court will approve the settlement.

A fourth class action, being heard in the same federal court, was
filed against the Company on behalf of residents of the second
Edgewater building that suffered minimal damage.

In addition to the class action lawsuits described, 20 lawsuits
representing approximately 141 individual plaintiffs have been
filed in the Superior Court of New Jersey Bergen County -- Law
Division and 19 of these lawsuits are currently pending. Most of
these state court cases have been consolidated by the court and
the Company expects all of them to be consolidated shortly. The
Company believes that it has meritorious defenses to the extent of
damages claimed in all of the suits.

Having incurred applicable deductibles, the Company currently
believes that all of its remaining liability to third parties
(including any liability to third parties determined in accordance
with the class settlement described above, if approved) will be
substantially covered by its insurance policies. However, the
Company can give no assurances in this regard and continues to
evaluate this matter.


AXIALL CORP: West Virginia Residents Sue Over Chlorine Leak
-----------------------------------------------------------
The Associated Press reports that West Virginians are suing one of
the nation's largest chlorine producers after a cloud of chlorine
gas leaked from a railcar inside a company chemical plant near
their homes.

Attorney Jim Bordas says the Aug. 27 chlorine leak at the Axiall
Corp. plant forced residents from their homes and damaged their
properties.  The National Transportation Safety Board said on
Sept. 1 that about 17,000 gallons of chlorine leaked out.

"This is a very serious matter," Mr. Bordas said.  "Property has
been destroyed, people are worried and afraid.  They are afraid of
the possible health consequences that may result from this leak."

Mr. Bordas is accusing the company of general negligence,
trespass, private nuisance and public nuisance, and seeking class
action status so that others who suffered can join the suit.

Officials with Westlake Chemical Corp., which completed a $3.8
billion acquisition of Axiall on Aug. 31, didn't respond to
requests for comment from The Intelligencer

The newspaper reports that Mr. Bordas filed in Marshall County
Circuit Court on Aug. 27 on behalf of Tim Bohrer, Rhonda Bohrer,
Roy Yoho and Darlene Yoho.


BAE SYSTEMS: "Nunez" Class Suit Removed to S.D. California
----------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit captioned Eduardo Nunez, individually and
on behalf of others similarly situated v. BAE Systems San Diego
Ship Repair Inc. and Does 1 through 50, inclusive, Case No. 37-
02016-00018149-CU, was removed from the Superior Court of
California, San Diego County to the U.S. District Court
Southern District of California (San Diego). The District Court
Clerk assigned Case No. 3:16-cv-02162-JLS-NLS to the proceeding.
BAE Systems San Diego Ship Repair Inc. provides non-nuclear ship
repair, modernization, conversion, and overhaul services.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Alexander I. Dychter, Esq.
      DYCHTER LAW OFFICES, APC
      1010 Second Ave., Ste 1835
      San Diego, CA 92101
      Telephone: (619) 487-0777
      E-mail: alex@dychterlaw.com

The Defendant is represented by:

      Mary Dollarhide, Esq.
      PAUL HASTINGS JANOFSKY & WALKER LLP
      4747 Executive Drive, 12th Floor
      San Diego, CA 92121
      Telephone: (858) 458-3000
      Facsimile: (858) 458-3005
      E-mail: marydollarhide@paulhastings.com

BANNER HEALTH: Faces "Vollmer" Class Suit in District Arizona
-------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been commenced against Banner Health
and Banner - University Medical Group.

The case is captioned Amanda Vollmer, Donald Vollmer Jr., and Sean
Richardson, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. Banner Health and Banner - University Medical Group,
Case No. 2:16-cv-02869-SRB (D. Ariz., August 26, 2016).

The Defendants operate an academic medical center in Phoenix,
Arizona.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Andrew S. Friedman, Esq.
      BONNETT FAIRBOURN FRIEDMAN & BALINT PC
      2325 E Camelback Rd., Ste. 300
      Phoenix, AZ 85016
      Telephone: (602) 776-5902
      Facsimile: (602) 274-1199
      E-mail: afriedman@bffb.com

         - and -

      Christopher D. Jennings, Esq.
      JOHNSON VINES PLLC
      2226 Cottondale Lane, Ste. 210
      Little Rock, AR 72202
      Telephone: (501) 372-1300
      Facsimile: (888) 505-0909
      E-mail: cjennings@johnsonvines.com

         - and -

      David G. Scott, Esq.
      John G. Emerson, Esq.
      EMERSON SCOTT LLP
      1301 Scott St.
      Little Rock, AR 72202
      Telephone: (501) 907-2555
      Facsimile: (501) 907-2556
      E-mail: DSCOTT@EMERSONFIRM.COM
              JEMERSON@EMERSONFIRM.COM

         - and -

      Manfred Muecke, Esq.
      Patricia Nicole Syverson, Esq.
      BONNETT FAIRBOURN FRIEDMAN & BALINT PC
      600 W Broadway, Ste. 900
      San Diego, CA 92101
      Telephone: (619) 798-4292
      E-mail: psyverson@bffb.com

         - and -

      Samuel M. Ward, Esq.
      Stephen Richard Basser, Esq.
      BARRACK RODOS & BACINE
      1 American Plaza
      600 W Broadway, Ste. 900
      San Diego, CA 92119
      Telephone: (619) 230-0800
      Facsimile: (619) 230-1874
      E-mail: sward@barrack.com
              sbasser@barrack.com


BAYLOR COLLEGE: Class Cert. Sought in "Aguocha-Ohakweh Suit" Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The Plaintiffs in the lawsuit titled Emily-Jean Aguocha-Ohakweh,
et al., on behalf of the United States of America and The State of
Texas v. Baylor College of Medicine, Harris County Hospital
District, et al., Case No. 4:16-cv-01704 (S.D. Tex.), file with
the Court their motion to certify class seeking to be deemed class
representatives in a class action.  The Plaintiffs define the
Class as:

       i. All harmed victims of 14th Amendment U.S.
          Constitutional Rights deprivations or subjections to
          deprivation of such rights in the course of providing
          health care services in Texas and by persons or
          entities acting under the color of law;

      ii. All harmed victims of conspiracy for the purpose of
          impeding, hindering, obstructing, or defeating in any
          manner, the due course of justice in any State or
          Territory with the United States with intent to deny to
          any citizen the equal protection of the laws, and said
          wrongful acts and resulting injury occurred in the
          course of providing health care services in Texas; and

     iii. All harmed victims of any conspiracy or any act in
          furtherance of the object of such conspiracy, to either
          directly or indirectly deprive any persons of the equal
          protection of the laws, or of equal privileges and
          immunities under the whereby another is injured in his
          person or property, or deprived of having and
          exercising any right or privilege of a citizen of
          Texas, and said wrongful acts and resulting injury
          occurred in the course of providing health care
          services.

The Plaintiffs also ask the Court to appoint Ernest C. Adimora-
Nweke, Jr., Esq., and his firm, Adimora Law Firm, PLLC, as Class
Counsel.

Emily-Jean Aguocha-Ohakweh, et al., allege, among other things,
that they were subject to the Defendants' conspiracies and actions
in furtherance of such to deprive them of their 14th Amendment
U.S. Constitutional takings, substantive and procedural due
process, privileges and immunities, and equal protection rights.

A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=cNKLoDX4

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Ernest Adimora-Nweke, Jr., Esq.
          ADIMORA LAW FIRM
          5100 Westheimer Rd., Suite 200
          Telephone: (281) 940-5170
          E-mail: Ernest@adimoralaw.com

Defendant Harris County Hospital District d/b/a Harris Health
System d/b/a Ben Taub Hospital is represented by:

          Ebon Swofford, Esq.
          ASSISTANT COUNTY ATTORNEY
          L. Sara Thomas, Esq.
          DEPUTY MANAGING ATTORNEY
          2525 Holly Hall, Suite 190
          Houston, TX 77054
          Telephone: (713) 566-6559
          Facsimile: (713) 566-6558
          E-mail: Ebon.Swofford@harrishealth.org
                  Sara.thomas2@harrishealth.org

Defendant Baylor College of Medicine and its employee defendants
are represented by:

          Jeffrey B. McClure, Esq.
          Laura Trenaman, Esq.
          ANDREWS KURTH LLP
          600 Travis Street, Suite 4200
          Houston, TX 77002
          Telephone: (713) 220-4200
          Telecopier: (713) 220-4285
          E-mail: jeffmcclure@andrewskurth.com
                  ltrenaman@andrewskurth.com

Defendant John Michael Halphen is represented by:

          John R. Strawn Jr., Esq.
          Andrew L. Pickens, Esq.
          STRAWN PICKENS LLP
          Pennzoil Place, South Tower
          711 Louisiana, Suite 1850
          Houston, TX 77002
          Telephone: (713) 659-9600
          Facsimile: (713) 659-9601
          E-mail: jstrawn@strawnpickens.com
                  apickens@strawnpickens.com


BELLE TIRE: Hach Rose Initiates Consumer Class Action
-----------------------------------------------------
Hach Rose Schirripa & Cheverie, LLP, on Aug. 18 disclosed that it
filed a consumer class action lawsuit against Belle Tire
Distributors, Inc. d/b/a Belle Tire and certain related entities
in Michigan State Circuit Court, Wayne County (No. 16-009952-CZ)
on behalf all persons who were induced to purchase and replace
undamaged tires at Belle Tire service locations during the period
of August 3, 2009 through the present.  Any individuals who were
informed that failure to replace undamaged tires when replacing
one or more damaged tires would void all-wheel drive vehicle
warranties, and as a result did, in fact, replace undamaged tires
are encouraged to speak directly with the attorneys litigating
this action by contacting Frank R. Schirripa or Daniel B. Rehns at
(212) 213-8311, toll free (866) LAWS-USA, or via email at
fschirripa@hrsclaw.com or drehns@hrsclaw.com.  Belle Tire operates
locations throughout Michigan and Ohio.

The Complaint alleges that Belle Tire engaged in a deceptive
scheme whereby it misrepresented to Plaintiffs and the Class that
in the event one or more (but less than four) tires on their all-
wheel drive automobile required replacement, that the standard and
manufacturers' extended warranties required all four tires to be
replaced in order to not void the said warranties. Specifically,
Belle Tire took affirmative steps to ensure that Plaintiffs and
the members of the Class pay for and purchase a complete set of
four new tires as well as labor, regardless of how many tires
actually required replacement due to damage.  This practice
targeted all members of the Class and caused them to purchase
replacement tires unnecessarily due to Defendants'
misrepresentations.  Belle Tire benefited substantially from this
deceptive sales practice at the expense of Plaintiffs and the
members of the Class.  If you fit this description, you are
encouraged to contact the attorneys on this matter to discuss your
rights.

Hach Rose Schirripa & Cheverie, LLP -- http://www.hrsclaw.com--
specializes in the fields of securities, shareholder, corporate
governance and consumer protection litigation.  With over 75 years
of combined experience, the firm's attorneys have established
themselves as leading representatives of investor and consumer
rights these areas.  The firm's attorneys have successfully
litigated complex class actions in both state and federal courts
through the United States and are committed to protecting
investors' assets and victims of corporate wrongdoing.


BILL WHATCOTT: Faces Class Action Over Homophobic Actions
---------------------------------------------------------
John McDonald, writing for SFGN, reports that an anti-LGBT group
infiltrated a Canadian Pride festival in July and is now facing
consequences for those actions.

Dressed as "gay pothead zombies," a group led by notorious
homophobe Bill Whatcott marched in July's Toronto Pride Parade.
Dressed in tight fitting green unitards, the group handed out
"information packets" linking gay sex to physical and emotional
dangers as well as serious diseases such as anal warts and AIDS.
"As a long time gay activist I am outraged that a notorious
homophobe infiltrated our pride parade in order to spread his lies
and distribute his pamphlets," said Christopher Hudspeth at a news
conference announcing a class action lawsuit seeking $104 million
in damages from Mr. Whatcott.

Mr. Hudspeth, owner of Toronto gay bar Pegasus on Church, told
reporters "Pride needs to be a safe place for everyone.  We put up
with enough homophobic messaging every day.  We deserve a
homophobic free zone at our pride parade."

Mr. Whatcott responded to the lawsuit, giving an interview to
LifeSiteNews.com, a website that among other things "understands
that abortion, euthanasia, cloning and homosexuality and all other
moral, life and family issues are all interconnected in an
international conflict affecting all nations, even at the most
local levels."

"Our delivery was a bit creative, but we wanted to give people
this message because it is truthful," Mr. Whatcott told the
website.

Former Deputy Premier George Smitherman joined Mr. Hudspeth on the
lawsuit, claiming Mr. Whatcott intentionally sought to afflict
mental suffering and defamation.


BMO NESBITT: Court Approves Overtime Class Action Settlement
------------------------------------------------------------
Koskie Minsky LLP on Aug. 22 disclosed that the Ontario Superior
Court of Justice approved a settlement in a class action for
overtime at BMO Nesbitt Burns Inc. (BMO NBI).

In 2013, the court certified a class action against BMO NBI.  The
class action claimed unpaid overtime on behalf of Investment
Advisors (IAs), Associate IAs and IA Trainees at BMO NBI for
employment from 2002 to the present.  Mr. Yegal Rosen, a former IA
who worked at BMO NBI from 2002-2006, was the lead plaintiff on
behalf of the class.  Koskie Minsky LLP and Mr. Eli Karp were
counsel to the class members in the class action.

The Ontario Superior Court has now approved a settlement which was
reached between the parties.  The settlement provides for payment
of a total of $12 million, plus up to $500,000 in administration
costs, to be paid by BMO NBI, less deductions for legal fees,
disbursements, HST, representative plaintiff honorarium, Class
Proceedings Fund levy and any excess administration amounts. The
settlement funds will be distributed as follows:

   (a) by equal payment to each settlement class member who
participated as an IA Trainee in the BMO NBI IA Trainee Program
between January 1, 2002 and June 1, 2016 and who properly
completes and returns a Distribution Confirmation Form; and

  (b) a finality contribution for all settlement class members of
$2 million (less certain deductions), to be divided and paid in
equal amounts to each settlement class member who properly
completes and returns a Distribution Confirmation Form, regardless
of whether they are an IA Trainee.

Class members are not required to prove their hours of work under
the distribution process.

BMO NBI denies the truth of the allegations in the class action
and denies any liability whatsoever.

Jonathan Ptak -- jptak@kmlaw.ca -- of Koskie Minsky LLP commented
that "This settlement is an excellent result following 6 1/2 years
of litigation.  We are very pleased the court has now approved the
settlement."


BP PLC: Two Lawyers Sued Over Fraudulent Oil-Spill Claims
---------------------------------------------------------
Amanda Bronstad, writing for Law.com, reports that in the wake of
Mikal Watts' acquittal earlier in August, civil suits filed over
the alleged fraudulent oil-spill claims at the center of the
criminal case are moving forward, with new allegations of barratry
in an action against two other Texas lawyers.

On Aug. 23, Mr. Watts filed court papers to reopen a case in which
BP PLC alleged he made up Social Security numbers and other
documents while purporting to represent 40,000 deckhands in the
$2.3 billion seafood compensation program.  In so doing,
Mr. Watts and his firm planned to begin the process of dismissing
the case.  In another case, an attorney for 29 Vietnamese-American
fishermen has filed a new complaint alleging that two other
plaintiffs lawyers who worked with Watts, John Cracken and Bob
Hilliard, committed barratry, which is illegal under Texas law.

"Mr. Watts and all his team admitted in open court they hired
runners," said Tammy Tran -- ttran@tt-lawfirm.com -- of The Tammy
Tran Law Firm, a Houston attorney who represents the fishermen
plaintiffs.  The new complaint seeks $10,000 in civil penalties
for each act of barratry they allege.

Mr. Watts, founder of San Antonio's Watts Guerra, was acquitted on
Aug. 18 of multiple fraud counts alleging he and two firm
employees submitted 40,000 claimants to an oil-spill compensation
fund paid for by BP while knowing that those people, predominantly
Vietnamese-American fishermen, had not retained them.  Mr. Watts
was acquitted along with his brother David Watts, and two others.
The jury found other defendants guilty whom Mr. Watts had hired to
get clients.

BP's suit against Mr. Watts and his firm alleged that his
fraudulent claims had tainted the seafood compensation settlement.
It was stayed pending the criminal case.

The suit against Mr. Cracken, of the Cracken Law Firm in Dallas,
and Hilliard, of Hilliard MuĀ¤oz Gonzales in Corpus Christi, Texas,
neither of whom was criminally charged, claims they stole the
identities of 45,500 Vietnamese-American fishermen in hopes of
getting $2 billion in oil-spill payments.  They alleged that both
lawyers, and Watts Guerra attorney Stacey Erin Burke,
misappropriated their names and likenesses.

On Aug. 26, the plaintiffs changed that complaint to allege that
Messrs. Hilliard and Cracken conspired to pay runners more than
$10.7 million to secure oil-spill clients in violation of Texas
law against barratry.  The suit also adds as defendants Watts
Guerra capital partner Frank Guerra; former Watts Guerra capital
partner J. Hunter Craft, who left in 2013 to form Craft Law Firm
in Houston; and Duncan Litigation Investments, which allegedly
financed up to $6 million of the payments to the runners.

Mr. Cracken's attorney, John Neese, a partner at Houston's Hawash
Meade Gaston Neese & Cicack, said in an email that "in light of
mounting pressure by defendants and likely due to the Watts's 'not
guilty' verdict, the plaintiffs have completely abandoned their
misappropriation of name claim. Now plaintiffs are proceeding on a
single (new) cause of action for civil barratry. Defendants have a
number of solid defenses to that claim as well."

Mr. Hilliard's lawyer, Michael Richardson of Houston's Beck
Redden, did not respond to a request for comment.

Mr. Burke, now a solo practitioner in Houston, moved in August for
$18,842 in sanctions and a summary-judgment ruling tossing her
from the case.


BRISTOL-MYERS: N.J. Judge Tosses Majority of Plavix Claims
----------------------------------------------------------
Charles Toutant, writing for New Jersey Law Journal, reports that
the federal judge in Trenton overseeing multidistrict litigation
over allegedly improper marketing of blood pressure drug Plavix
has granted motions by defendants Bristol-Myers Squibb and Sanofi-
Aventis U.S. to dismiss the majority of claims in a False Claims
Act case related to the drug.


BRISTOL-MYERS: Calif. Courts Have Jurisdiction Over Plavix Cases
----------------------------------------------------------------
HarrisMartin Publishing reports that the California Supreme Court
has ruled 4-3 that California courts have personal jurisdiction
over Bristol-Myers Squibb Co. in eight Plavix actions pursuant to
Code of Civil Procedure Section 410.10, which extends jurisdiction
to the maximum extent permissible under the U.S. Constitution.

On Aug. 29, a panel majority reasoned that although BMS' business
contacts in California are insufficient to invoke general
jurisdiction, the company's California activities are sufficiently
related to the nonresident plaintiffs' lawsuits to support the
invocation of specific jurisdiction, under which personal
jurisdiction is limited to specific litigation related to the
defendant's state contacts.


CALIFORNIA: Spectrum Files Disabled Voting Rights Class Action
--------------------------------------------------------------
Spectrum Institute on Aug. 22 disclosed that on New Year's Day
2016 a new state law went into effect in California which affirms
the right to vote for thousands of seniors and people with
disabilities.  If they can express their desire to vote, they have
the right to vote.  The problem? Unless immediate action is taken,
thousands of eligible California voters are going to be watching
November's election results on television knowing they were
prevented from voting because of California officials previously
disqualified them from voting -- in violation of federal voting
rights laws.

Take the case of San Diego resident David Rector.  David, who is a
quadriplegic, acquired a condition known as "locked-in syndrome"
after suffering a massive stroke in 2009.  He can think, feel,
comprehend, remember, see, hear, and express emotions but cannot
move his limbs functionally.  He was a producer for National
Public Radio before his illness.  He was able to vote in 2010 with
assistance but was stripped of that voting right by a local
official in 2011.

David was going to court on Aug. 23, to request his voting rights
to be restored IMMEDIATELY.

David Rector's story is not unique.  Spectrum Institute filed a
complaint in July 2014 with the Department of Justice alleging
that California officials had violated federal voting rights laws.
The DOJ opened an inquiry in May 2015 which is ongoing.  That
investigation is statewide and implicates the voting rights of
tens of thousands of seniors and people with disabilities.

The legislature worked to correct the problem and passed the new
state law (SB 589).  However, seniors and people with disabilities
who have also lost their voting rights as David did are unaware of
the new law and government officials are slow to restore their
voting rights.

This is why on Tuesday, August 23, Spectrum Institute was filing a
new class action complaint with the DOJ.  They want that agency to
press the State of California to speed up the voting rights
restoration process.  After the complaint is filed, David and his
supporters will walk to court where David will say "I want to
vote" with the aid of his electronic voice. It is those four magic
words that trigger the duty of the State of California to restore
his voting rights.

Spectrum Institute estimates that 30,000 or more Californians like
David have lost their right to vote in previous years and are
eligible to ask for that right to be restored under SB 589. But
they must be registered to vote by October 24 or they will be
watching the election returns rather than helping to shape those
results with their own vote.  People with disabilities should have
the same right to vote as every other American.  What happens in
California will have ramifications in other states with laws that
disqualify many people with disabilities from voting.


CARRINGTON MORTGAGE: Class Cert. in "Prindle" Granted in Part
-------------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit entitled TWYLA PRINDLE, individually and on behalf
of a class of persons similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v.
CARRINGTON MORTGAGE SERVICES, LLC, Case No. 3:13-cv-01349-MMH-PDB
(M.D. Fla.), the Hon. Judge Marcia Morales Howard granted in part
and denied in part Plaintiff's second renewed motion for class
certification.

  a. The Motion is GRANTED to the extent that the action shall
proceed as a class action, as to Prindle's claim based on the June
27, 2013, mortgage statement. The Court certifies the following
class as to that claim:

     "All Florida consumers who (1) have or had a residential
     mortgage loan serviced by Carrington Mortgage Services,
     LLC, which Carrington obtained when the loan was in default;
     (2) received a Chapter 7 discharge of their personal
     liability on the mortgage debt; and (3) personally received
     a mortgage statement in connection with that discharged
     mortgage debt dated September 16, 2012, or later, that was
     in substantially the same form as the communication attached
     to the class notice."

  b. The Motion is otherwise denied.

The Court further ordered the Plaintiff, Twyla Prindle, shall
serve as the class representative, with Janet Varnell, Esq., Brian
Warwick, Esq., Steven Simmons, Esq., and Scott Borison, Esq.,
serving as class counsel.

A copy of the Order is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=c9fHZzPh


CAVALRY PORTFOLIO: "Olsen" FDCPA Suit Cannot Proceed as Class
-------------------------------------------------------------
Magistrate Judge Amanda Arnold Sansone denied the Plaintiff's
Motion for Class Certification following the Court's dismissal of
the same claims that are subject in the certification.

The case styled, CHRISTOPHER OLSEN, on behalf of himself and all
others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. CAVALRY PORTFOLIO
SERVICES, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 8:15-cv-2520-T-23AAS (M.D.
Fla.), alleges against Defendant three counts of violations under
Fair Debt Collection Practices Act.

In the case, the Court granted Defendant's motion to dismiss for
Plaintiff's failure to state a claim, dismissed the amended
complaint in its entirety, and afforded the Plaintiff's
opportunity to file a second motion for class certification, if
appropriate, after filing his second amended complaint.

A copy of the Court's Order Report and Recommendation dated August
19, 2016 is available at http://goo.gl/cCERBTfrom Leagle.com.

Christopher Olsen, Plaintiff, represented by Aaron M. Swift --
aswift@leavenlaw.com -- Leavengood, Dauval, Boyle & Meyer PA, Ian
Richard Leavengood, Leavengood, Dauval, Boyle & Meyer PA & J.
Andrew Meyer, Leavengood, Dauval, Boyle & Meyer PA.

Cavalry Portfolio Services, LLC, Defendant, represented by
Christopher Patrick Hahn -- chahn@mauricewutscher.com -- Maurice
Wutscher, LLP & Donald S. Maurice, Jr. --
dmaurice@mauricewutscher.com -- Maurice Wutscher, LLP, pro hac
vice.

Robert Michael Daisley, Mediator, represented by Robert Michael
Daisley -- rob@daisleymediation.com -- Law Office of Robert
Michael Daisley, PA.


CELLULAR BIOMEDICINE: Class Action Litigation Dismissed
-------------------------------------------------------
Cellular Biomedicine Group Inc. ("CBMG" or the "Company"), a
clinical-stage biomedicine firm engaged in the development of
effective stem cell therapies for degenerative diseases and
immunotherapies for cancer, on Aug. 18 disclosed that the class
action litigation brought against the Company and the individual
defendants has been dismissed in its entirety, with prejudice and
without leave to amend.

"We are extremely pleased with the Court's decision to remove this
litigation in its entirety and will continue to deploy resources
to advance our clinical programs in both of our immuno-oncology
and stem cell platforms.  Our team remains steadfast and focused
on delivering therapies to treat large unmet medical needs while
delivering value to our shareholders.  We anticipate to announce
the sponsorship of multi-indication clinical trials with multiple
institutions using CBMG's CAR-T technologies and will continue to
evaluate the feasibility of initiating additional clinical trials
for AlloJoinTM, our off-the-shelf allogeneic adipose derived
progenitor cell (haMPC) therapy for the treatment of Knee
Osteoarthritis (KOA) in the coming quarters," commented Tony
(Bizuo) Liu, Chief Executive Officer of Cellular Biomedicine
Group.

              About Cellular Biomedicine Group

Cellular Biomedicine Group, Inc. -- http://www.cellbiomedgroup.com
-- develops proprietary cell therapies for the treatment of
certain degenerative and cancerous diseases.  Its developmental
stem cell and Immuno-Oncology projects are the result of research
and development by scientists and doctors from China and the
United States.  Its GMP facilities in China, consisting of twelve
independent cell production lines, are designed, certified and
managed according to U.S. standards.


CHIPOTLE: About 10,000 Workers Join Suit Over Unpaid Wages
----------------------------------------------------------
Thomas Phillips, writing for Law.com, reports that about 10,000
workers are joining a suit against Chipotle, saying they were
forced to work unpaid off the clock, according to CNNMoney.  The
suit originated in Colorado and quotes one employee as saying
workers were routinely told to clock out and keep working before
being told they could leave.

Chipotle told CNNMoney that it has done nothing wrong and has paid
what it owes to workers.

The restaurant, which serves made-to-order fare in a fast-casual
setting, has faced legal encounters before.  On the labor front, a
March 14 ruling by an National Labor Relations Board
administrative law judge in Philadelphia slammed the company for
social media policies and employee handbooks that violated the
National Labor Relations Act.  A class action lawsuit against
Chipotle Mexican Grill over genetically modified ingredients
survived a motion to dismiss in Miami federal court earlier this
year.


CIS SERVICES: Lockwood Seeks Certification of Adjusters Class
-------------------------------------------------------------
The Plaintiffs in the lawsuit titled GAIL LOCKWOOD, Individually
and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated v. CIS SERVICES,
LLC d/b/a CIS ALAMO SERVICES, et al., Case No. 3:16-cv-00965-BJD-
PDB (M.D. Fla.), ask the Court to grant conditional certification
for this category of individuals under the Fair Labor Standards
Act:

     "All current and former independent contractors and
      employees of CIS Services, LLC d/b/a CIS Alamo Services,
      CIS Claim Services, LLC (f/k/a CIS Alamo, LLC) d/b/a Alamo
      Claim Service, CIS Group of Companies, LLC (f/k/a CIS
      Holdings, LLC), CIS Group, LLC (f/k/a North American
      Compass Insurance Services Group, LLC) ( d/b/a CIS Group of
      Companies), CIS Alamo Holdings, LLC, CIS Specialty Claim
      Services, LLC (f/k/a CIS KDC, LLC) d/b/a KD Consulting &
      Appraisal, Cornerstone Appraisal Services, LLC d/b/a
      Cornerstone, LLC, a CIS Group of Companies and Michael E.
      Stanley ('CIS'), who:

      (1) Have held the positions of 'adjusters,' 'appraisers,'
          'claims analysts,' 'claims adjusters,' 'independent
          adjusters,' or 'litigation specialists' or who have
          performed duties similar to the duties performed by
          Plaintiffs in providing services related to adjusting
          insurance claims in Florida for CIS clients;

      (2) Were paid a daily rate of pay for their services; and

      (3) Worked more than forty (40) hours in workweeks without
          being paid overtime premium wages for the hours worked
          over forty (40) pursuant to the federal Fair Labor
          Standards Act."

The Other Defendants are CIS CLAIM SERVICES, LLC (f/k/a CIS ALAMO,
LLC) d/b/a ALAMO CLAIM SERVICE, CIS GROUP OF COMPANIES, LLC (f/k/a
CIS HOLDINGS, LLC), CIS GROUP, LLC (f/k/a NORTH AMERICAN COMPASS
INSURANCE SERVICES GROUP, LLC) d/b/a CIS GROUP OF COMPANIES, CIS
ALAMO HOLDINGS, LLC, CIS SPECIALTY CLAIM SERVICES, LLC (f/k/a CIS
KDC, LLC) d/b/a KD CONSULTING & APPRAISAL, CORNERSTONE APPRAISAL
SERVICES, LLC d/b/a CORNERSTONE, LLC A CIS GROUP OF COMPANIES, and
MICHAEL E. STANLEY.

The Defendants, operating as CIS Group, provide field inspection
services, adjusting, loss consulting and workflow management
services.  Plaintiff Gail Lockwood (with others similarly situated
the "Plaintiffs") worked for CIS in the past three years and was
paid a "day rate" wage with no additional compensation for
overtime.  The Plaintiff alleges that the Defendants violated the
Fair Labor Standards Act by misclassifying the Plaintiff and
others as independent contractors and paying a "day rate" without
any overtime pay for overtime hours they worked.

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

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Amber L. Karns, Esq.
          Michael A. Starzyk, Esq.
          Megan M. Mitchell, Esq.
          STARZYK & ASSOCIATES, PC
          10200 Grogan's Mill Rd, Suite 300
          The Woodlands, TX 77380
          Telephone: (281) 364-7261
          Facsimile: (281) 364-7533
          E-mail: akarns@starzyklaw.com
                  mstarzyk@starzyklaw.com
                  mmitchell@starzyklaw.com

The Defendants are represented by:

          Maria Elena Abate, Esq.
          COLODNY FASS, P.A.
          1401 NW 136th Ave., Suite 200
          Sunrise, FL 33323
          Telephone: (954) 492-4010
          E-mail: mabate@colodnyfass.com

               - and -

          Michael S. Francis, Esq.
          FLYNN, FRANCIS & CLARK, L.L.P.
          700 E. Southlake Blvd., Suite 150
          Southlake, TX 76092
          Telephone: 329-3000
          E-mail: msfrancis@ffctxlaw.com


COLLECTO INC: "Tesch" Suit Seeks Certification of Class
-------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit styled WENDY TESCH, Individually and on Behalf of
All Others Similarly Situated, the Plaintiff, v. COLLECTO, INC.
d/b/a EOS CCA, the Defendant, Case No. 16-cv-1135 (E.D. Wisc.),
the Plaintiff asks the Court enter an order certifying a proposed
class, appointing the Plaintiff as its representative, and
appointing Ademi & O'Reilly, LLP as its Counsel.

The Plaintiff further asks that the Court stay the class
certification motion until an amended motion for class
certification is filed, and that the Court grant the parties
relief from the local rules' automatic briefing schedule and
requirement that Plaintiff file a brief and supporting documents
in support of this motion.

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

As this motion to certify a class is a placeholder motion as
described in Damasco, the parties and the Court should not be
burdened with unnecessary paperwork and the resulting expense when
a one paragraph, single page motion to certify and stay should
suffice until an amended motion is filed, the Plaintiffs contend.

A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=kae0gOzj

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Shpetim Ademi, Esq.
          John D. Blythin, Esq.
          Mark A. Eldridge, Esq.
          Denise L. Morris, Esq.
          ADEMI & O'REILLY, LLP
          3620 East Layton Avenue
          Cudahy, WI 53110
          Telephone: (414) 482 8000
          Facsimile: (414) 482 8001
          E-mail: sademi@ademilaw.com
                  jblythin@ademilaw.com
                  meldridge@ademilaw.com
                  dmorris@ademilaw.com


CONNECTICUT: Correction Officers Sued Over Civil Rights Violation
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Lee Grenier, Tavorus Fluker, Anthony Rogers, Thomas Marra
Lawrence Townsend, Terrence Easton, Lamont Samuel, Ian Cooke, and
J. Michael Farren, on behalf of themselves and all others
similarly situated v. Comm Scott Semple, Theresa Lantz, Lawrence
Meachum, James Dzurenda, Leo Arnone, James Armstrong, Henry
Falcone, Stephen Link, David Batten and Does 1-3, Case No. 3:16-
cv-01465-AVC (D. Conn., August 25, 2016), is brought against the
Defendants for violation of the Civil Rights Act.

The Defendants are officers and directors of the correction
facility in Connecticut.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Michael A. Stratton, Esq.
      STRATTON TRIAL P.C.
      117 River St.
      Milford, CT 06604
      Telephone: (212) 987-5555
      E-mail: mike@strattontrial.com


CONTINENTAL AUTOMOTIVE: Seeks Dismissal of "West" Suit
------------------------------------------------------
Continental Automotive, Inc., Pension Plan for Hourly-Paid
Employees of Continental Automotive, Inc. and Certain Affiliate
Companies filed on September 6 a motion to dismiss the case, MARK
WEST et al., Plaintiffs, v. CONTINENTAL AUTOMOTIVE, INC., and
PENSION PLAN FOR HOURLY-PAID EMPLOYEES OF CONTINENTAL AUTOMOTIVE,
INC. and CERTAIN AFFILIATE COMPANIES, Defendants, Civil Action No.
3:16-cv-502-FDW-DSC (W.D.N.C.).  Responses are due by Sept. 23,
2016.

The Defendants also filed a Memorandum in support of their
dismissal bid and an answer to the Complaint.  Corporate
Disclosure Statements also were filed by the Pension Plan and by
Continental Automotive.

In an Order dated August 22, 2016 is available at
http://goo.gl/M7BC4Pfrom Leagle.com, Magistrate Judge David S.
Cayer granted the Defendants' Motion to Extend Time to Answer,
scheduling the same on or before September 6, 2016.   The parties'
motion to Stay Civil Action was denied.

Mark West, et al., Plaintiffs, represented by Caitlin Hale Walton
-- cwalton@essexrichards.com -- Essex Richards, Edward G. Connette
-- econnette@essexrichards.com -- Essex Richards, PA & Norris
Arden Adams, II -- nadams@essexrichards.com.

Continental Automotive, Inc., et al., Defendants, represented by
Meredith Anne Pinson -- mpinson@mcguirewoods.com -- McGuire Woods
LLP & Susan Pyle Dion -- sdion@mcguirewoods.com -- McGuireWoods
LLP.


CR ENGLAND: "Harper" Suit Removed to Utah Dist. Ct.
---------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit entitled Milton Harper, Ronnie Stevenson,
and Jonathan Mitchell, on behalf of themselves, and on behalf of
all persons similarly situated v. CR England Inc., Case No.
CIVDS1601256, was removed from the California Superior Court to
the U.S. District Court for the Central District of Utah. The
District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:16-cv-00906-DBP to the
proceeding.

CR England Inc. owns and operates a trucking company in Salt Lake
City, Utah.

CYPRESS MEDIA: Class Cert. Renewed Bid in "O'Shaughnessy" Denied
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit captioned ELIZABETH O'SHAUGHNESSY, MICHAEL
O'SHAUGHNESSY, and RANDALL L. HENSLEY, the Plaintiffs, v. CYPRESS
MEDIA, L.L.C., the Defendant, Case No. 4:13-cv-0947-DGK (W.D.
Mo.), the Hon. Judge Greg Kays denied Plaintiff's renewed motion
for class certification.

As discussed at length in the Court's order on Plaintiffs' motion
to strike Cypress's summary judgment motion, nothing in the newly
disclosed documents changes the Court's holding that a class
cannot be certified because Plaintiffs fail to meet commonality
requirement.

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


DALLAS CENTRAL: Faces Hard Six Suit Over Appraisal Policies
-----------------------------------------------------------
Hard Six Holdings, LLC v. Dallas Central Appraisal District, Case
No. DC-16-10560, filed in the District Court of Dallas County,
Texas, on August 26, 2016, seeks to stop the Defendant's practice
of placing property appraisal value that exceeds by at least ten
percent, the median level of appraisal required by law.

Dallas Central Appraisal District is a public authority existing
pursuant to the Laws of the State of Texas.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Jason C. Marshall, Esq.
      THE MARSHALL FIRM PC
      302 N. Market St., Ste. 510
      Dallas, TX 75202
      Telephone: (214) 742-4800
      Facsimile: (214) 452-9064
      E-mail: JMarshall@Frtarshall-firm.com


DALLAS CENTRAL: Faces Olympus Hotels Suit Over Appraisal Policies
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Olympus Hotels, Ltd. v. Dallas Central Appraisal District, Case
No. DC-16-10572, filed in the District Court of Dallas County,
Texas, on August 26, 2016, seeks to stop the Defendant's practice
of placing property appraisal value that exceeds by at least ten
percent, the median level of appraisal required by law.

Dallas Central Appraisal District is a public authority existing
pursuant to the Laws of the State of Texas.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Michael A. Lang, Esq.
      Heather H. Lung, Esq.
      LANG LAW OFFICE, P.C.
      P.O. Box 261330
      Plano, TX 75026
      Telephone: (972) 731-6758
      Facsimile: (469) 854-3336
      E-mail: mike@langlawlx.com


DALLAS CENTRAL: Faces A&B Properties Suit Over Appraisal Policies
-----------------------------------------------------------------
A & B Properties, Inc. & AB Hawaii Royal Macarthur, LLC v. Dallas
Central Appraisal District, Case No. DC-16-10605, filed in the
District Court of Dallas County, Texas, on August 26, 2016, seeks
to stop the Defendant's practice of placing property appraisal
value that exceeds by at least ten percent, the median level of
appraisal required by law.

Dallas Central Appraisal District is a public authority existing
pursuant to the Laws of the State of Texas.

The Plaintiff is represented by:
      Michael R. Boling, Esq.
      Christopher M. Tejeda, Esq.
      2305 West Parker Road, Suite 203
      Plano, TX 75023
      Telephone: (214) 378-8788
      Facsimile: (214) 378-8988
      E-mail: michael@bolinglegal.com
              chris@bolinglegal.com


DALLAS CENTRAL: Faces PS Business Suit Over Appraisal Policies
--------------------------------------------------------------
PS Business Parks LP, PSBP Westwood LP and TPLP Office Park
Properties LP v. Dallas Central Appraisal District, Case No. DC-
16-10599, filed in the District Court of Dallas County, Texas, on
August 26, 2016, seeks to stop the Defendant's practice of placing
property appraisal value that exceeds by at least ten percent, the
median level of appraisal required by law.

Dallas Central Appraisal District is a public authority existing
pursuant to the Laws of the State of Texas.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Daniel P. Donovan, Esq.
      Amy Reilly Sallusti, Esq.
      GEARY, PORTER & DONOVAN, P.C.
      One Bent Tree Tower 16475
      Dallas Parkway, Suite 400
      Addison, TX 75001-6837
      Telephone: (972) 931-9901
      Facsimile: (972) 931-9208
      E-mail: Ddonovan@gpd.com
              Asallusti@gpd.com


DALLAS CENTRAL: Faces Raim Cole Suit Over Appraisal Policies
------------------------------------------------------------
Raim Cole Avenue LP v. Dallas Central Appraisal District, Case No.
DC-16-10596, filed in the District Court of Dallas County, Texas,
on August 26, 2016, seeks to stop the Defendant's practice of
placing property appraisal value that exceeds by at least ten
percent, the median level of appraisal required by law.

Dallas Central Appraisal District is a public authority existing
pursuant to the Laws of the State of Texas.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Daniel P. Donovan, Esq.
      Amy Reilly Sallusti, Esq.
      GEARY, PORTER & DONOVAN, P.C.
      One Bent Tree Tower 16475
      Dallas Parkway, Suite 400
      Addison, TX 75001-6837
      Telephone: (972) 931-9901
      Facsimile: (972) 931-9208
      E-mail: Ddonovan@gpd.com
              Asallusti@gpd.com


DALLAS CENTRAL: Faces S&C Spring Suit Over Appraisal Policies
-------------------------------------------------------------
S&C Spring Valley Realty, Inc. v. Dallas Central Appraisal
District, Case No. DC-16-10558, filed in the District Court of
Dallas County, Texas, on August 26, 2016, seeks to stop the
Defendant's practice of placing property appraisal value that
exceeds by at least ten percent, the median level of appraisal
required by law.

Dallas Central Appraisal District is a public authority existing
pursuant to the Laws of the State of Texas.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Jason C. Marshall, Esq.
      THE MARSHALL FIRM PC
      302 N. Market St., Ste. 510
      Dallas, TX 75202
      Telephone: (214) 742-4800
      Facsimile: (214) 452-9064
      E-mail: JMarshall@Frtarshall-firm.com


DALLAS CENTRAL: Faces Southwest Suit Over Appraisal Policies
------------------------------------------------------------
Southwest ETC, Ltd. v. Dallas Central Appraisal District, Case No.
DC-16-10592, filed in the District Court of Dallas County, Texas,
on August 26, 2016, seeks to stop the Defendant's practice of
placing property appraisal value that exceeds by at least ten
percent, the median level of appraisal required by law.

Dallas Central Appraisal District is a public authority existing
pursuant to the Laws of the State of Texas.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Daniel P. Donovan, Esq.
      Amy Reilly Sallusti, Esq.
      GEARY, PORTER & DONOVAN, P.C.
      One Bent Tree Tower 16475
      Dallas Parkway, Suite 400
      Addison, TX 75001-6837
      Telephone: (972) 931-9901
      Facsimile: (972) 931-9208
      E-mail: Ddonovan@gpd.com
              Asallusti@gpd.com


DANIEL KELLERMAN: Loews Class Suit Removed to S.D. Florida
----------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit styled Loews Hotels Holding Corporation
v. Daniel Kellerman, on his behalf and all similarly situated
individuals, Case No. CACE-16-012158, was removed from the 17th
Judicial Circuit Court to the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of Florida (Ft Lauderdale). The District Court Clerk
assigned Case No. 0:16-cv-62053-BB to the proceeding.

The case asserts claims for violation of the Fair Credit Reporting
Act.

Loews Hotels Holding Corporation owns or operates 23 hotels in the
United States and Canada.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Theresa Marie Gallion, Esq.
      FISHER & PHILLIPS LLP
      401 E Jackson Street
      2300 SunTrust Financial Centre
      Tampa, FL 33602
      Telephone: (813) 769-7500
      Facsimile: 769-7501
      E-mail: tgallion@laborlawyers.com


DALLAS CENTRAL: Faces Stone Canyon Suit Over Appraisal Policies
---------------------------------------------------------------
Stone Canyon Apartments, LLC v. Dallas Central Appraisal District,
Case No. DC-16-10540, filed in the District Court of Dallas
County, Texas, on August 26, 2016, seeks to stop the Defendant's
practice of placing property appraisal value that exceeds by at
least ten percent, the median level of appraisal required by law.

Dallas Central Appraisal District is a public authority existing
pursuant to the Laws of the State of Texas.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Jason C. Marshall, Esq.
      THE MARSHALL FIRM PC
      302 N. Market St., Ste. 510
      Dallas, TX 75202
      Telephone: (214) 742-4800
      Facsimile: (214) 452-9064
      E-mail: JMarshall@Frtarshall-firm.com


DALLAS CENTRAL: Faces Uptown Village Suit Over Appraisal Policies
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Uptown Village at Cedar Hill LP (Hillside Village Shopping Center
v. Dallas Central Appraisal District, Case No. DC-16-10593, filed
in the District Court of Dallas County, Texas, on August 26, 2016,
seeks to stop the Defendant's practice of placing property
appraisal value that exceeds by at least ten percent, the median
level of appraisal required by law.

Dallas Central Appraisal District is a public authority existing
pursuant to the Laws of the State of Texas.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Daniel P. Donovan, Esq.
      Amy Reilly Sallusti, Esq.
      GEARY, PORTER & DONOVAN, P.C.
      One Bent Tree Tower 16475
      Dallas Parkway, Suite 400
      Addison, TX 75001-6837
      Telephone: (972) 931-9901
      Facsimile: (972) 931-9208
      E-mail: Ddonovan@gpd.com
              Asallusti@gpd.com


DALLAS CENTRAL: Faces Wheatland Suit Over Appraisal Policies
------------------------------------------------------------
Wheatland Hotels, Ltd v. Dallas Central Appraisal District, Case
No. DC-16-10571, filed in the District Court of Dallas County,
Texas, on August 26, 2016, seeks to stop the Defendant's practice
of placing property appraisal value that exceeds by at least ten
percent, the median level of appraisal required by law.

Dallas Central Appraisal District is a public authority existing
pursuant to the Laws of the State of Texas.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Michael A. Lang, Esq.
      Heather H. Lung, Esq.
      LANG LAW OFFICE, P.C.
      P.O. Box 261330
      Plano, TX 75026
      Telephone: (972) 731-6758
      Facsimile: (469) 854-3336
      E-mail: mike@langlawlx.com


DANIEL KELLERMAN: Loews Class Suit Removed to S.D. Florida
----------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit styled Loews Hotels Holding Corporation
v. Daniel Kellerman, on his behalf and all similarly situated
individuals, Case No. CACE-16-012158, was removed from the 17th
Judicial Circuit Court to the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of Florida (Ft Lauderdale). The District Court Clerk
assigned Case No. 0:16-cv-62053-BB to the proceeding.

The case asserts claims for violation of the Fair Credit Reporting
Act.

Loews Hotels Holding Corporation owns or operates 23 hotels in the
United States and Canada.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Theresa Marie Gallion, Esq.
      FISHER & PHILLIPS LLP
      401 E Jackson Street
      2300 SunTrust Financial Centre
      Tampa, FL 33602
      Telephone: (813) 769-7500
      Facsimile: 769-7501
      E-mail: tgallion@laborlawyers.com


DEMOCRATIC NATIONAL: Sanders Supporters' Class Action Can Proceed
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Marshall Connolly, writing for California Network, reports that a
suit against the Democratic National Committee (DNC) and Debbie
Wasserman Schultz will proceed.  The class action was filed on
behalf of Bernie Sanders supporters.  The suit makes several
claims against the DNC and Ms. Schultz.

Sanders supporters cried foul from the start.  From the debate
schedule to Debbie Wasserman Schultz's obvious bias, some
Democrats felt disenfranchised.  How could the primary be fair?

When the primary started, things only became worse.  Accusations
of election fraud and deception became strident.  Sanders
supporters were dismissed as crackpots.  And that would have been
the end except for the hacking of the DNC database.

A hacker known as Guccifer 2.0 hacked the DNC database and
released their most sensitive emails and other documents.
Wikileaks also released documents which showed the same; the proof
was there.  Behind the scenes, the Schultz and the DNC had been
working from the start to suppress the Sanders campaign and
coronate Hillary Clinton as the party's nominee.  While portraying
themselves as impartial facilitators of the primary, the DNC was
shockingly partisan.

Now, Sanders supporters are seeking their day in court.

The suit argues Ms. Schultz and the DNC committed fraud, negligent
misrepresentation, deceptive conduct, a violation of fiduciary
responsibility, and failure to protect sensitive donor data.

A hearing was set to be held on August 23 to review evidence in
the case.  If enough evidence is present, the case will proceed.
Ms. Schultz and the DNC are attempting to delay the proceedings
until September.

Every delay reduces the potential damage the case could have on
the Clinton's general election chances.  However, a finding
against Schultz and the DNC could have disastrous long-term
consequences for the party.  It would affirm what many accuse the
DNC of being, an establishment apparatus that does not represent
the people.

Such a loss of confidence in the party could lead to the rise of a
new progressive party to the left of the Democratic Party.  This
could make it more difficult for Democrats to win elections at
all, and open the way for Republican dominance in government.

However, the Democrats have no one to blame but themselves.  The
party will need to undertake rapid and drastic reforms if it wants
to survive.  Given the inertia in the establishment, this seems
highly unlikely.

The class action suit, if it proceeds will probably be settled out
of court with no admission of guilt, a common result.  Regardless
of what happens in court, the DNC will need to address corruption
concerns or it will continue to lose support.


DENTSPLY SIRONA: Appeal in Weinstat-Nathan Case Remains Pending
---------------------------------------------------------------
Dentsply Sirona Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on August 5, 2016, for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2016, that an appeal in the class
action lawsuit by Marvin Weinstat, DDS and Richard Nathan, DDS
remains pending.

On June 18, 2004, Marvin Weinstat, DDS and Richard Nathan, DDS
filed a class action suit in San Francisco County, California
alleging that the Company misrepresented that its Cavitron(R)
ultrasonic scalers are suitable for use in oral surgical
procedures. The Complaint seeks a recall of the product and refund
of its purchase price to dentists who have purchased it for use in
oral surgery.

The Court certified the case as a class action in June 2006 with
respect to the breach of warranty and unfair business practices
claims. The class that was certified is defined as California
dental professionals who, at any time during the period beginning
June 18, 2000 through September 14, 2012, purchased and used one
or more Cavitron(R) ultrasonic scalers for the performance of oral
surgical procedures on their patients, which Cavitrons(R) were
accompanied by Directions for Use that "Indicated" Cavitron(R) use
for "periodontal debridement for all types of periodontal
disease."

The case went to trial in September 2013, and on January 22, 2014,
the San Francisco Superior Court issued its decision in the
Company's favor, rejecting all of the plaintiffs' claims. The
plaintiffs have appealed the Superior Court's decision, and the
appeal is now pending. The Company is defending against this
appeal.


DENTSPLY SIRONA: Class Certification Bid in "Hildebrand" Pending
----------------------------------------------------------------
Dentsply Sirona Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on August 5, 2016, for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2016, that the class certification
motion in the lawsuit by Carole Hildebrand, DDS and Robert Jaffin,
DDS remains pending.

On December 12, 2006, a Complaint was filed by Carole Hildebrand,
DDS and Robert Jaffin, DDS in the Eastern District of Pennsylvania
(the Plaintiffs subsequently added Dr. Mitchell Goldman as a named
class representative).  The case was filed by the same law firm
that filed the Weinstat case in California.  The Complaint asserts
putative class action claims on behalf of dentists located in New
Jersey and Pennsylvania. The Complaint seeks damages and asserts
that the Company's Cavitron(R) ultrasonic scaler was negligently
designed and sold in breach of contract and warranty arising from
misrepresentations about the potential uses of the product because
it cannot assure the delivery of potable or sterile water.

Following grant of a Company Motion and dismissal of the case for
lack of jurisdiction, the plaintiffs filed a second complaint
under the name of Dr. Hildebrand's corporate practice, Center City
Periodontists, asserting the same allegations (this case is now
proceeding under the name "Center City Periodontists"). The
plaintiffs moved to have the case certified as a class action, to
which the Company has objected and filed its brief. The Court
subsequently granted a Motion filed by the Company and dismissed
plaintiffs' New Jersey Consumer Fraud and negligent design claims,
leaving only a breach of express warranty claim, in response to
which the Company has filed a Motion for Summary Judgment on the
express warranty cause of action, which was denied.

The Court held four days of hearings during January and February
2016 on plaintiffs' class certification motion.  The Court
scheduled further hearings in the matter for August 2016.


DIRECTORS GUILD: Faces "Grossman" Class Suit in C.D. California
---------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been commenced against Directors Guild
of America Inc. and Trustees of the DGA Producer Health Plan.

The case is captioned Michael Grossman, Michael Ludin and all
similarly situated members and covered beneficiaries of
defendant's health plan v. Directors Guild of America Inc. and
Trustees of the DGA Producer Health Plan, Case No. 5:16-cv-01840-
GW-SP (C.D. Cal., August 25, 2016).

Michael Grossman and Michael Ludin are pro se plaintiffs.


DL BUILDERS: Valdovinos Wants to Notify Members of Class Accord
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Plaintiffs in the lawsuit styled SEBASTIAN VALDOVINOS; JOSE
CARRILLO; ABELINO SOLARIO; and on behalf of themselves and those
similarly situated individuals v. DL BUILDERS, INC.; DAVID
HALVORSEN, Case No. 5:15-cv-O4256-RMW (N.D. Cal.), ask the Court
to approve a notice to potential class members and consent,
pursuant to a conditional settlement of the matter.

On September 18, 2015, the Plaintiffs filed a complaint against
the Defendants setting forth First and Second Causes of Action for
overtime, and minimum wage Violations under the Fair Labor
Standards Act, and state wage and hour laws.  The Plaintiffs are
laborers and semi-skilled workers, who worked for DL Builders
remodeling homes and apartments.

The matter was settled with the named Plaintiffs at a mediation
held on June 20, 2016.  The settlement is conditioned upon
preliminary approval by the Court of the Defendants' proposed
compensation of potential class members for unpaid overtime hours
worked, pursuant to the FLSA.  At the time of the Settlement, the
Plaintiffs had a motion pending before the Court for conditional
certification of the potential class.  The matter is now set for
Preliminary Approval of Class Settlement on September 30, 2016.
The Condition Certification Motion, as well as a Motion to Strike,
are also pending hearing on that date.

The Court will commence a hearing on September 30, 2016, at 9:00
a.m., to consider the Motion.

A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=fV4dtMTh

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Robert David Baker Esq.
          ROBERT DAVID BAKER, INC.
          80 South White Road
          San Jose, CA 95127
          Telephone: (408) 251-3400
          Facsimile: (408) 251-3401
          E-mail: rbaker@rdblaw.net


DYNAMIC RECOVERY: Class Certification Hearing Continued to Oct. 2
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The Hon. Judge is Elaine E. Bucklo entered an order in the lawsuit
styled David Stamer, the Plaintiff, v. Dynamic Recovery Solutions,
LLC, Case No. 1:16-cv-05578 (N.D. Ill.), continuing hearing of
Plaintiff's motion to certify a class to Oct. 12, 2016 at 9:30
a.m.

According to docket entry made by the Clerk on August 11, 2016,
the Plaintiff is given to and including Feb. 6, 2017 to amend all
pleadings and to add any additional parties. The Defendant is
given until March 6, 2017, to amend all pleadings and to add any
additional parties.

A copy of the Order is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=OqD2TOlK


EASY MOBILE: Court Rules Class Certification in "Freeman" Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit titled JONNA FREEMAN PLAINTIFF v. EASY MOBILE LABS,
INC., Case No. 1:16-cv-00018-GNS (W.D. Ken), the Hon. Judge
Greg N. Stivers entered an order:

     1. granting Defendant's motion to dismiss and, in the
        alternative, stay and compel arbitration; and

     2. denying Plaintiff's motion for conditional class
        certification.

In lieu of staying the proceedings, the case is dismissed without
prejudice to the parties' right to move to re-open the case for
entry of an arbitration award or for any other relief to which the
parties may be entitled.

A copy of the Order is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=1pdqwo6b


EDWARD D. JONES: Faces Class Action Over Excessive 401(k) Fees
--------------------------------------------------------------
Greg Iacurci, writing for Investment News, reports that
Edward Jones is being sued by a participant in the company's
401(k) plan for allegedly causing employees to pay high fees for
investment management and record-keeping services that supposedly
cost them millions in retirement savings.

Many of the allegations in proposed class-action lawsuit, McDonald
v. Edward D. Jones & Co. L.P. et al, which was filed Aug. 19 in
Missouri district court, will be familiar to those following other
excessive-fee cases against sponsors of multibillion-dollar 401(k)
plans.  The Edward D. Jones & Co. Profit Sharing and Deferred
Compensation Plan had nearly $4 billion in assets and 36,000
participants as of year-end 2014.

The plaintiff claims unreasonable fees paid to the plan record
keeper, Mercer HR Services Inc., lost $8 million in aggregate
retirement savings over the proposed class period, Aug. 19, 2010
through the present.

Further, the plan offered high-cost mutual fund share classes when
lower-cost alternatives were available for identical funds,
leading to $13 million in excessive fees, according to the
complaint.  Participants allegedly would have saved tens of
millions more dollars if assets were invested in collective
investment trust funds and separately managed accounts, the
plaintiff claims.

Additionally, until 2013, Edward Jones allegedly only offered
actively managed mutual funds on the investment menu, without
inclusion of lower-cost index funds.  Fiduciaries also failed to
offer a stable value fund as a cash-preservation option, selecting
a money market fund instead, which lost participants "over 12% of
their buying power," according to the complaint.

The lawsuit continues a barrage of litigation filed against
corporations in recent weeks for fiduciary breach in their
retirement plans.

Another major brokerage, Morgan Stanley, was targeted on Aug. 19
in a $150 million lawsuit, and financial services companies such
as Neuberger Berman, Franklin Templeton, New York Life Insurance
Co. and American Century Investments have seen similar legal
action since June.

UNIQUE ALLEGATION

One seemingly unique aspect to the case is an allegation over how
a distribution relationship between Edward Jones and mutual fund
companies influenced its 401(k) fund choice.

Edward Jones maintains relationships with "partners" and
"preferred partners" at the retail brokerage level, whereby the
former receives millions in revenue-sharing payments from fund
managers in return for benefits such as "greater access to certain
information about its business practices, frequent interactions
with Edward Jones financial advisers, marketing support and
educational presentations," according to the lawsuit.

Edward Jones receives a financial benefit for "keeping preferred
partners happy, so to speak," and one other benefit the company
bestows "seems to be inclusion in the 401(k) plan for Edward Jones
employees," Mark Boyko -- mboyko@baileyglasser.com -- associate
attorney at Bailey Glasser, the plaintiff's law firm, said.

Bailey Glasser is responsible for the litigation involving
Neuberger and Franklin.

"We're not alleging the payment is going on within the plan
assets, but we are alleging the preferred partner relationship is
the reason why those funds are being included in the plan,"
Mr. Boyko said.

Of the 401(k) plan's 53 different investment options, at least 40
are managed by the partners or preferred partners.

And of the 12 mutual fund families listed in Edward Jones' 2015
revenue-sharing disclosure, eight -- American Funds, Franklin
Templeton, Invesco, The Hartford, MFS, Lord Abbett, JPMorgan and
Goldman Sachs -- have funds in the 401(k) plan, representing
approximately 80% of plan assets, the plaintiff claims.  The 18
investments of American Funds, which paid the most in revenue
sharing to Edwards Jones in 2015, hold nearly 50% of plan assets.

The plan offers eight actively managed large-cap funds managed by
the preferred partners, for example.  Collective underperformance
for these and the plan's other large-cap equity funds resulted in
more than $100 million in lost money compared to their S&P 500
benchmark and index alternatives, according to the lawsuit.

John Boul, spokesman for Edward Jones, said allegations that the
firm violated its fiduciary duties or engaged in prohibited
transactions related to plan assets "are not true."

"At the heart of the lawsuit is the allegation that the firm
profits from the plan's investments by retaining for itself
revenue sharing payments paid by product partners. This allegation
is patently false," Mr. Boul said.

Mr. Boul also said the lawsuit "makes numerous faulty assumptions,
contains factual errors and inaccurately characterizes the manner
in which the plan is administered.  None of these has any
evidentiary support and will be proven to be demonstrably false."

OPEN FLOODGATES

While the vast majority of such litigation occurs in the corporate
401(k) market, a torrent of filings over a two-week period in
August against university 403(b) plans indicates a broadening in
scope for excessive-fee lawsuits.

"The floodgates are open, and this is just the beginning,"
according to Marcia Wagner, principal at The Wagner Law Group.
"When the tort bar takes hold, it takes hold."

Of course, just because a complaint is filed doesn't mean there's
merit to the allegations -- the truth typically comes out in more
advanced stages of litigation, Ms. Wagner said.

However, there's no end in sight for excessive-fee litigation, and
the extent to which such lawsuits will upend the retirement
industry is unknown, she added.

"Our courts are really clogged right now, and if we start having
lawsuits against RIAs, broker-dealers and plan sponsors, our court
system will get slower and potentially more erratic," Ms. Wagner
said.  "This is the beginning of something big and no one will
predict how the courts will be able to handle the onslaught."


EMPIRE DISTRICT: MOU Reached to Resolve Kansas Suit
---------------------------------------------------
The Empire District Electric Company said in its Form 10-Q Report
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 5,
2016, for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2016, that the
Company has reached an agreement to resolve a class action case in
Kansas.

On March 24, 2016, a purported shareholder of Empire filed a
complaint styled as a class action lawsuit in the District Court
for the 3rd Judicial District, in Shawnee County, Kansas. The
shareholder filed an amended complaint on April 15, 2016. The
complaint alleges that Empire's Board of Directors breached its
fiduciary duties in agreeing to the Merger Agreement by, among
other things, conducting an inadequate sales process and failing
to obtain adequate consideration, having an interest in completing
the Merger, and failing to make adequate disclosures in the proxy
statement. The complaint seeks various relief, including an
injunction against the Merger. The complaint also alleges that
Empire, APUC, Liberty Central and Merger Sub aided and abetted
such alleged breaches.

On June 7, 2016, following arm's length negotiations, Empire and
other defendants entered into a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU)
providing for the settlement, subject to court approval, of all
claims asserted in the complaint against all defendants. In
connection with the MOU, Empire agreed to make additional
disclosures related to the Merger in the proxy statement (which
were made on June 8, 2016). Empire and the other defendants that
entered into the MOU did so solely to avoid the costs, risks and
uncertainties inherent in litigation and without admitting any
liability or wrongdoing, and vigorously denied, and continue to
vigorously deny, that they committed any violation of law or
engaged in any wrongful acts alleged in the complaint.

The parties to the MOU have agreed to attempt in good faith to
finalize and execute a stipulation of settlement and to present
the stipulation of settlement to the Court for final approval. The
stipulation of settlement will be subject to customary conditions,
including approval by the Court. The stipulation of settlement
will provide for, among other things, certification of the alleged
class as a non-opt-out class action and an award of plaintiff's
reasonable attorneys' fees and expenses. The stipulation of
settlement will also provide for the release of any and all claims
arising out of or relating to the Merger. The settlement is
subject to final Court approval following notice to the class
members.  There can be no assurance that the settling parties will
ultimately enter into a stipulation of settlement or that the
Court will approve the settlement. In such event, or if the Merger
is not consummated for any reason, the proposed settlement will be
null and void and of no force and effect.

The outcome of the lawsuit cannot be predicted with any certainty.
A preliminary injunction could delay or jeopardize the completion
of the Merger, and an adverse judgment granting permanent
injunctive relief could indefinitely enjoin completion of the
Merger. All of the defendants believe that the claims asserted
against them in the lawsuit are without merit.


EMSP LLC: Class Certification in "Funez" Suit Partly Granted
-------------------------------------------------------------
The Hon. Judge Jane Triche Milazzo entered an order In the lawsuit
captioned JESSICA MARILU ROSALEZ FUNEZ, ET AL. the Plaintiff, v.
E.M.S.P, LLC, EDWIN A. MIRANDA, ET AL. the Defendant, Case No.
2:16-cv-01922-JTM-KWR (E.D. La.), granting in part and deferring
in part Plaintiff's motion for class certification.

The following Class is certified:

     "All individuals who worked for E.M.S.P., LLC at any time
     since March 6, 2013 and were classified as independent
     contractors."

Defendants shall provide Plaintiffs with the names, current or
last known addresses, and e-mail addresses of potential collective
action plaintiffs within twenty days of the filing of this Order.

Parties shall meet and confer upon the notice and consent form to
potential opt-in plaintiffs. Within 20 days of the entry of the
Order and prior to distributing notice to potential opt-in
Plaintiffs, the parties shall submit a joint proposed notice to
the Court along with an appropriate motion for the adoption of
such notice. If the parties are unable to agree on a joint
proposed notice, the Plaintiffs and Defendants shall each submit
their proposal to the Court within 20 days of the Order.

A copy of the Order is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=zCnI3XWY


ENERGY RECOVERY: Mediation Continued to October 12
--------------------------------------------------
District Judge Edward M. Chen granted the parties' request to
conduct a private mediation prior to a decision on Defendants'
pending motion to dismiss the case entitled, IN RE ENERGY RECOVERY
INC. SECURITIES LITIGATION, Master File No. 3:15-cv-00265-EMC
(N.D. Cal.).

The parties attempted to schedule a mediation in September 2016,
but have been unsuccessful. The earliest date on which all parties
are available to mediate the case with the agreed-upon mediator is
October 12, 2016.

The parties have agreed that a case management conference be
rescheduled to a date after the mediation.

A copy of the Court's Order dated August 19, 2016 is available at
http://goo.gl/kOocqkfrom Leagle.com.

Joseph Sabatino, Plaintiff, represented by Laurence M. Rosen --
lrosen@rosenlegal.com -- The Rosen Law Firm, P.A..

Henry Low, Plaintiff, represented by Nicholas Ian Porritt --
nporritt@zlk.com -- Levi and Korsinsky, pro hac vice, Adam Marc
Apton, Levi Korsinsky, LLP, pro hac vice & Mark Punzalan --
markp@punzalanlaw.com -- Punzalan Law, P.C..

Thomas C. Mowdy, Plaintiff, represented by Jeremy A. Lieberman,
Pomerantz LLP.

Thomas Rooney, et al., Defendants, represented by David Malcolm
Furbush -- david.furbush@pillsburylaw.com -- Pillsbury Winthrop
Shaw Pittman LLP & James M. Lindfelt --
james.lindfelt@pillsburylaw.com -- Pillsbury Winthrop Shaw Pittman
LLP.


ERNST & YOUNG: Class Action Waiver Not Enforceable, Court Rules
---------------------------------------------------------------
Robert Iafolla, writing for Reuters, reports that Ernst & Young
LLP cannot require its employees to give up their rights to pursue
work-related claims together, a federal appeals court ruled on
Aug. 22, giving a major boost to the U.S. National Labor Relations
Board's campaign against so-called class action waivers.

Companies have increasingly included provisions in employment
contracts forcing workers to arbitrate claims individually as a
way to avoid the cost of litigating class actions.

The NLRB has struck down such requirements imposed by dozens of
companies, including American Express Co., Citigroup Inc. and
Domino's Pizza Inc.

With its 2-1 ruling, the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in
San Francisco became the second appellate court to sign off on the
NLRB's position that federal labor law prohibits workers'
arbitration agreements from including class action waivers.

But two appellate courts previously rejected the NLRB's view,
making it likely that the U.S. Supreme Court will eventually rule
on the enforceability of such waivers.

The lawyers for Ernst & Young and the plaintiffs were not
immediately available for comment.

Judge Sidney Thomas, chief of the 9th circuit, said Ernst &
Young's arbitration agreement violated the National Labor
Relations Act by making workers arbitrate work-related claims as
individuals in separate proceedings.  The law guarantees workers'
rights to act together, he said.

Former Ernst & Young employees Stephen Morris and Kelly McDaniel
had claimed in a proposed class action that Ernst & Young did not
pay them overtime as required by federal and California law.

Ernst & Young, a London-based professional services provider,
argued the Federal Arbitration Act, a 90-year-old law that says
courts cannot disfavor arbitration, trumps the National Labor
Relations Act and entitles it to enforce its employment contract
requiring Morris and McDaniel to pursue their claims individually
in arbitration.

Judge Thomas said in the Aug. 22 opinion that those two federal
laws are not in conflict.  The case is not about whether the
claims should be heard in court or arbitration, but about a
contract that is fatally flawed because it would deny workers
their rights to act as a group.

"The same infirmity would exist if the contract required disputes
to be resolved through casting lots, coin toss, duel, trial by
ordeal or any other dispute resolution mechanism, if the contract
limited resolution to that mechanism and required separate
individual proceedings," Judge Thomas said.

In dissent, Circuit Judge Sandra Ikuta said workers could still
exercise their right to act collectively in individual arbitration
by hiring the same lawyers and sharing resources.

The case is Morris v. Ernst & Young, 9th U.S. Circuit Court of
Appeals, No. 13-16599.


ESPN: Ex-College Athlete Loses Bid to Revive Publicity Rights Case
------------------------------------------------------------------
Tim Cushing, writing for techdirt, reports that Javon Marshall --
a former college athlete spearheading a putative class action
against several broadcasters for uncompensated use of his likeness
-- has just seen the Sixth Circuit Appeals Court send him (and
everyone "similarly situated") back home without a parting gift.

Mr. Marshall -- like many others who believe the mere existence of
intellectual property protections entitles them to a paycheck --
sued a long list of broadcasters for allegedly violating the
Lanham Act and the Tennessee "right of publicity" law by not
paying him and other athletes for using his name and "image" in
game broadcasts and advertising.  Mr. Marshall also claimed the
NCAA's waiver student-athletes sign is "vague and unenforceable."
That may very well be, but that claim was never addressed by the
plaintiff and the NCAA was never a defendant.  It only served as
an introduction to a long list of alleged violations that the
lower court determined to be baseless accusations.

The Appeals Court makes short work of Mr. Marshall's attempt to
have the lawsuit revived, pointing out in a wonderful opening
paragraph just how unrealisitic his claims are.  The first
sentence alone indicates how far from legal reality Marshall's
class action lawsuit strayed.

To state the plaintiffs' theory in this case is nearly to refute
it.

Going on, the court punches a dramatic hole in Mr. Marshall's
flawed logic.

The theory begins with the assertion that college football and
basketball players have a property interest in their names and
images as they appear in television broadcasts of games in which
the players are participants.  Thus, the plaintiffs conclude,
those broadcasts are illegal unless licensed by every player on
each team.  Whether referees, assistant coaches, and perhaps even
spectators have the same rights as putative licensors is unclear
from the plaintiffs' briefs (and, by all appearances, to the
plaintiffs themselves).

Very briefly addressing the plaintiff's arguments, the court waves
them away in two sentences, offering its wholehearted support of
the lower court's decision.

In any event, the plaintiffs seek to assert claims under Tennessee
law, the Sherman Act, and the Lanham Act on behalf of a putative
class of collegiate players nationwide.  The defendants -- various
college athletic conferences and television networks, among others
-- responded in the district court with a motion to dismiss, which
the court granted in a notably sound and thorough opinion.

The court goes on to call the plaintiffs' claims under Tennessee
law "legal fantasy," pointing out that the state's "right of
publicity" specifically exempts sports broadcasts.  The
plaintiffs' common-law claim asserts a right never granted by the
state.  The Sherman Act antitrust claim fails because if a right
doesn't exist, it can't be licensed in a noncompetitive fashion.
The court saves its best comment for Mr. Marshall's trademark
claim.

That leaves the plaintiffs' claim under the Lanham Act, whose
relevant provision bars the unauthorized use of a person's name or
likeness in commerce when doing so "is likely to cause confusion"
as to whether the person endorses a product. 15 U.S.C.
Sec. 1125(a)(1)(A).  The theory here is that if, say, ESPN shows a
banner for "Tostitos" at the bottom of the screen during a
football game, then consumers might become confused as to whether
all the players on the screen endorse Tostitos. Suffice it to say
that ordinary consumers have more sense than the theory itself
does.

This futile lawsuit was perhaps encouraged by the relative success
of a similar lawsuit against Electronic Arts for using the
"likenesses" of players in its sports videogames.  However,
there's a crucial difference that factored into the Ninth Circuit
Appeals Court's decision on behalf of the players: California's
oft-abused "right of publicity" law which doesn't contain the same
exemptions as Tennessee's. And in that case, there's still hope of
a rehearing which might tilt the court towards finding
California's law must defer to the First Amendment, rather than
the other way around.


EXECUTIVE CUT: "Ornelas" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime
--------------------------------------------------------------
Jessica Ornelas, on behalf of herself and other aggrieved
employees under the California Private Attorneys General Act v.
The Executive Cut and Shave, LLC, John Carnevali, and Does 1-20,
inclusive, Case No. BC631843 (C.D. Cal., August 26, 2016), seeks
to recover unpaid overtime wages and damages pursuant to the
California Labor Code.

The Defendants own and operate a beauty shop located in Canoga
Park, California.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Benjamin Hill, Esq.
      INHOUSE CO.
      5350 Topanga Canyon Blvd.
      Woodland Hills, CA 91364
      Telephone: (818) 452-4430
      E-mail: ben@inhouseco.com


FIAT CHRYSLER: 6th Cir. Affirms Pacificas Class Action Dismissal
----------------------------------------------------------------
Jessica Dye, writing for Reuters, reports that auto manufacturer
FCA US had no legal duty to warn owners or offer repairs for an
alleged defect in a line of minivans made by its predecessor
Chrysler, a federal appeals court has ruled.

The 6th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals on Aug. 16 affirmed the
dismissal of a proposed class action by owners of 2004-2008
Chrysler Pacificas, which alleged the vehicles had defective
engine cradles prone to rust and corrosion.


FIFTH THIRD BANCORP: "Klopfenstein" Case in Discovery
-----------------------------------------------------
Fifth Third Bancorp said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on August 5, 2016, for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2016, that the parties in the
case, Klopfenstein v. Fifth Third Bank, are engaged in discovery
and no trial date has been scheduled.

On August 3, 2012, William Klopfenstein and Adam McKinney filed a
lawsuit against Fifth Third Bank in the United States District
Court for the Northern District of Ohio (Klopfenstein et al. v.
Fifth Third Bank), alleging that the 120% APR that Fifth Third
disclosed on its Early Access program was misleading. Early Access
is a deposit-advance program offered to eligible customers with
checking accounts. The plaintiffs sought to represent a nationwide
class of customers who used the Early Access program and repaid
their cash advances within 30 days. On October 31, 2012, the case
was transferred to the United States District Court for the
Southern District of Ohio. In 2013, four similar putative class
actions were filed against Fifth Third Bank in federal courts
throughout the country (Lori and Danielle Laskaris v. Fifth Third
Bank, Janet Fyock v. Fifth Third Bank, Jesse McQuillen v. Fifth
Third Bank, and Brian Harrison v. Fifth Third Bank). Those four
lawsuits were transferred to the Southern District of Ohio and
consolidated with the original lawsuit as In re: Fifth Third Early
Access Cash Advance Litigation. On behalf of a putative class, the
plaintiffs seek unspecified monetary and statutory damages,
injunctive relief, punitive damages, attorney's fees, and pre- and
post-judgment interest. On March 30, 2015, the court dismissed all
claims alleged in the consolidated lawsuit except a claim under
the TILA. The parties are currently engaged in discovery. No trial
date has been scheduled.


FRESENIUS MEDICAL: AG Sues Over Kidney Dialysis Product Risk
------------------------------------------------------------
The Associated Press reports that Kentucky's attorney general is
accusing a medical company of Medicaid fraud for allegedly
promoting a kidney dialysis product it knew was harmful to
patients.

Attorney General Andy Beshear is suing Fresenius Medical Care
Holdings Inc.  His lawsuit, filed in Franklin County Circuit
Court, says Fresenius is the nation's largest provider of kidney
dialysis and renal care products, treatment and services.

Mr. Beshear says the company put patients at risk with its
GranuFlo product, which was used in screening blood to remove
impurities during dialysis.  He says the company concealed the
product's risks of causing heart attacks, strokes or arrhythmia.

He says the federal government issued a 2012 recall for the
product.

Fresenius spokesman Kent Jarrell said the company's actions "were
appropriate, responsible and consistent with the company's
commitment to patient safety."


GE INSPECTION: Faces Class Action Over Wage Law Violations
----------------------------------------------------------
Michael Abella, writing for Legal Newsline, reports that two
Massachusetts engineers are suing a technology company, alleging
violation of the company's paid time off plan.

Sumit Kumar and Randy Johnson filed a class action lawsuit,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Aug.
3 in U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts against
GE Inspection Technologies LP, alleging violation of the
Massachusetts Wage Act.

According to the complaint, Messrs. Kumar and Johnson earned paid
time off (PTO) under the GE Inspection Technologies' plan.  The
suit says they were not paid the PTO money they earned during
their employment.

The plaintiffs allege GE Inspection Technologies deleted all their
PTO that had been earned under the traditional policy and failed
to pay their paid leaves that they had earned under the company-
defined PTO policy.

Messrs. Kuman and Johnson seeks a trial by jury, certification as
a class action, lost wages, plus liquidated damages, attorney fees
and legal costs, plus such other relief as the court deems just.
They are represented by attorneys Michael Bace -- mjb@bacelaw.com
-- of Bace Law Group LLC in Boston and by John R. Bita, III of Law
Office of Boston.

The defendant removed the case to U.S. District Court for the
District of Massachusetts on Aug. 3.

U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts Case number
1:16-cv-11589


GENERAL NUTRITION: Faces "Pasciolla" Suit in W.D. Pennsylvania
--------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been commenced against General
Nutrition Centers, Inc.

The case is captioned Samantha Pasciolla, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated v. General Nutrition
Centers, Inc., Case No. 2:16-cv-01313-MRH (W.D. Penn., August 26,
2016).

General Nutrition Centers, Inc. is a commercial enterprise focused
on the retail sale of health and nutrition related products,
including vitamins, supplements, minerals, herbs, sports
nutrition, diet, and energy products.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      R. Bruce Carlson, Esq.
      CARLSON LYNCH SWEET & KILPELA, LLP
      1133 Penn Avenue, 5th Floor
      Pittsburgh, PA 15222
      Telephone: (412) 322-9243
      E-mail: bcarlson@carlsonlynch.com


GOLDEN GATE: $750,000 Settlement Preliminarily Approved
-------------------------------------------------------
In the case of BRANDY WELCH (formerly known as BRANDY ROODE) and
HEATHER BLACKMUN, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiffs, v. GOLDEN GATE CASINO, LLC, d/b/a GOLDEN
GATE HOTEL & CASINO; and DOES 1 through 50, inclusive, Defendant,
Case No. 2:13-cv-01089-RFB-GWF (D. Nev.), the settlement in the
maximum amount of US$750,000.00 as reached between the parties is
preliminarily found to be fair, reasonable and adequate in light
of the facts and law presented.

District Judge Richard F. Boulware, II also approved this
Settlement Class:

     Nevada Class: All persons employed by Defendant who were
     non-union, non-exempt, hourly employees who were eligible
     for overtime and incentives under Defendant's pay plans and
     who were employed in such a position between December 17,
     2009 and the date of preliminary approval of the Settlement.

     FLSA Collective Class: All persons employed by Defendant who
     were non-union, non-exempt, hourly employees who were
     eligible for overtime and incentives under Defendant's pay
     plans and who were employed in such a position between
     December 17, 2009 and the date of preliminary approval of
     the Settlement.

In the case, Thierman Buck, LLP are appointed and designated as
counsel for the Class Representatives and the Settlement Class.
CPT Group is appointed Claims Administrator and the preliminary
approval is given to the payment of the Claims Administrator's
fee.

The Court also sets these dates for purposes of the proposed
settlement of the class action:

  a. Defendant to provide a database containing the Class
     Member information to the Claims Administrator in electronic
     format by: August 29, 2016.

  b. Funding of Settlement by Defendant: 5 days following to
     effective date of Settlement.

  c. First mailing to Class: September 1, 2016.

  d. Deadline for filing claims: Must be postmarked by
     November 30, 2016.

  e. Deadline for objections: Must be postmarked by October
     31, 2016.

  f. Deadline for exclusion: Must be received by Claims
     Administrator no later than October 31, 2016.

  g. Submission of Report of individual Claim Shares for Court
     Approval: by December 15, 2016.

  h. Plaintiff shall file memorandum of points and authorities
     in support of the settlement including attorney fees, costs
     and enhancements: December 9, 2016 (10 days before Final
     Settlement Hearing).

  i. Final Settlement Approval Hearing: January 3, 2017 at
     2:30 PM in Courtroom 7C.

A copy of the Court's Order dated August 19, 2016 is available at
http://goo.gl/b8GGkNfrom Leagle.com.

Brandy Welch, et al., Plaintiffs, represented by Joshua D. Buck,
Thierman Buck, LLP, Leah Lin Jones, Thierman Buck, LLP & Mark R.
Thierman, Thierman Buck, LLP.

Golden Gate Casino, LLC, Defendant, represented by Morris Reid
Estes, Jr. -- restes@dickinsonwright.com -- Dickinson Wright PLLC,
Peter F. Klett, III -- pklett@dickinsonwright.com -- Dickinson
Wright PLLC & Michael N. Feder -- MFeder@dickinson-wright.com --
Dickinson Wright PLLC.


GOLDMAN SACHS: Judge Casts Doubt on Antitrust Class Action
----------------------------------------------------------
Kevin Dugan, writing for New York Post, reports that a
multibillion-dollar payday for Wall Street lawyers has gotten off
to a rocky start.

A highly anticipated class-action antitrust case accusing 22 banks
of rigging the very bedrock of the US financial system was
criticized by a judge on Aug. 22 for lacking specifics, but gave
lawyers plenty of time to find them.

Manhattan federal Judge Paul G. Gardephe told attorneys for the 55
plaintiffs he had doubts that the initial complaints "make out a
plausible case of collusive or manipulative conduct," Judge
Gardephe said.

The plaintiffs, mostly institutional investors, accuse the banks
of rigging the US Treasury markets to sell the debt for higher
prices to clients.

The three law firms who are temporary lead co-counsel are Quinn
Emanuel, Cohen Milstein and Labaton & Sucharow.

Lawyers say that a settlement could be upwards of $5 billion if a
trial gets decided in the plaintiffs' favor.

The civil suit is kicking off while US and European prosecutors
are investigating their roles in setting debt prices.

While the investigation began in June of last year, settlement
talks aren't expected to begin until December at the earliest, one
source told The Post.

According to Law360, defendants include Goldman Sachs Group Inc.,
Barclays Capital Inc., and several other financial giants.

The case is In re: Treasury Securities Auction Antitrust
Litigation, case number 2673, before the Judicial Panel on
Multidistrict Litigation.


GREEN TREE: "Kamimura" Case Extends Submission of Discovery Plan
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, Lee C. Kamimura, individually and all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Green Tree Services, LLC,
Defendant, Case No. 2:16-cv-00783-APG-CWH (D. Nev.), District
Judge Carl W. Hoffman granted the parties' stipulation to extend
the deadline to submit their discovery plan and scheduling order
to 45 days after Defendant has filed an answer to the Plaintiff's
Second Amended Complaint.

Defendant's response to Plaintiff's Second Amended Complaint was
due August 22, 2016.

The Court observed that due to the changing nature of the
pleadings, the possibility of further dispositive motions that may
narrow the issues in the case, and the parties' willingness to
cooperate on efforts to streamline discovery in the matter, good
cause exists to extend the deadline for the Parties to submit a
proposed discovery plan until after Defendant has responded to the
Second Amended Complaint.

A copy of the Court's Order dated August 19, 2016 is available at
http://goo.gl/aVXh89from Leagle.com.

Lee C. Kamimura, Plaintiff, represented by David H. Krieger,
Haines & Krieger, LLC & Michael Kind -- mkind@kazlg.com --
Kazerouni Law Group, APC.

Ditech Financal LLC, Defendant, represented by Laura R. Jacobsen
-- ljacobsen@mcdonaldcarano.com -- McDonald Carano & Wilson.


GROUP HEALTH: Faces "Wechsler" Class Suit in S.D. New York
----------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been commenced against Group Health
Incorporated (GHI) and EmblemHealth, Inc.

The case is captioned Lauren Wechsler, individually and on behalf
of all similarly situated v. Group Health Incorporated (GHI) and
EmblemHealth, Inc., Case No. 1:16-cv-06737-GBD (S.D.N.Y., August
26, 2016).

The Defendants operate a health insurance and wellness company
headquartered at 55 Water Street in Lower Manhattan, New York
City.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Natalie Michele Chin, Esq.
      CARDOZO SCHOOL OF LAW GUARDIANSHIP CLINIC
      55 Fifth Ave, 19th Floor
      New York, NY 10003
      Telephone: (212) 255-7852
      Facsimile: (212) 790-0256
      E-mail: nchin@law.nyc.gov

HCA HOLDINGS: Sued Over Americans with Disabilities Act Violation
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Andres Gomez, Individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. HCA Holdings, Inc. and Kendall Healthcare Group, Ltd.
d/b/a Kendall Regional Medical Center, Case No. 1:16-cv-23680-RNS
(S.D. Fla., August 25, 2016), is brought against the Defendants
for violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act.

The Defendants own and operate a healthcare company based in
Nashville, Tennessee.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Carlos R. Diaz, Esq.
      STEWART, MURRAY & ASSOC. LAW GROUP, LLC
      437 Grant Street, Suite 600
      Pittsburgh, PA 15219
      Telephone: (412) 765-3345
      Facsimile: (412) 765-3346
      E-mail: cdiaz@smalawgroup.com


HM OPERATING: Settlement in "Comeens" Case Has Final OK
-------------------------------------------------------
In the case, CHRIS COMEENS, et al., Plaintiffs, v. HM OPERATING,
INC., et al., Defendants, Case No. 6:14-cv-00521-JHE (N.D. Ala.),
Magistrate Judge John H. England, III approved on a final basis
the parties' settlement agreement.  The Court shall retain
jurisdiction with respect to all matters arising from or related
to the implementation of the Order for two years from the date of
judgment.

The Plaintiffs sue under the Worker's Adjustment and Retraining
Notification Act ("WARN Act") alleging that Defendants were "a
single employer" for purposes of the act and had violated its
provisions when they closed down dismissed Defendant HM Operating,
Inc.'s bedroom furniture plant in Haleyville, Alabama, without
giving the statutorily required sixty-day notice to the workers.

The class, as defined by the settlement agreement, is: All
employees of HM Operating, Inc. (MH) who do not opt out and who
were terminated without cause on or after March 12, 2014, as part
of, or as the foreseeable result of, the plant closing at the
facility located at 7155 State Highway 13, Haleyville, Alabama
35565, which occurred on or about March 12, 2014.

The Court held that there does not appear to have been any
collusion in the case. Both sides are represented by counsel, who
have zealously prosecuted and defended the case, and the
settlement was ultimately reached through arms' length negotiation
with a mediator. Further, the expected complexity, expense, and
duration of the litigation weigh very strongly in favor of
settlement.

A copy of the Court's Memorandum Opinion and Order dated August
18, 2016 is available at http://goo.gl/Uxk2sLfrom Leagle.com.

Chris Comeens, et al., Plaintiffs, represented by Mary E. Olsen --
molsen@thegardnerfirm.com -- THE GARDNER FIRM, P.C. & Michael
Vance McCrary -- vmccrary@thegardnerfirm.com -- The Gardner Firm,
P.C..

CHIKOL, LLC, Defendant, represented by Carole G. Miller --
cmiller@bressler.com -- BRESSLER AMERY & ROSS PC, Seth J. Kleinman
-- seth.kleinman@kayescholer.com -- KAY SCHOLER LLP, pro hac vice,
Sheldon Louis Solow -- sheldon.solow@kayescholer.com -- KAYE
SCHOLER LLP, pro hac vice, Janell M. Ahnert --
jahnert@bressler.com -- BRESSLER AMERY & ROSS PC & Patrick Joseph
Mulligan -- pmulligan@bressler.com -- BRESSLER AMERY & ROSS PC.

Linsalata Capital Partners Fund IV LP, et al., Defendants,
represented by Edward S. Sledge IV -- tfetner@bradley.com --
BRADLEY ARANT BOULT CUMMINGS, John W. Hargrove --
jhargrove@bradley.com -- BRADLEY ARANT BOULT CUMMINGS LLP & Mary
Ann Couch -- macouch@bradley.com -- BRADLEY ARANT BOULT CUMMINGS.


HOECHST MARION: Settles Cipro Class Action, Oct. 7 Hearing Set
--------------------------------------------------------------
If You Paid for the Antibiotic Cipro in California
You Could Get Money from a Class Action Settlement

A partial Settlement has been reached in a class action lawsuit
involving the antibiotic drug Cipro.  The lawsuit claims that
Bayer Corporation, Barr Laboratories, Inc., Hoechst Marion
Roussel, Inc., Watson Pharmaceuticals, Inc., and The Rugby Group,
Inc. (the "Defendants") violated antitrust and consumer protection
laws by agreeing not to compete with each other and keeping lower
cost generic versions of Cipro off the market.  The Defendants
deny this.  No one is claiming that Cipro is unsafe or
ineffective.

WHAT DOES THE SETTLEMENT PROVIDE?

Hoechst Marion Roussel, Inc., Watson Pharmaceuticals, Inc., and
The Rugby Group, Inc. have agreed to pay $100 million into a
Settlement Fund (the "Fund").  After deducting attorneys' fees,
costs, and other fees and expenses, the Fund will be distributed
to Class members who file valid claims.  Payments will be based on
the number of valid claims filed and how much you paid for Cipro.
It is estimated that consumers will receive at least $25 each.
The Settlement Agreement, available at the website
www.CiproSettlement.com, contains more details.  The Settlement
Agreement involves only Hoechst Marion Roussel, Inc., Watson
Pharmaceuticals, Inc., and The Rugby Group, Inc., Bayer
Corporation previously settled. The case will continue against
Barr Laboratories, Inc.

WHO IS INCLUDED?

Generally you are included if you paid a pharmacy, doctor's
office, or hospital for some or all of a Cipro prescription in
California between January 8, 1997 and December 31, 2005.

Excluded from the Class are all persons who obtained Cipro through
MediCal Prescription Drug Program, anyone who purchased Cipro in
order to resell it, governmental entities, the Defendants and
their related entities, all purchasers of Cipro who paid a flat
co-payment and who would have paid the same co-payment for a
generic substitute under the terms of their health insurance
policy, and all persons or parties that have excluded themselves
from the Class.

HOW TO GET A PAYMENT

Class Members must submit a Claim Form to get a payment.  If you
submitted a Claim Form and received payment in the Bayer
settlement, visit the website www.CiproSettlement.com for more
information.  The information from your previous Claim Form will
be used to calculate your share of this settlement. The Claim
Form, and instructions on how to submit it, are available at
www.CiproSettlement.com or by calling 1-866-404-0135. The deadline
to submit a Claim Form is December 15, 2016.

YOUR OTHER RIGHTS AND OPTIONS

If you are a Class Member, your right to exclude yourself from the
Class (to opt out) expired in 2004, when the Class was certified
and the original notice was disseminated.  You may comment on or
object to the proposed Settlement.  To do so, you must act by
September 23, 2016.  Details on how to comment or object are at
www.CiproSettlement.com

The Court will hold a hearing on October 7, 2016 to consider
whether to finally approve the Settlement and whether to approve
Class Counsel's application for attorneys' fees of up to one third
of the Settlement Fund, plus expenses, and service awards for the
Class Representatives.

FOR MORE INFORMATION AND A CLAIM FORM

Visit: www.CiproSettlement.com
Call 1-866-404-0135


HORIZON FINANCIAL: Class Certification Sought in "Wandersee" Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Angie Wandersee moves the Court to certify the class described in
the complaint of the lawsuit entitled ANGIE WANDERSEE,
Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated v.
HORIZON FINANCIAL MANAGEMENT, LLC, d/b/a HORIZON HEALTHCARE
MANAGEMENT, Case No. 2:16-cv-01176-NJ (E.D. Wisc.).  The Plaintiff
also asks that the Court both stay the Motion and to grant the
Plaintiff (and the Defendants) relief from the Local Rules setting
automatic briefing schedules and requiring briefs and supporting
material to be filed with the Motion.

Damasco and decisions like it imposed significant burdens on the
Court and on Plaintiff's Counsel, the Plaintiff contends, citing
Damasco v. Clearwire Corp., 662 F.3d 891 (7th Cir. 2011),
overruled, Chapman v. First Index, Inc., 796 F.3d 783, 787 (7th
Cir. 2015).

To avoid the risk of a defendant mooting a putative class
representative's individual stake in the litigation, the Seventh
Circuit in Damasco instructed plaintiffs to file a certification
motion with the complaint, along with a motion to stay briefing on
the certification motion until discovery could commence, the
Plaintiff says.  The Plaintiff asserts that the Plaintiff is
obligated to move for class certification to protect the interests
of the putative class.

As the Motion is a placeholder motion as described in Damasco, the
parties and the Court should not be burdened with unnecessary
paperwork and the resulting expense when a one paragraph, single
page motion to certify and stay should suffice until an amended
motion is filed, the Plaintiff contends.

The Plaintiff also asks to be appointed as class representative
and further asks the Court to appoint Ademi & O'Reilly, LLP as
class counsel.

A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=pc3WTO3q

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Shpetim Ademi, Esq.
          John D. Blythin, Esq.
          Mark A. Eldridge, Esq.
          ADEMI & O'REILLY, LLP
          3620 East Layton Avenue
          Cudahy, WI 53110
          Telephone: (414) 482-8000
          Facsimile: (414) 482-8001
          E-mail: sademi@ademilaw.com
                  jblythin@ademilaw.com
                  meldridge@ademilaw.com


ICONIX BRAND: Bid to Dismiss Securities Case Pending
----------------------------------------------------
Iconix Brand Group, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 5, 2016, for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2016, that the Company and the
individual defendants' motion to dismiss a consolidated amended
securities class action complaint remains pending.

Three securities class actions, respectively captioned Lazaro v.
Iconix Brand Group, Inc. et al., Docket No. 1:15-cv-04981-PGG,
Niksich v. Iconix Brand Group, Inc. et al. , Docket No. 1:15-cv-
04860-PGG and  Haverhill Retirement System v. Iconix Brand Group,
Inc. et al  Docket No. 1:15 - cv 06658, have been consolidated in
the United States District Court for the Southern District of New
York against the Company and certain former officers and one
current officer (each, a "Class Action" and, together, the "Class
Actions"). The plaintiffs in the Class Actions purport to
represent a class of purchasers of the Company's securities from
February 22, 2012 to November 5, 2015, inclusive, and claim that
the Company and individual defendants violated sections 10(b) and
20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, by making allegedly
false and misleading statements regarding certain aspects of the
Company's business operations and prospects.

The Company and the individual defendants have moved to dismiss
the consolidated amended complaint and intend to vigorously defend
against the claims.  At this time, the Company is unable to
estimate the ultimate outcome of this legal matter.


INTERNATIONAL PAPER: 7th Cir. Affirmed Class Cert. Ruling
---------------------------------------------------------
International Paper Company said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 5, 2016, for
the quarterly period ended June 30, 2016, that the United States
Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit has affirmed the District
Court's decision which certified a class of direct purchasers of
containerboard products.

In September 2010, eight containerboard producers, including
International Paper and Temple-Inland, were named as defendants in
a purported class action complaint that alleged a civil violation
of Section 1 of the Sherman Act. The suit is captioned Kleen
Products LLC v. International Paper Co. (N.D. Ill.). The complaint
alleges that the defendants, beginning in February 2004 through
November 2010, conspired to limit the supply and thereby increase
prices of containerboard products. The class is all persons who
purchased containerboard products directly from any defendant for
use or delivery in the United States during the period February
2004 to November 2010. The complaint seeks to recover unspecified
treble damages and attorneys' fees on behalf of the purported
class.

Four similar complaints were filed and have been consolidated in
the Northern District of Illinois.

In March 2015, the District Court certified a class of direct
purchasers of containerboard products; in June 2015, the United
States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit granted the
defendants' petition to appeal, and on August 4, 2016, affirmed
the District Court's decision on all counts.

"We will continue to aggressively defend this case, including the
possibility of further challenges to class certification," the
Company said.


INTERNATIONAL PAPER: No Class Cert. Bid Filed in Tenn. Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------
International Paper Company said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 5, 2016, for
the quarterly period ended June 30, 2016, that no class
certification materials have been filed to date in a purported
class action case in state court in Cocke County, Tennessee.

In June 2015, International Paper and Temple-Inland were named as
defendants in a lawsuit, later dismissed without prejudice in
November 2015, captioned Del Monte Fresh Products N.A., Inc. v.
Packaging Corporation of America (S.K. Fl.), in which the
Plaintiff asserted substantially similar allegations to those
raised in the Kleen Products action.

Likewise, in June 2016, a lawsuit captioned Ashley Furniture
Indus., Inc. v. Packaging Corporation of America (W.D. Wis.), was
filed in federal court in Wisconsin. The Ashley Furniture lawsuit
closely tracks the allegations found in the Kleen Products
complaint but also asserts Wisconsin state antitrust claims.

Moreover, in January 2011, International Paper was named as a
defendant in a lawsuit filed in state court in Cocke County,
Tennessee alleging that International Paper violated Tennessee law
by conspiring to limit the supply and fix the prices of
containerboard from mid-2005 to the present. Plaintiffs in the
state court action seek certification of a class of Tennessee
indirect purchasers of containerboard products, damages and costs,
including attorneys' fees.

No class certification materials have been filed to date in the
Tennessee action. The Company disputes the allegations made and is
vigorously defending each action.

"However, because the Kleen Products action is in the discovery
stage and the Tennessee and Ashley Furniture actions are in a
preliminary stage, we are unable to predict an outcome or estimate
a range of reasonably possible loss," the Company said.


J CHOO: Court Allows FACTA Class Action to Proceed
--------------------------------------------------
Merrit M. Jones, Esq. -- merrit.jones@bryancave.com -- and Marcy
J. Bergman, Esq. -- marcy.bergman@bryancave.com -- of Bryan Cave
LLP, in an article for Lexology, report that a recent federal
court ruling allows a class action lawsuit to proceed against
luxury fashion retailer Jimmy Choo for violating the Fair and
Accurate Credit Transactions Act of 2003 (FACTA).  This ruling,
which will likely be appealed, has important implications for
other consumer class action lawsuits against retailers.

Jimmy Choo was accused of violating FACTA by printing credit card
expiration dates on customer receipts in Wood v. J Choo USA, Inc.,
S.D. Fla. Case No. 15-cv-81487.  Jimmy Choo argued that the
plaintiff had no standing to sue because she was not damaged when
the retailer printed her credit card expiration date on her
receipt. The court disagreed, holding that the consumer was
sufficiently damaged to maintain the action as soon as soon as the
receipt was printed.

Companies facing lawsuits alleging FACTA violations should be
aware that although the U.S. Supreme Court held in Spokeo Inc. v.
Robins, 136 S. Ct. 1540 (2016), that a plaintiff must show that an
injury was both "concrete and particularized" and cannot rely on a
procedural violation to allege injury in fact, there are instances
where an injury may exist solely by virtue of a breach of a
statutory prohibition.

Judge Beth Bloom of the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of Florida said that in certain circumstances--such as in
this case involving Jimmy Choo -- "the violation of a procedural
right granted by statute" is sufficient to constitute injury for
purposes of standing.

FACTA prohibits businesses from printing more than the last five
digits of any customer's card number or card expiration date on
any receipt provided to the cardholder.  Statutory damages range
from $100 to $1,000 per violation.  The statute excludes receipts
that are handwritten or imprinted, where the only method of
recording the credit card number is by such means.


JPMORGAN CHASE: Settlement in "Shore" Suit Has Initial Okay
-----------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit entitled MICHAEL SHORE, on behalf of himself and
others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. JPMORGAN CHASE BANK,
N.A. d/b/a/ CHASE, and PHELAN HALLINAN DIAMOND & JONES, PLLC, the
Defendants, Case No. 0:16-cv-60125-JIC (S.D. Fla.), the Hon. Judge
James I. Cohn entered an order:

     1. granting Plaintiff's motion for preliminary approval of
        class action settlement;

     2. certifying class for settlement purposes;

     3. directing the issuance of class notice; and

     4. scheduling a final approval hearing.

The Settlement Class consists of:

     "all individuals who, on or after December 3, 2013: (a) was
     a borrower on a home loan that was secured by a mortgage or
     deed of trust on property located within Alabama, Florida,
     or Georgia; and (b) was sent a reinstatement quote letter
     from Chase, Phelan, or any other entity acting on behalf of
     Chase or Phelan."

Excluded from the Settlement Class are any: (i) individuals who
are or were during the Class Period officers or directors of the
Defendants or any of their respective affiliates; (ii) any
justice, judge, or magistrate judge of the United States or any
State, their spouses, and persons within the third degree of
relationship to either of them, or the spouses of such persons;
and (iii) all borrowers who file a timely and proper request to be
excluded from the Settlement Class in accordance with Section 13
of the Settlement Agreement.

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


KELLY SERVICES: "Gaffers" Suit Wins Conditional Certification
-------------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit styled JONATHAN GAFFERS, Plaintiff, v. KELLY
SERVICES, INC., the Defendant, Case No. 2:16-cv-10128-DML-SDD
(E.D. Mich.), the Hon. Judge David M. Lawson entered an order:

     1. granting Plaintiff's motion for conditional certification
        of collective action; and

     2. denying Defendants' renewed motion to stay and compel
        arbitration.

The Court further ordered that:

     1. the Defendants must furnish to counsel for the plaintiffs
        the last known post office and email addresses of the
        potential members of the described class on or before
        September 7, 2016;

     2. the plaintiff shall deliver notice promptly to putative
        class members by United States mail, email, or both. The
        notice shall state that interested persons may opt in to
        this litigation on or before November 7, 2016, but not
        thereafter; and

     3. counsel for the parties appear before the Court for a
        case management conference on September 8, 2016 at 3:30
        p.m.

Jonathan Gaffers is employed by Defendant as a home-based call
center agent. He filed the action under the Fair Labor Standards
Act alleging that Kelly is not paying him for the time it takes
for him to log on to Kelly's computer applications so he can
perform his job, and for certain other time spent solving
technical connection problems, all of which extends his total work
time beyond 40 hours during most weeks.

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


KILLION & SONS: Status Hearing in "Baughman" Suit on Sept. 16
-------------------------------------------------------------
The Hon. Cathy Bissoon granted the Plaintiff's motion for
conditional certification and motion for a status conference filed
in the lawsuit entitled SETH BAUGHMAN v. KILLION & SONS WELL
SERVICE, INC., Case No. 2:15-cv-01143-CB (W.D. Pa.).  The
Plaintiff's motion for permission to submit an Excel spreadsheet
in support of certification is denied as moot.

A telephonic status conference will be held on September 16, 2016,
at 2:15 p.m.

Judge Bissoon ordered that at the Conference, counsel must be
prepared to discuss a finalization of the written class-
definition; any informational exchanges required to identify
putative class members and their current/last known mailing
addresses; the form, language and timing of the collective-action
notice, as well as the duration of the opt-in period; the
establishment of other appropriate case management deadlines
moving forward; and whether this case might benefit from an
additional round of alternative dispute resolution.

A copy of the Order is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=owPZ5vMS


KOREAN RAMEN: Samyang's Accord with Indirect Buyers Has Final OK
----------------------------------------------------------------
District Judge William H. Orrick granted the Indirect Purchaser
Plaintiffs' Motion for Final Approval of Proposed Settlement in
the case entitled, In re: Korean Ramen Antitrust Litigation. THIS
DOCUMENT RELATES TO: All Indirect Purchaser Actions, Case No. C-
13-04115-WHO (N.D. Calif.).

Judge Orrick held that the settlement was entered into by the
parties in good faith.  He declared that the settlement class
provisionally certified by Order of the Court in its Preliminary
Approval Order is certified as a settlement class pursuant to Rule
23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure; and is comprised of:
"All individuals and entities that indirectly purchased Korean
Noodles in the United States and its territories including,
without limitation, in the states of California, Florida,
Massachusetts, Michigan, New York, and Hawaii, from one or more
Defendants from May 1, 2001 through December 31, 2010."

The Court's certification of the Indirect Settlement Class is
without prejudice to, or waiver of, the rights of any Defendant to
contest certification of any other class proposed in the action.

The Court approved the Escrow Account, into which Samyang Korea
has deposited a total of $500,000 as the Settlement Amount for the
Indirect Settlement Class, plus accrued interest, as a Qualified
Settlement Fund pursuant to Internal Revenue Code Section.
Plaintiffs are entitled to the payment of $216,673 as partial
reimbursement of costs incurred in the prosecution of the
litigation.

The Court retains exclusive jurisdiction over: (a) the enforcement
of the Order and Final Judgment; (b) the enforcement of the
Indirect Settlement Agreement; (c) any application for
distribution of funds, attorneys' fees, or reimbursement made by
Plaintiffs' Counsel; (d) any application for incentive awards for
the Indirect Purchaser Plaintiffs; and (e) the distribution of the
settlement proceeds.

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

Additional information on the case is available at:

                 http://www.ramenclassaction.com/

The Defendants are Nongshim Co., Ltd.; Nongshim America Inc.;
Ottogi Co. Ltd.; Ottogi America, Inc.; and Samyang Foods Co.,
Ltd.. Sam Yang (USA), Inc.-Paldo Co. Ltd.; and Korea Yakult Co.
Ltd., were initially named as defendants in this litigation, but
were dismissed by the Court without prejudice.

To date, only Samyang has agreed to settle the litigation.

Nongshim Co., Ltd.; Nongshim America Inc.; Ottogi Co. Ltd.; and
Ottogi America, Inc. have not agreed to settle, so the litigation
is continuing against them. There is no claim filing at this time.

Rockman Company (USA), Inc., Plaintiff, represented by Alan R.
Plutzik, Bramson Plutzik Mahler & Birkhaeuser, LLP, Daniel Edward
Birkhaeuser, Bramson, Plutzik, Mahler & Birkhaeuser LLP, Gregory
Bradley Linkh -- glinkh@glancylaw.com -- Glancy Prongay & Murray
LLP, Manuel Juan Dominguez -- jdominguez@cohenmilstein.com --
Cohen Milstein Sellers & Toll, pro hac vice, Mark P. Kindall --
mkindall@ikrlaw.com -- Izard, Kindall & Raabe, LLP, Robert A.
Izard -- rizard@ikrlaw.com -- Izard, Kindall & Raabe, LLP, Thomas
C. Bright -- tbright@cerallp.com -- Cera LLP & Christopher L.
Lebsock -- clebsock@hausfeld.com -- Hausfeld LLP.

M.T. Trading Corporation, et al., Plaintiffs, represented by
Thomas C. Bright -- tbright@cerallp.com -- Cera LLP, Alan R.
Plutzik, Bramson Plutzik Mahler & Birkhaeuser, LLP, Daniel Edward
Birkhaeuser, Bramson, Plutzik, Mahler & Birkhaeuser LLP, Manuel
Juan Dominguez -- jdominguez@cohenmilstein.com -- Cohen Milstein
Sellers & Toll, pro hac vice, Mark P. Kindall --
mkindall@ikrlaw.com -- Izard, Kindall & Raabe, LLP & Robert A.
Izard -- rizard@ikrlaw.com -- Izard, Kindall & Raabe, LLP.

The Plaza Company, Plaintiff, represented by Christopher L.
Lebsock -- clebsock@hausfeldllp.com -- Hausfeld LLP, Gregory
Bradley Linkh -- glinkh@glancylaw.com -- Glancy Prongay & Murray
LLP, Lee Albert -- lalbert@glancylaw.com -- Glancy Prongay &
Murray LLP, Michael P. Lehmann -- mlehmann@hausfeld.com --
Hausfeld LLP, Alan R. Plutzik, Bramson Plutzik Mahler &
Birkhaeuser, LLP, Bonny E. Sweeney -- bsweeney@hausfeld.com --
Hausfeld LLP, Brian P. Murray -- bmurray@glancylaw.com -- Glancy
Prongay & Murray LLP, pro hac vice, Daniel Edward Birkhaeuser,
Bramson, Plutzik, Mahler & Birkhaeuser LLP, Joshua L. Crowell --
jcrowell@glancylaw.com -- Glancy Prongay & Murray LLP, Kevin
Francis Ruf -- kruf@glancylaw.com -- Glancy Prongay & Murray LLP,
Lionel Z. Glancy -- lglancy@glancylaw.com -- Glancy Prongay &
Murray LLP, Mark P. Kindall -- mkindall@ikrlaw.com -- Izard,
Kindall & Raabe, LLP, Michael M. Goldberg --
mgoldberg@softtissuelawyer.com -- Goldberg Law PC, Robert A. Izard
-- rizard@ikrlaw.com -- Izard, Kindall & Raabe, LLP, Stephanie
Yunjin Cho -- scho@hausfeld.com -- Hausfeld LLP & Susan Gilah
Kupfer -- skupfer@glancylaw.com -- Glancy Prongay & Murray LLP.

Anthony An, et al., Plaintiffs, represented by Daniel Edward
Birkhaeuser, Bramson, Plutzik, Mahler & Birkhaeuser LLP, Gerald S.
Ohn, Law Offices of Gerald S. Ohn, Mark P. Kindall --
mkindall@ikrlaw.com -- Izard, Kindall & Raabe, LLP, Robert A.
Izard, Izard -- rizard@ikrlaw.com -- Kindall & Raabe, LLP, Young
Wook Ryu, Law Office of Young W. Ryu APC & Alan R. Plutzik,
Bramson Plutzik Mahler & Birkhaeuser, LLP.

Nong Shim Company, Ltd, et al., Defendants, represented by Anne
Choi Goodwin -- anne.goodwin@squirepb.com -- Squire Patton Boggs
(US) LLP, Edward Ghiyun Kim -- ed.kim@squirepb.com -- Squire
Patton Boggs, pro hac vice, J. Brady Dugan --
brady.dugan@squirepb.com -- Squire Patton Boggs (US) LLP, pro hac
vice, Joon Yong Kim -- joon.kim@squirepb.com -- Squire Patton
Boggs (US) LLP, pro hac vice, Joseph Patrick Grasser --
joseph.grasser@squirepb.com -- Squire Patton Boggs US) LLP, Kate
E. Kim -- kate.kim@squirepb.com -- Squire Patton Boggs (US) LLP,
pro hac vice & Mark C. Dosker -- mark.dosker@squirepb.com --
Squire Patton Boggs (US) LLP.

Ottogi Company, Ltd., et al., Defendants, represented by Joel
Steven Sanders -- jsanders@gibsondunn.com -- Gibson, Dunn &
Crutcher LLP, Julian Wolfe Kleinbrodt --
jkleinbrodt@gibsondunn.com -- Gibson Dunn and Crutcher, LLP, Minae
Yu -- myu@gibsondunn.com -- Gibson Dunn and Crutcher & Rachel S.
Brass -- rbrass@gibsondunn.com -- Gibson Dunn & Crutcher LLP.

SamYang Foods Company, Ltd., Defendant, represented by Elizabeth
Dianne Mann, Mayer Brown LLP.

Sam Yang (U.S.A.), Inc., Defendant, represented by Edward W. Suh
-- emann@mayerbrown.com -- Law Offices of Michael K. Suh and
Associates & Michael Kwonchun Suh -- mksuhlawfirm@gmail.com -- Law
Offices of Michael K. Suh and Associates.

Korea Yakult, doing business as Paldo America, Defendant,
represented by Matthew David Taggart -- mtaggart@rmlawpartners.com
-- Attorney at Law.


LANDRYS INC: Settlement in "Saechao" Suit Has Final Approval
------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, MOUANG SAECHAO, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. LANDRYS, INC., a Delaware
corporation, and McCORMICK & SCHMICK RESTAURANT CORP., a Delaware
corporation, Defendants, No. C 15-00815 WHA (N.D. Cal.), District
Judge William Alsup granted the parties' class settlement
agreement and the incentive award for the lead plaintiff while
denied in part the request for attorney's fees and costs.

In the case, Plaintiff Mouang Saechao asserts various claims for
wage-and-hour violations against defendant McCormick & Schmick
Restaurant Corp., which operated Spenger's Fresh Fish Grotto, a
restaurant in Berkeley.

The settlement provides for:

     -- a $500,000 cash payout, to be allocated among class
members after deductions for attorney's fees, costs, an incentive
award to Saechao,

     -- a payment of $9,000 to the California Labor & Workforce
Development Agency pursuant to the Private Attorneys General Act
(with $3,000 to be paid to PAGA-eligible class members), and
payroll taxes.

     -- the remaining funds to be distributed to class members
based on their pro rata shares of three categories of alleged
injuries.

The Court held that an incentive award of $500 for Saechao is
appropriate. Saechao dedicated more than forty hours to this
litigation, including preparing for and attending a two-day
deposition and several lengthy settlement conferences.

As to the attorney's fees and costs, the court acknowledged that
the counsel undertook significant work and costs, in excess of the
amount sought to be recovered. Thus, although the order finds that
no departure from the benchmark of 25% under the traditional
common-fund approach is warranted, it finds that an award of
$125,000 in fees and $50,000 in costs is reasonable.

The disbursement for fees and costs shall not be paid until all
class members have received what they are entitled to receive, and
there is no further work to be done. An order referring the
dispute over attorney's fees to a magistrate judge will follow.

The Court directed PEG&C to file by September 1 a formal motion,
noticed on the 35-day calendar, seeking to have the award of fees
and costs held in trust pending resolution of the lien. Also by
September 1, the parties were to submit a stipulated form of
judgment that specifically identifies the individuals who are
subject to the judgment herein as well as those class members that
are not subject to the judgment because notice could not be
delivered.

A copy of the Court's Order dated August 19, 2016 is available at
http://goo.gl/zpouiVfrom Leagle.com.

Mouang Saechao, Plaintiff, represented by Katharine Chao --
kathy@chaolegal.com -- Chao Legal & Cari Ann Cohorn --
cohorn@cohornlaw.com -- Cohorn Law.

McCormick & Schmick Restaurant Corp., Defendant, represented by
Aaron Nathan Colby -- aaroncolby@dwt.com -- Davis Wright Tremain
LLP, Janet Lynn Grumer -- janetgrumer@dwt.com -- Davis Wright
Tremaine LLP, Evelyn F. Wang -- evelynwang@dwt.com -- Davis Wright
Tremaine LLP, Nicholas Anthony Murray -- nicholasmurray@dwt.com --
Davis Wright Tremaine LLP & Tracy Thompson --
tracythompson@dwt.com -- Davis Wright Tremaine LLP.

Phillips, Erlewine, Given & Carlin LLP, Third Party Lienholder,
Miscellaneous, represented by Randy Scott Erlewine --
rse@phillaw.com -- Phillips, Erlewine, Given & Carlin LLP.


LINN COUNTY, OR: Court Set to Rule on Motions on September 19
-------------------------------------------------------------
Alex Paul, writing for Albany Democrat-Herald, reports that
Linn County Circuit Court Judge Daniel Murphy says he will rule by
Sept. 19 on a number of motions in the county's lawsuit over
management of state forest lands, including the question of
whether the case will be certified as a class action.

Judge Murphy made that announcement after listening to more than
three hours of testimony during a hearing on Aug. 17.  He had
heard other motions in the case in an earlier hearing in early
July.

At issue is a March lawsuit filed by Linn County against the state
Department of Forestry.  The suit involves state forest trust
lands, property that was conveyed to the state by the counties
decades ago.  In all, 15 Oregon counties include at least some of
these lands.

Linn County's lawsuit argues that the state made a promise to the
counties that it would manage the lands for "greatest permanent
value."  At one time, Linn County argues, that meant maximizing
timber harvests from those lands; money from those harvests flowed
to the counties.

In recent years, however, the state has broadened its definition
of "greatest permanent value" to include other goals as well,
including recreation, habitat protection and riparian area
preservation.  The amount of money flowing to the counties has
dropped as timber harvests have fallen, and Linn County says that
amounts to a breach of the contract between the counties and the
state.  The lawsuit estimates the damages to the affected counties
at about $1.4 billion.

Linn County was represented on Aug. 17 by John DiLorezo --
johndilorenzo@dwt.com -- and Chris McCracken --
chrismccracken@dwt.com -- of the law firm Davis Wright Tremaine in
Portland.

Representing the state were senior assistant attorneys general
Scott Kaplan and Frank Hammond.

The state's attorneys argued on Aug. 17 that the suit should be
dismissed because the term "greatest permanent value" no longer
refers simply to economic issues.

Linn County's attorneys, however, emphasized numerous times during
the day that the case is not about changing state policies.  They
said it is solely about what Linn County sees as a breach of
contract and loss of income to the affected counties.

In addition, attorneys clashed on the issue of whether the suit
should be certified as a class action. (Linn County commissioners
have said that if the class is certified, affected counties still
would have the option to opt out of the suit.  Other counties with
state forest trust lands are Benton, Clackamas, Clatsop, Columbia,
Coos, Douglas, Josephine, Klamath, Lane, Lincoln, Marion, Polk,
Tillamook and Washington counties.)

The state believes there are enough differences among all of the
counties and the deeds involved in the development of the state
forests to not certify the lawsuit as a class action.

The state's attorneys contended that if certified as a class, the
lawsuit might devolve into 183 different mini-trials.  They noted
that each forest's management plan takes into account mandates
such as the Endangered Species Act, riparian issues, type of trees
that grow in the area, soil types and soil slopes.  They said
conditions vary from county to county, parcel to parcel and stand
to stand.

But the county's attorneys countered that while individual tracts
may be managed differently than others, as a whole the state
forest plan is implemented region by region, not deed by deed.

State attorneys also questioned the fact that the early costs of
the lawsuit are being borne by timber companies.

Mr. Kaplan argued that the lawsuit had been framed by private
timber interests months before Linn County came on board.

He said those companies have economic interests that might not be
the same as those of the general public.

But Mr. DiLorenzo said it's not unusual for lawsuits to be
formulated over long periods of time by one group before being
filed by another.

He pointed to the landmark case Brown v. Board of Education, which
paved the way for equal education for all children regardless of
race.  He said the National Association for the Advancement of
Colored People had formulated the lawsuit well before the
plaintiff became involved.

"This is a veiled attempt by the state to discredit Linn County's
motives," Mr. DiLorenzo said.  "In our agreement with Linn County,
Linn County calls all the shots."

He added that the private companies have a vested interest not
only in whether there are local timber sales to feed mills, but
also that the county budget and other districts can provide
adequate fire and law enforcement services.

"They live here.  Their employees live here," Mr. DiLorenzo said.
"They are interested in having vibrant local communities."

The private companies have agreed to help fund initial legal fees,
but if the lawsuit is certified as a class action, Davis Wright
Tremaine would then be paid based on a contingency fee.

Before wrapping up the hearing on Aug. 17, Judge Murphy asked the
attorneys how long they anticipate a trial might last.  The
plaintiffs thought two weeks and the state attorneys suggested
four weeks.


MARGRAF COLLECTION: Bloodworth Seeks Certification of Class
-----------------------------------------------------------
Stephen Bloodworth moves the Court to certify the class described
in the complaint of the lawsuit captioned STEPHEN BLOODWORTH
Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated v.
MARGRAF COLLECTION AGENCY, INC., Case No. 2:16-cv-01174-JPS (E.D.
Wisc.).  The Plaintiff further asks that the Court both stay the
Motion and to grant the Plaintiff (and the Defendant) relief from
the Local Rules setting automatic briefing schedules and requiring
briefs and supporting material to be filed with the Motion.

Damasco and decisions like it imposed significant burdens on the
Court and on Plaintiff's Counsel, the Plaintiff asserts, citing
Damasco v. Clearwire Corp., 662 F.3d 891 (7th Cir. 2011),
overruled, Chapman v. First Index, Inc., 796 F.3d 783, 787 (7th
Cir. 2015).

To avoid the risk of a defendant mooting a putative class
representative's individual stake in the litigation, the Seventh
Circuit in Damasco instructed plaintiffs to file a certification
motion with the complaint, along with a motion to stay briefing on
the certification motion until discovery could commence, the
Plaintiff states.  The Plaintiff asserts that the Plaintiff is
obligated to move for class certification to protect the interests
of the putative class.

As the Motion is a placeholder motion as described in Damasco, the
parties and the Court should not be burdened with unnecessary
paperwork and the resulting expense when a one paragraph, single
page motion to certify and stay should suffice until an amended
motion is filed, the Plaintiff contends.

The Plaintiff also asks to be appointed as class representative
and further asks the Court to appoint Ademi & O'Reilly, LLP as
class counsel.

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

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Shpetim Ademi, Esq.
          John D. Blythin, Esq.
          Mark A. Eldridge, Esq.
          ADEMI & O'REILLY, LLP
          3620 East Layton Avenue
          Cudahy, WI 53110
          Telephone: (414) 482-8000
          Facsimile: (414) 482-8001
          E-mail: sademi@ademilaw.com
                  jblythin@ademilaw.com
                  meldridge@ademilaw.com


MDL 2196: Mohawk Industries Settled Individual Claims
-----------------------------------------------------
Mohawk Industries, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 5, 2016, for the
quarterly period ended July 2, 2016, that in the case, In re:
Polyurethane Foam Antitrust Litigation, Case No. 1:10-MDL-02196,
as of June 21, 2016:

     -- all appeals have been dismissed, provided that one request
to reconsider remains pending; and

     -- the Company has entered into settlement agreements
resolving all of the claims brought on behalf of all of the
consolidated individual lawsuits.

Beginning in August 2010, a series of civil lawsuits were
initiated in several U.S. federal courts alleging that certain
manufacturers of polyurethane foam products and competitors of the
Company's carpet underlay division had engaged in price fixing in
violation of U.S. antitrust laws. The Company has been named as a
defendant in a number of individual cases (the first filed on
August 26, 2010), as well as in two consolidated amended class
action complaints (the first filed on February 28, 2011, on behalf
of a class of all direct purchasers of polyurethane foam products,
and the second filed on March 21, 2011, on behalf of a class of
indirect purchasers). All pending cases in which the Company has
been named as a defendant were filed in or transferred to the U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of Ohio for consolidated
pre-trial proceedings under the name In re: Polyurethane Foam
Antitrust Litigation, Case No. 1:10-MDL-02196.

In these actions, the plaintiffs, on behalf of themselves and/or a
class of purchasers, seek damages allegedly suffered as a result
of alleged overcharges in the price of polyurethane foam products
from at least 1999 to the present. Any damages actually awarded at
trial are subject to being tripled under U.S. antitrust laws.

On March 23, 2015, the Company entered into an agreement to settle
all claims brought by the class of direct purchasers, and the
trial court entered an order granting approval of this settlement
on November 19, 2015. On April 30, 2015, the Company entered into
an agreement to settle all claims brought by the class of indirect
purchasers, and the trial court entered an order granting approval
of this settlement on January 27, 2016.

Following approval by the trial court, certain individual members
of the indirect purchaser class sought to overturn the approval
through an appeal to the Sixth Circuit of Appeals.

As of June 21, 2016, all of these appeals have been dismissed,
provided that one request to reconsider remains pending. As of
June 21, 2016, the Company has also entered into settlement
agreements resolving all of the claims brought on behalf of all of
the consolidated individual lawsuits.

The Company denies all allegations of wrongdoing but settled the
class actions and individual lawsuits to avoid the uncertainty,
risk, expense and distraction of protracted litigation.


MCLEOD EXPRESS: Court Denied Class Certification in "Downs" Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit captioned MICHELLE D. DOWNS, on behalf of herself
and all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. McLEOD
EXPRESS, LLC, and MARK R. McLEOD, the Defendants, Case No. 2:16-
cv-02060-HAB (C.D. Ill.), the Hon. Judge Harold A. Baker entered
an order denying Plaintiff's amended motion for conditional
certification.

At this time, the court denies the amended motion for conditional
certification. However, Downs may refile her motion if she can
show, through an opt-in plaintiff or otherwise, that at least one
other similarly situated individual did not receive overtime pay
for working more than forty hours a week.

Downs has not met the "modest factual showing" required for
conditional certification. Her declaration simply restates the
essence of her allegations, and is not joined by even one other
similarly situated individual. In Walden v. Carle Found. Hosp.,
Case No. 14-2095 (C.D. Ill.), the Plaintiff was joined by a
consenting individual who "opted in" before the motion for
conditional certification was filed. The Defendant opposed
conditional certification, and the plaintiff filed a reply with
the declaration of a third similarly situated individual. The
Walden plaintiffs made a modest factual showing that others were
subjected to the alleged unlawful practice. It does not take much,
but it does take something more than Downs has presented.

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


MENZIES AVIATION: Settles Back-Pay Lawsuit for $8.2 Million
-----------------------------------------------------------
Gene Johnson, writing for the Associated Press, reports that
several companies that provide transportation and hospitality
services at or near Seattle-Tacoma International Airport have
agreed to settle back-pay lawsuits alleging that they ignored the
nation's first $15 minimum wage law after it took effect, deals
that will put more than $12 million in the pockets of their
current and former workers.

The cases are among about two dozen filed against businesses that
include airport staffing firms, rental car agencies, hotels and
parking lots in SeaTac, where the airport is located.  Since the
city passed the nation's first $15-an-hour minimum wage law in
2013, Seattle, San Francisco, New York, Washington, D.C., and
other cities have followed.

Many employers questioned the law's validity and declined to
immediately follow it.  The state Supreme Court upheld the measure
a year ago in a 5-4 ruling, and attorneys for the workers began
filing lawsuits seeking back pay for the roughly two years that
the companies failed to pay $15 an hour.  Some businesses began
paying the minimum wage following the ruling, but argued that it
wasn't clear that they were required to fork over the retroactive
pay.

"Whenever you pass a labor law, you need it to be enforced for it
to be real for the workers," said Nicole Vallestero Keenan, who
worked on the SeaTac minimum wage campaign and now is the
executive director of the Seattle-based Fair Work Center, a
nonprofit that works on enforcing labor laws.  "If you're living
paycheck to paycheck and you receive $10,000 in back wages that
are owed to you, that can be an enormous factor in changing one's
life."

The largest known settlement so far comes from Menzies Aviation,
which has provided baggage-handlers and ramp workers at Sea-Tac
for Alaska Airlines since 2005, when the airline locked out more
than 480 better-paid union workers.  Menzies, which operates in 31
countries and also provides workers for British Airways at Sea-
Tac, has agreed to pay nearly $8.2 million to settle a lawsuit on
behalf of 738 past and current workers, with each receiving an
average payout of just under $10,000 after attorneys' fees, court
documents say.

Most of the workers made $12 an hour instead of $15.  A spokesman
for Menzies declined to comment on the settlement, which still
needs court approval.

Another airport-services business, Prospect International Airport
Services Corp., has agreed to pay nearly $2 million to settle a
case covering 291 workers, who stand to receive $6,800 on average,
and PrimeFlight Aviation Services has agreed to pay more than $1.8
million to 152 employees, court records show.

"This money should have been paid," said James Kiboneka, a 61-
year-old former PrimeFlight worker who says he'll use his $8,488
payout for bills and expenses.  "It's coming late, but of course
this is a victory. If you don't exercise your rights under the
laws, what's the good of the laws?"

At least two hotels -- Cedarbrook Lodge and Best Western -- have
agreed to pay back wages, $650,000 for Cedarbrook and $150,000 for
Best Western.

EAN Holdings, which operates Enterprise National Car Rental and
Alamo Rent A Car, has reached individual settlements that could
total about $2.4 million with more than 350 of its current and
former employees.  But a small group continues to hold out and
seek double back pay, arguing that the company "willfully"
withheld wages and that it owes interest and other damages even to
those who have already settled.

Even as they settle, some of the companies continue to insist that
SeaTac's ordinance conflicts with federal law and should be
invalidated.  The Washington Supreme Court rejected that, but EAN
has made that argument in federal court, saying the state court's
decision isn't a binding interpretation of federal law.

"The fact that there are a number of unresolved legal issues shows
there's room for compromise," said Jeff James --
jaj@sebrisbusto.com -- a lawyer with the firm Sebris Busto James,
which represents companies in seven lawsuits.  "Based on their
circumstances, these companies can decide whether they want to
fight to the end or reach a settlement."


MISSOURI: Jamerson May File Amended Complaint in Hep C Action
-------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, MICHAEL C. JAMERSON, Plaintiff, v. JOHN WILLIAMS, et
al., Defendants, No. 4:16-CV-760 JAR (E.D. Mo.), District Judge
John A. Ross granted the Plaintiff's motion for leave to amend
complaint against the Defendants' medical mistreatment.

Plaintiff alleges that he has Hepatitis C and that individual
Defendants refused to provide him with treatment. The Court
dismissed the Plaintiff's claims against Corizon, Inc., without
prejudice, for failing to allege a policy, custom or official
action that caused an actionable injury.

To state a claim for medical mistreatment, the Court held that the
plaintiff must plead facts sufficient to indicate a deliberate
indifference to serious medical needs which the defendants
actually knew of but deliberately disregarded those needs. In
particular, the Court ordered that the amended complaint would
state a plausible claim for relief with regard to defendants John
Williams, Julie Phipps, and George Lombardi.

A copy of the Court's Memorandum and Order dated August 18, 2016
is available at http://goo.gl/jldja4from Leagle.com.

Michael C. Jamerson, Plaintiff, Pro Se.

John Williams, Defendant, represented by J. Thaddeus Eckenrode --
jte@eckenrode-law.com -- ECKENRODE-MAUPIN.

George Lombardi, Defendant, represented by Joel A. Poole, ATTORNEY
GENERAL OF MISSOURI.


MONTEREY FINANCIAL: Dixon May Amend Class Complaint
---------------------------------------------------
District Judge Maxine M. Chesney allowed Plaintiff to file an
amended class action complaint in no later than September 9, 2016,
in the case, EDITH DIXON, Plaintiff, v. MONTEREY FINANCIAL
SERVICES, INC., Defendant, Case No. 15-cv-03298-MMC (N.D. Calif.),
should Plaintiff wishes to file a Third Amended Complaint
following the dismissal of her class action allegations in the
second amended complaint.

Dixon alleges the Defendant, using an automated telephone dialing
system, called Plaintiff's cellular telephone after she had
revoked her consent to be called. Plaintiff alleges such calls
violated the Telephone Consumer Protection Act.

In the case, the Court finds that the class in the First Amended
Complaint was a "fail-safe" class. As the Ninth Circuit has
explained, the fail-safe appellation is simply a way of labeling
the obvious problems that exist when the class itself is defined
in a way that precludes membership unless the liability of the
defendant is established.

With that regard, Plaintiff submitted her Second Amended
Complaint.

The Court said that in the newly-proposed class, it is possible
that class would have no members at all; if the trier of fact were
to conclude that no person was called after such person had
revoked his/her prior consent, defendant would prevail on the
merits against a nonexistent class. Thus, the Court granted the
Defendant's Motion to Strike and the dismissal of the Second
Amended Complaint.

The Court noted that upon failure to submit the Third Amended
Complaint on the scheduled deadline, the action will proceed on
plaintiff's individual claims.

A copy of the Court's Order dated August 22, 2016 is available at
http://goo.gl/5Dh9xSfrom Leagle.com.

Edith Dixon, Plaintiff, represented by Adrian Bacon --
abacon@attorneysforconsumers.com -- Law Offices of Todd M.
Friedman, P.C., Meghan Elisabeth George -- mgeorge@toddflaw.com
-- Law Offices of Todd M. Friedman, P.C. & Todd Michael Friedman
-- tfriedman@attorneysforconsumers.com -- Law Offices of Todd M.
Friedman, P.C..

Monterey Financial Services, Inc., Defendant, represented by
Dennis Joseph Ward -- dennis.ward@rmkb.com -- Ropers Majeski Kohn
& Bentley & Brendan H. Little -- blittle@lippes.com -- Lippes
Mathias Wexler Friedman LLP.


MORTGAGE ELECTRONIC: Washington County Drops Class Action
---------------------------------------------------------
Gideon Bradshaw, writing for Observer-Reporter, reports that
Washington County has called to a halt a class-action lawsuit it
filed against an electronic loan registry system and a host of
banks the county claimed failed to properly record property
transfers during the process of creating mortgage-backed
securities and avoided paying millions of dollars in recording
fees to county governments.

D. Aaron Rihn, one of the attorneys representing the county, filed
a notice of voluntary dismissal of the case Aug. 9 in U.S.
District Court.  The procedural move brings the federal case to a
close.

"It's our intent to get the matter back in state court, where we
feel it belongs," Mr. Rihn said.

The lawsuit was filed in Washington County Court March 31 against
Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems Inc., or MERS, identified
in court documents as a private, members-only mortgage loan
registry based in Reston, Va.; MERSCORP Holdings Inc., its owner;
and various other entities involved in the mortgage-backed
securities industry.

The county alleged the defendants caused counties to miss out on
more than $100 million in estimated recording fees statewide,
created "gaps in the record of ownership" and raised "doubts about
the accurate satisfaction of mortgages."

By the time Washington County dropped the case, defendants had
moved it to U.S. District Court in Pittsburgh and filed a number
of motions asking for a ruling to dismiss it, citing an opinion
issued by the U.S. Third Circuit Court of Appeals in August 2015.

A lower court had ruled in favor of Montgomery County in a case it
brought against MERS and affiliated institutions, but federal
appellate judges reversed the earlier decision.

In one brief, some of the defendants in Washington County's
lawsuit contended the previous ruling shows that state law "does
not impose a duty to record.  It merely provides the holder of a
mortgage with the option of recording that mortgage to preserve
his or her rights against subsequent bona fide purchasers."

Along with MERS and MERSCORP, Washington County named Bank of
America of Charlotte, N.C.; Bank of New York Mellon of New York
City; Bank of New York Mellon Trust Co. of Los Angeles; Citibank
of Sioux Falls, S.D.; CitiMortgage of O'Fallon, Mo.; Deutsche Bank
National Trust Co. of Los Angeles; Deutsche Bank Trust Company
Americas of New York City; HSBC Bank U.S.A., North America, of
McLean, Va.; HSBC Finance Corp., formerly known as Household
International Inc. of Mettawa, Ill.; JPMorgan Chase Bank of North
America, Columbus, Ohio; Wells Fargo Bank of North America, Sioux
Falls, S.D.; and West Penn Financial Service Center Inc. of
Pittsburgh, all identified in court papers as members of the
electronic registry, as defendants.

"The central purpose and intent behind the MERS concept was to
enjoy all of the benefits of the land title recording system,
while avoiding the administrative burden and expense of publicly
recording mortgage assignments in each county and paying the
associated recording fees," the lawsuit stated.

Lenders' use of the registry began in the mid-1990s as
securitization, which requires at least three mortgage assignments
and often involves more, came into vogue.

During securitization, "an investment bank, for example, purchases
several mortgages and pools them into a trust or other vehicle,
then issues marketable securities backed by the mortgage loans in
the trust," according to the lawsuit.

Mortgage loans in Pennsylvania involve a promissory note -- which
contains the borrower's promise to repay the loan -- and the
mortgage, which acts, "in part, as a lien on the real estate
providing the lender security for repayment of the note,"
according to the lawsuit.

Members of MERS can agree with borrowers in residential mortgages
to list the registry as the mortgagee of record.

"The original mortgage is then recorded in MERS' name in county
land records while the promissory note is bought and sold any
number of times among MERS members without the preparation or
timely recording of corresponding mortgage assignments in the
appropriate county recorder of deeds office," the lawsuit stated.

When lenders do record mortgage assignments in transfers of
property notes, "they usually do so only well after the 90-day
deadline imposed" by state law to file a document known as a
"satisfaction" or to facilitate foreclosure proceedings because of
default.

Before the county dropped the lawsuit, some defendants pointed out
in a motion that 22 courts across the country had adopted
positions agreeing with the Third Circuit's.

Among the county's demands were injunctive relief and lost
recording fees.


NEST LABS: Averts Class Action Over Wi-Fi-Enabled Thermostats
-------------------------------------------------------------
R. Locke Beatty, Esq. -- lbeatty@mcguirewoods.com -- of
McGuireWoods LLP, in an article for Lexology,  provides a round-up
that takes a look at the potential impact on class-action
litigation of some recently proposed amendments to the Federal
Rules of Civil Procedure, and continues our exploration of what
type of injury it takes to sustain a data-breach class action.

Proposed Guidance for Determining Whether Class Action Settlements
are "Fair, Reasonable, and Adequate": The Committee on Rules of
Practice and Procedure of the Judicial Conference of the United
States focused on class actions in its latest round of proposed
amendments to the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Most notably,
the Committee proposed a list of factors for courts to consider
when determining whether to approve a class settlement. Rule
23(e)(2)'s "fair, reasonable, and adequate" standard would still
govern, but the revised rules would direct courts to consider four
targeted questions: whether class counsel and the class
representative adequately represented the class, whether the
settlement was negotiated at arm's length, whether the relief
afforded to the class is adequate, and whether class members are
treated equitably relative to each other. In a nod to modern
methods of communication, the Committee also proposed an amendment
to Rule 23(c)(2) to permit email notification of opt-out rights to
class members for classes certified under Rule 23(b)(3).

For Data-Breach Class Actions, the Spoils of the Heist Matter: A
case could be made that 2016 is the year of the data-breach class
action--we've certainly devoted substantial attention to the
subject here.  The August ruling in Attias v. Carefirst, Inc. adds
another weapon to defense practitioners' arsenal on the issue of
whether a data breach alone is a sufficient injury to support a
claim. The U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia
granted the defendant health insurer's motion to dismiss on the
grounds that the complaint failed to allege any concrete harm
caused by a June 2014 data breach compromising the personal
information of over a million policyholders. Notably, the
complaint did not allege the data stolen in the breach included
social security, credit card, or financial account numbers. The
court thus held the plaintiffs had failed to identify a
"substantial risk" that the stolen data would be misused in a
harmful manner, and deemed their argument that they faced an
increased risk of future identity theft "too speculative" to
support federal standing.

Ninth Circuit to Take a Close Look at Denial of Certification
based on Inadequacy of Class Counsel: Rule 23(a)'s adequacy
requirement is dual-pronged--while most adequacy-based attacks on
certification focus on the class representatives themselves, Rule
23(a)(4) also demands adequate representation by class counsel.
The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals recently granted permission for
a Rule 23(f) appeal of the district court's order denying class
certification on this basis. The opinion permitting the appeal is
expectedly brief, but includes a notable instruction to the
parties: "In addition to all the other issues the parties may wish
to raise in this appeal, the parties shall brief the issue of
whether the district court should have considered less drastic
alternatives before denying class certification based on concerns
with the vigor of class counsel's representation." The appellate
briefing and the Ninth Circuit's ultimate decision will likely
provide a temperature check on how high (or, rather, low) the bar
is set for denying certification based on inadequate
representation of counsel.

Some Hurdles to Pursuing False Advertising Claims on a Class-wide
Basis: Speaking of temperature checks, Nest Labs Inc. recently
defeated a bid for class certification for claims arising out of
representations of increased energy savings made in connection
with the sale of Wi-Fi-enabled thermostats. The U.S. District
Court for the Northern District of California held the plaintiff
could not show commonality because many putative class members
were subject to an arbitration clause and class action waiver, and
many others purchased thermostats in packaging that did not
contain the purported misrepresentations. The court also held the
named plaintiff was neither a typical nor adequate class
representative because he disabled many of the thermostat's
energy-saving features, and prior to doing so, often reaped energy
savings consistent with the defendant's representations. The court
also denied certification on the grounds that common issues did
not predominate under Rule 23(b), noting that the plaintiff sought
to certify a nationwide class, and the consumer protection statues
of the 50 states varied significantly.


NEW YORK COMMUNITY: Settlement in Merger Case Still Pending
-----------------------------------------------------------
New York Community Bancorp, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 5,
2016, for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2016, that the
settlement reached in a merger class action lawsuit remains
pending.

The Company said, "Following the announcement on October 29, 2015
of the execution of the Company's merger agreement with Astoria
Financial, six putative class action lawsuits filed in the Supreme
Court of the State of New York, County of Nassau, challenging the
proposed merger between Astoria Financial Corporation ("Astoria")
and New York Community Bancorp, Inc. ("NYCB"). These actions are
captioned: (1) Sandra E. Weiss IRA v. Chrin, et al., Index No.
607132/2015 (filed November 4, 2015); (2) Raul v. Palleschi, et
al., Index No. 607238/2015 (filed November 6, 2015); (3) Lowinger
v. Redman, et al., Index No. 607268/2015 (filed November 9, 2015);
(4) Minzer v. Astoria Fin. Corp., et al., Index No. 607358/2015
(filed November 12, 2015); (5) MSS 12-09 Trust v. Palleschi, et
al., Index No. 607472/2015 (filed November 13, 2015); and (6)
Firemen's Ret. Sys. of St. Louis v. Keegan, et al., Index No.
607612/2015 (filed November 23, 2015 )."

"On January 15, 2016, the court consolidated the New York Actions
under the caption In re Astoria Financial Corporation Shareholders
Litigation, Index No. 607132/2015 (the "New York Action"), and a
consolidated amended complaint was filed on January 29, 2016. In
addition, a seventh lawsuit was filed challenging the proposed
transaction in the Delaware Court of Chancery, captioned O'Connell
v. Astoria Financial Corp., et al., Case No. 11928 (filed January
22, 2016) (the "Delaware Action").

"Each of the lawsuits challenging the proposed transaction is a
putative class action filed on behalf of the stockholders of
Astoria Financial and names as defendants Astoria Financial, its
directors, and the Company. The complaint in the New York Action
and the Delaware Action are substantially identical. The
complaints allege, among other things, that the directors of
Astoria breached their fiduciary duties in connection with their
approval of the merger agreement, including by: agreeing to an
allegedly unfair price for Astoria; approving the transaction
notwithstanding alleged conflicts of interest; agreeing to deal
protection devices that plaintiffs allege are unreasonable; and by
failing to disclose certain facts about the process that led to
the merger and financial analyses performed by Astoria's financial
advisors. The complaints also allege that NYCB aided and abetted
those alleged fiduciary breaches. The actions seek, among other
things, an order enjoining completion of the proposed merger.

"On April 6, 2016, the parties to the New York Action entered into
a Memorandum of Understanding ("MOU") setting out the terms of an
agreement in principle to settle all claims alleged on behalf of
the putative class relating to the merger, which were disclosed on
April 8, 2016. The MOU provides, among other things, that Astoria
will make certain supplemental disclosures relating to the merger.
The settlement is subject to, among other things, the execution of
definitive documentation, the completion of the merger, and the
approval by the court of the proposed settlement. There can be no
assurance that the court will approve the settlement contemplated
by the MOU. If the court does not approve the settlement, or if
the settlement is otherwise disallowed, the proposed settlement as
contemplated by the MOU may be terminated.

"The Company believes that the factual allegations in the lawsuits
are without merit and, having reached agreement in principal on
the resolution of the In re Astoria Financial Corporation
Shareholders Litigation matter, would intend to defend vigorously
against the allegations made by the plaintiffs in such matter in
the event that the settlement is not concluded as currently
intended and also intends to defend vigorously against the
allegations made by the plaintiffs in the Delaware Action."


NORTHERN OIL: Faces Securities Class Action in New York
-------------------------------------------------------
Pomerantz LLP on Aug. 18 disclosed that a class action lawsuit has
been filed against Northern Oil and Gas, Inc. ("Northern Oil" or
the "Company") and certain of its officers.  The class action,
filed in United States District Court, Southern District of New
York, and docketed under 16-cv-06543, is on behalf of a class
consisting of all persons or entities who purchased or otherwise
acquired Northern Oil securities between March 1, 2013 and August
15, 2016, both dates inclusive (the "Class Period").  This class
action seeks to recover damages against Defendants for alleged
violations of the federal securities laws under the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 (the "Exchange Act").

If you are a shareholder who purchased Northern Oil securities
during the Class Period, you have until October 17, 2016 to ask
the Court to appoint you as Lead Plaintiff for the class.   A copy
of the Complaint can be obtained at www.pomerantzlaw.com
To discuss this action, contact Robert S. Willoughby at
rswilloughby@pomlaw.com or 888.476.6529 (or 888.4-POMLAW), toll
free, ext. 9980.  Those who inquire by e-mail are encouraged to
include their mailing address, telephone number, and number of
shares purchased.

Northern Oil is an independent energy company engaged in the
acquisition, exploration, development, and production of oil and
natural gas properties in the United States.  The Company
primarily holds interests in the Bakken and Three Forks formations
in the Williston Basin of North Dakota and Montana.

The Complaint alleges that throughout the Class Period, defendants
made materially false and misleading statements regarding the
Company's business, operational and compliance policies.
Specifically, defendants made false and/or misleading statements
and/or failed to disclose that: (i) Northern Oil's compliance
policies with respect to SEC regulations and the Company's Code of
Business Conduct and Ethics were inadequate to detect and/or
prevent misconduct by the Company's officers; (ii) consequently,
the Company's Chief Executive Officer ("CEO"), Defendant Michael
Reger ("Reger"), was able to engage in illegal stock manipulation
during his tenure at Northern Oil; (iii) Reger was consequently
unfit to serve as Northern Oil's CEO; and (iv) as a result of the
foregoing, Northern Oil's public statements were materially false
and misleading at all relevant times.

On August 16, 2016, Northern Oil fired Reger as CEO after Reger
told the Company that he had received a Wells Notice[1] from the
SEC and faced federal sanctions in connection with the SEC's
investigation of 2012 trading patterns in the securities of Dakota
Plains Holdings, Inc, a company in which Reger initially invested
in 2008.  Northern Oil stated that Reger had been removed from the
Company's board, effective immediately, and that the Company does
not believe that Reger will be entitled to any severance payment.

On this news, Northern Oil stock fell $0.25, or 6.28%, to close at
$3.73 on August 16, 2016.

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

[1] A Wells notice is a letter from the SEC advising a person or a
firm that the SEC intends to bring an enforcement action against
them.


OCEAN STATE: Faces "Hanscome" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
---------------------------------------------------------------
Kristen Hanscome, individually and on behalf of other similarly
situated individuals v. Ocean State Jobbers, Inc., Case No. HHD-
CV-16-6070810-S (Conn. Super. Ct., August 26, 2016), is brought
against the Defendants for failure to pay overtime wages in
violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act.

Ocean State Jobbers, Inc. operates a discount chain specializing
in manufacturers' closeout and overstock merchandise.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Richard E. Hayber, Esq.
      HAYBER LAW FIRM LLC
      221 Main Street, Suite 502
      Hartford, CT 06106
      Telephone: (860) 522-8888
      E-mail: rhayber@hayberlawfirm.com


ORRSTOWN FINANCIAL: Bid to Dismiss SEPTA Lawsuit Underway
---------------------------------------------------------
Orrstown Financial Services, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 5,
2016, for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2016, that the
Company's motion to dismiss to dismiss the second amended
complaint in the lawsuit by the Southeastern Pennsylvania
Transportation Authority remains pending.

The Company, the Bank and certain current and former directors and
executive officers (collectively, "Orrstown Defendants") are
defendants in a putative class action filed by Southeastern
Pennsylvania Transportation Authority ("SEPTA") on May 25, 2012,
in the United States District Court for the Middle District of
Pennsylvania. In a later amended complaint, the list of defendants
was expanded to include the Company's then independent registered
public accounting firm and the underwriters of the Company's March
2010 public offering of common stock.

The complaint, as amended, alleges among other things that (i) in
connection with the Company's Registration Statement on Form S-3
dated February 23, 2010 and its Prospectus Supplement dated March
23, 2010, and (ii) during the purported class period of March 15,
2010 through April 5, 2012, the Company issued materially false
and misleading statements regarding the Company's lending
practices and financial results, including misleading statements
concerning the stringent nature of the Bank's credit practices and
underwriting standards, the quality of its loan portfolio, and the
intended use of the proceeds from the Company's March 2010 public
offering of common stock. The complaint asserts claims under
Sections 11, 12(a) and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933, Sections
10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule
10b-5 promulgated thereunder, and seeks class certification,
unspecified money damages, interest, costs, fees and equitable or
injunctive relief.

On June 22, 2015, the Court dismissed without prejudice SEPTA's
amended complaint against all defendants, finding that SEPTA
failed to state a claim under either the Securities Act of 1933,
as amended, or the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended.
The Court ordered that, within 30 days, SEPTA either seek leave to
amend its amended complaint, accompanied by the proposed
amendment, or file a notice of its intention to stand on the
amended complaint.

On July 22, 2015, SEPTA filed a motion for leave to amend under
Local Rule 15.1, as allowed by the Court's ruling on June 22,
2015. Many of the allegations of the proposed second amended
complaint are essentially the same or similar to the allegations
of the dismissed amended complaint. The proposed second amended
complaint also alleges that the Orrstown Defendants did not
publicly disclose certain alleged failures of internal controls
over loan underwriting, risk management, and financial reporting
during the period 2009 to 2012, in violation of the federal
securities laws.

On February 8, 2016, the Court granted SEPTA's motion for leave to
amend and SEPTA filed its second amended complaint that same day.

On February 25, 2016, the Court issued a scheduling Order
directing: all defendants to file any motions to dismiss by March
18, 2016; SEPTA to file an omnibus opposition to defendants'
motions to dismiss by April 8, 2016; and all defendants to file
reply briefs in support of their motions to dismiss by April 22,
2016.

Defendants timely filed their motions to dismiss the second
amended complaint and the parties filed their briefs in accordance
with the Court-ordered schedule. The February 25, 2016 Order stays
all discovery and other deadlines in the case (including the
filing of SEPTA's motion for class certification) pending the
outcome of the motions to dismiss.

The Company believes that the allegations of SEPTA's second
amended complaint are without merit and intends to vigorously
defend itself against those claims. Given the litigation is still
in the pleading stage, it is not possible at this time to estimate
reasonably possible losses, or even a range of reasonably possible
losses, in connection with the litigation.

SEPTA's Second Amended Complaint disclosed the existence of a
confidential, non-public, fact-finding inquiry regarding the
Company being conducted by the Securities and Exchange Commission
("Commission"). The Company has been cooperating fully with the
investigation but has not yet reached any definitive agreement
with the Commission regarding a resolution. Accordingly, there can
be no assurances that the outcome of the investigation will not
have a material adverse effect on the Company's financial
condition or results of operations.

The Company has established a reserve of $1,000,000 for
outstanding legal matters.


PACIFIC GAS: Amended Protective Order Adopted in "Greer" Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
Magistrate Judge Erica P. Grosjean adopted the parties'
stipulation of a protective order, with amendments, for the
purpose of preventing unnecessary disclosure or inappropriate use
of confidential, private, proprietary and/or trade secret business
information contained in certain documents, deposition testimony
or discovery responses in the case, styled and numbered, BECKY
GREER; TIMOTHY C. BUDNIK; ROSARIO SAENZ; and IAN CARTY,
Individually and as "Class Representatives," Plaintiffs, v.
PACIFIC GAS AND ELECTRIC COMPANY, and DOES 1 through 10,
inclusive, Defendants, Case No. 1:15-CV-01066-EPG (E.D. Calif.).

The protections conferred by the Protective Order cover not only
all items or information, regardless of the medium or manner in
which it is generated, stored, or maintained (including, among
other things, testimony, transcripts, and tangible things), that
are produced or generated in disclosures or responses to discovery
in this matter that has been designated as "Confidential" and
subject to this Protective Order (i.e., "Protected Material"), but
also (1) any information copied or extracted from Protected
Material; (2) all copies, excerpts, summaries, or compilations of
Protected Material; and (3) any testimony, conversations, or
presentations by Parties or their Counsel that might reveal
Protected Material.

Documents produced by a person, entity, party, or counsel may
stamp or otherwise label that document with the words
"Confidential -- Subject to Protective Order" prior to production,
which shall render the document and the information contained in
it subject to the Protective Order.

Magistrate Judge Grosjean amended the judicial intervention
outlined in the parties' Protective Order by pointing out that the
Court will determine on a case-by-case basis whether judicial
intervention is warranted.

In order to file a motion challenging the "Confidential"
designation, counsel must receive permission from the Court
following an informal telephone conference. A party wishing to
schedule such a conference should contact chambers at (559) 499-
5962 to receive available dates.

Moreover, the Court declines to adopt a provision of the Parties'
Protective Order identifying the effectivity of the obligations of
confidentiality, to the extent that it is inconsistent with Local
Rule 141.1(f).

A copy of the Court's Order dated August 18, 2016 is available at
http://goo.gl/M0e9pQfrom Leagle.com.

Becky Greer, et al., Plaintiffs, represented by Dylan J. Crosby --
dcrosby@wjhattorneys.com -- Wanger Jones Helsley PC, Michael S.
Helsley -- mhelsley@wjhattorneys.com -- Wanger Jones Helsley PC &
Patrick D. Toole -- ptoole@wjhattorneys.com -- Wanger Jones
Helsley PC.

Pacific Gas and Electric Company, Defendant, represented by
Aurelio J. Perez -- aperez@littler.com -- Littler Mendelson, P.C.,
Joshua D. Kienitz -- jkienitz@littler.com -- Littler Mendelson &
Matthew R. Dardenne -- mdardenne@littler.com -- Littler Mendelson.


PANERA BREAD: Must Pay $5,578 Bill of Costs in "Boswell" Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
District Judge Audrey G. Fleissig granted the Plaintiffs' motion
for bill of costs at US$5,578.64, being the prevailing party in
the case entitled, MARK BOSWELL, et al., Plaintiffs, v. PANERA
BREAD COMPANY, et al., Defendants, Case No. 4:14-CV-01833-AGF
(E.D. Mo.).

The Court finds that, although Plaintiffs did not succeed on all
of their claims, Plaintiffs' substantial success on their breach
of contract claim makes them the prevailing parties in this case
against Defendant Panera, LLC. Thus, the Court denied the
Defendants' bill of costs.

The Court further ordered the Clerk of Court to tax these costs
against Defendant:

     Fees of the Clerk: $700.00 and

     Fees for transcripts: $4,878.64,

     Total: US$5,578.64.

A copy of the Court's Order dated August 19, 2016 is available at
http://goo.gl/KsxAD7from Leagle.com.

Mark Boswell, Plaintiff, represented by Bert S. Braud, THE POPHAM
LAW FIRM, P.C., pro hac vice, Dennis E. Egan, THE POPHAM LAW FIRM,
P.C., pro hac vice & Timothy Coffield, COFFIELD PLC, pro hac vice.

Panera LLC, Defendant, represented by Patrick F. Hulla --
patrick.hulla@ogletreedeakins.com -- OGLETREE AND DEAKINS,
Jennifer Kate Oldvader -- jennifer.oldvader@ogletreedeakins.com --
OGLETREE AND DEAKINS & Justin Matthew Dean --
justin.dean@ogletreedeakins.com -- OGLETREE AND DEAKINS.


PHILIP MORRIS: Tobacco Class Action Settlement Gets Prelim. OK
--------------------------------------------------------------
Texarkana Gazette reports that if you live on the Arkansas side
and smoked Marlboro Light or Ultra-Light cigarettes between 1971
and 2003, you may have some cash coming your way.

A federal judge gave preliminary approval to a settlement in a
lawsuit charging tobacco company Philip Morris USA with misleading
consumers by advertising the cigarettes as less harmful than
others.

The case has been going on for more than a dozen years and
involved at least seven law firms.  There have been similar suits
in other states, but according to a story in the Aug. 17 Arkansas
Democrat-Gazette, this is the first lawsuit where the company
agreed to a settlement.

Philip Morris USA will pay $45 million to settle all claims, but
admits no wrongdoing.

The terms call for Arkansas consumers to be reimbursed 10 cents
for every pack purchased between 1971 and 1998.

Those who continued to smoke the brands between 1998 and 2003
could get 25 cents per pack purchased.

Those who hope to get a check must apply online and give a sworn
statement detailing the average number of cigarettes they smoked
per day and listing at least three retailers where they bought the
smokes.


POWER SOLUTIONS: October 21 Lead Plaintiff Motion Deadline Set
--------------------------------------------------------------
Pomerantz LLP on Aug. 22 disclosed that a class action lawsuit has
been filed against Power Solutions International, Inc. ("PSI" or
the "Company") (NASDAQ:PSIX) and certain of its officers.   The
class action, filed in United States District Court, Northern
District of Illinois, and docketed under 16-cv-08253, is on behalf
of a class consisting of all persons or entities who purchased or
otherwise acquired PSI securities between May 8, 2015 and August
15, 2016 both dates inclusive (the "Class Period").  This class
action seeks to recover damages against Defendants for alleged
violations of the federal securities laws under the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 (the "Exchange Act").

If you are a shareholder who purchased PSI securities during the
Class Period, you have until October 21, 2016 to ask the Court to
appoint you as Lead Plaintiff for the class.  A copy of the
Complaint can be obtained at www.pomerantzlaw.com.   To discuss
this action, contact Robert S. Willoughby at
rswilloughby@pomlaw.com or 888.476.6529 (or 888.4-POMLAW), toll
free, ext. 9980. Those who inquire by e-mail are encouraged to
include their mailing address, telephone number, and number of
shares purchased.

PSI designs, manufactures, distributes, and supports power systems
and custom engineered integrated electrical power generation
systems for industrial original equipment manufacturers of
off-highway industrial equipment and on-road medium trucks and
buses.  The Company sells its products and services primarily in
North America, as well as in the Pacific Rim and Europe.

The Complaint alleges that throughout the Class Period, Defendants
made false and/or misleading statements, as well as failed to
disclose material adverse facts about the Company's business,
operations, and prospects.  Specifically, Defendants made false
and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (i)
the Company inappropriately recognized revenue for certain
transactions; (ii) the Company lacked adequate internal controls
over financial reporting; and (iii) as a result of the foregoing,
PSI's public statements were materially false and misleading at
all relevant times.

On August 15, 2016, after the market closed, the Company issued a
press release and filed a Current Report on Form 8-K with the
Securities and Exchange Commission ("SEC"), announcing that the
Company needed additional time to file its quarterly report for
the quarter ended June 30, 2016 with the SEC.

On this news, PSI's share price fell $1.52 per share, or 9.85%, to
close at $13.91 on August 16, 2016.

The Pomerantz Firm, with offices in New York, Chicago, Florida,
and Los Angeles, is acknowledged as one of the premier firms in
the areas of corporate, securities, and antitrust class
litigation. Founded by the late Abraham L. Pomerantz, known as the
dean of the class action bar, the Pomerantz Firm pioneered the
field of securities class actions. Today, more than 80 years
later, the Pomerantz Firm continues in the tradition he
established, fighting for the rights of the victims of securities
fraud, breaches of fiduciary duty, and corporate misconduct. The
Firm has recovered numerous multimillion-dollar damages awards on
behalf of class members.


QUANTUM LEARNING: Court Seals Deporter's Declaration
----------------------------------------------------
In the case, TREVOR JOHNSON, et al., Plaintiffs, v. QUANTUM
LEARNING NETWORK, INC., Defendant, Case No. 15-CV-05013-LHK (N.D.
Cal.), District Judge Lucy H. Koh granted the parties' joint
motion to seal designated portions of Roberta DePorter's
declaration, which is offered in support of Plaintiffs' amended
motion for preliminary approval of the settlement in the case.

The Court held that the parties' motion is narrowly tailored and
seeks to seal only the sensitive financial information of non-
parties DePorter and DePorter's spouse, as well as sensitive
financial information of Defendant that, if made public, could
harm Defendant's business interests.

Pursuant to Rule 26(c), a trial court has broad discretion to
permit sealing of court documents for, inter alia, the protection
of a trade secret or other confidential research, development, or
commercial information.

A copy of the Court's Order dated August 22, 2016 is available at
http://goo.gl/FGjRZ3from Leagle.com.

Trevor Johnson, Plaintiff, represented by Logan McMillan Starr --
logan@bryanschwartzlaw.com -- Bryan Schwartz Law & Bryan Jeffrey
Schwartz -- bryan@bryanschwartzlaw.com -- Bryan Schwartz Law.

Quantum Learning Network, Inc., Defendant, represented by Thomas
S. Ingrassia -- tingrassia@pettitkohn.com -- Pettit Kohn Ingrassia
Lutz PC, Jenna Heather Leyton-Jones -- jleyton@pettitkohn.com --
Pettit Kohn Ingrassia Lutz PC & Shannon Riyana Finley --
SFinley@pettitkohn.com -- Pettit Kohn Ingrassia Lutz PC.


RAYONIER INC: Consolidated Securities Suit in Discovery Phase
-------------------------------------------------------------
Rayonier Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on August 5, 2016, for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2016, that a consolidated
securities class action lawsuit is now in the discovery phase.

Following the Company's November 10, 2014 earnings release and
filing of the restated interim financial statements for the
quarterly periods ended March 31, 2014 and June 30, 2014 (the
"November 2014 Announcement"), shareholders of the Company filed
five putative class actions against the Company and Paul G.
Boynton, Hans E. Vanden Noort, David L. Nunes, and H. Edwin Kiker
arising from circumstances described in the November 2014
Announcement, entitled respectively:

     * Sating v. Rayonier Inc. et al, Civil Action No. 3:14-cv-
01395; filed November 12, 2014 in the United States District Court
for the Middle District of Florida;

     * Keasler v. Rayonier Inc. et al, Civil Action No. 3:14-cv-
01398, filed November 13, 2014 in the United States District Court
for the Middle District of Florida;

     * Lake Worth Firefighters' Pension Trust Fund v. Rayonier
Inc. et al, Civil Action No. 3:14-cv-01403, filed November 13,
2014 in the United States District Court for the Middle District
of Florida;

     * Christie v. Rayonier Inc. et al, Civil Action No. 3:14-cv-
01429, filed November 21, 2014 in the United States District Court
for the Middle District of Florida; and

     * Brown v. Rayonier Inc. et al, Civil Action No. 1:14-cv-
08986, initially filed in the United States District Court for the
Southern District of New York and later transferred to the United
States District Court for the Middle District of Florida and
assigned as Civil Action No. 3:14-cv-01474.

On January 9, 2015, the five securities actions were consolidated
into one putative class action entitled In re Rayonier Inc.
Securities Litigation, Case No. 3:14-cv-01395-TJC-JBT, in the
United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida.
The plaintiffs alleged that the defendants made false and/or
misleading statements in violation of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated
thereunder. The plaintiffs sought unspecified monetary damages and
attorneys' fees and costs. Two shareholders, the Pension Trust
Fund for Operating Engineers and the Lake Worth Firefighters'
Pension Trust Fund moved for appointment as lead plaintiff on
January 12, 2015, which was granted on February 25, 2015.

On April 7, 2015, the plaintiffs filed a Consolidated Class Action
Complaint (the "Consolidated Complaint"). In the Consolidated
Complaint, plaintiffs added allegations as to and added as a
defendant N. Lynn Wilson, a former officer of Rayonier. With the
filing of the Consolidated Complaint, David L. Nunes and H. Edwin
Kiker were dropped from the case as defendants.

Defendants timely filed Motions to Dismiss the Consolidated
Complaint on May 15, 2015. After oral argument on Defendants'
motions on August 25, 2015, the Court dismissed the Consolidated
Complaint without prejudice, allowing plaintiffs leave to refile.
Plaintiffs filed the Amended Consolidated Class Action Complaint
(the "Amended Complaint") on September 25, 2015, which continued
to assert claims against the Company, as well as Ms. Wilson and
Messrs. Boynton and Vanden Noort.

Defendants timely filed Motions to Dismiss the Amended Complaint
on October 26, 2015. The court denied those motions on May 20,
2016. The case is now in the discovery phase.

At this preliminary stage, the Company cannot determine whether
there is a reasonable likelihood a material loss has been incurred
nor can the range of any such loss be estimated.


RED GRANITE: Amanah Seeks Yang's Support for 1MBD Class Action
--------------------------------------------------------------
Koh Jun Lin, writing for malaysiakini, reports that Parti Amanah
Negara (Amanah) will seek the Yang di-Pertuan Agong's support for
the class action suit in the United States initiated by lawyer
Mattias Chang and Salor assemblyperson Husam Musa.

The party's international bureau chief Raja Kamarul Bahrin Raja
Ahmad Shah said Amanah is also mulling taking similar legal action
abroad in jurisdictions involved in the 1MDB scandal, including in
the US, Switzerland, Hong Kong and Singapore.

In a previous report, malaysiakini disclosed that the class action
was brought on behalf of the Malaysian citizenry and was filed on
Aug. 11 with the US District Court for the Southern District of
New York, according to The Hollywood Reporter.

Messrs. Chang and Husam named Red Granite Pictures, the film
production and distribution company's co-founders Christopher Joey
McFarland and Riza.

According to the court filing, Messrs. Chang and Husam claimed the
defendants knowingly used funds stolen from 1MDB for their
personal benefit, including throwing parties for Hollywood star
Leonardo DiCaprio to curry favor with him.

Also named as defendants were Malaysian billionaire Low and his
tax attorney Debra Whelan Johnson, as well as her firm Metropolis
IX Capital Advisors LLC.

Goldman Sachs Group and its former banker Timothy Leissner were
also named.


RJ REYNOLDS: Lawyer Faces Sanctions in Florida Tobacco Case
-----------------------------------------------------------
Celia Ampel, writing for Law.com, reports that sanctions against
attorneys in tobacco cases are rare, Florida plaintiffs lawyers
say -- but in the case of a King & Spalding partner whose improper
statements led to a mistrial, it was the judge himself who put the
penalty on the table.

Miami-Dade Circuit Judge William Thomas decided on his own to
consider sanctions against King & Spalding Atlanta attorney
W Randall Bassett for introducing information about a similar
case's verdict -- information the judge said was also false --
while representing R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co.

The judge gave defense counsel 10 days, or until Aug. 31, to show
why billion-dollar Am Law 100 firm King & Spalding should not have
to pay as sanctions the plaintiffs' costs associated with trying
the case a second time.

But plaintiffs attorneys said they almost never move for sanctions
when litigating against tobacco companies -- not because they
don't see bad behavior, but because it doesn't seem worthwhile as
they rush to win damages for clients who are often close to death.

"It's simply a diversion that plays right into the tobacco
companies' hands, because they have so much more manpower," said
Philip Gerson of Gerson & Schwartz in Miami, who has represented
many smokers over the years.

Thousands of tobacco cases were filed across the state after the
Florida Supreme Court disbanded the statewide Engle class action
in 2006.  Engle-progeny plaintiffs must show their disease
manifested itself before Nov. 21, 1996, which means many
qualifying smokers have died waiting for their cases to go to
trial.

While plaintiffs attorneys hesitate to get caught up in side
issues because of limited time and money, tobacco companies have
an incentive to file dozens of motions, accuse plaintiffs counsel
of wrongdoing during discovery and aim for a mistrial, according
to smokers' lawyers.

The attorneys who represent plaintiff Patsy Davis in the case
before Judge Thomas argue Mr. Bassett's behavior is part of a
larger pattern of tobacco defense attorneys using a scorched-earth
strategy to derail cases.  The jury reached a defense verdict in
the Davis case.

"They prevail in this litigation not by winning on the merits, but
by forcing plaintiffs and their lawyers to spend so much time and
money trying the cases that they give up," Ms. Davis' lawyers
wrote in the motion for mistrial, which was granted Aug. 17.  A
sanctions hearing was not yet on the docket as of Aug. 29.

Ms. Davis' lawyers, Philip Freidin of Freidin Brown in Miami and
Alex Alvarez of the Law Office of Alexander Alvarez in Miami,
declined to comment on the case, and Mr. Bassett did not respond
to requests for comment.

The motion references internal memos from Philip Morris that show
the company counts its victories in terms of wins and mistrials.

"A mistrial is as good as a win for them, because the following
year, that case will be retried" while another is kicked down the
road, said John Uustal of Kelley/Uustal in Fort Lauderdale, who
said he has had a few clients die waiting for trial.

Mr. Uustal said he has been "ambushed" by tobacco defense
attorneys in the past, but he doesn't believe monetary sanctions
are ever large enough to deter bad behavior from such deep-
pocketed defendants.

In one case, he won a $300 million verdict against Philip Morris -
- later overturned -- and when asked by the judge what kind of
effect the payment would have on operations, the company said
"none."

"What's the point in moving for sanctions?" Mr. Uustal asked.
"They can spend almost a billion dollars a year in legal fees."

Gary Paige, a Davie attorney with Gordon & Doner who has won
several eight-figure tobacco verdicts in recent years, said he has
never moved for sanctions in an Engle case.

When asked if he's ever considered doing so, he said: "I have
considered many things, but at the end of the day I think we all
just want an opportunity for a jury trial where our clients can
obtain justice."

Mr. Gerson agreed, saying he tried a tobacco case in July where
sanctions could be warranted against one of the same lawyers in
the Davis case.

That lawyer, Frank Bayuk from King & Spalding in Atlanta, was
criticized in Mr. Davis' motion for mistrial, with plaintiffs
counsel claiming he made improperly argumentative comments during
opening statements.  The judge did not specifically address
Mr. Bayuk's remarks, but noted that along with Mr. Bassett's
conduct, the "cumulative effect denied plaintiff the right to a
fair trial."

In the case Mr. Gerson worked on, Mr. Bayuk earned a rebuke from
Miami-Dade Circuit Judge Bronwyn Miller after misleading her about
how long a defense witness had been retained in a case filed by
smoker Barbara Morales. Miller struck the witness.

Mr.  Bayuk did not respond to a request for comment on the
decisions.

"It's the perfect case to ask for sanctions," Mr. Gerson said of
the Morales matter.  "The judge said in her order, basically, 'You
lied to me.'"

Perfect case or not, Mr. Gerson does not think he will move for
sanctions.

"Fighting this sanctions battle would maybe get an order slamming
him or an award of fees or costs," Mr.  Gerson said.  "That's why
in all the routine cases, every discovery violation that we get,
we rarely file a motion for sanctions.  Because what are we going
to do? We want the data, we want the truth, we want the facts. Not
some penalty."


ROCKET FUEL: Class Certification Sought in Rocket Fuel Litigation
----------------------------------------------------------------
In re ROCKET FUEL, INC. SECURITIES LITIGATION, Case No. 4:14-cv-
03998-PJH (N.D. Cal.), the Lead Plaintiffs ask the Court to
certify a class consisting of:

     "all those persons or entities who purchased or otherwise
     acquired the publicly traded securities of Rocket Fuel
     during the period from November 6, 2013 to August 5, 2014,
     inclusive."

The Lead Plaintiffs further ask the Court:

     1. appointing Lead Plaintiffs Oklahoma Firefighters Pension
        and Retirement System, Browder Capital, LLC, and Patrick
        Browder as Class Representatives;, and

     2. appointing Kaplan Fox and Kahn Swick as Class Counsel.

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

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Laurence D. King, Esq.
          Mario M. Choi, Esq.
          Joel B. Strauss, Esq.
          Donald R. Hall, Esq.
          KAPLAN FOX & KILSHEIMER LLP
          350 Sansome Street, Suite 400
          San Francisco, CA 94104
          Telephone: (415) 772 4700
          Facsimile: (415) 772 4707
          E-mail: lking@kaplanfox.com
          mchoi@kaplanfox.com
          jstrauss@kaplanfox.com
          dhall@kaplanfox.com

               - and -

          Ramzi Abadou, Esq.
          Lewis S. Kahn, Esq.
          Alexander Burns, Esq.
          KAHN SWICK & FOTI, LLP
          912 Cole Street, No. 251
          San Francisco, CA 94117
          Telephone: (504) 455 1400
          Facsimile: 504-455-1498
          E-mail: ramzi.abadou@ksfcounsel.com
                  lewis.kahn@ksfcounsel.com
                  alexander.burns@ksfcounsel.com


S2VERIFY: Class Notice Plan in "Hawkins" Case Approved
------------------------------------------------------
In the case, REGMON L. HAWKINS, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. S2VERIFY, a foreign
limited liability company, Defendant, Case No. 3:15-cv-03502 WHA
(N.D. Cal.), District Judge William Alsup granted the parties'
Joint Proposal for Class Notification along with the proposed
Notice of Class Certification and Request for Exclusion.

The Court finds that the proposal complies with due process and
the requirements of FED. R. CIV. P. 23(c)(2)(B) to provide the
best notice practicable under the circumstances.

The Court appointed American Legal Claims Services, LLC as the
class administrator for the purpose of administering direct
mailing to class members and assisting with processing opt-outs to
the class.

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

Regmon L. Hawkins, Plaintiff, represented by Devin Heng Fok --
devin@devinfoklaw.com -- DHF Law P.C., Benjamin Charles Wickert,
Caddell and Chapman & Michael A. Caddell -- mac@cadellchapman.com
-- Caddell & Chapman.

S2Verify, Defendant, represented by Brian H. Gunn --
bhgunn@wolfewyman.com -- Wolfe & Wyman LLP & Andrew An Bao --
aabao@wolfewyman.com -- Wolfe & Wyman LLP.


SCRAP INC: Class Cert. Bid in Chicago Car Care Suit Continued
-------------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit captioned Chicago Car Care Inc., the Plaintiff, v.
S.C.R.A.P. Inc., et al., Case No. 1:16-cv-08088 (N.D. Ill.), the
Hon. Judge James B. Zagel granted Plaintiff's motion to certify
Class to continue.

According to the docket entry made by the Clerk on August 24,
2016, the hearing set for August 25, 2016 is stricken and no
appearance is necessary. Another status hearing is set for
September 15, 2016 at 9:15 a.m.

A copy of the Order is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=QGq3w0u8


SEPTRAN INC: Barker Seeks Prelim. Approval of Class Settlement
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Plaintiffs in the lawsuit captioned SANDRA BARKER and PENELOPE
GARCIA, on behalf of themselves and all other plaintiffs similarly
situated known and unknown v. SEPTRAN, INC., Case No. 1:15-cv-
09270 (N.D. Ill.), filed with the Court their unopposed motion for
preliminary approval of class action settlement and for class
certification of state law IWPCA Claims.  The Plaintiffs seek
certification of a class defined as:

     "All persons formerly employed by Defendant Septran, Inc. in
      Illinois who forfeited accrued vacation time between 2014
      and 2015 upon their separation of employment."

The Plaintiffs seek preliminary approval of the Class Action
Settlement Agreement, which will resolve the claims brought under
the Fair Labor Standards Act, Illinois Minimum Wage Law, and
Illinois Wage Payment and Collection Act ("IWPCA"), of
approximately 31 people against the Defendant.  The Plaintiffs
also seek certification of a class of employees damaged by the
Defendant's alleged improper vacation pay policy.

Among other things, the Settlement Agreement provides that the
total amount of the settlement to Class Members is $105,000.  Each
member of the IWPCA Class will receive a 100% recovery including
statutory interest.  The remaining amount is divided up among the
Opt-In Plaintiffs.

The Plaintiffs also ask the Court to approve their proposed notice
program, to set a date for the final approval hearing, and to set
a date for submission of the final approval papers.

A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=ffA1h9U2

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          David Fish, Esq.
          Kimberly Hilton, Esq.
          THE FISH LAW FIRM, P.C.
          200 E. 5th Avenue, Suite 123
          Naperville, IL 60563
          Telephone: (630) 355-7590
          Facsimile: (630) 778-0400
          E-mail: dfish@fishlawfirm.com
                  khilton@fishlawfirm.com


SQUARETWO FINANCIAL: Class Certification Sought in "Maloney" Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Debbie Maloney moves the Court to certify the classes described in
the complaint of the lawsuit entitled DEBBIE MALONEY, Individually
and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated v. SQUARETWO
FINANCIAL SERVICES CORPORATION, d/b/a FRESH VIEW SOLUTIONS, CACH,
LLC, and AVANT, INC., Case No. 2:16-cv-01175-NJ (E.D. Wisc.).  The
Plaintiff further asks that the Court both stay the Motion and to
grant the Plaintiff (and the Defendants) relief from the Local
Rules setting automatic briefing schedules and requiring briefs
and supporting material to be filed with the Motion.

Damasco and decisions like it imposed significant burdens on the
Court and on Plaintiff's Counsel, the Plaintiff contends, citing
Damasco v. Clearwire Corp., 662 F.3d 891 (7th Cir. 2011),
overruled, Chapman v. First Index, Inc., 796 F.3d 783, 787 (7th
Cir. 2015).

To avoid the risk of a defendant mooting a putative class
representative's individual stake in the litigation, the Seventh
Circuit in Damasco instructed plaintiffs to file a certification
motion with the complaint, along with a motion to stay briefing on
the certification motion until discovery could commence, the
Plaintiff says.  The Plaintiff asserts that the Plaintiff is
obligated to move for class certification to protect the interests
of the putative class.

As the Motion is a placeholder motion as described in Damasco, the
parties and the Court should not be burdened with unnecessary
paperwork and the resulting expense when a one paragraph, single
page motion to certify and stay should suffice until an amended
motion is filed, the Plaintiff points out.

The Plaintiff also asks to be appointed as class representative
and further asks the Court to appoint Ademi & O'Reilly, LLP as
class counsel.

A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=VyU6eUSW

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Shpetim Ademi, Esq.
          John D. Blythin, Esq.
          Mark A. Eldridge, Esq.
          ADEMI & O'REILLY, LLP
          3620 East Layton Avenue
          Cudahy, WI 53110
          Telephone: (414) 482-8000
          Facsimile: (414) 482-8001
          E-mail: sademi@ademilaw.com
                  jblythin@ademilaw.com
                  meldridge@ademilaw.com


ST. JUDE MEDICAL: Faces "Ross" Class Suit in C.D. California
------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been commenced against St. Jude
Medical, Inc., St. Jude Medical S.C., Inc., and Pacesetter, Inc.,
d/b/a St. Jude Cardiac Rhythm Management Division

The case is captioned Clinton W. Ross Jr., individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated v. St. Jude Medical, Inc.,
St. Jude Medical S.C., Inc., and Pacesetter, Inc., d/b/a St. Jude
Cardiac Rhythm Management Division, Case No. 2:16-cv-06465 (C.D.
Cal., August 26, 2016).

The Defendants operate a medical device company headquartered in
Saint Paul, Minnesota.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Alfredo Torrijos, Esq.
      ARIAS SANGUINETTI STAHLE AND TORRIJOS LLP
      6701 Center Drive West 14th Floor
      Los Angeles, CA 90045
      Telephone: (310) 844-9696
      Facsimile: (310) 861-0168
      E-mail: alfredo@asstlawyers.com


ST. JUDE MEDICAL: November 9 Settlement Fairness Hearing Set
------------------------------------------------------------
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF MINNESOTA

FORSTA AP-FONDEN AND DANSKE
INVEST MANAGEMENT A/S, Individually
and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated,

                        Plaintiffs,


v.
ST. JUDE MEDICAL, INC., DANIEL J.
STARKS, JOHN C. HEINMILLER, ERIC S.
FAIN, MICHAEL T. ROUSSEAU, and
DONALD J. ZURBAY,

                        Defendants



Civil No. 12-3070 (JNE/HB)
CLASS ACTION


SUMMARY NOTICE OF (I) PROPOSED SETTLEMENT OF CLASS ACTION;
(II) MOTION FOR AN AWARD OF ATTORNEYS' FEES AND REIMBURSEMENT
OF EXPENSES; AND (III) SETTLEMENT FAIRNESS HEARING

TO:
ALL PERSONS OR ENTITIES WHO PURCHASED OR OTHERWISE ACQUIRED ST.
JUDE MEDICAL, INC. COMMON STOCK DURING THE PERIOD FROM FEBRUARY 5,
2010 THROUGH NOVEMBER 20, 2012, AND WHO WERE DAMAGED THEREBY (THE
"CLASS").1

Certain persons and entities are excluded from the definition of
the Class as set forth in detail in the Stipulation and Agreement
of Settlement dated July 7, 2016 (the "Stipulation") and the
Settlement Notice described below.

Please read this notice carefully.  If you are a member of the
Class, your rights will be affected by a class action lawsuit
pending in this Court, and you may be entitled to share in the
Settlement described below.

YOU ARE HEREBY NOTIFIED, pursuant to Rule 23 of the Federal Rules
of Civil Procedure and an Order of the United States District
Court for the District of Minnesota, that the parties in the
above-captioned action (the "Action") have reached a proposed
settlement for $39,250,000 in cash (the "Settlement"), that, if
approved, will resolve all claims in the Action.  A hearing will
be held on November 9, 2016 at 10:00 a.m., before The Honorable
Joan N. Ericksen at the United States District Court for the
District of Minnesota, United States District Court, 300 South
Fourth Street, 202 U.S. Courthouse, Minneapolis, MN 55415,
Courtroom 12W, to determine whether: (i) the proposed Settlement
should be approved as fair, reasonable, and adequate; (ii) the
Action should be dismissed with prejudice against Defendants, and
the releases set forth in the Stipulation (and Settlement Notice
described below) should be granted; (iii) the proposed Plan of
Allocation should be approved as fair and reasonable; (iv) Class
Counsel's application for an award of attorneys' fees and
reimbursement of expenses should be approved; and (v) Class
Representatives' request for reimbursement of costs and expenses
in connection with their representation of the Class should be
approved.

IF YOU ARE A MEMBER OF THE CLASS DESCRIBED ABOVE, YOUR RIGHTS WILL
BE AFFECTED BY THE PENDING ACTION AND YOU MAY BE ENTITLED TO SHARE
IN THE SETTLEMENT FUND.  A detailed Notice of (I) Proposed
Settlement of Class Action; (II) Motion for an Award of Attorneys'
Fees and Reimbursement of Expenses; and (III) Settlement Fairness
Hearing ("Settlement Notice") and Proof of Claim and Release form
("Claim Form") are currently being mailed to Class Members
explaining Class Members' rights in connection with the Settlement
and the process for submitting a Claim Form.  If you have not yet
received the detailed Settlement Notice and Claim Form, you may
obtain copies of these documents by visiting
www.stjudesecuritieslitigation.com, or by contacting the Claims
Administrator at:

St. Jude Medical, Inc. Securities Litigation
c/o A.B. Data, Ltd.
P.O. Box 173010
Milwaukee, WI  53217
(866) 905-8130
info@StJudeSecuritiesLitigation.com

Inquiries, other than requests for the Settlement Notice and Claim
Form, may be made to Court-appointed Class Counsel:

Gregory M. Castaldo, Esq.
Joshua E. D'Ancona, Esq.
KESSLER TOPAZ MELTZER & CHECK, LLP
280 King of Prussia Road
Radnor, PA  19087
Telephone:   (610) 667-7706
Facsimile:     (610) 667-7056
www.ktmc.com

Gregg S. Levin, Esq.
Joshua C. Littlejohn, Esq.
MOTLEY RICE LLC
28 Bridgeside Blvd.
Mt. Pleasant, SC  29464
Telephone:   (843) 216-9000
Facsimile:     (843) 216-9450
www.motleyrice.com

If you are a member of the Class, in order to be eligible to
receive a payment from the Settlement, you must submit a Claim
Form postmarked no later than December 8, 2016.  If you are a
Class Member and do not submit a proper Claim Form, you will not
be eligible to share in the distribution of the net proceeds of
the Settlement, but you will nevertheless be bound by any
judgments or orders entered by the Court in the Action.

If you previously submitted a request for exclusion from the Class
in connection with the Notice of Pendency of Class Action dated
March 29, 2016 ("Class Notice") and you wish to remain excluded
from the Class, no further action is required.  If you previously
submitted a request for exclusion from the Class in connection
with the Class Notice and you want to opt back into the Class and
be potentially eligible to receive a payment from the Settlement,
you must submit a request to opt back into the Class such that it
is received no later than October 20, 2016, in accordance with the
instructions set forth in the Settlement Notice.  If you
previously submitted a request for exclusion from the Class in
connection with the Class Notice and do not opt back into the
Class in accordance with the instructions set forth in the
Settlement Notice, you will not be bound by any judgments or
orders entered by the Court in the Action and you will not be
eligible to share in the net proceeds of the Settlement.

If you are a Class Member, you have the right to object to the
proposed Settlement, the proposed Plan of Allocation, Class
Counsel's motion for attorneys' fees and reimbursement of
expenses, and/or Class Representatives' request for reimbursement
of costs and expenses.  Any objections must be filed with the
Court and delivered to Class Counsel and Defendants' Counsel such
that they are received no later than October 20, 2016, in
accordance with the instructions set forth in the Settlement
Notice.

Please do not contact the Court, the Clerk's office, St. Jude, or
its counsel regarding this notice.  All questions about this
notice, the proposed Settlement, or your eligibility to
participate in the Settlement should be directed to Class Counsel
or the Claims Administrator as listed above.

DATED: AUGUST 22, 2016
BY ORDER OF THE COURT

United States District Court

District of Minnesota
1 At all relevant times, St. Jude Medical, Inc. common stock
traded on the New York Stock Exchange under the ticker symbol
"STJ."


STATE FARM: "Dennington" Suit May Proceed as Class Action
---------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit captioned JEFF DENNINGTON; JAMES STUART; and CAREDA
HOOD individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated,
the Plaintiffs v. STATE FARM FIRE AND CASUALTY
COMPANY and STATE FARM GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY, the Defendant,
Case No. 4:14-cv-04001-SOH (W.D. Ark.), the Hon. Judge Susan O.
Hickey entered an order:

      1. denying Defendants' motion for hearing;

      2. dismissing State Farm General as a Defendant because no
         named Plaintiff has standing to sue it as separate
         Defendant;

      3. granting Plaintiffs' motion for class certification,
         appointment of class representatives and appointment
         of class Counsel;

The Plaintiffs James Stuart and Careda Hood are named as
representatives of the class. The Court additionally approves the
following law firms as class counsel: Kessler Topaz Meltzer &
Check, LLP; Keil & Goodson, P.A.; Mattingly & Roselius, PLLC:
Murphy, Thompson, Arnold, Skinner & Castleberry; Taylor Law
Partners, LLP: Stephen Engstrom Law Office; Crowley Norman LLP:
and James M. Pratt, Jr., P.A.

A copy of the Order is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=9b21OYNH


SUNPOWER CORP: October 17 Lead Plaintiff Motion Deadline Set
------------------------------------------------------------
Gainey McKenna & Egleston on Aug. 22 disclosed that a class action
lawsuit has been filed against SunPower Corporation ("SunPower" or
the "Company") in the United States District Court for the
Northern District of California on behalf of purchasers of common
stock of SunPower between February 17, 2016 through August 9,
2016, inclusive (the "Class Period"), seeking to pursue remedies
under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the "Exchange Act").

According to the Complaint, Defendants issued false and misleading
statements to investors and/or failed to disclose that (1) a
substantial number of SunPower's customers were adopting a longer-
term timeline for project completion; (2) SunPower's near-term
economic returns were deteriorating; (3) market disruption in the
YieldCo environment was impacting SunPower's assumptions related
to monetizing deferred profits; (4) demand for SunPower's products
was significantly declining; (5) in response, SunPower would
implement a manufacturing realignment that would result in
significant restructuring charges; (6) SunPower's fiscal year 2016
guidance was overstated; and (7) as a result, Defendants'
statements about SunPower's business, operations and prospects
were materially false and misleading.  When the true details
entered the market, the lawsuit claims that investors suffered
damages.

If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no
later than October 17, 2016.  A lead plaintiff is a representative
party acting on behalf of other class members in directing the
litigation.  If you wish to join the litigation, or to discuss
your rights or interests regarding this class action, please
contact Thomas J. McKenna, Esq. or Gregory M. Egleston, Esq. of
Gainey McKenna & Egleston at (212) 983-1300, or via e-mail at
tjmckenna@gme-law.com or gegleston@gme-law.com.

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


SUNTRUST BANK: Stock-Drop Suit Obtained Class Action Status
-----------------------------------------------------------
John Manganaro, writing for planadviser, reports that the U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of Georgia, Atlanta
Division, has handed down another complicated ruling in an
impressively long-lived employer stock drop lawsuit filed by
employees of SunTrust Bank under the Employee Retirement Income
Security Act (ERISA).

The case has an extensive procedural history and is one among a
handful of lawsuits winning reconsideration after the Supreme
Court's landmark 2014 decision in Fifth-Third Bancorp vs.
Dudenhoeffer.

In short, this latest ruling seems to be a partial victory and
partial defeat for SunTrust Bank, which won summary judgment and
dismissal on certain claims while seeing other plaintiffs' claims
certified as a class action, slated for a full trial.  SunTrust
will also undoubtedly be pleased to see the district court has
denied a plantiffs' motion to remove from consideration a key
report that supports SunTrust decisionmaking related to its
offering of employer stock.

The current complaint being considered was brought "pursuant to
Sections 409 and 502(a)(2) of the Employee Retirement Income
Security Act (ERISA)."  Plaintiffs are participants in the
SunTrust Banks, Inc. 401(k) Savings Plan, and they brought the
latest amended action on behalf of themselves, the plan, and a
class of similarly situated plan participants.  The plan is a
defined contribution (DC) retirement plan sponsored by SunTrust,
"with the primary purpose of allowing participants to save for
retirement."

Pursuant to the requirements set forth in Fifth-Third Bancorp v.
Dudenhoeffer (and following a previous set of dismissals and
appeals from the United States District Court for The Northern
District of Georgia, Atlanta Division, as well as the 11th U.S.
Circuit Court of Appeals) plaintiffs pleaded alternative actions
that plan fiduciaries could have taken consistent with securities
laws to avoid large losses to participant accounts when SunTrust
stock lost value.  Defendants, in response, filed an expert report
prepared by Lucy P. Allen (referred to as the Allen Report) which
analyzed the validity of the proposed alternatives raised
according to Dudenhoeffer .

By way of background, the Supreme Court in Dudenhoeffer held that
"to state a claim for breach of the duty of prudence on the basis
of inside information, a plaintiff must plausibly allege an
alternative action that the defendant could have taken that would
have been consistent with the securities laws and that a prudent
fiduciary in the same circumstances would not have viewed as more
likely to harm the fund than to help it."


SURFSTITCH: More Than 100 Investors to Join Class Action
--------------------------------------------------------
Jacinda Tutty, writing for The Courier-Mail, reports that a
potential class action into the collapse of SurfStitch shares is
gaining momentum.

The Gold Coast-based online retailer's shares were trading above
$1.70 earlier this year and have since slumped as low as 18cents
after the shock resignation of chief executive Justin Cameron in
May and three profit downgrades.

Law firm Gadens said it has been approached by "more than 100"
investors "representing millions of shares" to be involved in a
potential $500 million class action.

The firm has spent the month of July consulting litigation funders
and pouring over the company's business and financial affairs to
determine whether it "kept the market informed" and had "taken
reasonable care and diligence".

SurfStitch received its latest ASX share price query in mid June
after suspicious trading activity ahead of its third profit
downgrade.

Increased share trading was detected and the retailer's share
price nosedived from 48cents on May 31 to 41cents on June 7 when
SurfStitch placed the company in a trading halt while it reviewed
its accounts.

Gadens confirmed it approached SurfStitch for the first time on
August 17 questioning whether its accounts give a fair indication
of its financial position.

The online surfwear and action sport retailer was also asked
whether it will account for the potential shareholder class action
proceeding and whether it expects to return to profitability this
financial year.

SurfStitch was due to deliver its full year results on August 30.

The company's new CEO Mike Sonand flagged an $18 million loss for
SurfStitch when he took the reins in June while Mr. Cameron's
threat of a private equity takeover bid has yet to materialize.


SYMANTEC CORPORATION: Appeal in Suit Over EDS & NDI Sales Pending
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Symantec Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on August 5, 2016, for the
quarterly period ended July 1, 2016, that an appeal in the class
action lawsuit related to prior sales of Extended Download Service
("EDS") and Norton Download Insurance ("NDI") remains pending
before the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals.

The Company said, "On January 24, 2011, a class action lawsuit was
filed against the Company and its previous e-commerce vendor
Digital River, Inc.; the lawsuit alleged violations of
California's Unfair Competition Law, the California Legal Remedies
Act and unjust enrichment related to prior sales of Extended
Download Service ("EDS") and Norton Download Insurance ("NDI")."

"On March 31, 2014, the U.S. District Court for the District of
Minnesota certified a class of all people who purchased these
products between January 24, 2005 and March 10, 2011.

"In August 2015, the parties executed a settlement agreement
pursuant to which the Company would pay the plaintiffs $30
million, which we accrued.

"On October 8, 2015, the Court granted preliminary approval of the
settlement, which was subsequently paid by the Company into
escrow. The Court granted final approval on April 22, 2016, and
entered judgment in the case. Objectors to the settlement have
filed notices of appeal to the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals,
challenging the Court's approval of the settlement."


TAMKO BUILDING: Court Grants Page Extension in "Snyder" Suit
------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, JEFFREY SNYDER, et al., Plaintiffs, v. TAMKO BUILDING
PRODUCTS, INC., Defendant, No. 1:15-cv-01892-TLN-KJN (E.D.
Calif.), District Judge Troy L. Nunley granted the Defendant's
request to file a 60-page brief in support of its motion to
dismiss Plaintiffs' Amended Class Action Complaint pursuant to
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) and to file a separate
20-page brief in support of its motion to strike Plaintiffs' class
allegations pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23.

Defendant asserted that the page extension is necessary to
adequately address the numerous causes of action alleged by each
of the four Plaintiffs, whose claims are governed by the laws of
four different states.

The Court, however, cautions Defendant to be as concise as
possible in addressing Plaintiffs' causes of action.

A copy of the Court's Order dated August 19, 2016 is available at
http://goo.gl/Fu2b7rfrom Leagle.com.

Jeffrey Snyder, et al., Plaintiffs, represented by Charles E.
Schaffer -- cschaffer@lfsblaw.com -- Levin Fishbein Sedran &
Berman, pro hac vice, Jacob M. Polakoff -- jpolakoff@bm.net --
Berger and Montague, pro hac vice, Lawrence Deutsch --
ldeutsch@bm.net -- Berger and Montague, pro hac vice, Richard
Norman Sieving -- rsieving@sievinglawfirm.com -- The Sieving Law
Firm A.P.C., Shanon J. Carson -- scarson@bm.net -- Berger and
Montague, pro hac vice & Luke Gabriel Pears-Dickson --
lpearsdickson@sievinglawfirm.com -- Sieving Law Firm, APC.

Tamko Building Products, Inc., Defendant, represented by Charles
Stephen Painter -- cpainter@ericksenarbuthnot.com -- Ericksen
Arbuthnot, Jessica D. Miller -- jessica.miller@skadden.com --
Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom, LLP, pro hac vice, John H.
Beisner -- john.beisner@skadden.com -- Skadden Arps Slate Meagher
& Flom, LLP & Richard T. Bernardo -- richard.bernardo@skadden.com
-- Skadden Arps Slate Meagher & Flom, LLP, pro hac vice.


TEREX CORPORATION: Still Faces Class Suits in Conn. & Del.
----------------------------------------------------------
Terex Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on August 5, 2016, for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2016, that the Company continues
to defend class action lawsuits in Connecticut and Delaware
courts.

The Company has received complaints seeking certification of class
action lawsuits as follows:

     * A consolidated class action complaint for violations of
securities laws in the securities lawsuit was filed in the United
States District Court, District of Connecticut on November 18,
2010 and is entitled Sheet Metal Workers Local 32 Pension Fund and
Ironworkers St. Louis Council Pension Fund, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated v. Terex Corporation, et
al.

     * A stockholder derivative complaint for violation of the
Securities and Exchange Act of 1934, breach of fiduciary duty,
waste of corporate assets and unjust enrichment was filed on April
12, 2010 in the United States District Court, District of
Connecticut and is entitled Peter Derrer, derivatively on behalf
of Terex Corporation v. Ronald M. DeFeo, Phillip C. Widman, Thomas
J. Riordan, G. Chris Andersen, Donald P. Jacobs, David A. Sachs,
William H. Fike, Donald DeFosset, Helge H. Wehmeier, Paula H.J.
Cholmondeley, Oren G. Shaffer, Thomas J. Hansen, and David C.
Wang, and Terex Corporation.

     * On August 21, 2015, a purported Terex stockholder, Bernard
Stern, filed a class action complaint challenging the Merger in
the Delaware Chancery Court, and on August 26, 2015, a purported
Terex stockholder, Joseph Weinstock, filed a class action
complaint challenging the Merger in the Delaware Chancery Court.
The complaints name as defendants Terex Corporation, Konecranes
Plc, Konecranes, Inc., Konecranes Acquisition Company LLC and the
members of the Board of Directors of Terex.

On March 22, 2016, the plaintiff in the Stern action filed a
notice of voluntary dismissal without prejudice of his action,
which was approved by the Court. On May 20, 2016, the plaintiff in
the Weinstock action filed a notice of voluntary dismissal without
prejudice of his action, which was approved by the Court.

The first two lawsuits generally cover the period from February
2008 to February 2009 and allege, among other things, that certain
of the Company's SEC filings and other public statements contained
false and misleading statements which resulted in damages to the
Company, the plaintiffs and the members of the purported class
when they purchased the Company's securities and in the
stockholder derivative complaint, that there were breaches of
fiduciary duties. The stockholder derivative complaint also
alleges waste of corporate assets relating to the repurchase of
the Company's shares in the market and unjust enrichment as a
result of securities sales by certain officers and directors. The
complaints all seek, among other things, unspecified compensatory
damages, costs and expenses. As a result, the Company is unable to
estimate a possible loss or a range of losses for these lawsuits.
The stockholder derivative complaint also seeks amendments to the
Company's corporate governance procedures in addition to
unspecified compensatory damages from the individual defendants in
its favor.

The Company believes that the allegations in the suits are without
merit, and Terex, its directors and the named executives will
continue to vigorously defend against them. The Company believes
that it has acted, and continues to act, in compliance with
federal securities laws and Delaware law with respect to these
matters. Accordingly, the Company has filed motions to dismiss the
securities lawsuit. The plaintiff in the stockholder derivative
lawsuit has agreed with the Company to put this lawsuit on hold
pending the outcome of the motion to dismiss in connection with
the securities lawsuit.


THOROUGHBRED RESEARCH: Has Sent Unsolicited Messages, Suit Claims
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Gregg Richardson, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. Thoroughbred Research Group, Inc., Case No.
2:16-cv-00656-UA-CM (M.D. Fla., August 26, 2016), seeks to stop
the Defendants' practice of using an artificial and prerecorded
voice to deliver a message without prior express consent of the
called party.

Thoroughbred Research Group, Inc. provides research services to
consumer and business-to-business.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Patrick H. Peluso, Esq.
      Steven L. Woodrow, Esq.
      WOODROW & PELUSO, LLC
      Suite 300, 3900 E. Mexico Avenue
      Denver, CO 80210
      Telephone: (720) 213-0675
      Facsimile: (303) 927-0809
      E-mail: ppeluso@woodrowpeluso.com
              swoodrow@woodrowpeluso.com

         - and -

      Stefan Coleman, Esq.
      LAW OFFICES OF STEFAN COLEMAN, PLLC
      28th Floor, 201 S Biscayne Blvd
      Miami, FL 33131
      Telephone: (877) 333-9427
      Facsimile: (888) 498-9827
      E-mail: law@stefancoleman.com


TIVO INC: Faces Securities Class Action in California
-----------------------------------------------------
Legal News Line reports that an Ohio woman is suing TiVo and and
its corporate directors, alleging negligent misrepresentations and
omissions.

Rebecca Graham filed a class action lawsuit, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated, Aug. 3 in U.S. District
Court for the Northern District of California San Jose Division
against TiVo Inc. and corporate directors Peter Aquino, Jeffrey T.
Hinson, Daniel Moloney, Thomas S. Rogers and Winifred Markus Webb,
alleging violation of the Securities Exchange Act.

According to the complaint, Ms. Graham was deprived of her right
to cast a fully informed vote on the proposed merger between TiVo
and Rovi Corporation and would suffer irreparable financial injury
were the proposed transaction consummated.

The plaintiff alleges the defendants failed to provide
stockholders with material information necessary for an informed
vote on the proposed transaction and issued the misleading proxy
with the intention of soliciting stockholder support.

Ms. Graham seeks a trial by jury, judgment against the defendant,
a ruling declaring this case as a class action, permanently
enjoining defendants from closing the proposed transaction,
pre-judgment and post-judgment interest and all other relief the
court deems proper.  She is represented by attorneys Donald E.
Enright and Elizabeth K. Tripodi of Levi & Korsinsky LLP in
Washington, D.C., and by Adam C. McCall of the same firm in Los
Angeles.

U.S. District Court for the Northern District San Jose Division of
California Case number 5:16-cv-04367


TRANSENTERIX INC: Bid to Dismiss "Bankley" Still Pending
--------------------------------------------------------
TransEnterix, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on August 5, 2016, for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2016, that defendants' motion to
dismiss the Bankley class action remains pending.

On June 2, 2016, a stockholder filed a putative class action
complaint, Ashok V. Bankley, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated vs. TransEnterix, Inc., Todd M. Pope and
Joseph P. Slattery, in the United States District Court for the
Eastern District of North Carolina (Case No. 5:16-cv-00313-D) (the
"Bankley Action"), against TransEnterix, Inc. (the "Company") and
two of its executive officers on behalf of all persons who
purchased or otherwise acquired the Company's common stock between
February 10, 2016 and May 10, 2016.

The complaint in the Bankley Action alleges that the defendants
made false and misleading public statements related to the
Company's SurgiBot System and its 510(k) application in violation
of certain federal securities laws.  The complaint in the Bankley
Action seeks class certification for a class consisting of all
persons who purchased or otherwise acquired the Company's common
stock between February 10, 2016 and May 10, 2016, unspecified
monetary damages, costs, and attorneys' fees.

On June 9, 2016, a different stockholder filed another putative
class action complaint, Thomas Ravey, individually and on behalf
of all others similarly situated vs. TransEnterix, Inc., Todd M.
Pope and Joseph P. Slattery, in the United States District Court
for the Middle District of North Carolina (Case No. 1:16-cv-599)
(the "Ravey Action").  The Ravey Action asserted substantially
similar claims against the same defendants and seeks substantially
similar relief as the Bankley Action.

On August 4, 2016, the plaintiff in the Ravey Action voluntarily
dismissed the Ravey Action.  On August 4, 2016, the defendants
filed a motion to dismiss the Bankley Action for failure to state
a claim under the securities laws.

TransEnterix, Inc. is a medical device company that is pioneering
the use of robotics to improve minimally invasive surgery by
addressing the clinical challenges associated with current
laparoscopic and robotic options.


TRUSTMARK CORP: Bid to Dismiss 2nd Amended Complaint Denied
-----------------------------------------------------------
Trustmark Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on August 5, 2016, for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2016, that the court has denied
the motion by Trust National Bank and the other financial
institution defendants to dismiss a second amended complaint.

Trustmark's wholly-owned subsidiary, TNB, has been named as a
defendant in three lawsuits related to the collapse of the
Stanford Financial Group. The first is a purported class action
complaint that was filed on August 23, 2009 in the District Court
of Harris County, Texas, by Peggy Roif Rotstain, Guthrie Abbott,
Catherine Burnell, Steven Queyrouze, Jaime Alexis Arroyo Bornstein
and Juan C. Olano (collectively, Class Plaintiffs), on behalf of
themselves and all others similarly situated, naming TNB and four
other financial institutions unaffiliated with Trustmark as
defendants.  The complaint seeks to recover (i) alleged fraudulent
transfers from each of the defendants in the amount of fees and
other monies received by each defendant from entities controlled
by R. Allen Stanford (collectively, the Stanford Financial Group)
and (ii) damages allegedly attributable to alleged conspiracies by
one or more of the defendants with the Stanford Financial Group to
commit fraud and/or aid and abet fraud on the asserted grounds
that defendants knew or should have known the Stanford Financial
Group was conducting an illegal and fraudulent scheme.  Plaintiffs
have demanded a jury trial.  Plaintiffs did not quantify damages.

In November 2009, the lawsuit was removed to federal court by
certain defendants and then transferred by the United States Panel
on Multidistrict Litigation to federal court in the Northern
District of Texas (Dallas) where multiple Stanford related matters
are being consolidated for pre-trial proceedings.  In May 2010,
all defendants (including TNB) filed motions to dismiss the
lawsuit.

In August 2010, the court authorized and approved the formation of
an Official Stanford Investors Committee (OSIC) to represent the
interests of Stanford investors and, under certain circumstances,
to file legal actions for the benefit of Stanford investors.  In
December 2011, the OSIC filed a motion to intervene in this
action.

In September 2012, the district court referred the case to a
magistrate judge for hearing and determination of certain pretrial
issues.  In December 2012, the court granted the OSIC's motion to
intervene, and the OSIC filed an Intervenor Complaint against one
of the other defendant financial institutions.

In February 2013, the OSIC filed a second Intervenor Complaint
that asserts claims against TNB and the remaining defendant
financial institutions.  The OSIC seeks to recover: (i) alleged
fraudulent transfers in the amount of the fees each of the
defendants allegedly received from Stanford Financial Group, the
profits each of the defendants allegedly made from Stanford
Financial Group deposits, and other monies each of the defendants
allegedly received from Stanford Financial Group; (ii) damages
attributable to alleged conspiracies by each of the defendants
with the Stanford Financial Group to commit fraud and/or aid and
abet fraud and conversion on the asserted grounds that the
defendants knew or should have known the Stanford Financial Group
was conducting an illegal and fraudulent scheme; and (iii)
punitive damages.  The OSIC did not quantify damages.

In July 2013, all defendants (including TNB) filed motions to
dismiss the OSIC's claims.  In March 2015, the court entered an
order authorizing the parties to conduct discovery regarding class
certification and setting a deadline for the parties to complete
briefing on class certification issues.  In April 2015, the court
granted in part and denied in part the defendants' motions to
dismiss the Class Plaintiffs' claims and the OSIC's claims.  The
court dismissed all of the Class Plaintiffs' fraudulent transfer
claims and dismissed certain of the OSIC's claims.  The court
denied the motions by TNB and the other financial institution
defendants to dismiss the OSIC's constructive fraudulent transfer
claims.

On June 23, 2015, the court allowed the Class Plaintiffs to file a
Second Amended Class Action Complaint (SAC), which asserted new
claims against TNB and certain of the other defendants for (i)
aiding, abetting and participating in a fraudulent scheme, (ii)
aiding, abetting and participating in violations of the Texas
Securities Act, (iii) aiding, abetting and participating in
breaches of fiduciary duty, (iv) aiding, abetting and
participating in conversion and (v) conspiracy.

On July 14, 2015, the defendants (including TNB) filed motions to
dismiss the SAC and to reconsider the court's prior denial to
dismiss the OSIC's constructive fraudulent transfer claims against
TNB and the other financial institutions that are defendants in
the action.

On July 27, 2016, the court denied the motion by TNB and the other
financial institution defendants to dismiss the SAC and also
denied the motion by TNB and the other financial institution
defendants to reconsider the court's prior denial to dismiss the
OSIC's constructive fraudulent transfer claims.  Trustmark is
evaluating this order and its options with respect to this
litigation.


UBER TECHNOLOGIES: Bid to Intervene in "O'Connor" Suit Denied
-------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, DOUGLAS O'CONNOR, et al., Plaintiffs, v. UBER
TECHNOLOGIES, INC., et al., Defendants, Case No. 13-cv-03826-EMC
(N.D. Cal.), the Court declined to exercise its discretion to
permit plaintiffs in other related on-going cases against
Defendants to intervene.

District Judge Edward M. Chen concludes that an intervention is
not warranted since the settlement of the O'Connor suit will not
affect the proposed interveners' cases following the denial of its
preliminary approval motion.

The Court also denied Abdo Ghazi's motion to disqualify class
counsel. Ghazi's motion is based on an alleged conflict of
interest between the O'Connor certified class, the Yucesoy
putative class, and the individual plaintiffs in Colopy v. Uber
Technologies, Inc. The Court treated Ghazi's argument as moot as
the Court has already denied a motion for preliminary settlement
approval.

A copy of the Court's Order dated August 18, 2016 is available at
http://goo.gl/nU2j82from Leagle.com.

Douglas O'Connor, et al., Plaintiffs, represented by Adelaide
Pagano -- apagano@llrlaw.com -- Lichten and Liss-Riordan, P.C.,
pro hac vice, Andrew A. August, Browne George Ross LLP, Ben Weber
-- bweber@llrlaw.com -- Lichten and Liss-Riordan, P.C., Benjamin
J. Meiselas, Geragos and Geragos, APC, Brian Stephen Kabateck,
Kabateck Brown Kellner LLP, Brian C. Tackenberg --
btackenberg@crabtreelaw.com -- pro hac vice, Charles Morris
Auslander, Crabtree and Auslander, pro hac vice, George R. Baise,
Jr. -- gbaise@crabtreelaw.com -- pro hac vice, Jennifer R. Liakos,
Napoli Shkolnik PLLC, John Granville Crabtree, pro hac vice, Mark
J. Geragos, Geragos & Geragos, APC, Matthew David Carlson --
mcarlson@llrlaw.com -- Lichten & Liss-Riordan, P.C., Sara Smolik,
Lichten and Liss-Riordan, P.C., Shannon Liss-Riordan, Lichten &
Liss-Riordan, P.C. & Shant Arthur Karnikian -- sk@kbklawyers.com -
- Kabateck Brown Kellner LLP.

Uber Technologies, Inc., Defendant, represented by Andrew Michael
Spurchise -- aspurchise@littler.com -- Littler Mendelson, P.C.,
Marcellus Antonio McRae -- mmcrae@gibsondunn.com -- Gibson Dunn &
Crutcher LLP, Theane D. Evangelis -- tevangelis@gibsondunn.com --
Gibson Dunn & Crutcher LLP, Theodore J. Boutrousun, Jr. --
tboutrous@gibsondunn.com -- Attorney at Law, Brandon J. Stoker --
bstoker@gibsondunn.com -- Gibson Dunn and Crutcher LLP, Debra Wong
Yang -- dwongyang@gibsondunn.com -- Gibson, Dunn Crutcher LLP,
Dhananjay Saikrishna Manthripragada --
dmanthripragada@gibsondunn.com -- Gibson Dunn and Crutcher, John
C. Fish, Jr. -- jfish@littler.com -- Littler Mendelson, PC, Joshua
Seth Lipshutz -- jlipshutz@gibsondunn.com -- Gibson, Dunn and
Crutcher LLP, Kevin Joseph Ring-Dowell --
kringdowell@gibsondunn.com -- Gibson Dunn & Crutcher LLP, Stephen
A. Swedlow -- stephenswedlow@quinnemanuel.com -- Quinn Emanuel
Urquhart & Sullivan, LLP, pro hac vice, Stephen Luther Taeusch --
staeusch@valdezlawgroup.com -- Valdez Law Group LLP & Theane
Evangelis Kapur, Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher LLP.

7x7 Executive Transportation LLC, Defendant, represented by James
Parton, III, Parton & Sell PC.

Rasier-CA, LLC, Defendant, represented by Andrew Michael Spurchise
-- aspurchise@littler.com -- Littler Mendelson, P.C..

Caren Ehret, Movant, represented by Myron Milton Cherry --
mcherry@cherry-law.com -- Myron M. Cherry & Associates LLC.

Greg Fisher, Movant, represented by Christopher James Hamner --
chamner@hamnerlaw.com -- Hamner Law Offices, APC.

John Doe, Movant, Pro Se.

Todd Johnston, Movant, represented by Brian J. Malloy, The Brandi
Law Firm.

Steven Price, Interested Party, represented by Christopher John
Morosoff, Law Office of Christopher J. Morosoff & Douglas Caiafa,
Attorney at Law.

City of Cleveland, Ohio, Interested Party, represented by Carl E.
Meyer, City of Cleveland.

Rosario Richardson, Interested Party, represented by Carey A.
James -- caj@asmlawyers.com -- Aiman-Smith and Marcy & Shant
Arthur Karnikian, Kabateck Brown Kellner LLP.

Leticia Alcala, Objector, represented by Hunter J. Shkolnik,
Napoli Shkolnik PLLC, pro hac vice, Paul Napoli, Napoli Shkolnik
PLLC, pro hac vice, Jennifer R. Liakos, Napoli Shkolnik PLLC &
Shant Arthur Karnikian, Kabateck Brown Kellner LLP.

Marc Borgen, Objector, represented by Hunter J. Shkolnik, Napoli
Shkolnik PLLC, Paul Napoli, Napoli Shkolnik PLLC, Jennifer R.
Liakos, Napoli Shkolnik PLLC & Shant Arthur Karnikian, Kabateck
Brown Kellner LLP.

Knapp, Petersen & Clarke, Attorneys for Objectors, Objector,
represented by Andre Emilio Jardini -- aej@kpclegal.com -- Knapp
Petersen & Clarke.

Uladzimir Tabola, et al., Objectors, represented by Alexei
Kuchinsky -- alexei@sfbizlaw.com -- Klein Law Group & Shant Arthur
Karnikian -- sk@kbklawyers.com -- Kabateck Brown Kellner LLP.

Jorge Zunigas, et al., Objectors, represented by Mark Alan
Morrison -- markmorrison@paulhastings.com -- Morrison and
Associates.

Adham Shaheen, et al., Objectors, represented by Veena Bharat
Dubal -- dubalv@uchastings.edu -- University of California,
Hastings College of the Law.


UGI CORPORATION: Indirect Purchaser Claims Remain Pending
---------------------------------------------------------
UGI Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on August 5, 2016, for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2016, that the only claims
remaining with respect to indirect purchasers involve alleged
violations of Wisconsin, Maine and Vermont state antitrust laws.

Between May and October of 2014, more than 35 purported class
action lawsuits were filed in multiple jurisdictions against the
Partnership/UGI Corporation and a competitor by certain of their
direct and indirect customers.  The class action lawsuits allege,
among other things, that the Partnership and its competitor
colluded, beginning in 2008, to reduce the fill level of portable
propane cylinders from 17 pounds to 15 pounds and combined to
persuade their common customer, Walmart Stores, Inc., to accept
that fill reduction, resulting in increased cylinder costs to
retailers and end-user customers in violation of federal and
certain state antitrust laws.  The claims seek treble damages,
injunctive relief, attorneys' fees and costs on behalf of the
putative classes.

On October 16, 2014, the United States Judicial Panel on
Multidistrict Litigation transferred all of these purported class
action cases to the Western Division of the United States District
Court for the Western District of Missouri.

In July 2015, the Court dismissed all claims brought by direct
customers and all claims other than those for injunctive relief
brought by indirect customers.  The direct customers filed an
appeal with the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth
Circuit, which is still pending.

The indirect customers filed an amended complaint claiming
injunctive relief and state law claims under Wisconsin, Maine and
Vermont law.  In January 2016, the District Court dismissed the
remaining injunctive relief claims for the indirect purchasers. As
a result, the only claims remaining with respect to indirect
purchasers involve alleged violations of Wisconsin, Maine and
Vermont state antitrust laws.


UGI CORPORATION: New Group of Indirect Buyers Files Class Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
UGI Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on August 5, 2016, for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2016, that several new indirect
purchaser plaintiffs filed on July 21, 2016, an antitrust class
action lawsuit against the Partnership in the Western District of
Missouri.  This lawsuit repeats the allegations and claims from
the existing indirect purchaser complaints, includes several of
the same plaintiffs and was filed by the same group of lawyers.

The class action lawsuits allege, among other things, that the
Partnership and its competitor colluded to reduce the fill level
of portable propane cylinders from 17 pounds to 15 pounds and
combined to persuade their common customer, Walmart Stores, Inc.,
to accept that fill reduction, resulting in increased cylinder
costs to retailers and end-user customers in violation of federal
and certain state antitrust laws.

"We are unable to reasonably estimate the impact, if any, arising
from such litigation. We believe we have strong defenses to the
claims and intend to vigorously defend against them," the Company
said.


UNITED RECOVERY: Illegally Collects Debt, "Pacanowski" Suit Says
----------------------------------------------------------------
Francis Pacanowski, individually and on behalf of all other
similarly situated v. United Recovery Systems, LP, Case No. 3:16-
cv-01778-RPC (M.D. Penn., August 25, 2016), seeks to stop the
Defendant's unfair and unconscionable means to collect a debt.

United Recovery Systems, LP provides accounts receivable
management services to issuers in credit card, retail, commercial,
and deficiency loan industries.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Carlo Sabatini, Esq.
      SABATINI LAW FIRM, LLC
      216 N. Blakely Street
      Dunmore, PA 18512
      Telephone: (570) 341-9000
      Facsimile: (570) 504-2769
      E-mail: ecf@bankruptcypa.com

The Defendant is represented by:

      Erin Stottlemyer Gold, Esq.
      George J. Lavin III, Esq.
      GEORGE J. LAVIN ILL & ASSOCIATES, PLLC
      222 S. Manoa Road, First Floor
      Havertown, PA 19083
      Telephone: (610) 449-1565
      E-mail: egold@lavin3law.com
              glavin@lavin3law.com


UNITED STATES: HUD Faces Class Action Over Discriminatory Practice
------------------------------------------------------------------
RESPA reports that since the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban
Development's Note Sale Program began in 2010, HUD has sold more
than 113,000 mortgages nationwide to private companies.  Now, the
department is facing a class-action lawsuit alleging that HUD has
"sold some 1,000 delinquent Federal Housing Agency mortgages in
New York City while ignoring basic due process protections,"
resulting in a discriminatory impact on African-American
homeowners in the state.


UNITED TECHNOLOGIES: "Millman" Class Suit Removed to N.D. Indiana
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit captioned Opal Millman, on behalf of
herself and all others similarly situated v. United Technologies
Corporation, Lear Corporation Eeds and Interiors, Andrews Dairy
Store, Inc., and L.D. Williams, Inc., Case No. 35D01-1607-PL-
000390, was removed from the Huntington Superior Court to the U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of Indiana (Fort Wayne).
The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:16-cv-00312 to the
proceeding.

United Technologies Corporation is an aircraft manufacturer based
in Hartford, Connecticut.

Lear Corporation Eeds and Interiors manufactures tubular, welded,
and stamped assemblies for automotive and aircraft industries.

Andrews Dairy Store, Inc. operates a dairy product store located
at 155 North Main Street, Andrews, IN 46702.

L.D. Williams, Inc. operates a business at 155 North Main Street,
Andrews, IN 46702.

Opal Millman is a pro se plaintiff.

The Defendant is represented by:

      Kelly J. Hartzler, Esq.
      BARNES & THORNBURG LLP
      700 1st Source Bank Center
      100 N Michigan St
      South Bend, IN 46601-1632
      Telephone: (574) 233-1171
      Facsimile: (574) 237-1125
      E-mail: kelly.hartzler@btlaw.com


UPS: Triangle Workers Mull Class Action Over Working Conditions
---------------------------------------------------------------
Tammy Grubb, writing for The News & Observer, reports that UPS
employees, some with more than 20 years on the job, planned to
rally on Aug. 22 against what they say is a culture of
discrimination, harassment and unfair, unsafe working conditions
across the Triangle and the state.

The Chapel Hill-Carrboro Branch of the NAACP would join the
workers, their families and friends from 4:00 to 8:00 p.m. in the
Eubanks Park and Ride lot, next to UPS's offices on Eubanks Road.
They want fair and better working conditions for UPS workers
statewide, the Rev. Robert Campbell said.

UPS workers from Durham and Morrisville planned to join them, said
Rev. Campbell, president of the local NAACP branch.  All are doing
more work in fewer hours, while UPS cuts drivers to save costs,
more than a dozen workers said.

Their complaints echo what UPS workers have reported across the
nation, he said.  The most recent case was in Kentucky, where
eight black workers won $5.3 million in damages for claims that
UPS had created a hostile workplace, discriminated against one
employee and retaliated against another.

Triangle workers are planning a class-action suit against UPS,
Rev. Campbell said.  They have evidence to back up their claims,
he said, pointing to piles of folders and paperwork.

"When you put stress on workers, it affects their lifestyle, it
affects their social gatherings, it puts undue stress upon you,
and you sometimes act different with your family and your
friends," he said.  "How do we go about restoring people back to
their normal (life)? Well, you really can't, but you can make life
a little easier by making sure that the workplace that you leave
ends up being much better but also get a resolution as you move
forward."

Triangle UPS workers interviewed said black and Hispanic workers
are common targets of abusive language and over-supervision. One
longtime worker said mutiple supervisors would follow him as he
made his rounds, looking for violations.  Another worker produced
certified letters sent over a two-year period informing the worker
of several discharges.

More than one worker mentioned being fired multiple times -- some
for bringing up problems -- and being re-hired after being
"punished."  Many refused to give their names and said they are
concerned about retaliation after the rally.

Dianne Edwards, a 28-year employee, said she's filed dozens of
complaints and been discharged 33 times.  Her July 28 complaint
states senior employees who talk to her are facing retaliation "to
break their spirits."

The latest grievance was filed after she refused to sign a
contract prohibiting workers from having cell phones, bluetooth
devices or ordering food on the clock, she said.  She writes in
the grievance, filed Aug. 12, that she was reading a phone text to
a white co-worker when she noticed a supervisor watching her.  She
told the supervisor it was the other woman's phone, and he walked
away, she said.

"It is clear to me that the white employees can and do use their
bluetooths and cell phones at work and the African Americans
(Dianne Edwards) can not," she wrote in the complaint.

While many UPS workers belong to Teamsters Local 391, they said
union representation hasn't been much help.  Local 391 Vice
President Richard Armstrong and President Mike McGaha did not
respond to requests for comment.

Rev. Campbell met a few hours on Aug. 19 with UPS area human
resource manager Ronald Palmer and Michael Smith, the business
manager for the Chapel Hill UPS center.  Company representatives
contacted Rev. Campbell to find out if the rally could be avoided.

Both men asked to meet with workers to hear their concerns,
Rev. Campbell said, and Mr. Smith mentioned changes he has made to
the local center.  Rev. Campbell said he made it clear to them
that the group's goal is to gather information "about who's at
fault (and) where do we draw the line."

"After they began to hear some of the stories and what was
happening to Dianne, they saw that there was two things there: She
was misrepresented by the union, and she definitely was done wrong
by UPS, because she should not have to go through what she went
through," he said.

The workers rejected the request to talk, he said.  UPS officials
declined to answer questions but issued a statement on Aug. 19.

"Any claims of discriminatory practices related to terminations in
our Chapel Hill facility are false and completely without merit,"
UPS spokesman Dan McMackin said in an email.  "The terminations in
question were due to workplace misconduct which included
dishonesty and violations of the UPS Professional Conduct and
Anti-Harassment policy. UPS does not tolerate discrimination and
it follows disciplinary procedures outlined in its contract with
the Teamsters union.  UPS welcomes a formal meeting with
representatives from the NAACP to discuss this issue."


VARITRONICS LLC: Discovery Ruling in Yaakov Case Affirmed
---------------------------------------------------------
District Judge Ann D. Montgomery affirmed Magistrate Judge
Franklin L. Noel's July 1, 2016 Order, denying the Plaintiff's
motion to compel discovery regarding facsimile advertisements in
the case entitled, Bais Yaakov of Spring Valley, on behalf of
itself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v.
Varitronics, LLC, Defendant, Civil No. 14-5008 ADM/FLN (D. Minn.).

The putative class action arises from eight unsolicited fax
advertisements which Defendant sent between November 2013 and
February 2014.  Plaintiff contends those ads were distributed in
violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act.

Plaintiff filed a motion to compel discovery of the sent fax
advertisements without the assistance of R&M Letter Graphics, Inc.
Judge Noel denied that request, concluding that the complaint
clearly indicates that Plaintiff's claims are limited to only
faxes sent by both R&M and Varitronics.

The Court held that, although the Complaint does thrice use the
phrase "jointly and severally" when describing Varitronics and
R&M's cooperation to send offending fax advertisements, this does
not invalidate Judge Noel's conclusion that the complaint as a
whole clearly indicates that Bais Yaakov's claims are limited to
only faxes sent by both R&M and Varitronics Order. Outside of
those three instances, the Complaint unequivocally describes Bais
Yaakov's claims as being limited to faxes sent by R&M and
Varitronics.

A copy of Judge Montgomery's Order dated August 19, 2016 is
available at http://goo.gl/nq74CHfrom Leagle.com.

Bais Yaakov of Spring Valley, Plaintiff, represented by Aytan
Yehoshua Bellin, Bellin & Associates LLC, pro hac vice & Brant D.
Penney -- b.penney@rwblawfirm.com -- Reinhardt Wendorf &
Blanchfield.

Varitronics, LLC, Defendant, represented by Bryan R. Freeman --
bfreeman@lindquist.com -- Lindquist & Vennum PLLP, Jonathan M. Bye
-- jbye@lindquist.com -- Lindquist & Vennum PLLP & Nicole M.
Tupman -- ntupman@lindquist.com -- Lindquist & Vennum LLP.


VCA INC: Class Certification & Summary Judgment Bids Underway
-------------------------------------------------------------
Tony M. Graham v. VCA Antech, Inc. et al., remains pending, VCA
Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on August 5, 2016, for the quarterly period
ended June 30, 2016.

The Company said, "On May 12, 2014, an individual client who
purchased goods and services from one of our animal hospitals
filed a purported class action lawsuit against us in the United
States District Court for the Northern District of California,
titled Tony M. Graham vs. VCA Antech, Inc. and VCA Animal
Hospitals, Inc. The lawsuit seeks to assert claims on behalf of
the plaintiff and other individuals who purchased similar goods
and services from our animal hospitals and alleges, among other
allegations, that we improperly charged such individuals for
"biohazard waste management" in connection with the services
performed. The lawsuit seeks compensatory and punitive damages in
unspecified amounts, and other relief, including attorneys' fees
and costs. VCA successfully had the venue transferred to the
Southern District of California."

"The parties have engaged in extensive discovery. Plaintiffs filed
their motion for class certification on February 12, 2016. The
Defendants' Opposition to the class certification is due in May
2016. As of late July 2016, VCA has filed a reply to Defendants'
Opposition to class certification as well as a Summary Judgment
Motion and Reply to Defendants' Opposition to the Summary Judgment
Motion. A hearing on class certification and summary judgment was
scheduled for mid-August.

"We intend to continue to vigorously defend this action. At this
time, we are unable to estimate the reasonably possible loss or
range of possible loss, but do not believe losses, if any, would
have a material effect on our results of operations or financial
position taken as a whole.


VERIZON COMMUNICATIONS: 3rd Cir. Upholds Dismissal of "Berkerey"
----------------------------------------------------------------
A three-judge panel of the United States Court of Appeals, Third
Circuit, affirmed a District Court's judgment dismissing a
complaint concerning the Plaintiff's billing dispute for his
Verizon mobile telephone account.

The appellate case is, JOHN C. BERKERY, SR., Appellant, v. VERIZON
COMMUNICATIONS INC; CELLCO PARTNERSHIP, a Delaware General
Partnership d/b/a Verizon Wireless (Collectively "Verizon");
MIDLAND FUNDING LLC, "Midland"; TRANS UNION CORP, "Trans Union";
EQUIFAX INC, "Equifax"; EXPERIAN INFORMATION SYSTEMS INC,
"Experian", No. 15-3766 (3rd Cir.).

Berkerey alleged that Verizon Communications, Inc. and Cellco
Partnership improperly charged him for In-Network calls and
regularly miscalculated his monthly usage arising out of a mobile-
phone contract beginning in August 2008. Berkery's complaint
raised statutory claims under the Federal Communications Act, the
Declaratory Judgment Act, the Pennsylvania Unfair Trade Practices
and Consumer Protection Law, and the Fair Credit Reporting Act
(FCRA).

The Third Circuit affirmed the District Court's conclusion that
the four claims of the Plaintiff are time-barred, as the statutes
of limitations for those counts had begun to run in December 2009,
when Berkery's contract with Verizon ended, and had each elapsed
long before Berkery finally filed suit in February 2015.

In addition, the District Court was correct to dismiss Plaintiff's
fifth claim with prejudice. Based on the economic loss doctrine,
"no cause of action exists for negligence that results solely in
economic damages unaccompanied by physical injury or property
damage." The Third Circuit held that Although Berkery notes that
the application of the economic loss doctrine to non-negligence
claims has been subject to some criticism, Berkery has not shown
why it should not apply to the particular circumstances of the
case.

Finally, the District Court was also held to be correct in
concluding that the sixth claim of the Plaintiff, the FCRA claim,
was not adequately pleaded. Verizon concedes on appeal that the
pleading deficiency could have been cured if Berkery had alleged
on information and belief that (1) the credit agencies reported
the discrepancy to Verizon, and (2) that Verizon did not conduct a
reasonable investigation after receiving notice of the
discrepancy. However, these simple allegations do not appear in
Berkery's complaint.

A copy of the Third Circuit's Decision dated August 19, 2016 is
available at http://goo.gl/kYSy6zfrom Leagle.com.


VOLARIS: Securities Class Action Dismissed with Prejudice
--------------------------------------------------------
Volaris states that in the class action lawsuit filed against the
company, certain officers and directors, and certain underwriters
of the company's initial public offering in New York on
February 24, 2015, alleging violations of the securities laws of
the United States, the defendants' motion to dismiss was granted
with prejudice in favor of the Company and the rest of the
defendants. The plaintiff has not appealed the judge's decision
and the time to appeal has expired.  Accordingly, any right of the
plaintiff to pursue the litigation has ended.


WELLS FARGO: Settles Student-Loan Case for $4 Million
-----------------------------------------------------
Bloomberg News reports that Wells Fargo & Co. will pay $3.6
million to the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) and
$410,000 in restitution to settle the regulator's claims over
student-loan servicing policies that it says boosted costs for
borrowers.

Thousands of student-loan borrowers encountered problems with
their loans or received misinformation about their payment options
because of breakdowns in Wells Fargo's servicing process, the
bureau said in a statement on Aug. 22.

"Wells Fargo hit borrowers with illegal fees and deprived others
of critical information needed to effectively manage their student
loan accounts," CFPB Director Richard Cordray said.  "Consumers
should be able to rely on their servicer to process and credit
payments correctly and to provide accurate and timely information,
and we will continue our work to improve the student loan
servicing market."


WHIRLPOOL: Bid to Compel Non-Party Discovery Denied
---------------------------------------------------
Magistrate Judge B. Janice Ellington denied an expedited motion to
compel Respondent Christopher Bandas, a non-party of the action,
to appear and produce documents for a deposition after movants
ignored the plain language of Rule 45 and Fifth Circuit precedent.

The Movants are Plaintiffs in a class action settlement pending in
the United States District Court for the Middle District of
California, Chambers v. Whirlpool, No. 8:11-cv-01733 (C.D. Cal.,
filed Nov. 9, 2011).

In the Fifth Circuit, personal service of a subpoena is required
under Fed. R. Civ. P. 45(b)(1). Movants concede that Bandas has
not been personally served with the subpoena; rather, copies of
the subpoena have been emailed to Bandas and also dropped off with
a receptionist at his office.

The case is, In re: Motion to Compel Discovery from Attorney
CHRISTOPHER BANDAS, Misc. No. 2:16mc880, No. 8:11cv1733 (S.D.
Texas), involves Bandas, a Texas attorney, representing two people
objecting to the settlement of the class action, but has not made
an appearance in the case and asserts that he has no intention of
appearing in the matter as counsel for the objecting members of
the class.

All other pending motions, construed as responses to the motions
to compel, are denied without prejudice as moot. A copy of the
Court's Order dated August 18, 2016 is available at
http://goo.gl/Lj4ghAfrom Leagle.com.

In re Christopher Bandas, represented by Christopher Andres
Bandas, Bandas Law Firm PC & Eric Steven Stewart, Huseman Dodson &
Hummell.

Steve Chambers, et al., Movants, represented by Roger B. Greenberg
-- roger@smglawgroup.com -- Sponsel Miller Greenberg PLLC &
Timothy N. Mathews -- TimothyMathews@chimicles.com -- Chimicles &
Tikellis LLP.


WIPRO TECHNOLOGIES: Class Certification in "Payala" Suit Denied
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit captioned Suri Payala, the Plaintiff v. Wipro
Technologies, Inc., et al., the Defendant, Case No. 2:15-cv-04063-
JAK-JPR (C.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge John A. Kronstadt entered an
order denying class certification of:

     "all former and current Wipro employees who while working in
     California during any portion of the period of March 30,
     2011 through the date the class notice is mailed: (a) had
     the job titles listed below; (b) received guaranteed
     salaries below the statutory threshold for computer workers
     ($6,587.50 in 2011; $6,752.19 in 2012; $6,927.75 in 2013;
     $7,010.83 in 2014; $7,165.12 in 2015; and $7,265.43 in
     2016); and (c) recorded time on Wipro's TMS program that
     would entitle them to overtime payments under California
     law."

The Plaintiff has failed to demonstrate that common questions will
predominate at trial and that a class action is superior to other
available methods for fairly and efficiently adjudicating the
issues presented in this action.

A copy of the Order is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=FEuqk4Jl


* ACA Submits Comments on CFPB's Proposed Arbitration Rule
----------------------------------------------------------
ACA International reports that on Aug. 22, ACA International
submitted comments on the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking on
Arbitration Agreements issued by the Consumer Financial Protection
Bureau on May 24, 2016.  In the Proposed Rule, the CFPB sought
comments on its proposal to ban the use of class action waivers in
pre-dispute arbitration agreements, among other things.

In its comments, ACA strongly opposed the Proposed Rule which
seems to be an ill-advised attempt to regulate a problem that the
CFPB has failed to demonstrate actually exists with a "solution"
that will effectively eliminate arbitration altogether in the
consumer financial marketplace.  ACA asserted that not only is the
proposed class action waiver ban misguided, but it is also fails
to comply with the express conditions imposed by Congress in the
Dodd-Frank Act and is therefore unlawful.

As a result, ACA urged the CFPB to withdraw the Proposed Rule and
take a more balanced approach that will allow it to achieve the
same public policy goals that it purports to achieve through a ban
on class action waivers, but in a way that preserves individual
arbitration, does not run afoul of explicit congressional
directives, and is fair for consumers and compliance-minded
businesses.

Specifically, in its comments, ACA described how arbitration
benefits consumers by reducing the time to achieve a resolution of
claims brought by or against consumers, decreasing the expenses of
all parties to the arbitral proceeding as compared to litigation,
and limiting the legal and administrative fees of formal
litigation.  ACA also described how FDCPA cases are uniquely
suited to streamlined, effective adjudication through arbitration.

In terms of the class action waiver ban, ACA pointed out that in
the debt collection industry, class action lawsuits frequently get
filed despite lacking the necessary criteria to move forward as a
class.  Oftentimes, such class filings are used strategically in
hopes of increasing a settlement offer, but because resources
frequently do not exist for companies to go through the time-
consuming and expensive process to successfully defeat class
certification or to fight against meritless claims, this kind of
opportunistic strategy can be very successful.  However, in those
instances in which arbitration agreements contain class action
waivers, they play an important role by offering legitimate debt
collectors, especially small businesses, a way to quickly and more
easily defeat inappropriate class action lawsuits.

In addition to the important role arbitration and class action
waiver bans play in the debt collection industry, ACA also
discussed why the proposal is not supported by findings in the
CFPB's arbitration study, nor is it "in the public interest and
for the protection of consumers," specific requirements laid out
by Congress in the Dodd-Frank Act.

ACA argued that without conclusive evidence that demonstrates
consumers will not be harmed by the loss of individual arbitration
-- an indirect, though widely expected consequence of the proposal
to ban class action waivers -- nor conclusive evidence that
demonstrates consumers are better served by resolution via class
action litigation than individual arbitration -- which the CFPB's
current data fails to support -- the proposed class action waiver
ban is simply not supported by the study.

ACA also argued that because it would no longer make economic
sense for companies to subsidize the cost of individual
arbitrations without receiving a corresponding benefit to shield
against class action exposure, many if not most companies will
decide to forego inserting arbitration clauses in new contracts if
the class action waiver prohibition becomes finalized.  Reducing
consumer choice by effectively eliminating arbitration, along with
creating a dispute system with overall higher costs that will
inevitably get passed on to consumers, will expose consumers to
harm and is therefore neither in the public interest nor for the
protection of consumers.

In the comments, ACA also highlighted some of the incorrect and
unfair assumptions made about financial service companies by the
CFPB in its attempt to justify the proposed ban on class action
waivers.  ACA urged that instead of relying on a broken class
action system where the only clear winners are trial attorneys,
the CFPB could further incentivize compliant behavior by
proactively identifying the types of acts or practices that it
believes are unfair, deceptive, or abusive so that companies can
take steps to avoid them, as well as by identifying best practices
or providing examples of compliant behavior.

Finally, ACA emphasized that the CFPB can lawfully achieve the
same public policy goals that it seeks through the Proposed Rule
by actively monitoring arbitrations, analyzing and reporting on
arbitration trends, taking appropriate enforcement actions in
response to such trends, and educating consumers on the
arbitration process and its availability as a low or no-cost
option to bring a claim against a financial service provider.  By
taking this more balanced approach, the Bureau can continue to
develop an understanding of arbitration proceedings without
exposing consumers and compliance-minded businesses to the harm
that will flow from the eradication of arbitration in the consumer
financial marketplace.

Given the wide-sweeping implications of the CFPB's proposal, in
addition to submitting individual comments, ACA also joined 28
other industry associations and organizations in a letter to the
CFPB which also requested that the CFPB withdraw the Proposed
Rule, or at a minimum, adopt a more tailored approach that would
preserve consumers' access to arbitration.


* Conservative Group Challenges CFPB's Arbitration Rule
-------------------------------------------------------
Daniel Fisher, writing for Forbes, reports that a conservative
group is challenging the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau's
proposed rule banning class-action waivers in financial contracts,
saying the agency failed to provide enough data to support its
premise.

Cause of Action Institute says in a filing with the CFPB that the
agency violated the Administrative Procedure Act and the
Information Quality Act by disseminating a 728-page report that
purports to show how class actions benefit consumers, when it
actually demonstrates the opposite.  Critics say the report
ignores strong evidence that class actions are costly and
ineffective at distributing benefits to consumers compared with
individual arbitration, a quicker process where companies
frequently pay all the costs of litigation.

Arbitration opponents, including plaintiff lawyers and some
academics and consumer activists, say class-action waivers
effectively deprive consumers of the right to sue for damages in
court, since most consumer disputes are too small to justify
hiring a lawyer.

Cause of Action said the proposed rule, which would ban
arbitration clauses in consumer financial contracts, is "arbitrary
and capricious," citing a study by Jason Johnston of the
University of Virginia Law School and Todd Zywicki of George
Mason's Scalia Law School.  That study found the CFPB's report
included data on the amount consumers recovered in arbitration
awards but not what they got through settlements, while it did
include settlement amounts for class actions (which nearly always
settle).  The agency also aggregated class-action settlements,
making the recoveries for consumers look higher because of a few
huge settlements.

Even so, the CFPB report found that class actions filed between
2010 and 2013 that later settled delivered around $32 per consumer
while the lawyers took in $425 million in fees.  The much smaller
number of arbitrations that went to a decision delivered an
average of $5,389 per consumer.

The CFPB also failed to discuss what Johnston and Zywicki call the
most important policy question underlying the proposal to ban
class-action waivers: Whether class actions are an efficient and
socially desirable way to resolve consumer financial disputes. The
agency simply accepts at face value the contention of plaintiff
lawyers that they have a deterrent effect that cause companies to
behave better than they otherwise would.

Cause of Action isn't the only one challenging the CFPB, a uniquie
federal agency that operates almost entirely without executive or
legislative oversight.  Its funding comes directly from the
Federal Reserve and control rests with the executive director,
former Ohio Attorney General Richard Cordray, who is removable by
the President only for cause.  PHH Corp. is challenging the
constitutionality of the agency in a frontal assault, argued in
April, that is awaiting a decision by the D.C. Circuit Court of
Appeals.


* Lawsuits Challenge Universities' 403(b) Retirement Plans
----------------------------------------------------------
Mark Hamblett, writing for Law.com, reports that the plaintiffs
law firm that's been Enemy No. 1 to Corporate America when it
comes to litigation over retirement plans has a new target -- the
country's largest universities.

Roughly a dozen universities have been hit with suits in August
charging the schools with wasting retiree money on needless
record-keeping, offering underperforming plans and failing to use
their leverage to negotiate lower fees.  Many of the suits are
backed by Schlichter Bogard & Denton -- a St. Louis firm that has
led the way in class litigation over retirement plans and reaped
significant legal fees over the past few years.

Baker & Hostetler Cleveland partner John McGowan --
jmcgowan@bakerlaw.com -- who specializes in litigation involving
benefit plans, said universities may have landed in Schlichter's
crosshairs because their retirement plans historically have not
been subject to the same scrutiny as corporate plans. "It's not an
area where a lot of attention has been paid to dotting the i's and
crossing the t's," he said.

Technically, the university suits mainly challenge 403(b)
retirement plans, which are available to employees of colleges and
universities, religious organizations and other nonprofit
entities.  Until several years ago, the Internal Revenue Service
had regulated such plans more loosely, but that ended with rules
implemented in 2009.

Some universities have been slow to adapt to those rules, which
treat their retirement plans much like 401(k) plans or layered new
plans on top of old, defense lawyers said, leaving them exposed to
litigation under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act.

"If you're a big enough fund and your fiduciary duty is to get the
best pricing going forward, then why aren't you using your
leverage?" Mr. McGowan said.  "That's what appeals to the
plaintiffs' bar -- when they can catch someone with a fiduciary
duty being asleep at the switch."

For the plaintiffs bar, "it's really as simple as realizing
there's a whole additional universe of plans that may have gotten
less attention than in the past," Dechert partner Andrew Oringer
said.  He added: "It would seem like a good time for universities
generally to review their legal compliance an their tax compliance
and put themselves in the best position to deal with possible
allegations."

'LESS OVERSIGHT'

The university lawsuits challenge practices at New York
University, Duke University, the Vanderbilt, Columbia, Cornell,
Northwestern, Emory, Johns Hopkins, University of Southern
California, the University of Pennsylvania, Massachusetts
Institute of Technology and Yale -- employers responsible for
billions in assets and representing tens of thousands of retirees
and people saving for retirement.

Defense attorneys are just now starting to make their initial
appearances in those cases.  In Tracey v. Massachusetts Institute
of Technology, for one, Alison Douglass of Goodwin Procter and
Brian Boyle and Meaghan VerGow -- mvergow@omm.com -- of O'Melveny
& Myers have been tapped to represent MIT.

They'll be facing off against Jerome Schlichter and his colleagues
at Schlichter Bogard.  Mr. Schlichter said the suits are the
result of a "sea change" in American pension plans, in which
employees doing the funding now have more incentive to question
fees and management practices.

"It's our position that university employees are entitled under
ERISA to the same protections for their retirement assets as
employees of private companies," Mr. Schlichter said. "In some
cases, we allege that the fiduciary obligation has not been
complied with -- and historically, there has been less oversight
of funds in the university space than in private companies."

Employees of universities, he said, "have been paying
significantly more for investments and record-keeping than they
should -- and this is an erosion they have to answer for."

Mr. Schlichter's firm has a track record on fee cases that has
earned it the praise of federal judges for saving American workers
billions of dollars.  The firm has also taken home sizable legal
fees in connection with its retirement-plan litigation earlier
this year, a $57 million settlement with Boeing Co. resulted $19
million in attorney fees.

Another plaintiffs firm, Sanford Heisler, filed a suit on Aug. 16
against Columbia University in the Southern District of New York.
Charles Field, a partner at the firm, said, "For so long, everyone
focused on corporations and big enterprises and didn't pay much
attention to colleges."  But, he added, the problem of multiple
record-keeping merits scrutiny because "it's inefficient and it
drives up costs."

"When you look at all these cases, they have a very common thread,
one is they use multiple record-keepers -- it's almost as if they
shopped at the same tailor," he said.  "The second thing you see
about the college plans is they offer a bewildering number of
options. How do you choose? It's hard enough shopping at the
grocery store, how do you choose between 150 options?"

DEFENSE STRATEGIES

Patrick Spangler -- pspangler@vedderprice.com -- of Vedder Price's
ERISA litigation practice said the wave of complaints filed in the
past few weeks may also be the result of a transitional period
where universities are catching up to private businesses.

Some universities may have allowed faculty to keep traditional
investment options they are comfortable with, while also adding
new options, he said.  That's contributed to allegations that too
many offerings have muddied the waters for the consumer.

"The trend has been toward offering more streamlined investment
options and that's what most of the investment advisers and
consultants in the industry are advising for 401(k)s and 403(b)s,"
Mr. Spangler said.  There's no magic number, he added, but "when
you're up to 15 or so investment options . . . you increase the
risk of that type of argument -- that you're running too many."

Dechert's Oringer said universities may be able to defend the use
of multiple record-keepers.

"It's never going to be one size fits all," he said.  "There's
nothing inherently wrong with having two record-keepers if in fact
the people who are making the choice as to how to structure their
plans are reasonably looking at the right and relevant
considerations."

Defense lawyers agree that it is critical for universities to take
a close look at how investments are made and document that process
so that, if sued, they can point to rational and conflict-free
decision-making as a defense.

"An awful lot of the college and university culture is to do what
the guy down the street is doing -- and some might have been in
the public sector and so they'll just run it the same way,"
Mr. McGowan said.  "So all of a sudden, maybe, just maybe,
colleges and universities get influenced by alumni who happen to
be donors -- an enterprising plaintiffs' lawyer is going to focus
on that."


* New Entrants Drives Upward Trend in Australian Class Action Risk
------------------------------------------------------------------
Sol Dolor, writing for Australasian Lawyer, reports that lawyers
and law firms themselves are one of the major contributors to
increased class action risk for organizations in Australia, a new
study revealed.

In the Class Action Risk 2016 report, Allens found that data from
2005 to the present, with a particular focus on the past 18
months, reveal that new entrants to the class action space is
driving an upward trend in class action risk.

"Indeed, class actions are much more likely to be driven by the
entrepreneurial pursuits of lawyers and funders than other
litigation," the law firm noted in its report.

New entrants -- or law firms which are relatively or completely
new to filing class action lawsuits -- significantly increased the
number of filings and particularly competing claims which may
increase complications for organizations.

According to the data analyzed by Allens, the most significant
players in the space based on long-term trends are Maurice
Blackburn and Slater & Gordon.

Recent trends, however, indicate a shift.

While approximately 20% of filings since 2013 can be attributed to
Maurice Blackburn, about 54% can be attributed to eight firms that
have filed three or more claims during that period, the law firm
said.

All of these eight with the exception of Slater & Gordon are not
traditionally known as plaintiff class action firms.

Furthermore, the remaining 26% are from 15 firms who have filed
either one or two claims since 2013.

Firms are either looking for repeat class action practices or are
looking trying their first class action suit.

"The main driver for this trend is a small number of firms
attempting to establish repeat class action practices," Allens
writes.

There are varying reasons while law firms are entering the space.

Maddens and Squire Patton Boggs recently saw success in natural
disaster and financial services claims, respectively, Allens
notes.  Mark Elliot who data from Allens indicate is responsible
for more claims than anyone other than Maurice Blackburn, has
interest in shareholder class actions.

Meanwhile, Allens noted that the trend "is also being driven by
other firms with little or no class actions experience bringing
their first or second class action."

For lawsuits like this, Allens advises organisations being sued to
be more cautious and vigilant.

Apart from resulting in claims that are more speculative, the
relative inexperience of the firms involved "has the potential to
create significant practical and reputational issues for the
defendants they sue," Allens wrote.

"To a large extent, these issues arise from the fact that class
action law and practice is now heavily embedded in hundreds of
interlocutory judgments and orders to the point where even the
most careful reading of the legislation will give rise to
misconceptions as to accepted and required practice," it added.

Nonetheless, new entrants will not likely have a sustained impact
on the class action space in the coming years, Allens asserted.
With that said, some of these firms could build reputation and
expertise in the field and become repeat players.

"As they become more experienced, they are more likely to develop
relationships with litigation funders which will expand their
capacity to bring claims in the future.  This has the potential to
further increase class action risk," said Allens.


* Report Shows Spike in Shareholder Class Actions in Australia
--------------------------------------------------------------
Fleur Anderson, writing for Australian Financial Review, reports
that entrepreneurial law firms are scrambling to get a slice of
class-action profits, leading to a spike in shareholder class
actions against listed companies over the past 18 months.

Over the long term, banks and financial services companies will be
the most frequent targets of many of these new smaller firms
trying to break the dominance of the class-action behemoths,
Maurice Blackburn and Slater & Gordon.

The latest Class Action Risk report from Allens and Linklaters
shows a sharp spike in class actions in 2014 and 2015, with 35 and
34 claims respectively.

Unless there is a rush of filings in the next few months, 2016 is
unlikely to repeat those record class-action levels, but Allens
partner Jenny Campbell -- Jenny.Campbell@allens.com.au -- warns
there's a clear upwards trend.

"The most significant contributor to this trend has been the
number of law firms looking to establish class-action practices
and taking an entrepreneurial approach to identifying and
promoting claims," she said.

The Allens research finds that since 2013, Maurice Blackburn is
responsible for about 20 per cent of class-action claims.

Added risk for defendants

About 54 per cent of claims are attributed to eight firms that
have filed three or more claims during the period and all of those
firms -- with the exception of Slater & Gordon -- were previously
not known for class actions.

The remaining 26 per cent of claims are attributed to 15 firms
that are newcomers to the area, having filed only their first or
second claim.

"Ultimately, what I think that is about is that more and more
lawyers are realising that there is an opportunity to develop what
can be a very profitable practice in this area and they can get a
slice of the action," Ms. Campbell said.

"That means more claims are being picked up, and it's just
inevitable that more speculative claims are going to be picked
up."

The combination of more players in the market and more speculative
claims is leading to the increased risk for companies of being the
target of a class-action claim.

For the companies being sued by these new entrants, there's an
added risk to the obvious time and money involved in defending
themselves.

"In our experience, the relative inexperience of these firms in
the class-action context has the potential to create significant
practical and reputational issues for the defendants they sue," Ms
Campbell said.

Finance networking

And as the new firms become more experienced in class action, they
are more likely to develop relationships with litigation funders -
- like IMF Bentham Limited, LCM Litigation Fund, and Litman
Partners -- which will increase their ability to finance more
claims.

The report also shows a spike in shareholder class actions against
listed companies in the past 18 months, and longer-term trends
suggest that banks and financial services companies are the most
frequent targets.

With mounting political pressure for a bank industry royal
commission, the rising class-action risk only adds to the
headaches for finance industry chiefs.

Over the past year, more than 25 per cent of class-action claims
have targeted the financial services sector and are most
frequently related to the mis-selling of financial products, the
risk rating of financial products, lending practices, and
compliance with trustee obligations.

However, Ms. Campbell said it was important to keep the 12-month
trend in context because eight of those class actions were
directed at Standard & Poor's rating of US mortgage-backed
securities in the fallout from the global financial crisis, and 11
relate to fees imposed by major banks.

"It remains to be seen whether filings in this sector are
sustained in the years to come," Ms. Campbell said.



                            *********

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  * * *