---

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

            Monday, September 12, 2016, Vol. 18, No. 182




                            Headlines


154 LONG BEACH: Leaseholders' Suit Can't Proceed as Class Action
23ANDME: Test Kit Claims Belong in Arbitration, Court Rules
7700 KEDZIE: Faces "Buell" Suit Alleging Fraudulent Business Acts
ACE AMERICAN: Court Denies Class Certification Bid in "Morgan"
ADVANCED BUREAU: Class Certification Bid in "Jones" Suit Granted

ALCON LABORATORIES: America's Health Seeks to Certify Class
ALLEN COUNTY COUNCIL: "Wilson" Suit Seeks Certification of Class
ALLIANCE COLLECTION: Certification of Class Sought in "Hall" Suit
ARKANSAS HOSPITALS: "Mounce" Suit Seeks Certification of Class
BAILES CRAIG: Files FDCPA Class Action in West Virginia

BEST TRANS: Conditional Certification Sought in Wage & Hour Suit
BLUESTONE LAW: Stoyanov Seeks Certification of Class
BRANDREP INC: "Alan" Suit Seeks Certification of Two Classes
CALLSMART INC: Class Certification Hearing Continued to Nov. 17
CANADA: Aboriginals Rally Ahead of '60s Scoop Hearing

CAVIAR INC: Faces Courier Misclassification Class Action
CELLULAR BIOMEDICINE: Cal. Judge Dismisses Shareholders' Suit
CENTRAL CREDIT: Schmitz Seeks Class Certification Under "Damasco"
CHADBOURNE & PARKE: Female Partner Files $100MM Class Action
COOK COUNTY, IL: Certification of Class Sought in "Goudy" Suit

CRAWLEY PETROLEUM: Frank Seeks to Certify Class of Royalty Owners
CVS PHARMACY: Faces Collusion Claims in Attorney Settlement
DALLAS CENTRAL: 4525 Towne Claims Excessive Property Valuation
DALLAS CENTRAL: 7251 Brooklawn Says Property Valuation Excessive
DALLAS CENTRAL: 7501 Palms Claims Excessive Property Valuation

DALLAS CENTRAL: Alamo Manhattan Says Property Valuation Excessive
DALLAS CENTRAL: TS Asset Claims Excessive Property Valuation
DALLAS CENTRAL: Carnaby Inc. Says Property Valuation Excessive
DALLAS CENTRAL: CCC & R Alleges Excessive Property Valuation
DALLAS CENTRAL: Centenario Claims Excessive Property Valuation

DALLAS CENTRAL: Cornerstone Amberly Says Valuation Excessive
DALLAS CENTRAL: Elmstone Group Says Property Valuation Excessive
DALLAS CENTRAL: Fountainhead Says Property Valuation Excessive
DALLAS CENTRAL: Frankford Court Says Property Valuation Excessive
DALLAS CENTRAL: Hospitality Properties Opposes Property Valuation

DALLAS CENTRAL: HPTMI Corp. Alleges Excessive Property Valuation
DALLAS CENTRAL: HPTRI Corp. Alleges Excessive Property Valuation
DALLAS CENTRAL: I&J-DSI Alleges Excessive Property Valuation
DALLAS CENTRAL: Garland Meadows Sues Over Excessive Appraisal
DALLAS CENTRAL: Las Colinas Lake Sues Over Excessive Appraisal

DALLAS CENTRAL: "Longhofer" Sues Over Excessive Appraisal
DALLAS CENTRAL: Mid-America Files Suit Over Excessive Appraisal
DALLAS CENTRAL: Peachtree I Sues Over Excessive Appraisal
DALLAS CENTRAL: PRCP Dallas Sues Over Excessive Appraisal
DEFFENBAUGH INDUSTRIES: Court Granted Settlement in "Whitton"

DOLE FOODS: 3rd Cir. Revives Pesticide Exposure Suit
EAGLE COLLECTION: Certification of Class Sought in "Dawes" Suit
EPIC SYSTEMS: Bid to Decertify FLSA Class in "Long" Suit Denied
INTERNATIONAL BUSINESS: 2 Securities Cases over Write Down Tossed
FALCON FLOWBACK: Flowback Hands Class Certified in "Lyles" Suit

FINANCIAL ASSET: Lesh Seeks Class Certification Under "Damasco"
FIRST STUDENT: Class Certification Bid in "Motty" Suit Denied
FITNESS INT'L: Seeks 9th Cir. Review of Ruling in "Briones" Suit
FIVE-STAR FOOD: Wins Conditional Certification in "Braddy" Suit
FLOWERS FOODS: Richard, et al. Seek Certification of FLSA Class

FORT ZUMWALT: Joint Class Certification Sought in "John Doe" Suit
FOX BROADCASTING: Sued Over Juvenile Detention Center Filming
GEO GROUP: Faces Suit Over Non-Disclosure of Contract Risks
GLASSDOOR: Revealed 600,000 Emails, New York Suit Alleges
GLOBAL DIGITAL: Rosen Law Firm Files Securities Class Action

GOLDEN STATE: Edelson Files Privacy Class Action Over App
GREEN TREE: Certification of FDCPA Class Sought in "Geary" Suit
HARRIS COUNTY: IPT Century Says Property Valuation Excessive
HARRIS COUNTY: Horizon Special Says Property Valuation Excessive
HARRIS COUNTY: 59 & Kirby Claims Excessive Property Valuation

HARRIS COUNTY: 2001 Kirby Sues Over Excessive Appraisal
HARRIS COUNTY: DLF/GP 520 Sues Over Excessive Appraisal
HARRIS COUNTY: Griffin Partners Sues Over Excessive Appraisal
HEART SAVERS: Wilens Seeks Certification of Class in "Amini" Suit
HEWLETT-PACKARD: Faces Age-Discrimination Class Action in Calif.

HILTON GARDEN: Settles "Service Fee" Class Action for $4 Million
HOME DEPOT: October 29 Deadline Set for Data Breach Claims
HOME PROPERTIES: "Jarzyna" Suit Seeks Certification of Classes
HOTWIRE INC: Armstrong Law Seeks Certification of Two Classes
INTER-CON SECURITY: "Alvarez" Suit Seeks OT Pay Under Labor Code

KIMBERLY-CLARK: Class Cert. Bid in "Shahinian" Under Submission
KMH CARDIOLOGY: Medical & Chiropractic Seeks to Certify Class
LIFEWATCH INC: Bid for Class Cert. in "Salam" Suit Granted
LOS ANGELES, CA: Lee Files Appeal v. C.D. Cal. in "Smith" Suit
MARTIN AVENUE: Class Cert. Bid in Podiatry Suit Withdrawn

MASTERCARD: Taps Freshfields to Defend Interchange Fee Claim
MDL NO. 1840: "Hot Fuel" Class Action Attorneys to Get $18.9MM
MDL 2420: $19MM Sony Settlement Wins Final Approval
MEDICREDIT INC: Class Certification Sought in "Hopkins" Suit
MERIDIAN FINANCIAL: Saulsberry Appeals Ruling to Ninth Circuit

METRO TECH: "Blystone" Suit Seeks Certification of FLSA Class
MILLER AND STEENO: Certification of Classes & Subclass Sought
MILLER AND STEENO: Status Hearing in "Strader" Suit on Dec. 19
MILLER STARK: "Zolandz" Suit Seeks Certification of Class
MURRAY GOULBURN: Lawyers Seek Farmers for Milk Price Cut Suit

MYLAN: NY Attorney General Started Probe on EpiPen Prices
NATIONAL FOOTBALL: Settlement Objectors Head to Supreme Court
NATIONAL FOOTBALL: Faces Concussion Case in Los Angeles
NATIONAL MILK: $52MM Settlement Wins Preliminary Approval
NATURMED INC: Court Strikes Class Certification Bid in "Nichols"

NCO FINANCIAL: FDCPA Class Certification Sought in "Pirrone" Suit
NCR CORPORATION: "Meadows" Suit Seeks Certification of FLSA Class
NEW YORK: Hearing Held on Bronx Speedy-Trial Case
NOTTOWAY PLANTATION: "Wilford" Suit Certification of FLSA Class
NRA GROUP: Class Certification Bid in "Bernal" Suit Granted

OAKLAND COUNTY, MI: Fails to Seal Criminal Records, Suit Says
PAD AND PUBLICATION: Class Cert. Bid in Podiatry Suit Withdrawn
PASSION TRANSPORTATION: Class Cert. Hearing Continued to Oct. 18
PIERCE MANUFACTURING: "Ehmann" Seeks Certification of FLSA Class
POMONA UNIFIED: Court Wants Supplemental Brief on Class Cert. Bid

REXALL: Sept. 28 Deadline Set for Glucosamine Settlement Claims
RTG FURNITURE: Hankinson Seeks Certification of Three Classes
SAINT-GOBAIN: Residents Challenge Class Action Dismissal Motion
SAN BERNARDINO, CA: Must Face Wrongful-Arrest Class Action
SARATOGA DIAGNOSTICS: America's Health Seeks Class Certification

SEQUENOM INC: Sued in S.D. Cal. Over Merger with LabCorp
SPIRIT AIRLINES: 11th Cir. Affirmed Dismissal of Costumer Case
STARBUCKS: Manager Files Class Action Over Unpaid Overtime Wages
SUBARU: Oct. 1 Deadline Set for Oil Consumption Settlement Claims
TD BANK: MZL Capital Seeks 3rd Cir. Review of D.N.J. Ruling

TIME WARNER: 2nd Cir. Affirmed Dismissal of Antitrust Case
TOTAL PETROCHEMICALS: Cert. of 2 Classes Sought in "Barton" Suit
TUMI STORES: "Cartwright" Suit Seeks Unpaid Overtime Under FLSA
UBER TECHNOLOGIES: Arbitration Clauses Valid, 9th Cir. Ruled
UNITED STATES: Military Law Task Force Wins 9th Cir. Fee Appeal

UTOPIA HOME CARE: Judge Tosses Overtime Pay Class Action
VERIZON: Temp Workers File FLSA Class Action in Pennsylvania
WALNUT RIDGE, AR: To Refund Fire Fees to Avert Class Action
WELLS FARGO: To Pay $185MM Civil Penalty over Fake Accounts
WORLD WRESTLING: Bagwel et al. Seek to Certify Class & Subclasses

* Class Action Law Firms Investigate Retirement Savings Plans
* Sweltering Temperature in U.S. Prisons Spark Lawsuits
* Spokeo v. Robins Ruling May Create More Class Action Litigation
* Three Groups Point Out Issues with CFPB Arbitration Proposal


                            *********


154 LONG BEACH: Leaseholders' Suit Can't Proceed as Class Action
----------------------------------------------------------------
Ray Lamont, writing for Gloucester Times, reports that the man who
sought to represent all 154 Long Beach leaseholders in a class-
action lawsuit against the town may continue his own push against
the leases and changes carried out by Rockport officials.

But a Lawrence Superior Court judge has ruled that Stephen Sheehan
-- and any other Long Beach tenants who wish to challenge their
leases -- will have to do so individually, not as a recognized
"class."

Judge Paul Wilson has denied Sheehan's bid to give his lawsuit
class-action status, finding he had not shown there are sufficient
questions of law or facts "common to the class" that would be
represented -- namely all of the tenants.  In the same five-page
ruling, issued Aug. 16 and received by the town on
Aug. 22, Judge Wilson found that Sheehan had not shown he could
adequately represent all of the tenants in arguing their lease
concerns.

"Whether inclusion of the disputed lease provisions caused actual,
serious interference with a particular lessee's use and enjoyment
requires a highly individualized analysis," the judge's ruling
states.  ". . . I find that there are not sufficient common
questions of law or fact that predominate over those affecting
individual members. I find quite the opposite."

Going on

Mr. Sheehan said on Aug. 24 that the judge's stand against
allowing a class-action approach will not stifle his challenge.

"My name on the lawsuit represents the feelings and position of
the strong majority of Long Beach tenants," he said.  "We are
peaceful, law-abiding families who care deeply about the future of
Rockport . . . We will continue to approach this as we have -
democratically and unified."

He said he's not sure whether the judge's ruling will spur other
tenants to file individual legal actions against the town.

"We haven't talked about any of that," he said.  "But I can say
the vast majority of us are in agreement."

Town response

One issue at the core of Mr. Sheehan's lawsuit is the town's
position allowing public access to the beach across the
properties.  The town owns the vast majority of Long Beach --
though a strip in the southwest corner of it sits in and is owned
by the city of Gloucester -- while the tenants lease the land and
own the houses they or prior tenants have built there.

The dispute between the town and the tenants -- joined through the
private Long Beach Association -- boiled over when the town issued
and residents signed new leases in January 2014

Among other provisions, the new leases gave tenants the right to
sublet the properties, which they were not able to do before.  But
the leases -- similar, 10-year agreements issued to all of the
tenants -- called for annual rent increases of about $1,400
annually for front-row cottages, or by some $14,000 by the end of
the term.  The lease amounts are slightly lower for the second and
third rows off the water.

Mr. Sheehan and other residents sought to renegotiate their leases
over the rent hikes and provisions, such as the clash over public
access, but the town has held its ground.

Selectmen Chairman Paul Murphy said on Aug. 24 he and other town
officials welcome the judge's ruling.

"I certainly was very pleased to learn that the judge, in his
wisdom, did not believe this fell under (terms of) a class-action
lawsuit," said Mr. Murphy, now in his third term.  "I think we've
worked very diligently over the last six years to work with Long
Beach and the Long Beach Association, and we want to continue to
maintain a good relationship and make sure that things move
forward.

"The town obviously has a vested interest in Long Beach and in the
town -- and we want to be good stewards for both," Mr. Murphy
said.

A disputed point

While recognizing and accepting the judge's finding, Mr. Sheehan
said on Aug. 24 he disputes one aspect of the decision.  In his
ruling, Judge Wilson noted the plaintiff -- Mr. Sheehan -- has
twice rejected the town's offer of a potential settlement.

"This alone is not cause for concern, as the town's offers failed
to adequately address the numerous problems the plaintiff has, and
others in the proposed case may have, with the lease," the judge's
statement reads.  "However, in his responses to the town, the
plaintiff has alluded that an acceptable settlement offer would
include the town's agreement to purchase, for a substantial sum,
the home the plaintiff owns that sits on the land he leases from
the town."

"That is totally erroneous; it never happened," Mr. Sheehan said.
"It's very disappointing to see that in there because never once
did I offer to sell my property to the town -- nor did the town or
the town's attorney ever bring this up."

Mr. Sheehan said his next step will be to meet with other Long
Beach residents and decide how to proceed.

"Either way, we will decide democratically," he said.  "It may be
my name on the lawsuit, but I'm relying, as I have all along, on
the input from my neighbors.  It is not just my one voice."


23ANDME: Test Kit Claims Belong in Arbitration, Court Rules
-----------------------------------------------------------
Erica Teichert, writing for Modern Healthcare, reports that a
federal appeals court ruled on Aug. 23 that genetic testing
company 23andMe can't be sued over allegations that it misled
customers about its test kit because the claims belong in
arbitration.

A unanimous panel at the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in San
Francisco affirmed a lower court's decision the class-action
claims belonged in arbitration thanks to 23andMe's terms of
service agreement.  The plaintiffs sued back in 2013 alleging the
Silicon Valley startup lied about its DNA test kit's health
benefits, breached its warranty and used unfair business
practices.

Until 2013, 23andMe claimed its saliva-based DNA testing kits
could help customers prevent or mitigate diseases including
diabetes, heart disease and breast cancer.  But in November 2013,
the Food and Drug Administration told the company to stop making
such claims without agency approval.  The Mountain View, Calif.-
based company stopped selling the tests in December 2013 pending
regulatory review before starting up again in October 2015.

In order to use the tests, customers had to agree to 23andMe's
terms of service, which included an arbitration provision.
Although the customers claimed various portions of the arbitration
terms were unconscionable, the 9th Circuit rejected their
arguments and deemed the agreement valid and enforceable.

23andMe offers 35 direct-to-consumer genetic tests that can tell
users if they carry genetic mutations for diseases, including
cystic fibrosis.  It's a far cry from the more than 250 risk
reports the company originally offered to customers.


7700 KEDZIE: Faces "Buell" Suit Alleging Fraudulent Business Acts
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Patrice Buell, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, V. 7700 Kedzie Gas Corp., an Illinois
corporation, and World Fuel Services, Inc. d/b/a Texor Petroleum,
a Texas corporation, Defendants, Case No. 2016CH11469 (Ill. Circ.,
Cook County, August 30, 2016), alleges violation of the Illinois
Consumer Fraud and Deceptive Business Practices Act, breach of
implied warranty of merchantability, breach of warranty of fitness
for a particular purpose, and negligence.

Kedzie Gas Corp. owns and operates a Citgo gas station.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Karl Leinberger, Esq.
     MARKOFF LEINBERGER LLC
     134 N. LaSalle Street, Suite 1050
     Chicago, IL 60602
     Phone: (312) 726-4162
     E-mail: karl@markleinlaw.com


ACE AMERICAN: Court Denies Class Certification Bid in "Morgan"
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit styled STEPHEN MORGAN, individually and on behalf
of all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. ACE AMERICAN
INSURANCE COMPANY, a Pennsylvania Corporation, the Defendant, Case
No. 3:16-cv-00705-BJD-MCR (M.D. Fla.), the Hon. Judge Brian J.
Davis entered an order:

     1. denying Plaintiff's motion for certification and request
        for extension to certify class without prejudice;

     2. granting Defendant's unopposed motion for leave to exceed
        page limit in the dispositive motion of Defendant to
        dismiss complaint;

     3. striking Defendant's motion to dismiss complaint and
        Defendant's motion to dismiss and/or strike; and

     4. denying Defendant's motion unopposed motion for
        extension of time to respond to Plaintiff's motion for
        class certification as moot.

The Plaintiff shall file an amended motion for class certification
no later than November 18, 2016.

A copy of the Order is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=H66Rwz3Y


ADVANCED BUREAU: Class Certification Bid in "Jones" Suit Granted
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit styled RANDOLPH JONES, JR, the Plaintiff, v.
ADVANCED BUREAU OF COLLECTIONS LLP, et al., the Defendants, Case
No. 5:15-cv-00016-MTT (M.D. Ga.), the Hon. Judge Marc T. Treadwell
granted class certification of:

     "all persons, within twelve months prior to the date of
     filing of this action until the date of this Court's Order
     certifying this class, resided in Georgia and received (1) a
     form collection letter similar to Plaintiff's collection
     letter dated February 11, 2014 [Doc. 1-1]; and (2) those
     persons whose collection letters were sent but were not
     returned by the postal service as undelivered or
     undeliverable."

Mr. Randolph Jones, Jr. is designated as class Representative.

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


ALCON LABORATORIES: America's Health Seeks to Certify Class
-----------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit captioned AMERICA'S HEALTH & RESOURCE CENTER, LTD,
an Illinois Corporation, individually and as the representative of
a class of similarly-situated persons, the Plaintiff, v. ALCON
LABORATORIES, INC., NOVARTIS PHARMACEUTICALS CORPORATION, and JOHN
DOES 1-12, the Defendants, Case No. 1:16-cv-04539 (N.D. Ill.), the
Plaintiff moves the Court to certify a class of:

     "each person that was sent one or more telephone facsimile
     messages promoting the commercial availability or quality
     of property, goods, or services offered by "Alcon" or
     "Novartis," but not stating on the first page that the fax
     recipient may make a request to the sender not to send any
     future ads and that failure to comply, within 30 days, with
     such a request is unlawful."

A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=jh7vZxdC

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Phillip A. Bock, Esq.
          Tod A. Lewis, Esq.
          David M. Oppenheim, Esq.
          James M. Smith, Esq.
          BOCK, HATCH, LEWIS & OPPENHEIM, LLC
          134 N. La Salle St,, Ste. 1000
          Chicago, IL 60602
          Telephone: (312) 658 5500
          Facsimile: (312) 658 5555


ALLEN COUNTY COUNCIL: "Wilson" Suit Seeks Certification of Class
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit styled CALVIN WILSON, DAVID BLUME, and ASIA
MARSHALL, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, the Plaintiffs, v. ALLEN COUNTY COUNCIL, ALLEN COUNTY
BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS, and ALLEN COUNTY PUBLIC DEFENDER BOARD,
the Defendants, Case No. 1:15-cv-00402-PPS-SLC (N.D. Ind.), the
Plaintiffs ask the Court to certify a class of:

     "all individuals who have or will have misdemeanor criminal
     cases pending in the courts of Allen County, Indiana, who
     have or will have an attorney assigned to them due to
     indigency and have not been convicted or entered into a plea
     agreement."

The Plaintiffs are seeking injunctive and declaratory relief as
the primary means of relief and are seeking the same remedy -- an
order enjoining the operation of a systematically defective public
defense agency constructively denying the right to counsel to
members of the putative Class.

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

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          David W. Frank, Esq.
          Christopher C. Myers, Esq.
          David W. Frank, Esq.
          Skyler Spurling-Newsome, Esq.
          CHRISTOPHER C. MYERS & ASSOCIATES
          809 South Calhoun Street, Suite 400
          Fort Wayne, IN 46802-2307
          Telephone: (260) 424 0600
          Facsimile: (260) 424 0712
          E-mail: dfrank@myers-law.com


ALLIANCE COLLECTION: Certification of Class Sought in "Hall" Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The Plaintiff in the lawsuit entitled ROBIN HALL, Individually and
on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated v. ALLIANCE COLLECTION
AGENCIES, INC., Case No. 2:16-cv-01197-CNC (E.D. Wisc.), moves the
Court to certify the class described in the complaint, and 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.

The Plaintiff says 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 adds 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 says.

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=zQU8llOD

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


ARKANSAS HOSPITALS: "Mounce" Suit Seeks Certification of Class
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit titled JESSICA MOUNCE, Individually, and On Behalf
of All Other Similarly Situated Plaintiffs, the Plaintiff, v.
CHSPSC, LLC, a Delaware Corporation, NORTHWEST ARKANSAS HOSPITALS,
LLC, a Delaware Limited Liability Company d/b/a NORTHWEST MEDICAL
CENTER; and PROFESSIONAL ACCOUNT SERVICES, INC., A Tennessee
Corporation, Case No. 5:15-cv-05197-TLB (W.D. Ark.), the Plaintiff
asks the Court for certification of this class:

     "all Arkansas residents who, since April 30, 2010, received
     any type of healthcare treatment from any entity located in
     Arkansas that is owned, controlled, managed and/or
     affiliated with Defendants, and: (i) such treatment was
     covered by valid, in network, commercial health coverage;
     (ii) the billing charges regarding such treatment were not
     timely submitted to the commercial health carrier; and (ii)
     Defendants obtained payments for such treatment as a result
     of asserting third-party medical liens, submitting claims
     for medical payments coverage, and/or seeking payment
     directly from the patients."

The Plaintiff further asks the Court to designate herself as Class
Representative of the Class, and appoint Plaintiff's Counsel as
Class Counsel.

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

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Shawn B. Daniels, Esq.
          Jason W. Earley, Esq.
          Sarah C. Jewell, Esq.
          HARE, WYNN, NEWELL & NEWTON, LLP
          129 W. Sunbridge Drive
          Fayetteville, AR 72703
          Telephone: (479) 521 7000
          Facsimile: (479) 437 2007

               - and -

          Mitchell L. Burgess, Esq.
          BURGESS LAW FIRM, P.C.
          4310 Madison, Ste. 100
          Kansas City, MO 64111
          Telephone: (816) 471 1700
          Facsimile: (816) 471 1701
          E-mail: mitch@burgesslawkc.com

              - and -

          Ralph K. Phalen, Esq.
          RALPH K. PHALEN LAW, P.C.
          1000 Broadway St., Ste. 4500
          Kansas City, MO 64105
          Telephone: (816) 589 0753
          Facsimile: (816) 471 1701

The Defendants are represented by:

          Gordon Rather, Esq.
          Eric Berger, Esq.
          Gary Marts, Jr., Esq.
          WRIGHT LINDSEY & JENNINGS, LLP
          3333 Pinnacle Hills Pkwy, Ste. 510
          Rogers, AR 72758
          E-mail: grather@wlj.com
                  eberger@wlj.com
                  gmarts@wlj.com


BAILES CRAIG: Files FDCPA Class Action in West Virginia
-------------------------------------------------------
Kyla Asbury, writing for West Virginia Record, reports that a man
has filed a class action lawsuit against the Huntington law firm
of Bailes, Craig & Yon for violations of the federal Fair Debt
Collections Practices Act.

Dwayne C. Edwards became in arrears upon an alleged indebtedness
to Cabell Huntington Hospital and the defendant engaged in
collection of the indebtedness through the use of telephone calls,
by written communications and by otherwise communicating with him
to collect the alleged debt, according to a complaint filed in the
U.S. District Court for the Southern District of West Virginia.

Mr. Edwards claims BCY mailed him an initial communication letter
that only provided him 14 days to dispute the alleged debt and
failed to send him a 30-day validation notice within five days of
its initial communication with him.

BCY's letter constituted a collection ploy, using the threat of a
legal action as a blunt force weapon to coerce Mr. Edwards'
payment of the alleged debt, according to the suit.

Mr. Edwards claims in addition to only allowing him 14 days to
dispute the validity of the debt, BCY demanded written notice of
any dispute regarding the validity of the debt.

BCY threatened that Mr. Edwards would be responsible not only for
the full amount of the debt, but also for additional costs and the
defendant failed to inform Mr. Edwards in writing that it would
obtain verification of the debt and provide it to the plaintiff if
he so requested in writing, according to the suit.

Mr. Edwards claims BCY violated the West Virginia Consumer Credit
and Protection Act and the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act.

Mr. Edwards is seeking actual damages.  He is being represented by
Jed R. Nolan, Christopher B. Frost, Ralph C. Young and Steven R.
Broadwater Jr. of Hamilton, Burgess, Young & Pollard PLLC.

The firm may be reached at:

     5493 Maple Lane, P.O. Box 959
     Fayetteville, WV 25840
     Phone: 304-574-2727
     Toll Free: 888-279-7919

        -- and --

     1439 Main Street, Suite 1
     Princeton, WV 24740
     Phone: 304-425-8775
     Toll Free: 888-279-7919

U.S. District Court for the Southern District of West Virginia
case number: 3:16-cv-06671


BEST TRANS: Conditional Certification Sought in Wage & Hour Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit captioned MARIO BERRY and GLENN SMITH, on behalf of
himself and others similarly-situated, Plaintiffs, v. BEST
TRANSPORTATION, INC. d/b/a BEST TRANSPORTATION OF ST. LOUIS and
KIM GARNER, DEBORAH RUDAWSKY, Individually, the Defendants, Case
No. 4:16-cv-00473-JAR (E.D. Mo.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court to
approve supervised notice to and conditional certification of
Potential Plaintiffs.

Plaintiffs sued Defendants to recover unpaid overtime wages that
were not paid in accordance with the FLSA. Plaintiffs specifically
allege that Defendants employ hourly-paid workers but fail to pay
lawful overtime rates despite these workers regularly working
overtime (those hours performed in excess of 40 in a given week).
Instead of paying lawful time-and-one-half rates, the Defendants
have a common plan or practice of just paying their hourly-paid
workers their regular rates of pay for overtime hours worked.

A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=W55daJUS

The Plaintiffs are represented by:
          J. Derek Braziel, Esq.
          J. Forester, Esq.
          LEE & BRAZIEL, L.L.P.
          1801 N. Lamar Street, Suite 325
          Dallas, TX 75202
          Telephone: (214) 749 1400
          Facsimile: (214) 749 1010
          E-mail: www.overtimelawyer.com


BLUESTONE LAW: Stoyanov Seeks Certification of Class
----------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit styled STOYAN STOYANOV, on behalf of plaintiff and
a class, the Plaintiff, v. BLUESTONE LAW, LTD., the Defendant,
Case No. 1:16-cv-08614 (N.D. Ill.), the Plaintiff asks the Court
to certify a class consisting of:

     "(a) all individuals with addresses in one of the
     "applicable jurisdictions" (b) with respect to whom
     Defendant sought or obtained payment (c) at any time within
     one year prior to the filing of this action (d) of a debt
     contracted for in a currency other than United States
     dollars. The "applicable jurisdictions" are Illinois,
     California, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, the District of
     Columbia, Hawaii, Idaho, Minnesota, Montana, New Mexico,
     North Carolina, North Dakota, Ohio, Oklahoma, Oregon, Rhode
     Island, Utah, Virgin Islands, Virginia, Washington state,
     and Wisconsin."

The Plaintiff furthers requests that Edelman, Combs, Latturner &
Goodwin, LLC be appointed counsel for the class.

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=l7vNESky

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Daniel A. Edelman, Esq.
          Cathleen M. Combs, Esq.
          James O. Latturner, Esq.
          Cassandra P. Miller, Esq.
          EDELMAN, COMBS, LATTURNER
          & GOODWIN, LLC
          20 South Clark Street, Suite 1500
          Chicago, IL 60603
          Telephone: (312) 739 4200
          Facsimile: (312) 419 0379


BRANDREP INC: "Alan" Suit Seeks Certification of Two Classes
------------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit captioned JASON ALAN, on behalf of himself and all
others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. BRANDREP, INC., the
Defendant, Case No. 8:16-cv-01040-DOC-DFM (C.D. Cal.), the
Plaintiff moves the Court to certify a class consisting of:

     "all persons within the United States who received any
     solicitation/telemarketing telephone calls from Defendant to
     the person's cellular telephone made through the use of any
     automatic telephone dialing system or an artificial or
     prerecorded voice and such person had not previously
     consented to receiving such calls within the four years
     prior to the filing of the original Complaint in this
     action."

The Plaintiff also moves the Court a National Do-Not-Call Class
(The DNC Class) against Brandrep, Inc., consisting of:

     "all persons within the United States registered on the
     National Do-Not-Call Registry for at least 30 days, who had
     not granted Defendant prior express consent nor had a prior
     established business relationship, who received more than
     one call made by or on behalf of Defendant that promoted
     Defendant's products or services, within any twelve-month
     period, within four years prior to the filing of the
     original complaint in this action."

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

A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=Z94WdUa2

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Todd M. Friedman, Esq.
          Adrian R. Bacon, Esq.
          Meghan E. George, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF
          TODD M. FRIEDMAN, P.C.
          21550 Oxnard St., Suite 780
          Woodland Hills, CA 91367
          Telephone: (877) 206 4741
          Facsimile: (866) 633 0228
          E-mail: tfriedman@toddflaw.com
                  abacon@toddflaw.com
                  mgeorge@toddflaw.com


CALLSMART INC: Class Certification Hearing Continued to Nov. 17
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Hon. Judge Jorge L. Alonso entered an order in the lawsuit
captioned Scott Dolemba, the Plaintiff, v. CallSmart, Inc., the
Defendant, Case No. 1:16-cv-04863 (N.D. Ill.), continuing hearing
on Plaintiff's motion for class certification to November 17, 2016
at 9:30 a.m., according to the docket entry made by the Clerk on
August 30, 2016.

CallSmart is engaged in business to business outbound inside sales
firm specializing in quality relationship marketing and
appointment.

A copy of the Order is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=FUSWS2vV


CANADA: Aboriginals Rally Ahead of '60s Scoop Hearing
-----------------------------------------------------
Colin Perkel, writing for The Canadian Press, reports that scores
of aboriginals from across Ontario rallied on Aug. 23 ahead of a
landmark court hearing on whether the Canadian government robbed
them of their cultural identities during a two-decade period in
which native children were taken from their homes and placed with
non-native families.

Some, who travelled for as long as two days to attend, listened as
speakers denounced the '60s Scoop and what they called the
"cultural genocide" perpetrated by the government against
indigenous people.  Speakers called the practice a deliberate
effort to assimilate aboriginal children.

"I just want to say to Canada: We will not allow the harm of our
children.  We need to bring our children home, the ones that were
lost, the one's that were stolen," lead plaintiff Marcia Brown
Martel told the crowd.

"(It's) such a harm and injustice as a human being to have our
children taken from us."

Ms. Martel, a member of the Temagami First Nation near Kirkland
Lake, Ont., was one of an estimated 16,000 aboriginal children who
ended up in non-native homes.  She later discovered the Canadian
government had declared her original identity dead.

The '60s Scoop depended on a federal-provincial arrangement that
operated from December 1965 to December 1984.  The $1.3-billion
class action argues that Canada failed to protect the children's
cultural heritage, with devastating consequences to victims.

"Treaties do not give you permission to take our children,"
Regional Chief Isadore Day said.

Following the rally, the crowd marched behind traditional drummers
to the nearby courthouse, where they filled the courtroom, to
listen as their lawyer, Jeffery Wilson, called on Superior Court
Justice Edward Belobaba to decide the case, which began in early
2009, based on the evidence he already has.

The unproven claim -- it seeks $85,000 for each affected person --
alleges the children suffered emotional, psychological and
spiritual harm due to the devastating loss of a cultural identity
that Canada negligently failed to protect.

The '60s Scoop, which occurred without any consultation with
Indian bands, may have been part of the government's hidden agenda
to "remove the savage Indian from the child," Mr. Wilson told
court, but what exactly motivated the "abomination" is not clear.

By robbing the children of their First Nations identities,
Mr. Wilson said, they were denied the kind of crucial cultural and
language experience other Canadians take for granted.  The harm is
"profoundly ongoing," he said, even if the events in question are
now historical.

"A moral calamity occurred," Mr. Wilson said.

Canada, which has tried on several occasions to have the case
thrown out, argues among other things that it was acting in the
best interests of the children and within the social norms of the
day.

As had been previously agreed, Justice Belobaba adjourned the
hearing until Dec. 1, when the federal government will make its
case -- if it does not decide in the interim to try to negotiate a
deal to settle out of court.

Indigenous Affairs Minister Carolyn Bennett said she would like to
see that happen, a theme picked up on at the morning rally.
Speakers, including New Democrat Charlie Angus, urged the Liberal
government of Justin Trudeau to be on the "right side of history"
and make good on his promise of a new era in Canadian-aboriginal
relations.

Before court ended, Mr. Wilson cited a few words in Algonquin
which he spelled out.

"Ati kati ci wepik," he said.  "We must never let this happen
again."

In an interview, Glen Hare, deputy grand council chief of the
Anishinabek Nation, said he planned on doing his part to ensure it
doesn't happen again.  His one regret, he said, is once having
signed adoption papers for one of his band's babies, who he
believes was taken abroad.

"I will never sign another adoption, I don't care who it is. You
can lock me up first or shoot me," Mr. Hare said.  "Our kids are
not for sale, that's the bottom line."


CAVIAR INC: Faces Courier Misclassification Class Action
--------------------------------------------------------
Ben Hancock, writing for The Recorder, reports that the gig
economy's least-favorite lawyer has launched a new suit against
app-enabled food delivery service Caviar Inc. that could test the
boundaries of a fresh appeals court decision limiting the ability
of companies to disperse class actions.

The complaint filed by Shannon Liss-Riordan of Boston-based
Lichten & Liss-Riordan against Caviar on Aug. 29 is the second
class action she has brought against the company in as many years.
The first fizzled last winter after a judge agreed with the
company's lawyers at Keker & Van Nest that the lead plaintiff was
bound by an agreement to arbitrate his claims on an individual
basis.

But Ms. Liss-Riordan, in an email on Aug. 30, said she believes
the new case is on solid footing in light of the U.S. Court of
Appeals for the Ninth Circuit's decision in Morris v. Ernst &
Young, which held that the National Labor Relations Act protects
employees' rights to bring collective legal action.
"The Morris decision is an important development in the battle
between employees and employers regarding whether employers can
shield themselves from systemic enforcement of the wage laws
through the use of arbitration agreements," Ms. Liss-Riordan said.
"In light of Morris, we expect that Caviar's class action waiver
will be held to be not enforceable."

She's entering murky waters with that strategy, though.  Morris
provides scant guidance on how courts should treat class action
waivers when there is a dispute over whether the plaintiff is an
employee or an independent contractor -- the central issue in the
Caviar case.  The NLRA's prohibition on class-action waivers does
not cover contractors.

Ms. Liss-Riordan's complaint alleges that Caviar couriers are
misclassified as contractors and that -- as employees -- they are
owed reimbursement for expenses and other compensation.  If the
company seeks to route those claims into arbitration, it's unclear
whether a judge would first try to weigh the merits of the
misclassification argument, in order to rule on the waiver
clause's enforceability, or take some other approach.

Another complicating factor is that circuit courts are split over
whether class action waivers are enforceable.  The Ninth Circuit
joined the Seventh in ruling that the NLRA bars such agreements,
but the Second, Fifth and Eighth Circuits have gone the other way,
raising the likelihood that the issue could go up before the U.S.
Supreme Court.

Caviar, which is based in San Francisco and owned by electronic
payment company Square Inc., did not respond to an email inquiry
about the new suit.  Keker & Van Nest's James Slaughter, counsel
for Caviar, also did not respond to messages seeking comment.

Ms. Liss-Riordan and her small firm have been waging a guerilla
war against some of the biggest and most well-represented
companies in the gig economy, including Uber Technologies Inc.,
Lyft Inc., and GrubHub, another food delivery service.  Each case
has entailed a fight over the classification issue and the
arbitration agreements that the companies have directed their
workers to sign.

Caviar's business model is based on couriers delivering food from
independent restaurants in cities throughout the U.S., which
customers order via an app.  According to Ms. Liss-Riordan's
complaint, couriers receive a fee for each delivery that is based
on the amount of time the delivery is expected to take, plus any
gratuities added by the customer.

Although classified as contractors by the company, her suit
contends the couriers are employees because they are required to
follow detailed protocols in their interactions with customers,
and are subject to termination for failure to adhere to them.  She
also argues that the couriers are "fully integrated" into the
company's business -- since without them, the "business would not
exist."

The order in the earlier Caviar case by U.S. Magistrate Judge
Elizabeth Laporte of the Northern District of California
compelling plaintiff Jeffry Levin's case to individual arbitration
is up on appeal at the Ninth Circuit, with briefing slated for
this fall.  Ms. Liss-Riordan is also pursuing a separate
arbitration against Caviar for labor claims brought under
California's Private Attorneys General Act, which can carry stiff
penalties.


CELLULAR BIOMEDICINE: Cal. Judge Dismisses Shareholders' Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
Nicholas Iovino, writing for Courthouse News Service, reported
that a federal judge in San Francisco dismissed without leave to
amend shareholders' claims that Cellular Biomedicine Group
inflated its share price by hiding deaths related to a cancer
treatment.

Lead plaintiff Francis Bonnano sued Cellular Biomedicine Group, a
Delaware corporation based in Palo Alto, in April 2015, then added
several other institutions and individuals to the complaint.

Bonnano claimed the company paid marketing firms for positive
forecasts to drive the company's value toward $500 million. Its
stock price rose from $13.79 to $47.06 a share from January to
March 2015.

Bonnano also claimed the company hid patient deaths related to
clinical trials for its Car-T cancer treatment technology and its
connections to an illegal offshore stem cell clinic.

When that information was divulged in a report posted by a blogger
named Pump Stopper, on the financial news website
SeekingAlpha.com, Cellular Biomedicine's share price dropped by
$7, or 21.7 percent, on April 7, 2015.

U.S. District Judge William Orrick III dismissed the first amended
complaint with leave to amend on May 20 this year, finding the
plaintiffs failed to adequately plead loss causation.

On Sept. 2, Orrick dismissed it for good, finding that further
attempts would be futile. He pointed out that at an Aug. 17
hearing, "plaintiffs' counsel stated that he did not want further
leave to amend the complaint if I dismissed it again."

Orrick said Bonnano failed to explain when the "true facts" about
the company were revealed or to identify which portions of the
Pump Stopper report had not been made public.

"Because the Pump Stopper Report only collected and opined on
already public information, it does not constitute disclosure of
'the truth' as required for a corrective disclosure," Orrick
wrote.

Cellular Biomedicine's lead counsel, Adrienne Ward, called the
dismissal a significant ruling for small companies such as her
client, who are "easily targeted by short-sellers."

Ward, with Ellenoff Grossman & Schole in New York City, called the
lawsuit an example of speculation unsupported by facts.

September 2, when you do have negative blog posts by anonymous
short-sellers, companies that didn't do anything wrong have a tool
to fight back before facing the burden of class action discovery,"
Ward said.

In the second amended complaint, Bonnano claimed that paid
marketing firms did not disclose their relationship to Cellular
Biomedicine, or "buried [the disclosure] behind so many links that
a reasonable investor would never think they existed, or believe
there was a reason to look." Orrick rejected that.

"This argument fails," the judge wrote. "It is irrelevant if the
public information at issue comes directly from the company or
from non-company sources; all public information will be
incorporated into stock prices in an efficient market."

Cellular Biomedicine said in a statement that it was "extremely
pleased," and would continue its work in immune-oncology and stem-
cell research.

Plaintiffs' attorney Jennifer Pafiti, with the Pomerantz firm in
Beverly Hills, did not return a phone call seeking comment on the
dismissal on September 2, afternoon.

The case is captioned, FRANCIS J. BONANNO, et al., Plaintiffs, v.
CELLULAR BIOMEDICINE GROUP, INC., et al., Defendants., Case No.
15-cv-01795-WHO (N.D. Cal.).

A copy of the Court's Sept. 2 decision is available at
https://is.gd/WsxHYI from Leagle.com.


CENTRAL CREDIT: Schmitz Seeks Class Certification Under "Damasco"
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Sheila Schmitz moves the Court to certify the class described in
the complaint in the lawsuit captioned SHEILA SCHMITZ,
Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated v.
CENTRAL CREDIT SERVICES, LLC, and SYNCHRONY BANK, Case No. 2:16-
cv-01199-PP (E.D. Wisc.), and 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.

The Plaintiff says 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 adds 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 says.

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=CNFmzG8V

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


CHADBOURNE & PARKE: Female Partner Files $100MM Class Action
------------------------------------------------------------
Lizzy McLellan, writing for Law.com, report that a female
litigation partner from Chadbourne & Parke has filed a $100
million class action complaint alleging that the firm is run by an
"all-male dictatorship" that pays women partners less and provides
them fewer leadership opportunities than men.

Lawyers from Sanford Heisler filed the class action on behalf of
lead plaintiff Kerrie Campbell and approximately 26 current and
former female partners at Chadbourne & Parke.  The suit was filed
in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York.

The suit alleges that female partners are paid less and receive
smaller bonuses than their male counterparts and have been
excluded from positions with decision-making authority.  According
to Ms. Campbell's attorneys, Chadbourne's management committee is
made up of five men, who make all pay and promotion decisions.
Ms. Campbell alleges she was underpaid by $2.7 million, and that
she was asked to leave the firm after bringing her concerns about
gender bias to the management committee.

"The question really is, what's responsible for these gross
disparities in the profession," lead counsel David Sanford said.
"We believe gender discrimination is responsible."

In a statement, Chadbourne denied Ms. Campbell's allegations, and
said the firm is committed to the advancement of women. The firm
said Campbell was asked to leave because her practice did not
integrate with the firm.

"Ms. Campbell's complaint against the firm is riddled with
falsehoods and, once the facts are fully presented, the firm is
confident that her allegations will be shown to be completely
baseless," the statement said.

In response, Mr. Sanford said the numbers in the complaint are
accurate, and if there are mistakes they are immaterial.  With
regard to Chadbourne, he said, "the commitment is either
demonstrated in the numbers or it's not."

The class action seeks $25 million in back pay and front pay, $25
million in compensatory damages and $50 million in punitive
damages.  The proposed class consists of all female partners
employed by Chadbourne in the United States since August 2013.

Sanford said no other female partners from Chadbourne have reached
out to him, but he expects they will.

According to a 2015 report on female equity partners in The
American Lawyer, 17.6 percent of Chadbourne's female equity
partners were female in 2014, a decrease of 1.4 percent from 2011.

Ms. Campbell joined Chadbourne's litigation department in January
2014, according to her complaint, and has billed more than $5
million for the firm since then.

"Campbell's productivity and revenue generation have been
consistent with the firm's top performing male partners but her
pay consistently places her at the bottom ranks of male partners
who have originated far less, and in some instances, zero revenue
as a billing partner," the complaint said.

Beginning at the end of 2014, Ms. Campbell raised her concerns
about the inequities in a memorandum to the management committee
and at meetings with firm leaders, the complaint said.  In
February, managing partner Andy Giaccia and litigation head Abbe
Lowell told Ms. Campbell to leave the firm quietly, and decreased
her pay to $180,000, the complaint said.  Sanford said that is
equivalent to a first-year associate's salary at Chadbourne.

According to the complaint, Chadbourne did elect a female partner
to its management committee in July, after Campbell filed a
discrimination charge with the EEOC.

Ms. Campbell's claims are not unique among women partners. But
firms tend to prefer private resolutions.

In January, former LeClairRyan partner Michele Craddock filed a
complaint against her former firm alleging women partners and
employees received unfair treatment in terms of compensation and
benefits.  Traci Ribeiro, a nonequity partner at Sedgwick, sued
her firm last month, saying she was denied equity partnership
despite being the firms third-highest revenue generator.

A federal judge in Virginia sent Craddock's case back to
arbitration in April, in accordance with the firm's shareholder
agreement, a ruling which she appealed. Sedgwick has asked a
California federal judge to send Ms. Ribeiro's suit to
arbitration.

Sandford Heisler represented Philadelphia lawyer Francine
Griesing, who made claims similar to Campbell's in a $200 million
suit against Greenberg Traurig.  That case settled in 2013 under
undisclosed terms.  Sanford acknowledged some similarities between
Ms. Griesing's case and Campbell's, noting that gender inequity is
a problem throughout the legal industry, based on national
statistics.

"Historically, the law has had men in positions in power.  That
remains true today," Mr. Sanford said.

Mr. Sanford said he would be open to resolving the matter
privately, but noted that mediation has been attempted.

Ms. Campbell's work focuses on "reputation protection" for brands
and individuals.  For instance, she has represented World Kitchen,
which makes Pyrex glassware, in a product disparagement case
regarding a trade publication piece on American-made glass
cookware.

Before joining Chadbourne, Campbell was a partner at Manatt,
Phelps & Phillips, and chairwoman of the consumer product safety
group.  Before that, she was at Collier Shannon, now Kelley Drye,
where she started as an associate and eventually became a partner
and chairwoman of the consumer product safety group.


COOK COUNTY, IL: Certification of Class Sought in "Goudy" Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Plaintiffs in the lawsuit entitled Demont Goudy, as father and
next friend of L.G., a minor, et al. v. TIMOTHY EVANS, et al.,
Case No. 1:16-cv-08676 (N.D. Ill.), seek an order certifying that
the case may be maintained as a class action on behalf of all
juveniles, who are currently or in the future detained at the
Juvenile Temporary Detention Center on a weekend or court holiday
without receiving a detention hearing to determine probable cause
within 48 hours.

The Plaintiffs further ask that the Court enter an order
appointing their attorneys as class counsel.

Demont Goudy, Tabitha Smith, Mireya Rivera and Jennifer Johnson
bring the Case on behalf of their minor children, each of whom was
arrested without a warrant and detained at the Cook County
Juvenile Temporary Detention Center for more than 55 hours without
a judicial determination of probable cause.

As of the filing of the complaint and Motion, the Plaintiffs say
that Mr. Goudy's minor child, L.G., is currently in the custody of
the JTDC and has been for approximately 72 hours without a
probable cause hearing.

A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=3eiyY4bS

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Adele D. Nicholas, Esq.
          LAW OFFICE OF ADELE D. NICHOLAS
          5707 W. Goodman Street
          Chicago, IL 60630
          Telephone: (847) 361-3869
          E-mail: adele@civilrightschicago.com

               - and -

          Mark G. Weinberg, Esq.
          LAW OFFICE OF MARK G. WEINBERG
          3612 N. Tripp Ave.
          Chicago, IL 60641
          Telephone: (773) 283-3913
          E-mail: mweinberg@sbcglobal.net


CRAWLEY PETROLEUM: Frank Seeks to Certify Class of Royalty Owners
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Duncan Frank moves to certify the action titled Duncan Frank, on
behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. Crawley
Petroleum Corp., Case No. 5:14-cv-01193-R (W.D. Okla.), as a class
action for the underpayment of royalties on gas produced from
wells in Oklahoma by the Defendant.  The Plaintiff seeks to
certify this Class:

     All royalty owners of Crawley Petroleum Corp. from Oklahoma
     wells in Blaine, Caddo, Canadian, Custer, Dewey, Ellis,
     Garfield, Garvin, Kay, Kingfisher, Logan, Major, Noble,
     Roger Mills, Woods, and Woodward Counties that Crawley
     Petroleum Corp. operates or has operated and that have
     produced gas and/or gas constituents (such as residue gas,
     natural gas liquids, helium or condensate) from January 1,
     1993 to the time Class Notice is given.

     Excluded from the Class are: (1) Office of Natural Resources
     Revenue f/k/a the Mineral Management Service (Indian tribes
     and the United States); (2) Defendant, its affiliates, and
     their employees, officers, and directors; (3) overriding
     royalty interests; (4) Any NYSE or NASDAQ listed company
     (and its subsidiaries) engaged in oil and gas exploration,
     gathering, processing, or marketing; (5) Blanchardized
     royalty payments1 ; and, (5) royalty owners to the extent
     that the lease creating the royalty interest expressly and
     unambiguously authorized all of the deductions taken by
     Defendant.

Mr. Frank owns royalty interest in the Young # 1 well in
Kingfisher County, Oklahoma, which is operated and paid by the
Defendant.  Crawley operates more than 300 wells in Oklahoma under
more than 1,000 oil and gas leases.

The Plaintiff also asks the Court to appoint him as Class
Representative, to appoint his counsel as Class Counsel, and to
award other relief, at law or in equity, special or general, to
which he is justly entitled.

A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=7DclTmCx

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Rex A. Sharp, Esq.
          REX A. SHARP, P.A.
          5301 W. 75th Street
          Prairie Village, KS 66208
          Telephone: (913) 901-0505
          Facsimile: (913) 901-0419
          E-mail: rsharp@midwest-law.com

               - and -

          Michael E. Grant, Esq.
          GRANT LAW FIRM, PLLC
          512 NW 12th Street
          Oklahoma City, OK 73103
          Telephone: (405) 232-6357
          Facsimile: (405) 232-6358
          E-mail: De1471@coxinet.net


CVS PHARMACY: Faces Collusion Claims in Attorney Settlement
-----------------------------------------------------------
Amanda Bronstad, writing for Law.com, reports that a consumer
advocacy group has accused a Chicago plaintiffs' attorney of
colluding with a defendant to reach a class action settlement on
behalf of the same litigant he's represented in dozens of other
lawsuits across the country.

The Center for Science in the Public Interest, a Washington-based
nonprofit that filed a lawsuit this year against CVS Pharmacy Inc.
over the labeling of a brand-name dietary supplement, claimed that
Thomas Zimmerman of Zimmerman Law Offices in Chicago settled his
own "copycat" case through a "reverse auction," in which
defendants simultaneously negotiate with plaintiffs' attorneys in
separate cases to ensure settling the one with the better terms.
The nonprofit's attorneys objected on Aug. 17 to the settlement,
and a hearing for preliminary approval is scheduled for Sept. 21.

"The proposed settlement before the court is the byproduct of
surreptitious, unsupervised discussions that took place between a
defendant and a copycat counsel and his serial, repeat plaintiff,"
wrote Michael Reese of New York's Reese LLP, who has partnered
with the nonprofit to bring the case on behalf of two consumers.
"Not surprisingly, the collusive discussions resulted in an
inadequate settlement that is the very definition of a reverse
auction."

The nonprofit's suit goes on to accuse Mr. Zimmerman of filing at
least 35 cases on behalf of the same plaintiff in the CVS case,
Mario Aliano, which it called a "big red flag" of collusion.

Mr. Zimmerman has denied the allegations.

"For them to say there was some collusion, or some reverse
auction, as they're touting in their papers, is belied by the
facts of what actually happened," he said.  He said that he had
repeatedly reached out to lawyers in the nonprofit's case, to no
avail.  As for Mr. Aliano, he said, the plaintiff was a consumer
advocate.

CVS attorney Frank Spano -- frank.spano@hoganlovells.com -- a
partner at Hogan Lovells in New York, did not respond to a request
to comment.  In court papers, Mr. Spano has called the reverse
auction accusations "scurrilous."

Reverse auctions are often alleged but rarely proven, according to
Carl Tobias, a professor at the University of Richmond School of
Law. Either way, the judge will have to consider whether alleged
"red flags" of a reverse auction are enough to derail approval of
the deal.  "Whether or not the lawyer who came in late and settled
quickly provided, or was capable of proving, adequate
representation would be the key issue," he said.

Both cases were filed against CVS in February, alleging it made
false claims that Algal-900 DHA was clinically proven to improve
memory and brain health.

At an April hearing in the nonprofit's case, CVS told U.S.
Magistrate Judge Marilyn Go in Brooklyn, New York, that it planned
to transfer Mr. Zimmerman's case from Illinois, where it had been
removed from state court.  But a week later, CVS settled Mr.
Zimmerman's case.

Mr. Zimmerman and CVS "clearly intended to hoodwink your honor"
and "rush through preliminary approval of their reverse-auction
settlement," according to Reese in the nonprofit's objection. It
cited at least one other case in which a plaintiffs lawyer raised
concerns about Zimmerman reaching a settlement of his own
"copycat" case through a reverse auction.

The objection also argued that Mr. Aliano lacked standing, given
his "serial business relationship" with Mr. Zimmerman.

But both CVS and Zimmerman defend their settlement.  In court
papers, Mr. Spano accused the nonprofit of not wanting to cede
control, noting that it had unsuccessfully sought to be appointed
lead counsel in both cases.

Both CVS and Mr. Zimmerman have said they settled his case quickly
in order to coordinate class notices with lawyers in a separate
settlement with i-Health Inc. that involved the same supplier.
Judge Go preliminarily approved that settlement on March 4.  Now
Mr. Zimmerman's case, which was transferred to New York, is
subject to settlement approval in Judge Go's courtroom in August.

Mr. Zimmerman, who said the refunds in his settlement are even
better than the i-Health deal, chalked up the dispute in the CVS
case to a rare instance of plaintiffs' lawyers not getting along.

"Some of the time, everybody works together and you organize on
the plaintiffs' side and you work together," he said.  "But
occasionally, there are people who simply don't want to work with
other attorneys."


DALLAS CENTRAL: 4525 Towne Claims Excessive Property Valuation
--------------------------------------------------------------
4525 TOWNE LAKE VILLAGE LLC, Plaintiff, v. DALLAS CENTRAL
APPRAISAL DISTRICT, Defendant, Case No. DC-16-10733, filed in the
Judicial District Court of Dallas County, Texas on August 29,
2016, protests as excessive the appraised value placed on a
property 4501 W. Pioneer Drive, Dallas, Texas.

The Appraisal District is a political subdivision of the State of
Texas.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Michael A. Lang, Esq.
     Michael A. Long, Esq.
     Heather H. Long, Esq.
     LANG LAW OFFICE, P.C.
     P.O. Box 261330
     Piano, TX 75026
     Phone: (972) 731-6758
     Fax: (469) 854-3336
     E-mail: mike@langlawtx.com


DALLAS CENTRAL: 7251 Brooklawn Says Property Valuation Excessive
----------------------------------------------------------------
7251 BROOKLAWN APARTMENTS, LLC, Plaintiff, v. DALLAS CENTRAL
APPRAISAL DISTRICT, Defendant, Case No. DC-16-10793, filed in the
Judicial District Court of Dallas County, Texas on August 30,
2016, protests as excessive the appraised value placed on a
property located at 7351 CHAUCER PL CANTERBURY VILLAGE BLK 2/6929
LT 1 ACS 22.71 DALLAS, DALLAS COUNTY, TEXAS.

The Appraisal District is a political subdivision of the State of
Texas.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Michael R. Boling, Esq.
     Christopher M. Tejeda, Esq.
     LAW OFFICE OF MICHAEL R. BOLING
     2305 West Parker Road, Suite 203
     Plano, TX 75023
     Phone: (214) 378-8788
     Fax: (214) 378-8988
     E-mail: michael@bolinglegal.com
             chris@bolinglegal.com


DALLAS CENTRAL: 7501 Palms Claims Excessive Property Valuation
--------------------------------------------------------------
7501 PALMS MANDALAY APTS, LLC, Plaintiff, v. DALLAS CENTRAL
APPRAISAL DISTRICT, Defendant, Case No. DC-16-10788, filed in the
Judicial District Court of Dallas County, Texas on August 30,
2016, protests as excessive the appraised value placed on property
located at 7501 CHESTERFIELD DRIVE CREEKSIDE APARTMENTS REPLAT BLK
A/6930 LOT 2A ACS 11.1340 DALLAS, DALLAS COUNTY, TEXAS.

The Appraisal District is a political subdivision of the State of
Texas.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Michael R. Boling, Esq.
     Christopher M. Tejeda, Esq.
     LAW OFFICE OF MICHAEL R. BOLING
     2305 West Parker Road, Suite 203
     Plano, TX 75023
     Phone: (214) 378-8788
     Fax: (214) 378-8988
     E-mail: michael@bolinglegal.com
             chris@bolinglegal.com


DALLAS CENTRAL: Alamo Manhattan Says Property Valuation Excessive
-----------------------------------------------------------------
ALAMO MANHATTAN JOINT VENTURE, LLC (Monaco on the Trail),
Plaintiff, v. DALLAS CENTRAL APPRAISAL DISTRICT, Defendant, Case
No. DC-16-10818, filed in the Judicial District Court of Dallas
County, Texas on August 30, 2016, protests as excessive the
appraised value placed on a property located at located at 3003
Carlisle Street in Dallas, Dallas County, Texas.

The Appraisal District is a political subdivision of the State of
Texas.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Daniel P. Donovan, Esq.
     Jennifer C. Tobin, Esq.
     Kathleen F. Donovan, Esq.
     GEARY, PORTER & DONOVAN, P.C.
     One Bent Tree Tower
     16475 Dallas Pkwy., Suite 400
     Addison, TX 75001-6837
     Phone: (972) 931-9901
     Fax: (972) 931-9208
     E-mail: ddonovan@gpd.com
             kdonovan@gpd.com
             jtobin@gpd.com


DALLAS CENTRAL: TS Asset Claims Excessive Property Valuation
------------------------------------------------------------
TS ASSET KNOLLWOOD, LLC, Plaintiff, v. DALLAS CENTRAL APPRAISAL
DISTRICT, Defendant, Case No. DC-16-10801, filed in the Judicial
District Court of Dallas County, Texas on August 30, 2016,
protests as excessive the appraised value placed on a property
located at 2727 W WALNUT HILL LN WESTGATE SQUARE BLK E LT 1 ACS
7.5 IRVING, DALLAS COUNTY, TEXAS.

The Appraisal District is a political subdivision of the State of
Texas.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Michael R. Boling, Esq.
     Christopher M. Tejeda, Esq.
     LAW OFFICE OF MICHAEL R. BOLING
     2305 West Parker Road, Suite 203
     Plano, TX 75023
     Phone: (214) 378-8788
     Fax: (214) 378-8988
     E-mail: michael@bolinglegal.com
             chris@bolinglegal.com


DALLAS CENTRAL: Carnaby Inc. Says Property Valuation Excessive
--------------------------------------------------------------
CARNABY INC., Plaintiff, v. DALLAS CENTRAL APPRAISAL DISTRICT,
Defendant, Case No. DC-16-10735, filed in the Judicial District
Court of Dallas County, Texas on August 29, 2016, protests as
excessive the appraised value placed on a property located at 8717
Femdale Rd, Dallas, Texas.

The Appraisal District is a political subdivision of the State of
Texas.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


DALLAS CENTRAL: CCC & R Alleges Excessive Property Valuation
------------------------------------------------------------
CCC & R TEXAS, LLC, Plaintiff, v. DALLAS CENTRAL APPRAISAL
DISTRICT, Defendant, Case No. DC-16-10703, filed in the Judicial
District Court of Dallas County, Texas on August 30, 2016,
protests as excessive the appraised value placed on a property
located at:

     1. 3002 CLYDEDALE DR
        ELLIS W F BLK 2/5778
        BLK 2/5778 LTS 1C, 2A, 2B &
        NE 50 FT LT 1B
        DALLAS, DALLAS COUNTY, TEXAS
        DCAD ACCOUNT NUMBER: C00000433606000000

     2. 3001 KENDALE DR
        ELLIS W F
        BLK 2/5778 LT 1-A & 25 FT LT 1-B
        DALLAS, DALLAS COUNTY, TEXAS
        DCAD ACCOUNT NUMBER: C00000433609000000

     3. 3001 CLYDEDALE DR
        ELLIS W F
        BLK 3/5778 LTS 1A, 1B, 2A
        STORY LN-OVERLAKE DR & CLYDEDALE
        DALLAS, DALLAS COUNTY, TEXAS
        DCAD ACCOUNT NUMBER: C00000433621000000

     4. 3012 STOREY LN
        ELLIS W F
        BLK 3/5778 LT 2B & 2C
        STOREY LANE
        DALLAS, DALLAS COUNTY, TEXAS
        DCAD ACCOUNT NUMBER: C00000433630000000

The Appraisal District is a political subdivision of the State of
Texas.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Michael R. Boling, Esq.
     Christopher M. Tejeda, Esq.
     LAW OFFICE OF MICHAEL R. BOLING
     2305 West Parker Road, Suite 203
     Plano, TX 75023
     Phone: (214) 378-8788
     Fax: (214) 378-8988
     E-mail: michael@bolinglegal.com
             chris@bolinglegal.com


DALLAS CENTRAL: Centenario Claims Excessive Property Valuation
--------------------------------------------------------------
CENTENARIO REALTY, LLC, Plaintiff, v. DALLAS CENTRAL APPRAISAL
DISTRICT, Defendant, Case No. DC-16-10810, filed in the Judicial
District Court of Dallas County, Texas on August 30, 2016,
protests as excessive the appraised value placed on a property
located at 1701 N COLLINS BLVD. COLLINS ATRIUM, BLK 1 LT 1 ACS
4.866, RICHARDSON, DALLAS COUNTY, TEXAS.

The Appraisal District is a political subdivision of the State of
Texas.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Michael R. Boling, Esq.
     Christopher M. Tejeda, Esq.
     LAW OFFICE OF MICHAEL R. BOLING
     2305 West Parker Road, Suite 203
     Plano, TX 75023
     Phone: (214) 378-8788
     Fax: (214) 378-8988
     E-mail: michael@bolinglegal.com
             chris@bolinglegal.com


DALLAS CENTRAL: Cornerstone Amberly Says Valuation Excessive
------------------------------------------------------------
CORNERSTONE AMBERLY, LP, Plaintiff, v. DALLAS CENTRAL APPRAISAL
DISTRICT, Defendant, Case No. DC-16-10757, filed in the Judicial
District Court of Dallas County, Texas on August 30, 2016,
protests as excessive the appraised value placed on real property
and improvements in 2729 N. Garland Ave., Garland, Texas.

The Appraisal District is a political subdivision of the State of
Texas.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


DALLAS CENTRAL: Elmstone Group Says Property Valuation Excessive
--------------------------------------------------------------
ELMSTONE GROUP TV, LLC, Plaintiff, v. DALLAS CENTRAL APPRAISAL
DISTRICT, Defendant, Case No. DC-16-10744, filed in the Judicial
District Court of Dallas County, Texas on August 30, 2016,
protests as excessive the appraised value placed on real property
and improvements in 2119 W. Irving Road, Irving Texas.

The Appraisal District is a political subdivision of the State of
Texas.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


DALLAS CENTRAL: Fountainhead Says Property Valuation Excessive
--------------------------------------------------------------
FOUNTAINHEAD TEXAS REALTY, LLC, Plaintiff, v. DALLAS CENTRAL
APPRAISAL DISTRICT, Defendant, Case No. DC-16-10803, filed in the
Judicial District Court of Dallas County, Texas on August 30,
2016, protests as excessive the appraised value placed on real
property, improvements and business personal property located at
1111 N TOWN EAST BLVD., PALOS VERDES 5, BLK. 3 LT 023, MESQUITE,
DALLAS COUNTY, TEXAS.

The Appraisal District is a political subdivision of the State of
Texas.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Michael R. Boling, Esq.
     Christopher M. Tejeda, Esq.
     LAW OFFICE OF MICHAEL R. BOLING
     2305 West Parker Road, Suite 203
     Plano, TX 75023
     Phone: (214) 378-8788
     Fax: (214) 378-8988
     E-mail: michael@bolinglegal.com
             chris@bolinglegal.com


DALLAS CENTRAL: Frankford Court Says Property Valuation Excessive
-----------------------------------------------------------------
FRANKFORD COURT, LP, Plaintiff, v. DALLAS CENTRAL APPRAISAL
DISTRICT, Defendant, Case No. DC-16-10761, filed in the Judicial
District Court of Dallas County, Texas on August 30, 2016,
protests as excessive the appraised value placed on property
located at 1601 N CENTRAL EXPY., UNIVERSITY BUSINESS CENTER, BLK.
A LT 5 ACRES 0.9932, RICHARDSON, DALLAS COUNTY, TEXAS.

The Appraisal District is a political subdivision of the State of
Texas.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Michael R. Boling, Esq.
     Christopher M. Tejeda, Esq.
     LAW OFFICE OF MICHAEL R. BOLING
     2305 West Parker Road, Suite 203
     Plano, TX 75023
     Phone: (214) 378-8788
     Fax: (214) 378-8988
     E-mail: michael@bolinglegal.com
             chris@bolinglegal.com


DALLAS CENTRAL: Hospitality Properties Opposes Property Valuation
-----------------------------------------------------------------
HOSPITALITY PROPERTIES (Courtyard - Dallas Central Expressway),
Plaintiff, v. DALLAS CENTRAL APPRAISAL DISTRICT, Defendant, Case
No. DC-16-10797, filed in the Judicial District Court of Dallas
County, Texas on August 30, 2016, protests as excessive the
appraised value placed on certain real property and improvements
located at 10325 North Central Expressway in Dallas, Dallas
County, Texas.

The Appraisal District is a political subdivision of the State of
Texas.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Daniel P. Donovan, Esq.
     Carolyn Chinn Maly, Esq.
     GEARY, PORTER & DONOVAN, P.C.
     One Bent Tree Tower
     16475 Dallas Pkwy., Suite 400
     Addison, TX 75001-6837
     Phone: (972) 931-9901
     Fax: (972) 931-9208
     E-mail: ddonovan@gpd.com
             cmaly@gpd.com


DALLAS CENTRAL: HPTMI Corp. Alleges Excessive Property Valuation
----------------------------------------------------------------
HPTMI CORPORATION (Residence Inn - Dallas Richardson), Plaintiff,
v. DALLAS CENTRAL APPRAISAL DISTRICT, Defendant, Case No. DC-16-
10789, filed in the Judicial District Court of Dallas County,
Texas on August 30, 2016, protests as excessive the appraised
value placed on certain real property and improvements located at
1040 Waterwood Drive in Richardson, Dallas County, Texas.

The Appraisal District is a political subdivision of the State of
Texas.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Daniel P. Donovan, Esq.
     Carolyn Chinn Maly, Esq.
     GEARY, PORTER & DONOVAN, P.C.
     One Bent Tree Tower
     16475 Dallas Pkwy., Suite 400
     Addison, TX 75001-6837
     Phone: (972) 931-9901
     Fax: (972) 931-9208
     E-mail: ddonovan@gpd.com
             cmaly@gpd.com


DALLAS CENTRAL: HPTRI Corp. Alleges Excessive Property Valuation
----------------------------------------------------------------
HPTRI CORPORATION (Residence Inn - Dallas Central Expressway),
Plaintiff, v. DALLAS CENTRAL APPRAISAL DISTRICT, Defendant, Case
No. DC-16-10794, filed in the Judicial District Court of Dallas
County, Texas on August 30, 2016, protests as excessive the
appraised value placed on certain real property and improvements
located at 10333 North Central Expressway in Dallas, Dallas
County, Texas.

The Appraisal District is a political subdivision of the State of
Texas.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Daniel P. Donovan, Esq.
     Carolyn Chinn Maly, Esq.
     GEARY, PORTER & DONOVAN, P.C.
     One Bent Tree Tower
     16475 Dallas Pkwy., Suite 400
     Addison, TX 75001-6837
     Phone: (972) 931-9901
     Fax: (972) 931-9208
     E-mail: ddonovan@gpd.com
             cmaly@gpd.com


DALLAS CENTRAL: I&J-DSI Alleges Excessive Property Valuation
------------------------------------------------------------
I&J-DSI, LLC, Plaintiff, v. DALLAS CENTRAL APPRAISAL DISTRICT,
Defendant, Case No. DC-16-10799 filed in the K-192nd Judicial
District Court of Dallas County, Texas, August 30, 2016, protests
as excessive the appraised value placed on business personal
property located at1409 W PIONEER DR., C M HUNSACKER ABST 632 PG
306, TR 13 ACS 1.049, IRVING, DALLAS COUNTY, TEXAS.

The Appraisal District is a political subdivision of the State of
Texas.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Michael R. Boling, Esq.
     Christopher M. Tejeda, Esq.
     LAW OFFICE OF MICHAEL R. BOLING
     2305 West Parker Road, Suite 203
     Plano, TX 75023
     Phone: (214) 378-8788
     Fax: (214) 378-8988
     E-mail: michael@bolinglegal.com
             chris@bolinglegal.com


DALLAS CENTRAL: Garland Meadows Sues Over Excessive Appraisal
-------------------------------------------------------------
GARLAND MEADOWS, LTD., the Plaintiff, v. DALLAS CENTRAL APPRAISAL
DISTRICT, the Defendant, Case No. DC-16-10208 filed in the
District Court of Dallas County, Texas, on August 22, 2016, asks
the Court to fix the appraised value of the Plaintiff's Property
in accordance with the law.

In May 2016, the Plaintiff learned that the Appraisal District had
made an appraisal of the 2016 market value of the Property for use
by the relevant Taxing Units in Dallas County, Texas in assessing
2016 ad valorem property taxes.

The Plaintiff alleges that the value placed on the Property by the
District represents a value in excess of fair market value for tax
year 2016 in violation of Texas Tax Code.

The Defendant is responsible for appraising taxable property for
ad valorem taxation purposes.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Michael A. Lang, Esq.
          Heather H. Long, 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: Las Colinas Lake Sues Over Excessive Appraisal
--------------------------------------------------------------
LAS COLINAS LAKE POINTE, LP, the Plaintiff, v. DALLAS CENTRAL
APPRAISAL DISTRICT, the Defendant, Case No. DC-16-10210 filed in
the District Court of Dallas County, Texas, on August 22, 2016,
asks the Court to fix the appraised value of the Plaintiff's
Property in accordance with the law.

In May 2016, the Plaintiff learned that the Appraisal District had
made an appraisal of the 2016 market value of the Property for use
by the relevant Taxing Units in Dallas County, Texas in assessing
2016 ad valorem property taxes.

The Plaintiff alleges that the value placed on the Property by the
District represents a value in excess of fair market value for tax
year 2016 in violation of Texas Tax Code.

The Defendant is responsible for appraising taxable property for
ad valorem taxation purposes.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Michael A. Lang, Esq.
          Heather H. Long, 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: "Longhofer" Sues Over Excessive Appraisal
---------------------------------------------------------
MATTHEW LONGHOFER and JENIFER LONGHOFER, the Plaintiff, v. DALLAS
CENTRAL APPRAISAL DISTRICT, the Defendants, Case No. DC-16-10249
filed in the District Court of Dallas County, Texas, on August 22,
2016, asks the Court to fix the appraised value of the Plaintiff's
Property in accordance with the law.

On May 1, 2016, the Plaintiff was notified by Defendant that the
value of the Property had been appraised for 2016 at $l,749,820.

The Property's appraised value according to the appraisal ro11
exceeds the correct market value as of January 1,2016.

The Property's actual appraisal ratio as of January 1, 2016
exceeds, by at least ten percent, the median of: (1) the appraisal
of a reasonable and representative sample of other properties in
the appraisal district or (2) a sample of properties in the
appraisal district consisting of a reasonable number of other
properties similarly situated to, or of the same general kind and
character as, the Property.

The Defendant is responsible for appraising taxable property for
ad valorem taxation purposes.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Joshua E. Estes, Esq.
          Niral R. Gandhi, Esq.
          ESTES & GANDHI, P.C.
          1700 Pacific Avenue, Suite 4610
          Dallas, TX 75201
          Telephone: (214) 272 8030
          Facsimile: (214) 390 3303
          E-mail: jestes@estesgandhi.com
                  NGandhi@estesgandhi.com


DALLAS CENTRAL: Mid-America Files Suit Over Excessive Appraisal
---------------------------------------------------------------
MID-AMERICA APARTMENTS LP (COURTYARD AT CAMPBELL), the Plaintiff,
v. DALLAS CENTRAL APPRAISAL DISTRICT, the Defendant, Case No. DC-
16-10264 filed in the District Court of Dallas County, Texas, on
August 22, 2016, seeks monetary relief of $100,000 or less
(attorneys' fees) and non-monetary relief (correction of the
appraisal roll as it pertains to Plaintiffs property).

In May, 2016, the Plaintiff learned that the Appraisal District
had made an appraisal of the 2016 market value of the Property for
use by the relevant Taxing Units in Dallas County, Texas in
assessing 2016 ad valorem property taxes. The Appraisal District
appraised the value of the Property at $16,802,390.

The Plaintiff alleges that the value placed on the Property is
based upon an appraisal method which is antiquated, unfair, and
erroneous and which does not take into account all relevant
factors and indicators of market value, and that the appraisal so
made is void, unlawful and should be cancelled and set aside.

The Defendant is responsible for appraising taxable property for
ad valorem taxation purposes.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Daniel P. Donovan, Esq.
          Jennifer C. Tobin, Esq.
          Mazelle S. Krasoff, Esq.
          GEARY, PORTER & DONOVAN, P.C.
          One Bent Tree Tower
          16475 Dallas Pkwy., Suite 400
          Addison, TX 75001-6837
          Telephone: (972) 931 9901
          Facsimile: (972) 931 9208
          E-mail: ddonovan@gpd.com
                  jtobin@gpd.com
                  mkrasoff@gpd.com


DALLAS CENTRAL: Peachtree I Sues Over Excessive Appraisal
---------------------------------------------------------
PEACHTREE I ASSOCIATES - DALLAS, LP, the Plaintiff, v. DALLAS
CENTRAL APPRAISAL DISTRICT, the Defendant, Case No. DC-16-10215
filed in the District Court of Dallas County, Texas, on August 22,
2016, asks the Court to fix the appraised value of the Plaintiff's
Property in accordance with the law.

In May 2016, the Plaintiff learned that the Appraisal District had
made an appraisal of the 2016 market value of the Property for use
by the relevant Taxing Units in Dallas County, Texas in assessing
2016 ad valorem property taxes.

The Plaintiff alleges that the value placed on the Property by the
District represents a value in excess of fair market value for tax
year 2016 in violation of Texas Tax Code.

The Defendant is responsible for appraising taxable property for
ad valorem taxation purposes.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Michael A. Lang, Esq.
          Heather H. Long, 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: PRCP Dallas Sues Over Excessive Appraisal
---------------------------------------------------------
PRCP DALLAS INVESTMENT LP (GLEN AT HIGHPOINT), the Plaintiff, v.
DALLAS CENTRAL APPRAISAL DISTRICT, the Defendant, Case No. DC-16-
10225 filed in the District Court of Dallas County, Texas, on
August 22, 2016, seeks monetary relief of $100,000 or less
(attorneys' fees) and non-monetary relief (correction of the
appraisal roll as it pertains to Plaintiffs property).

In May 2016, the Plaintiff learned that the Appraisal District had
made an appraisal of the 2016 market value of the Property for use
by the relevant Taxing Units in Dallas County, Texas in assessing
2016 ad valorem property taxes. The Appraisal District appraised
the value of the Property at an amount in excess of the appraised
value required by law.

The Plaintiff alleges that the value placed on the Property is
based upon an appraisal method which is antiquated, unfair, and
erroneous and which does not take into account all relevant
factors and indicators of market value, and that the appraisal so
made is void, unlawful and should be cancelled and set aside.

The Defendant is responsible for appraising taxable property for
ad valorem taxation purposes.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Daniel P. Donovan, Esq.
          Jennifer C. Tobin, Esq.
          Mazelle S. Krasoff, Esq.
          GEARY, PORTER & DONOVAN, P.C.
          One Bent Tree Tower
          16475 Dallas Pkwy., Suite 400
          Addison, TX 75001-6837
          Telephone: (972) 931 9901
          Facsimile: (972) 931 9208
          E-mail: ddonovan@gpd.com
                  jtobin@gpd.com
                  mkrasoff@gpd.com


DEFFENBAUGH INDUSTRIES: Court Granted Settlement in "Whitton"
-------------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit titled LARRY WHITTON, on behalf of himself and all
others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. DEFFENBAUGH
INDUSTRIES, INC. and DEFFENBAUGH DISPOSAL, INC., Defendants, Case
No. 2:12-cv-02247-CM-KGG (D. Kan.), the Hon. Judge Carlos Murguia
granted Plaintiffs' unopposed motion for preliminary approval of
Settlement as modified by the parties Joint Supplemental Briefing
with the court's modifications as to the short notice form.

Under the settlement, the Defendants have agreed to establish a
settlement fund in the amount of $7,695,000.00. Those funds, after
payments to class counsel and class representatives in the amounts
approved by the court, will be distributed to the settlement class
in this manner:

     i. Per Capita Distribution: Fifteen percent (15%) shall be
     allocated such that every Class Member who does not opt out
     shall receive its per capita distribution of approximately
     twenty-one dollars ($21.00) in consideration of the
     settlement and release of all claims; and

     ii. Pro Rata Distribution: After performing the Per Capita
     Distribution calculations for all Class Members, all
     remaining amounts in the Settlement Fund shall be
     distributed to those Class Members who also paid Fuel
     Charges as follows. The Settlement Administrator shall
     calculate, from data supplied by Deffenbaugh, (1) the total
     amount of Fuel Charges billed to all Commercial Customers
     between May 1, 2007 and June 30, 2015, and (2) the total
     amount of Fuel Charges billed to each individual Class
     Member between May 1, 2007 and June 30, 2015. Using this
     information, the Claims Administrator shall determine the
     pro-rata recovery of each Class Member who was billed Fuel
     Charges and award and distribute the same to each Class
     Member.

A copy of the Order vis available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=QO3w6hSd


DOLE FOODS: 3rd Cir. Revives Pesticide Exposure Suit
----------------------------------------------------
Lorraine Bailey, writing for Courthouse News Service, reported
that the en banc Third Circuit unanimously revived banana
plantation workers' claims that Dole Foods, Chiquita, Dow
Chemicals and others knowingly exposed them to a chemical that
causes cancer and sterility.

Hundreds of Latin American banana plantation workers allege that
Dole Foods, Chiquita, Dow Chemicals and other multinational giants
deliberately exposed them to dibromochloropropane, or DBCP, a
pesticide banned in the United States that causes cancer and
sterility.

Litigation in these consolidated cases began more than 20 years
ago, but procedural developments led the workers out of Texas
courts and into Louisiana.

Then, on well-founded fears their claims would be dismissed in
Louisiana over timeliness, the workers filed suit in Delaware
Federal Court.

In their Delaware complaints, the banana workers claimed the
defendants knowingly exposed them to DBCP, a chemical used to kill
nematodes in the soil.

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency lists DBCP as a probable
carcinogen and banned domestic use of the pesticide in 1979,
exempting pineapple growers in Hawaii until 1985.

The banana workers say the defendants did not provide workers with
protective covering or equipment while they injected the pesticide
into the soil or sprayed it over the fields.

According to one complaint, the "fumes and vapors released by the
chemical remained trapped under the canopy created by the large
impermeable banana leaves which cut off almost all ventilation and
drifted throughout the banana plantation exposing anyone working
in the vicinity."

Exposure to DBCP allegedly caused the workers to suffer
infertility, cancer, compromised renal systems and defective
sperm.

A federal judge dismissed the Delaware lawsuits with prejudice
under the "first-filed rule," but the full Third Circuit revived
the case on September 2, in an 11-0 decision.

"As these cases come to us today, there is a serious possibility
that no court will ever reach the merits of the plaintiffs'
claims. More than 20 years after this litigation began, we think
that outcome is untenable," Judge Julio Fuentes said, writing for
the unanimous court.

The judges ruled that the Delaware Federal Court should have
applied the first-filed rule by staying the workers' case rather
than dismissing it.

"In the vast majority of cases, a court exercising its discretion
under the first-filed rule should stay or transfer a second-filed
suit. Even a dismissal without prejudice may create unanticipated
problems. A dismissal with prejudice will almost always be an
abuse of discretion," Fuentes said. (Emphasis in original.)

The Philadelphia-based appeals court said it was skeptical of Dole
and Chiquita's claim that the workers have engaged in
impermissible forum shopping by trying to preserve their right to
litigate in two different jurisdictions.

"Whatever else the first-filed rule demands, it does not require
litigants to see through a glass darkly in order to predict
whether a court will consider their claims timely," Fuentes said.

The judge noted that the workers have not gained any advantage by
filing in two courts, and are indifferent as to which court hears
their claims as long as one court will hear them.

Further, the doctrine of res judicata, or claim preclusion, does
not bar relitigation of similar claims in Delaware given the
exceptional circumstances of the case, the Third Circuit ruled.

"In this case, the plaintiffs had no way to predict that the
Louisiana Supreme Court would reject cross-jurisdictional class
action tolling, thereby rendering their claims untimely in
Louisiana courts," Fuentes wrote. "While parties should be
prevented from 'burdening courts with claims already litigated,'
we must be 'mindful of not barring plaintiffs from having their
day in court by overzealously preventing them from having two days
in court.' We think a Louisiana court would reach the same
conclusion."


EAGLE COLLECTION: Certification of Class Sought in "Dawes" Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Cindy Dawes moves the Court to certify the classes described in
the complaint of the lawsuit captioned CINDY DAWES, Individually
and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated v. EAGLE COLLECTION
CORP., Case No. 2:16-cv-01193-LA (E.D. Wisc.), and 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.

The Plaintiff says 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=OCi03p0O

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


EPIC SYSTEMS: Bid to Decertify FLSA Class in "Long" Suit Denied
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Hon. Barbara B. Crabb denied the Defendant's motion to
decertify the Fair Labor Standards Act collective action entitled
LONG, D., individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. EPIC SYSTEMS CORPORATION, Case No. 3:15-cv-00081-bbc
(W.D. Wisc.).

In her opinion and order, Judge Crabb stated that the Defendant
has not identified any persuasive reason why individual lawsuits
would be a superior method to resolving the parties' dispute.

"After considering the arguments of the parties and conducting an
independent review of the declarations and other documents in the
record, I conclude that plaintiff's FLSA claims may proceed as a
collective action.  Although there are individual variances among
the opt-in plaintiffs as to their employment experiences, the
inquiry at the heart of this case is whether their primary job
duties and defendant's practices and processes that applied to all
technical writers exempted them from overtime wages under federal
law.  It makes sense to decide the exemption issue with respect to
all employees in one case," Judge Crabb opined.

The Case is a civil action for monetary relief under the Fair
Labor Standards Act and Wisconsin overtime compensation laws.
Plaintiff Dayna Long contends that Epic misclassified her and
other technical writers as exempt from overtime wages and failed
to pay them wages of one and one-half times their regular rate of
pay for any overtime hours that they worked.  The Defendant
asserts that technical writers qualify for the overtime exemption
for "employee[s] employed in a bona fide executive,
administrative, or professional capacity."

On April 17, 2015, the parties stipulated to conditional
certification of a nationwide FLSA collective action and a court-
authorized notice to be sent to approximately 50 putative class
members.

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


INTERNATIONAL BUSINESS: 2 Securities Cases over Write Down Tossed
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reported that a federal judge in Manhattan
tossed two securities class actions on September 7, concerning the
$2.4 billion write-down IBM took in October 2014 in connection
with divesting its microelectronics business.

The case is captioned, LARRY W. JANDER, RICHARD J. WAKSMAN, and
all other individuals similarly situated, Plaintiffs, -against-
INTERNATIONAL BUSINESS MACHINES CORPORATION, et al.,
Defendants., 15cv3781 (S.D.N.Y)


FALCON FLOWBACK: Flowback Hands Class Certified in "Lyles" Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Hon. David L. Russell granted the Plaintiff's unopposed motion
for conditional certification in the lawsuit captioned JOHN LYLES,
Individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v.
FALCON FLOWBACK SERVICES, LLC, Case No. 5:15-cv-01198-R (W.D.
Okla.).

The collective action is conditionally certified, pursuant to the
Fair Labor Standards Act, on behalf of this class:

     All current and former Flowback Hands who worked for Falcon
     Flowback Services, LLC at any time from three years before
     the date of mailing of this notice and were classified as
     independent contractors.

Judge Russell directs Falcon to provide the names, addresses, e-
mail addresses (if known), and telephone numbers for the Putative
Class Members to the Plaintiff's counsel no later than 14 days
from the date of this order.  The Plaintiff's counsel will have
seven days from the date Falcon provides the contact information
for the Putative Class Members to distribute, at the Plaintiff's
expense, the approved Notice and Consent forms to the Putative
Class Members.

The Putative Class Members will have 60 days from the initial
mailing of the Notice and Consent form to file the Consent form
with the Court in order to opt-in to the lawsuit.  If the
Plaintiff's Counsel receives a consent form from an individual,
who has not been previously identified on the class list provided
by the Defendant, the Counsel will notify the Defendant's counsel
of the identity of the individual, and the Defendant will provide
employment history information for that individual within five
business days.

Judge Russell, ruled that, among other things, to conserve
resources during the Opt-in Period, the case will be stayed from
the date of the Court granting conditional certification until 60
days after the close of the opt-in notice period.  The parties
will meet and confer to determine any additional informal
discovery they believe is necessary to facilitate discussions
regarding settlement.

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


FINANCIAL ASSET: Lesh Seeks Class Certification Under "Damasco"
---------------------------------------------------------------
Anton Lesh moves the Court to certify the class described in the
complaint of the lawsuit entitled ANTON LESH, Individually and on
Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated v. FINANCIAL ASSET
MANAGEMENT SYSTEMS, INC., Case No. 2:16-cv-01200-LA (E.D. Wisc.),
and 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=kKDuB5uf

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


FIRST STUDENT: Class Certification Bid in "Motty" Suit Denied
-------------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit entitled JAMES MOTTY, on behalf of himself and
all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. FIRST STUDENT,
INC.; and DOES 1-100, inclusive, Defendants, Case No. 2:15-cv-
07463-ODW-E (C.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Otis D. Wright, II denied
Plaintiff's motion for class certification.

The Plaintiff's counsel simply states that they have experience
litigating class actions, but does not address First Student's
arguments relating to the case at bar, the Court said. Just
because Plaintiff's counsel has a history pursuing class actions
does not mean the work currently before the Court is of sufficient
quality to ensure that the class members' rights and interests
will be properly protected. In sum, because Plaintiff's counsel
will not adequately serve the interests of the class members they
seek to represent.

Plaintiff James Motty, a former bus driver for Defendant First
Student, Inc., moves to certify a class consisting of all Pasadena
Yard school bus drivers employed by First Student since November
19, 2007.  Plaintiff asserts that First Student's drivers are paid
based on the activities they perform and not the hours they
worked, and that this activity-based pay plan does not account for
rest breaks or non-driving tasks, as required by California law.
Plaintiff also contends that the drivers' wage statements did not
comply with California law.

First Student argues that Plaintiff lacks any evidentiary support
for his claims and cannot establish any of the requisite elements
for class certification.

A copy of the Order is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=tZxiUle9


FITNESS INT'L: Seeks 9th Cir. Review of Ruling in "Briones" Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Defendants Fitness International, LLC, Fitness & Sports Clubs,
LLC, and Does, 1 through 20, filed an appeal from a court ruling
in the lawsuit titled Beau Briones v. Fitness International, LLC,
et al., Case No. 8:16-cv-00044-JLS-KES, in the U.S. District Court
for the Central District of California, Santa Ana.

As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, Beau Briones,
individually, and on behalf of other members of the general public
similarly situated, filed the Case seeking to recover damages and
other relief, as a result of the Defendants' alleged practice of
cheating consumers, who purchased the Defendants' products, out of
thousands of dollars.

The appellate case is captioned as Beau Briones v. Fitness
International, LLC, et al., Case No. 16-56266, in the United
States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.

The Ninth Circuit has set this schedule:

   -- Transcript must be ordered by October 3, 2016;

   -- Transcript is due on January 3, 2017;

   -- Appellants' opening brief is due on February 13, 2017;

   -- Appellee's answering brief is due on March 15, 2017; and

   -- Appellant's optional reply brief is due 14 days after
      service of the answering brief.

The Plaintiff-Appellee is represented by:

          Todd M. Friedman, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF TODD M. FRIEDMAN, P.C.
          324 S. Beverly Dr., No. 725
          Beverly Hills, CA 90212
          Telephone: (877) 206 4741
          Facsimile: (866) 633 0228
          E-mail: tfriedman@attorneysforconsumers.com

Defendants-Appellants FITNESS INTERNATIONAL, LLC, and FITNESS &
SPORTS CLUBS, LLC, are represented by:

          Bryan Alexander Merryman, Esq.
          WHITE & CASE LLP
          555 South Flower Street, Suite 2700
          Los Angeles, CA 90071
          Telephone: (213) 620-7700
          E-mail: bmerryman@whitecase.com


FIVE-STAR FOOD: Wins Conditional Certification in "Braddy" Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Hon. Aleta A. Trauger granted the parties' joint motion for
conditional certification and notice in the lawsuit styled JANICE
BRADDY v. FIVE-STAR FOOD SERVICES, INC., Case No. 3:16-cv-00748
(M.D. Tenn.).

The Court conditionally certifies the matter as a collective
action and directs the parties to send notice and provide an
opportunity to join the action to:

     All current and former hourly-paid cafeteria services
     employees of Five Star Food Service, Inc. who have worked in
     any dining facility (including micromarkets that offer
     dining services) for any period of time from April 15, 2013
     to the present.

Judge Trauger directs the Defendant to provide to the Plaintiff in
an excel or other agreeable format the names, current or last
known home address and dates of employment for each individual in
the Class of current or former employees by September 8, 2016.
The Plaintiff will issue the notice by mail to each class member
as expeditiously as possible and the putative class members will
have until November 1, 2016, to opt-into the Action.

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


The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Charles P. Yezbak, III, Esq.
          YEZBAK LAW OFFICES
          2002 Richard Jones Road, Suite B-200
          Nashville, TN 37215
          Telephone: (615) 250-2000
          E-mail: yezbak@yezbaklaw.com

The Defendant is represented by:

          Timothy L. Mickel, Esq.
          John C. Harrison, Esq.
          EVANS HARRISON HACKETT, PLLC
          One Central Plaza, Suite 800
          835 Georgia Avenue
          Chattanooga, TN 37402
          Telephone: (423) 648-7890
          E-mail: tmickel@ehhlaw.com
                  jharrison@ehhlaw.com


FLOWERS FOODS: Richard, et al. Seek Certification of FLSA Class
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit entitled ANTOINE RICHARD, DARRELL RICHARD, CHRIS
MECHE, DERBY DOUCET, SR., KEVIN RABEAUX and MARK LOUVIERE,
individually and on Behalf of all similarly situated individuals,
the Plaintiffs, v. FLOWERS FOODS, INC.; FLOWERS MAGISTRATE JUDGE
CAROL B. BAKING COMPANY OF LAFAYETTE, WHITEHURST LLC; FLOWERS
BAKING COMPANY OF BATON ROUGE, LLC; FLOWERS BAKING COMPANY OF
ALEXANDRIA, LLC; FLOWERS BAKING COMPANY OF NEW ORLEANS, LLC; and
FLOWERS BAKING COMPANY OF TYLER, LLC, the Defendants, Case No.
6:15-cv-02557-SMH-CBW (W.D. La.), the Plaintiffs seek conditional
certification of a Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) collective-
action group composed of:

     "all individuals who, through a contract with Defendants or
     otherwise, distribute or distributed for Defendants under
     agreements with Flowers Baking Company of Lafayette, L.L.C.;
     or Flowers Baking Company of Baton Rouge, L.L.C.; or Flowers
     Baking Company of Alexandria, L.L.C.; or Flowers Baking
     Company of New Orleans, L.L.C.; or Flowers Baking Company of
     Tyler, L.L.C.; or any other affiliates or subsidiaries of
     Flowers Foods, Inc. which employ distributors working within
     the state of Louisiana; and who were classified by
     Defendants as "independent contractors" anywhere at any time
     in the United States from the date that is three years
     preceding the commencement of this action through the close
     of the Court-determined opt-in period and who file consent
     to join the action."

The Plaintiffs further move the Court to order a 90-day period for
responding to the Class Action Notice; order the Defendants to
produce within 10 days of its order a list of all collective-
action group members including information necessary to send
notice as further enumerated in the accompanying Memorandum in
Support; allow Plaintiffs to send two reminder postcards regarding
the opt-in deadlines to persons receiving notice on or about day
45 and day 75 of the 90-day notice period; and require Defendants
post the same notification at all of Defendants' warehouses in the
same areas in which they are required to post FLSA notices.

A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=1wRbQ8p3

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Steven G. Durio, Esq.
          Ryan M. Goudelocke, Esq.
          Daniel J. Phillips, Esq.
          DURIO, MCGOFFIN, STAGG & ACKERMANN
          220 Heymann Boulevard (70503)
          Post Office Box 51308
          Lafayette, LA 70505-1308
          Telephone: (337) 233 0300
          Facsimile: (337) 233 0694


FORT ZUMWALT: Joint Class Certification Sought in "John Doe" Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit styled JOHN DOE, as Next Friend of JAMES DOE, the
Plaintiff, v. FORT ZUMWALT R-II SCHOOL DISTRICT, et al., the
Defendant, Case No. 4:16-cv-00546-JAR (E.D. Mo.), the Plaintiff
and District Defendant ask the Court to enter an order certifying
a class for the purpose of determining potential liability only.

The Parties agree that because of the varied nature of Plaintiff's
claims against District Defendant, and the individual nature of
the alleged harm to the Plaintiffs, damages for each Plaintiff
could potentially be unique.

Accordingly, due to the potentially unique nature of alleged
damages to each class member, Plaintiff and District Defendant
agree that it would not be appropriate to certify the class with
respect to a calculation of damages, should any potential
liability be found.

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

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Larry A. Bagsby, Esq.
          THE BAGSBY LAW FIRM
          125 North Main Street, Suite 204
          St. Charles, MO 63301
          Telephone: (636) 244 5595
          Facsimile: (636) 244 5596
          E-mail: larrybagsby@aol.com

               - and -

          Deborah J. Alessi, Esq.
          SHEA, KOHL, ALESSI, & KUHL, L.C.
          400 North Fifth Street, Suite 200
          St. Charles, MO 63301
          Telephone: (636) 946 9999
          Facsimile: (636) 946 8623
          E-mail: dalessi@skaklaw.com

The Defendant is represented by:

          Celynda L. Brasher, Esq.
          Michael J. Curry, Esq.
          TUETH KEENEY COOPER
          MOHAN & JACKSTADT, P.C.
          34 N. Meramec, Suite 600
          St. Louis, MO 63105
          Telephone: (314) 880 3600
          Facsimile: (314) 880 3601
          E-mail: cbrasher@tuethkeeney.com


FOX BROADCASTING: Sued Over Juvenile Detention Center Filming
-------------------------------------------------------------
Dominic Patten, writing for Deadline, reports that with the Season
3 debut of Empire just weeks away, the first two episodes of the
Fox blockbuster's second season on Aug. 25 were at the center of a
potential big-bucks class action lawsuit filed over filming at a
Chicago juvenile detention center that left hundreds of underage
inmates in "lockdown."

"The Fox Defendants deliberately encouraged the Government
Defendants to improperly place the JTDC on lockdown during the
filming of Empire, for commercial benefit," says the wide-ranging
lawsuit from two now-former residents of the Cook County Juvenile
Temporary Detention Center.

Twentieth Century Fox Television, Inc, Fox Broadcasting Company,
Inc., Twenty-First Century Fox, Inc., Fox Entertainment Group,
Inc., Fox Networks Group, Inc. and Fox Television Group are all
named as defendants along with Cook County, the center's
superintendent Leonard Dixon, and unnamed others.  Fox did not
respond on Aug. 24 to request for comment on the damages-seeking
lawsuit.

According to the jury-seeking action by two teens going by T.S,
and Q.B., the Illinois facility was used on three occasions in the
summer of 2015 for filming of scenes featuring Terrence Howard's
Lucious Lyon character behind bars.  Chris Rock was also part of
the shoots that took place June 21-26, July 13-16 and August 23-26
last year at the center that was once federally run. That S2
filming over large portions of the center and involving much of
its staff resulted in the hundreds of children there unable to
attend school, have significant family visits and use its "only
outdoor recreation yard, its library, and its chapel."

"The actions, omissions, and conduct of the Defendants as set
forth in this complaint were extreme and outrageous," the filing
adds.  It also notes that while residents were in "psychologically
damaging" situations of being kept in their cells or crammed into
a dayroom with nothing to do, Empire was filming episodes that
would earn it "$750,000 per 30-second advertising spot in Episode
1, and $600,000 per 30-second spot in Episode 2."  As a part of
the relief, the plaintiffs are seeking -- for themselves and up to
400 other class members -- those profits Fox made from the filming
of the much-watched September 23 and 30, 2015 episodes that took
place at the center.

"These actions were rooted in an abuse of power and authority and
were undertaken with the intent to cause, or were in reckless
disregard of the probability that their conduct would cause,
severe emotional distress to the children housed at the JTDC," the
37-page suit claims.

This is one of a number of suits Empire is dealing with currently.
A federal judge rejected a motion by Fox, Empire
co-creators Lee Daniels and Danny Strong and others to dismiss
Sophia Eggleton's case that the Taraji P. Henson-portrayed Cookie
Lyon is based on Eggleton and her 2009 memoir.  Then there is the
action by Howard's former managers over unpaid Empire commissions
they say the Oscar-nominated actor owes them -- especially after
they stopped him from being fired from the show.

Stephen Weil -- sweil@eimerstahl.com -- Pamela Hanebutt --
phanebutt@eimerstahl.com -- and Susan Razzano --
srazzano@eimerstahl.com -- of Chicago firm Eimer Stahl LLP are
representing T.S., Q.B, and their respective guardians in the
matter.


GEO GROUP: Faces Suit Over Non-Disclosure of Contract Risks
-----------------------------------------------------------
Becca Andrews, writing for Mother Jones, reports that on August
26, a shareholder lawsuit was filed by investors in GEO Group, the
United States' largest private prison company.  It alleges that
the company failed to disclose risks of losing its federal
contract due to a lack of adequate safety standards.


GLASSDOOR: Revealed 600,000 Emails, New York Suit Alleges
---------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reported that trampling its own privacy
policy, the jobs-listing website Glassdoor sent a message about
terms of use that revealed 600,000 email addresses, members claim
in a federal class action in Manhattan.


GLOBAL DIGITAL: Rosen Law Firm Files Securities Class Action
------------------------------------------------------------
Rosen Law Firm, a global investor rights law firm, on Aug. 25
disclosed that it has filed a class action lawsuit on behalf of
purchasers of Global Digital Solutions, Inc. securities (GDSI)
from October 8, 2013 through August 12, 2016, inclusive (the
"Class Period").  The lawsuit seeks to recover damages for Global
Digital investors under the federal securities laws.

To join the Global Digital class action, go to the website at
http://www.rosenlegal.com/cases-937.htmlor call Phillip Kim, Esq.
or Kevin Chan, Esq. toll-free at 866-767-3653 or email
pkim@rosenlegal.com or kchan@rosenlegal.com for information on the
class action.

NO CLASS HAS YET BEEN CERTIFIED IN THE ABOVE ACTION. UNTIL A CLASS
IS CERTIFIED, YOU ARE NOT REPRESENTED BY COUNSEL UNLESS YOU RETAIN
ONE. YOU MAY ALSO REMAIN AN ABSENT CLASS MEMBER AND DO NOTHING AT
THIS POINT. YOU MAY RETAIN COUNSEL OF YOUR CHOICE.

According to the lawsuit, defendants throughout the Class Period
made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose
that: (1) Airtronic USA, Inc.'s original equipment manufacturer
supplier agreement that Global Digital disclosed in its press
releases in October, 2013 did not exist; (2) Global Digital failed
to remove these misleading statements from its website despite
repeated requests to do so from the CEO of Airtronic; (3) Global
Digital lacked a reasonable basis for its revenue projection for
2014; (4) Global Digital had no credible financing in place to
acquire any company; (5) Global Digital received various
communications indicating Remington Outdoor Company, Inc. had no
interest in Global Digital's unsolicited acquisition offer; (6)
Remington had already rejected Global Digital's offer on several
occasions; and (7) as a result, defendants' statements about
Global Digital's business, operations and prospects were
materially false and misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis
at all relevant times. When the true details entered the market,
the lawsuit claims that investors suffered damages.

A class action lawsuit has already been filed. If you wish to
serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no later than
October 24, 2016.  If you wish to join the litigation, go to
http://www.rosenlegal.com/cases-937.htmlor to discuss your rights
or interests regarding this class action, please contact, Phillip
Kim, Esq. or Kevin Chan, Esq. of The Rosen Law Firm toll free at
866-767-3653 or via e-mail at pkim@rosenlegal.com or
kchan@rosenlegal.com

Rosen Law Firm represents investors throughout the globe,
concentrating its practice in securities class actions and
shareholder derivative litigation.


GOLDEN STATE: Edelson Files Privacy Class Action Over App
----------------------------------------------------------
Ross Todd, writing for Law.com, reports that that Golden State
Warriors app on your phone might be eavesdropping on you.

That's the claim that lawyers at Edelson P.C. have made in a suit
filed in San Francisco federal court on Aug. 29 against the
San Francisco Bay Area's National Basketball Association franchise
and two companies that helped the team build its mobile app.

The proposed class action claims the Warriors app surreptitiously
turns on users' phone mics to determine their location in order to
serve ads and promotions using so-called beacon technology. Filed
on behalf of New York resident LaTisha Satchell, the suit seeks to
certify a class to bring claims under the Electronic
Communications Privacy Act.

Edelson, which specializes in tech-related privacy cases, names
the team as a defendant as well as Pittsburgh-based Yinzcam Inc.,
which developed the team's app, and New York-based Signal360 Inc.,
which licenses the beacon technology.

Edelson's Christopher Dore, Esq. -- cdore@edelson.com -- said that
the firm is looking into bringing additional privacy suits against
about 10 professional sports teams. The relationship between fans
and teams, Mr. Dore said, is "not the type of commercial
interaction that consumers think they need to be wary of."

"When you're dealing with a team I think consumers sometimes
forget that teams are for-profit enterprises," Mr. Dore said.
"When consumers are made aware of these privacy issues, they may
set fan loyalty aside."

The Warriors app, which can be downloaded for free, provides a
game schedule, roster, statistics and team news.  It has
additional in-stadium features that include an arena map and
options for upgrading seats.

According to the suit, the app uses Signal360's beacons to
precisely locate fans and send them ads and promotions on their
mobile devices.  The beacons, placed around the team's home arena,
produce unique audio signals that are picked up by the mics on
users' phones.

The 15-page complaint claims the Warriors app accesses users'
phone mics regardless of whether a consumer is actively using the
app or it's running in the background.  As a result, according to
the suit, "the app would constantly and continuously record and
analyze" users' conversations.

The team's use of beacon technology is in keeping with its tech-
savvy image.  The team's venture-capitalist owner, Joe Lacob,
notably called the Warriors "light-years ahead" of all other NBA
teams in the way team officials "go about things" in a New York
Times Magazine profile published before last year's playoff run.
The Warriors highlighted the placement of beacons around Oracle
Arena in a video last year describing the technology employed by
the team to "stay connected" with fans at Warriors home games.

The suit acknowledges that the team and its co-defendants asked
for permission to access users' microphones.  However, the Edelson
lawyers claim that the defendants didn't disclose sufficient
details to users who downloaded the app from the Google Play
Store. (Apple employs a different protocol than Google for seeking
user permissions, and the suit doesn't target the team with claims
related to its iPhone app.)

The suit is seeking statutory damages under the Electronic
Communications Privacy Act -- the greater of $100 a day for each
day of violation or $10,000 -- for all users who have used the
team's Android app, which has been downloaded more than 100,000
times. The suit also seeks an injunction blocking any future
listening or recording of conversations.

The suit could extend well beyond the Warriors app, if the Edelson
lawyers get their way.  They've also asked to certify a separate
class to pursue similar claims on behalf of consumers who
downloaded other apps from the Google Play Store that use Signal
360 technology.

Representatives of the team and its co-defendants didn't
immediately respond to messages.


GREEN TREE: Certification of FDCPA Class Sought in "Geary" Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Brian and Connie Geary, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, move upon their Count Two and Class Count One
claims as articulated in their complaint in the lawsuit styled
BRIAN & CONNIE GEARY et al. v. GREEN TREE SERVICING, LLC, Case No.
2:14-cv-00522-ALM-EPD (S.D. Ohio), for certification of this
class:

     All persons who were sent by Defendant Green Tree Servicing,
     LLC, from June 3, 2014 to present, one or more letters in
     the form of the exemplars attached hereto as Exhibits 4
     through 9.

In their Complaint, the Plaintiffs sought both individualized and
class relief for Green Tree's alleged unlawful systemic practice
of sending consumers initial communication letters substantially
similar to the Initial Communications Letter the Plaintiffs
received, without sending a written 30-day Debt Validation Notice
within five days as required by the Fair Debt Collection Practices
Act.

In addition, the Plaintiffs ask the Court to appoint them as
qualified class representatives, and to appoint their counsel as
class counsel.

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

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Michael B. Zieg, Esq.
          Eric E. Willison, Esq.
          James E. Nobile, Esq.
          NOBILE & THOMPSON CO., LPA
          4876 Cemetery Road
          Hilliard, OH 43026
          Telephone: (614) 529-8600
          Facsimile: (614) 629-8656
          E-mail: mzieg@ntlegal.com
                  eewillison@earthlink.net
                  jenobile@ntlegal.com


HARRIS COUNTY: IPT Century Says Property Valuation Excessive
------------------------------------------------------------
IPT Century DC, LP, Plaintiff, v. Harris Country Appraisal
District, Defendant, Case No. DC-16-10761, filed in the Judicial
District Court of Harris County, Texas on August 30, 2016,
protests as excessive the appraised value placed on property
located at RES A BLK 1 CENTURY PLAZA 4THPART R/P, 525 CENTURY
PLAZA DRIVE, HOUSTON, TEXAS 77073.

The Appraisal District is a political subdivision of the State of
Texas.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Gregory J. Dalton, Esq.
     GREGORY J. DATON, P.C.
     P.O. Box 109
     Katy, Texas 77492
     Phone: (281) 391-1985
     Fax: (281) 391-1987
     E-mail: greg@gdaltonlaw.com


HARRIS COUNTY: Horizon Special Says Property Valuation Excessive
----------------------------------------------------------------
Horizon Special Projects, LLC, Plaintiff, v. Harris County
Appraisal District, Defendant, Case No. 2016-58093 filed in the
Judicial District Court of Harris County, Texas, on August 29,
2016), protests as excessive the appraised value placed on
property located at Res A Blk. 1 H E B AT FM 529, 6950 Barker
Cypress Road, Houston Texas 77084.

The Appraisal District is a political subdivision of the State of
Texas.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Gregory J. Dalton, Esq.
     GREGORY J. DATON, P.C.
     P.O. Box 109
     Katy, Texas 77492
     Phone: (281) 391-1985
     Fax: (281) 391-1987
     E-mail: greg@gdaltonlaw.com


HARRIS COUNTY: 59 & Kirby Claims Excessive Property Valuation
-------------------------------------------------------------
59 & Kirby LLC, Plaintiff v. Harris County Appraisal District,
Defendant, Case No. 2016-58092, filed in the Judicial District
Court of Harris County, Texas on August 30, 2016, protests as
excessive the appraised value placed on Res A & Res A2 Blk. 1,
Kirby Business Park, 2615 Southwest Fwy, Houston TX 77098.

The Appraisal District is a political subdivision of the State of
Texas.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     W. Montgomery Briscoe, Esq.
     EGGLESTON & BRISCOE, LLP
     4800 Three Allen Center
     333 Clay Street
     Houston, TX 77002
     Phone: (713) 659-5100
     Fax: (713) 951-9920
     E-mail: wmb@egglestonebriscoe.com


HARRIS COUNTY: 2001 Kirby Sues Over Excessive Appraisal
-------------------------------------------------------
2001 KIRBY BUILDING, INC, the Plaintiff. v. HARRIS COUNTY
APPRAISAL DISTRICT, the Defendant, Case No. 2016-55680 filed in
the Judicial District Court of Harris County, Texas on Aug. 22,
2016, asks the Court to fix the appraised value of the Plaintiff's
Property in accordance with the law.

In May 2016, the Plaintiff learned that the Appraisal District had
made an appraisal of the 2016 market value of the Property for use
by the relevant Taxing Units in Harris County, Texas in assessing
2016 ad valorem property taxes. The Appraisal District appraised
the value of the Property at an amount in excess of the appraised
value required by law.

The Plaintiff alleges that the value placed on the Property is
based upon an appraisal method which is antiquated, unfair, and
erroneous and which does not take into account all relevant
factors and indicators of market value, and that the appraisal so
made is void, unlawful and should be cancelled and set aside.

The Defendant is responsible for appraising taxable property for
ad valorem taxation purposes.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Daniel P. Donovan, Esq.
          Jennifer C. Tobin, Esq.
          Mazelle S. Krasoff, Esq.
          GEARY, PORTER & DONOVAN, P.C.
          One Bent Tree Tower
          16475 Dallas Pkwy., Suite 400
          Addison, TX 75001-6837
          Telephone: (972) 931 9901
          Facsimile: (972) 931 9208
          E-mail: ddonovan@gpd.com
                  jtobin@gpd.com
                  mkrasoff@gpd.com


HARRIS COUNTY: DLF/GP 520 Sues Over Excessive Appraisal
-------------------------------------------------------
DLF/GP 520 POST OAK LLC, the Plaintiff, v. Harris County Appraisal
District, the Defendant, Case No. 2016-55664 filed in the Judicial
District Court of Harris County, Texas on Aug. 22, 2016, seeks
monetary relief of $100,000 or less and non-monetary relief.

In May 2016, the Plaintiff learned that the Appraisal District had
made an appraisal of the 2016 market value of the Property for use
by the relevant Taxing Units in Harris County, Texas in assessing
2016 ad valorem property taxes. The Appraisal District appraised
the value of the Property at an amount in excess of the appraised
value required by law.

The Plaintiff alleges that the value placed on the Property is
based upon an appraisal method which is antiquated, unfair, and
erroneous and which does not take into account all relevant
factors and indicators of market value, and that the appraisal so
made is void, unlawful and should be cancelled and set aside.

The Defendant is responsible for appraising taxable property for
ad valorem taxation purposes.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Daniel P. Donovan, Esq.
          Jennifer C. Tobin, Esq.
          Mazelle S. Krasoff, Esq.
          GEARY, PORTER & DONOVAN, P.C.
          One Bent Tree Tower
          16475 Dallas Pkwy., Suite 400
          Addison, TX 75001-6837
          Telephone: (972) 931 9901
          Facsimile: (972) 931 9208
          E-mail: ddonovan@gpd.com
                  jtobin@gpd.com
                  mkrasoff@gpd.com


HARRIS COUNTY: Griffin Partners Sues Over Excessive Appraisal
-------------------------------------------------------------
GRIFFIN PARTNERS 675 BERING LP, the Plaintiff. v. HARRIS COUNTY
APPRAISAL DISTRICT, the Defendant, Case No. 2016-55666 filed in
the Judicial District Court of Harris County, Texas on Aug 22,
2016, seeks monetary relief of $100,000 or less and non-monetary
relief.

In May 2016, the Plaintiff learned that the Appraisal District had
made an appraisal of the 2016 market value of the Property for use
by the relevant Taxing Units in Harris County, Texas in assessing
2016 ad valorem property taxes. The Appraisal District appraised
the value of the Property at an amount in excess of the appraised
value required by law.

The Plaintiff alleges that the value placed on the Property is
based upon an appraisal method which is antiquated, unfair, and
erroneous and which does not take into account all relevant
factors and indicators of market value, and that the appraisal so
made is void, unlawful and should be cancelled and set aside.

The Defendant is responsible for appraising taxable property for
ad valorem taxation purposes.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Daniel P. Donovan, Esq.
          Jennifer C. Tobin, Esq.
          Mazelle S. Krasoff, Esq.
          GEARY, PORTER & DONOVAN, P.C.
          One Bent Tree Tower
          16475 Dallas Pkwy., Suite 400
          Addison, TX 75001-6837
          Telephone: (972) 931 9901
          Facsimile: (972) 931 9208
          E-mail: ddonovan@gpd.com
                  jtobin@gpd.com
                  mkrasoff@gpd.com


HEART SAVERS: Wilens Seeks Certification of Class in "Amini" Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Jeffrey Wilens one of the Plaintiffs in the consolidated lawsuits
styled KEVIN AMINI AND MONA AMINI individually, and on behalf of
all others similarly situated v. HEART SAVERS, LLC, and JEFFREY
WILENS, on behalf of himself and all persons similarly situated v.
HEART SAVERS, LLC and DOES 1 through 100 inclusive, Case No. 8:15-
cv-01139-JVS-AS (C.D. Cal.), moves for an order certifying a class
comprised of:

     all persons residing in the United States whose cellular
     phone received a phone call between June 17, 2011 and
     September 6, 2016 from Defendant or its agents and which
     phone call used an artificial or prerecorded voice.

The Defendant is accused of using a prerecorded voice to call the
cellular telephones of the class members to solicit business
without permission of the class members.  The Plaintiffs contend
that this conduct violates the Telephone Consumer Protection Act.

The Court will commence a hearing on October 17, 201, at 1:30
p.m., to consider the Motion.

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

Plaintiff Jeffrey Wilens is represented by:

          Jeffrey Spencer, Esq.
          THE SPENCER LAW FIRM
          903 Calle Amanecer, Suite 220
          San Clemente, CA 92673
          Telephone: (949) 240-8595
          Facsimile: (949) 240-8515
          E-mail: jps@spencerlaw.net


HEWLETT-PACKARD: Faces Age-Discrimination Class Action in Calif.
----------------------------------------------------------------
Sue Dremann, writing for Palo Alto Weekly, reports that four
former employees have filed a federal class-action lawsuit against
the Hewlett-Packard companies for age discrimination, according to
documents filed in U.S. District Court in San Jose.

The complaint, filed on Aug. 18 by former employees Donna J.
Forsyth, Sidney L. Staton III, Arun Vatturi and Dan Weiland, names
Palo Alto-based HP Inc. and Hewlett Packard Enterprise Company as
defendants.  The lawsuit claims the tech company has shed
thousands of older employees while aggressively recruiting much
younger employees to replace them while it publicly sought to
transform the company from an "old" company into a "younger"
operation.

In 2012, HP instituted a Workplace Reduction Plan that allegedly
targeted older workers, affecting tens of thousands of employees
across the country, according to the lawsuit.  HP's publicly
stated goal under the plan was to make the company "younger."

Meg Whitman, CEO of Hewlett Packard Enterprise Company and chair
of HP, Inc.'s board of directors, allegedly stated a goal to
change HP's "labor diamond" into a "labor pyramid" or a "quite
flat triangle" with large numbers of young people at its base,
according to statements made at an October 2013 security analyst
meeting.  She has repeatedly made similar statements, according to
the lawsuit.

To reach her goal, HP's senior management team allegedly provided
managers across the country with specific numbers of employees to
be laid off and specific numbers of requisitions for new hires
with a distinct pattern: shedding the company of older,
experienced workers and simultaneously hiring much younger workers
to replace them.

HP's human resources department also allegedly distributed written
guidelines requiring 75 percent of all external hire requests to
be "graduate" or "early career" employees.  Graduate employees are
those who are about to graduate or who graduated from college
within the previous 12 months.  Early-career hires were persons
who completed their degrees and had up to five years of experience
related to the job, according to the complaint.

An internal document also showed an alleged campaign of
stereotyping.  Anyone born between 1930 and 1946 could be
considered a "traditionalist" who moves "slow and steady" and
seeks "part time work."  Baby boomers born between 1946 and 1964
were considered "rule breakers," and were thus undesirable,
according to the document.

But millennials were considered considered highly desirable, with
HP encouraging strategies for "integrat(ing) millennials into the
workforce" and "educat(ing) managers and others on millennial
characteristics," according to the lawsuit.

The companies allegedly adopted early-retirement programs under
which employees older than age 55 who worked for HP for more than
10 years were encouraged to voluntarily phase out their
employment.

Mr. Vatturi, 52, was hired in 2001 and worked on HP, Inc.'s
internal systems to improve procedures in Palo Alto.  In one
instance, he saved the company more than $70 million through his
ideas.  He was one of the 0.5 percent of employees who received
HP's top performance-review rating of "significantly exceeds
expectations" in the company's employee ranking system, according
to the complaint.

But shortly before his termination, HP moved him to a low-level
data-collection position working with two young independent
contractors located in India.  He was terminated on Jan. 22, then
he was replaced with graduate or early-career hires who were
significantly under the age of 40, according to the complaint.

Another California employee, Mr. Staton, was working as a sales
enablement specialist at Hewlett Packard Enterprise Company in
Sacramento.  Like Mr. Vatturi, his job performance met or exceeded
expectations.  But he was laid off in April 2015 at age 54 after
being shifted to a team of new hires in their 20s.  Several months
later HP replaced him with much younger hires, according to the
complaint.

The other two plaintiffs, Mr. Weiland, of Texas, and Forsyth, of
Washington, were terminated at ages 63 and 62 respectively, after
decades of employment at the companies.  They were replaced by
much younger hires under the workplace-reduction plan despite good
performance reviews, according to the lawsuit.

Mr. Weiland was offered early retirement, but he declined.  He was
allegedly pressured by his supervisor, and when he did not take
the offer, he was terminated through the workplace-reduction plan,
the suit alleges.

The complaint alleges age discrimination under the Age
Discrimination in Employment Act, California Fair Employment and
Housing Act, California Business and Professions Code and under
state public policy.  The suit does not specify the amount of
damages, but it seeks an injunction against HP's alleged
discriminatory practices and to restore all members of the class-
action suit to comparable positions from which they were
terminated.  Alternatively, it asks for compensation of pay and
benefits for the period remaining until each person's retirement
age.

Hewlett Packard Enterprise said in a statement that the company
"has a longstanding commitment to the principles of equal
employment opportunity and age inclusion is no exception."

"The decision to implement a workforce reduction is always
difficult, but we are confident that our decisions were based on
legitimate factors unrelated to age," according to HP.


HILTON GARDEN: Settles "Service Fee" Class Action for $4 Million
----------------------------------------------------------------
Ashley Nerbovig, writing for Billings Gazette, reports that Hilton
Garden Inn and the hotel's management company must pay $4 million
in lost wages and penalties to their servers after the hotel chain
charged a "service fee" that was never paid to its wait staff.

Hilton Garden Inn settled the class action lawsuit after it was
discovered that Hilton hotels in Billings, Bozeman, Missoula and
Kalispell were keeping the service fee.

About 550 people will receive compensation from the lawsuit, with
checks for lost wages ranging from $7 to $86,000 depending on how
many events the employees worked for Hilton without getting tips.

Ten former employees of Hilton were named in the lawsuit,
including Paula Everist from Billings.  The Billings Hilton Garden
Inn began contracting with the Gateway Hospitality group in 2008.
Everist worked for the Billings Hilton Garden Inn from 2011 to
2015. During that time, she was paid an hourly wage, but no tips
were ever distributed to her.

According to the suit, Hilton used to run its own catering and
banquet services.  At that time, a service fee of 15 to 18 percent
was added to the bill and turned over to servers and other non-
management staff involved in preparing the food, serving it and
performing other services at catered events.

When Hilton contracted Gateway Hospitality Group to manage the
hotel, including the catering of events, the service charge
increased to 18 to 20 percent of the bill, but the tip money was
not distributed to the staff, according to the suit.

The four hotels are owned by multiple holding companies. Missoula
and Kalispell are owned by one group and the Bozeman and Billings
hotels are owned by another.  All four used the Gateway
Hospitality Group to manage day-to-day operations for the hotels.

A contract from a 2014 Bozeman event states the service charge
would be "fully distributed to servers, and where applicable,
bussers and/or bartenders assigned to the event."

Don Cape Jr. is the managing partner of the Hilton Garden Inns in
Bozeman and Billings. The two properties are owned by different
organizations but have nearly identical boards of directors, and
Cape is the managing partner for both.

Mr. Cape on Aug. 23 told The Gazette that the withholding of tips
was "a mistake they corrected" as soon as it was brought to the
boards' attention.

The group was notified of the problem in 2014, Mr. Cape said, and
"owned the mistake as soon as we became aware of it."

However, a wrongful termination lawsuit filed by a Bozeman manager
stated management was aware of the problem much earlier. Laurie
Zabawa sued the company and the Bozeman Hilton Garden Inn in 2014
after she said management pressured her to quit her job after she
complained her servers were no longer receiving tips.

After litigation began against the company, the four Montana
Hilton hotels split a $1.9 million payment to compensate the
employees for the time they worked without tips, Mr. Cape said.
The hotels also calculated interest for lost wages.

The lawsuit settlement yielded an additional $2 million payment
split between Gateway Hospitality Group and the insurance company
for both Hilton Garden Inn and the hospitality group.

The two payments together amounted to a settlement of a little
over $4 million. The payment includes the amount of lost wages and
a penalty payment for establishing the practice of withholding
tips.

Montana employment law states that service charges, if imposed by
a business engaged in the food, beverage or lodging industry,
belong to the employee.

The attorneys who represented the employees received 25 percent of
the total settlement.


HOME DEPOT: October 29 Deadline Set for Data Breach Claims
----------------------------------------------------------
Joe Ducey, writing for abc15, reports that if you shopped at Home
Depot and used a card at self-checkout, your personal information
may have been breached.

A class action settlement means 18 months of free credit
monitoring.  And you could get up to $10,000 if you have
documented losses related to the data breach.

The deadline to file is October 29.  Home Depot admitted no
wrongdoing.



HOME PROPERTIES: "Jarzyna" Suit Seeks Certification of Classes
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit captioned MARIUSZ G. JARZYNA, the Plaintiff, v.
HOME PROPERTIES, L.P. and FAIR COLLECTIONS AND OUTSOURCING, INC.,
the Defendants, Case No. 5:10-cv-04191-ER (E.D. Pa.), the
Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an order certifying these
class(es):

"all persons residing in Pennsylvania, New York, New Jersey,
Massachusetts, Maryland, Maine, Florida, Illinois and Washington,
D.C who, during the period January 1, 2008 through the date of the
filing of Plaintiff's Third Amended Class Action Complaint on
April 8, 2013:

     a) have been identified and/or readily identifiable by Home
     Properties, L.P. (Home) to have been assessed Thirty Day
     Notice Fees by Home - and with the balance placed with FCO
     for collection; and

     b) who have been subject of FCO's standard, common, and
     uniform policy not to identify themselves as a debt
     collector when leaving messages on cellular/personal
     phones."

Discovery before the Special Master revealed that the putative
Pennsylvania Class was 3,274 persons. Home also operates in New
York, New Jersey, Massachusetts, Maryland, Maine, Florida,
Illinois and Washington, D.C. Identification and quantification of
the class members in the other seven states and the District of
Columbia in which Home operates is easily ascertained from Home's
sophisticated electronic systems.

A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=RXvbh6Tm

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Joseph A. O'Keefe, Esq.
          22 E. Main Street
          Fleetwood, PA 19522
          Telephone: (610) 683 0771

              - and -

          Francis J. Farina, Esq.
          203 Hobbs Street
          Davidson, N.C. 28036
          Telephone: (704) 997 5215

The Defendant is represented by:

          Ronald S. Canter, Esq.
          CANTER LAW OFFICES LLC
          11300 Rockville Pike, Suite 1200
          Rockville, MD 20852

              - and -

          Candidus Dougherty, Esq.
          SWARTZ CAMPBELL, LLC
          Two Liberty Place, 28th Floor
          50 South 16th Street
          Philadelphia, PA 19102


HOTWIRE INC: Armstrong Law Seeks Certification of Two Classes
-------------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit titled ARMSTRONG LAW FIRM, P.C., individually and
on behalf of all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v.
HOTWIRE, INC., the Defendant, Case No. 1:16-cv-08739 (N.D. Ill.),
the Plaintiff moves the Court for an order certifying two classes:

     "all individuals or entities in the United States who
     received one or more unsolicited facsimile advertisements
     from or on behalf of Defendant Hotwire, Inc. (Class One)";

          and

     "all individuals or entities in the United States who
     received one or more facsimile advertisements from or on
     behalf of Defendant Hotwire, Inc. with opt-out notices that
     do not comply with (Class Two)."

The Plaintiff further asks the Court to enter an order:

     1. allowing for and scheduling discovery to take place on
        class-wide issues;

     2. granting Plaintiff leave to file a memorandum in further
        support of its Motion for class certification upon the
        conclusion of class-wide discovery;

     3. granting Plaintiff's motion for class certification after
        full briefing of the issues presented;

     4. appointing Plaintiff's counsel Leland Grove Law LLC as
        counsel for the Class; and

     F. granting any other and further relief that the Court
        deems just.

A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=rn4kUeyF

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          John F. Shonkwiler, Esq.
          Stacey M. Shonkwiler, Esq.
          LELAND GROVE LAW LLC
          150 N. Michigan Avenue, Suite 2800
          Chicago, IL 60601
          Telephone: (312) 248 2200
          E-mail: jshonkwiler@lelandgrovelaw.com
                  sshonkwiler@lelandgrovelaw.com


INTER-CON SECURITY: "Alvarez" Suit Seeks OT Pay Under Labor Code
----------------------------------------------------------------
ISHMAEL ALVAREZ, an individual, on behalf of himself and all
others similarly situated, the Plaintiffs, v. INTER-CON SECURITY
SYSTEMS, INC., a California corporation; and DOE, the Defendants,
Case No. BC631412 (Cal. Super. Ct.., Aug. 22, 2016), seeks to
recover monetary damages, including full restitution from
Defendants as a result of Defendants' unlawful, fraudulent and/or
unfair business practices, pursuant to Labor Code.

The Defendants allegedly failed to pay all wages due including
overtime wages for all hours worked; failed to pay the required
minimum wage for all hours worked; failed to provide uninterrupted
30-minute meal periods; failed to provide paid rest periods; and
failed to timely furnish accurate itemized wage statements.

Inter-Con Security provides physical security solutions. Its
services include program management, security consulting and
training.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


KIMBERLY-CLARK: Class Cert. Bid in "Shahinian" Under Submission
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Hon. Judge Dolly M. Gee entered an order in the lawsuit styled
Hrayr Shahinian, et al., the Plaintiff, v. Kimberly-Clark
Corporation, the Defendant Case No. 2:14-cv-08390-DMG-PLA (C.D.
Cal.), advising counsel that the Plaintiff's motion for class
certification and appointment of class counsel shall be taken
under submission and a written order will issue.

Kimberly-Clark is an American multinational personal care
corporation that produces mostly paper-based consumer products.

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

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Michael Avenatti, Esq.
          Ahmed Ibrahim, Esq.
          John Arder, Esq.
          EAGAN AVENATTI, LLP
          450 Newport Center Drive Second Floor
          Newport Beach, CA 92660-7617.
          Telephone: 949 706 7000
          E-mail: www.eaganavenatti.com
                  mavenatti@eaganavenatti.com

The Defendant is represented by:

          Chilton D. Varner, Esq.
          Alexander G. Calfo, Esq.
          Stephen B. Devereaux, Esq.
          John W. Wesley, Esq.
          KING & SPALDING LLP
          1180 Peachtree Street
          Atlanta, GA 30309
          Telephone: (404) 572 4789
          Facsimile: (404) 572 5100
          E-mail: cvarner@kslaw.com


KMH CARDIOLOGY: Medical & Chiropractic Seeks to Certify Class
-------------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit styled MEDICAL & CHIROPRACTIC CLINIC, INC., a
Florida corporation, individually and as the representative of a
class of similarly-situated persons, the Plaintiff, v. KMH
CARDIOLOGY CENTRES INCORPORATED, KMH MRI & HEALTHCARE CENTRES,
foreign corporations, SRA VENTURES, INC., and JOHN DOES 1-10, the
Defendants, Case No. 8:16-cv-00644-SDM-JSS (M.D. Fla.), the
Plaintiff seeks an Order from the Court certifying this class:

     "all persons sent one or more of the following facsimiles
     from "KMH Cardiology & Diagnostic Centres" or WestCoast
     Radiology, a division of KMH": (1) a facsimile on or about
     February 10, 2016, offering "3D MAMMOGRAPHY"; (2) a
     facsimile on or about February 11, 2016, stating "Call today
     to schedule your CT Cardiac Scan"; (3) a facsimile on or
     about March 4, 2016, stating "Call today to schedule your
     patients MRI"; and (4) a facsimile on or about March 16,
     2016, stating WestCoast Radiology now offers the following
     biopsies at all of our locations."

The case arises out of a fax-advertising campaign wherein
facsimile advertisements were sent to Plaintiff and the proposed
class in four broadcasts conducted on February 10, 2016, February
11, 2016, March 4, 2016, and March 16, 2016.

A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=wdhzC8Ag

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Ryan M. Kelly, Esq.
          ANDERSON & WANCA
          3701 Algonquin Road, Suite 500
          Rolling Meadows, IL 60008
          Telephone: (847) 368 1500
          Facsimile: (847) 368 1501
          E-mail: rkelly@andersonwanca.com


LIFEWATCH INC: Bid for Class Cert. in "Salam" Suit Granted
----------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit entitled ISMAEL SALAM, individual, on behalf of
herself and the class members, the Plaintiff, v. LIFEWATCH, INC.,
the Defendant, Case No. 1:13-cv-09305 (N.D. Ill.), the Hon. Judge
Charles R. Norgle entered an order granting Plaintiff's motion for
class certification of:

     "all individuals in the United States who received one or
     more phone calls directed to a telephone number assigned to
     a cellular service using an automated telephone dialing
     system or an artificial or prerecorded message made by, on
     behalf of, or for the benefit of Lifewatch from October
     16, 2013 through the present."

The Court further ordered appointing Ismael Salam as lead
plaintiff, and appointing Katrina Carroll of Lite DePalma
Greenberg, LLC and Peter Lubin of DiTommaso Lubin P.C. as Co-Lead
Counsel.

The Defendant has not made any specific allegations nor has it
presented any evidence that would allow the Court to conclude that
a significant number or potential class members had consented to
receive calls from Defendant or calls made on its behalf.
Moreover, the relief sought is identical because Plaintiff and all
class members seek statutory damages of $500 for each violation.

A copy of the Order is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=1MdDiu9V


LOS ANGELES, CA: Lee Files Appeal v. C.D. Cal. in "Smith" Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs-Petitioners Mina Lee; Frances Moreno; A. F., Guardian
Ad Litem Julia Flores; J. A.; April Munoz, Guardian ad litem for
D.M.; Julia Flores, Guardian ad litem for A,F.; Cheryl Ayapana,
Guardian ad Litem for J. A.; Victor Pineda, Guardian ad Litem for
V. P.; and Juana Hernandez, Guardian ad Litem for M.H. filed an
appeal from a court ruling relating to a lawsuit filed by Chanda
Smith, et al., against the Los Angeles Unified School District, et
al., Case No. 2:93-cv-07044-RSWL-GHK, in the U.S. District Court
for the Central District of California, Los Angeles.

The Respondent is the U.S. District Court for the Central District
of California, Los Angeles.

The appellate case is captioned as Mina Lee, et al. v. USDC-CALA,
Case No. 16-72912, in the United States Court of Appeals for the
Ninth Circuit.

As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter on August 19,
2016, the Ninth Circuit reversed the District Court's denial of
the appellants' motion to intervene and remanded the case for
further proceedings in the appellate cases captioned CHANDA SMITH;
ELIZA THOMPSON, Guardian ad Litem for Chanda Smith, individually &
on behalf of all other persons similarly situated; JAVIER MEJIA;
GLORIA MEJIA; QUINN SULLIVAN; MADO MOST, Plaintiffs-Appellees, and
APRIL MUNOZ; JULIA FLORES; CHERYL AYAPANA; V. P.; A. F.; M. H.; J.
A., Movants, and MINA LEE; FRANCES MORENO, Movants-Appellants, v.
LOS ANGELES UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT, a California public entity,
Defendant-Appellee, Case Nos. 14-55224, 14-55256 (9th Cir.).

In these previous appellate cases, the appellants are a sub-class
of moderately to severely disabled children, who have moved to
intervene in a class action brought on behalf of all disabled
students in the Los Angeles Unified School District (LAUSD)
against LAUSD.   The appellants sought to intervene to challenge
the legality of a new policy, adopted by LAUSD in 2012 as part of
a renegotiation of the Chanda Smith parties' settlement.  That
settlement requires a class of LAUSD's most severely disabled
students to go to the same schools as the district's general, non-
disabled student body.  LAUSD calls this "integration"; The
appellants want their children to be schooled separately.

The District Court denied the appellants' motion to intervene.
The Ninth Circuit, however, found that the appellants have
established all four elements of intervention as of right under
Fed R. Civ. P. Rule 24(a).  The appellate court also concluded
that the District Court abused its discretion in denying the
appellants' motion as untimely, and further erred when it found
intervention unnecessary to protect the appellants' interest in
ensuring the receipt of public education consistent with their
disabilities and federal law.

Plaintiffs-Petitioners Mina Lee; Frances Moreno; A. F., Guardian
Ad Litem Julia Flores; J. A.; April Munoz, Guardian ad litem for
D.M.; Julia Flores, Guardian ad litem for A,F.; Cheryl Ayapana,
Guardian ad Litem for J. A.; Victor Pineda, Guardian ad Litem for
V. P.; and Juana Hernandez, Guardian ad Litem for M.H., are
represented by:

          Seymour I. Amster, Esq.
          18017 Chatsworth Street, Suite 337
          Granada Hills, CA 91344
          Telephone: (818) 375-4939

               - and -

          Eric Scott Jacobson, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF ERIC S. JACOBSON
          16133 Ventura Blvd.
          Encino, CA 91436
          Telephone: (818) 933-0900
          Facsimile: (818) 337-2042
          E-mail: ejacoblaw@earthlink.net

               - and -

          Stephen B. Maseda, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF STEPHEN B. MASEDA
          27132 Manor Circle
          Valencia, CA 91354
          Telephone: (954) 536-9293

               - and -

          Suzanne Nancy Snowden, Esq.
          SJM LAW GROUP, LLP
          1295 West Sunset Boulevard
          Los Angeles, CA 20026
          Telephone: (213) 213-2530
          Facsimile: (213) 260-6111
          E-mail: s.snowden@sjmlawgroup.com

Real Parties in Interest LOS ANGELES UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT, a
California public entity, and ROY ROMER, in his official capacity
as Superintendent of the LA Unified School District, are
represented by:

          Maggy Athanasious, Esq.
          Barrett Green, Esq.
          LITTLER MENDELSON, P.C.
          2049 Century Park East
          Los Angeles, CA 90067-3107
          Telephone: (310) 553-0308
          E-mail: mathanasious@littler.com
                  bgreen@littler.com

Real Parties in Interest CHANDA SMITH, ELIZA THOMPSON, JAVIER
MEJIA, GLORIA MEJIA, QUINN SULLIVAN and MADO MOST are represented
by:

          Melinda R. Bird, Esq.
          Candis Bowles, Esq.
          DISABILITY RIGHTS CALIFORNIA
          350 South Bixel Street
          Los Angeles, CA 90017
          Telephone: (213) 213-8000
          Facsimile: (213) 213-8001
          E-mail: melinda.bird@disabilityrightsca.org
                  candis.bowles@disabilityrightsca.org

               - and -

          Catherine Blakemore, Esq.
          DISABILITY RIGHTS CALIFORNIA
          1831 K Street
          Sacramento, CA 95811
          Telephone: (916) 504-5800
          E-mail: catherine.blakemore@disabilityrightsca.org

               - and -

          David Ward German, Esq.
          Robert M. Myers, Esq.
          NEWMAN, AARONSON & VANAMAN
          14001 Ventura Boulevard
          Sherman Oaks, CA 91423
          Telephone: (818) 990-7722
          Facsimile: (818) 501-1306
          E-mail: dgerman@navlaw.net


MARTIN AVENUE: Class Cert. Bid in Podiatry Suit Withdrawn
---------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit styled Podiatry In Motion, Inc., the Plaintiff, v.
Martin Avenue Pharmacy, Inc., et al., the Defendant, Case No.
1:16-cv-06556 (N.D. Ill.), the Hon. Judge Sharon Johnson Coleman
entered an order withdrawing Plaintiff's motion to certify a
class.

According to the docket entry made by the Clerk on September 7,
2016, a status hearing was held that day. Another Status hearing
is set on Oct. 31, 2016 at 09:00 am.

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


MASTERCARD: Taps Freshfields to Defend Interchange Fee Claim
------------------------------------------------------------
Tabby Kinder, writing for TheLawyer.com, reports that MasterCard
has instructed Freshfields Bruckhaus Deringer to defend a GBP14
billion claim brought by Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan over
unlawful interchange fees.

The payment processing giant put its lucrative defense out to
tender earlier in August, with Herbert Smith Freehills and Jones
Day also understood to have applied.

The Lawyer revealed Freshfields was pitching hard for the defence,
having run a number of similar cases for Visa in the past.

Jones Day partner Nick Cotter -- ncotter@jonesday.com -- has
represented MasterCard in a number of parallel cases brought
against it in the High Court by high street retailers.

Now MasterCard has instructed Freshfields competition partner Jon
Lawrence, Esq. -- jon.lawrence@freshfields.com -- on its defense.

The claim will be filed in early September and will be the highest
value claim ever brought before the Competition Appeal Tribunal
(CAT).  Quinn Emanuel partners Boris Bronfentrinker, Esq. --
borisbronfentrinker@quinnemanuel.com -- and Kate Vernon, Esq. --
katevernon@quinnemanuel.com -- will apply to the CAT to have the
case heard as a class action on behalf of around 65 million
customers.

The pair have instructed Monckton Chambers's Paul Harris QC and
Brick Court Chambers' Marie Demetriou QC.  The claim is being
funded by third-party litigation funder Gerchen Keller Capital,
which is putting up a pot of GBP40 million for the case.

The mass challenge follows a European Commission ruling that
MasterCard infringed EU law by imposing charges known as
interchange fees on the use of its credit and debit cards.  It
then lost a decade-long legal battle in the European Court of
Justice in 2014, with judges ruling MasterCard abused its dominant
market position by charging the anti-competitive rates.


MDL NO. 1840: "Hot Fuel" Class Action Attorneys to Get $18.9MM
--------------------------------------------------------------
Scott Canon, writing for The Kansas City Star, reports that
attorneys who represented consumers in "hot fuel" class-action
cases -- contending overcharges for gasoline that expands in the
heat -- should receive $18.9 million for their legal work, a
federal judge in Kansas ruled.

The decision comes after earlier still-contested settlements in
the case, where some companies agreed in early 2015 to give
station owners $23 million to fix their fuel pumps to prevent the
overcharging and other companies pledged to spend money directly
on new devices that account for temperature changes.

Class-action cases surrounding the hot fuel phenomenon sprang from
reporting by The Kansas City Star in 2006.  Those stories revealed
that gas stations charged the same amount for gasoline regardless
of the temperature at which it was sold.  When temperatures rise,
gasoline expands.  So a gallon sold at, say, 90 degrees contains
less energy than a gallon sold at 60 degrees.

The industry has long accounted for how temperature changes the
value of gasoline by volume at the wholesale level.  The result of
the class-action suits is that the 28 companies that were sued,
and that settled, agreed to make adjustments at the pump.

Yet in a case against QuikTrip, 7-Eleven and Kum & Go, companies
that did not agree to a settlement, a jury in 2012 found that the
practice of selling without adjusting for temperature did not
violate the Kansas Consumer Protection Act.

Bob Horn -- rhorn@hab-law.com -- whose Kansas City law firm Horn
Aylward & Bandy was named lead counsel for the plaintiffs, said
the attorneys fees approved by U.S. District Judge Kathryn Vratil
on Aug. 23 only cover a portion of the actual legal costs.  And,
he said, it will almost certainly be appealed.

Meanwhile, some of the multiple defendants and plaintiffs in the
case have appealed the court's OK of the settlement reached in
2015.

"This case involved a number of different states and different
defendants and has been going on for almost 10 years," Mr. Horn
said. "It'll be a long time before anybody sees any money, if at
all."

The case is In re: Motor Fuel Temperature Sales Practices
Litigation, MDL No. 1840.  Defendants include Costco Wholesale
Corp. BP Products North America and BP West Coast Products LLc,
among others.


MDL 2420: $19MM Sony Settlement Wins Final Approval
---------------------------------------------------
Helen Christophi, writing for Courthouse News Service, reported
that Sony will pay $19 million to settle antitrust class action
claims in Oakland, Calif., that it conspired to fix the price of
lithium ion batteries, making it the first defendant to settle in
the case.

The underlying, multidistrict lawsuit, transferred to San
Francisco in 2013, accuses Sony, Samsung, Panasonic and others of
conspiring to fix the price of lithium ion batteries and restrict
their output between Jan. 1, 2000 and May 31, 2011.

Although U.S. District Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers initially
found the $19 million settlement figure "on the low side" at a
preliminary approval hearing in March, she granted final approval
of the settlement in an order on September 7, afternoon, calling
it "in all respects, fair, reasonable and adequate."

At a final approval hearing the day before, Gonzalez Rogers
questioned whether she would approve the settlement, noting that
98 entities and individuals had opted out of it.

Gonzalez Rogers asked the parties if the opt-outs, which include
interested party Flextronics International, were likely to sue.

Sony attorney Beatriz Mejia said she didn't expect more than four
to five additional corporate plaintiffs to sue, adding that the
ones that were likely to sue already have.

Among those companies are Dell and Gateway, according to Gonzalez
Rogers.

Plaintiffs' attorney Rick Saveri said that, with half of the opt-
outs being individuals, "what happens sometimes is corporations
and individuals settle in the background, and then when these
settlements come up, they just opt out."

Sony can terminate the settlement if 35 percent of purchasers opt
out of the class, but the opt-outs fell short of that threshold
condition in the settlement agreement. "So that would not be a
basis for granting final approval," Gonzalez Rogers said.

In approving the settlement, the judge also certified a nationwide
class of direct purchasers who bought the batteries during the
price-fixing period.

Sanyo and LG Chem pled guilty to the price fixing scheme in 2013.
Sanyo agreed to pay $10.7 million and LG Chem $1.1 million in
criminal fines.

As the first defendant to settle, Sony will help prosecute the
remaining defendants, which will include producing employees for
depositions and trial testimony, according to the settlement
motion.

Gonzalez Rogers noted there were no objectors to the settlement in
the courtroom. She said she received two hand-written objections
that appeared to have been submitted by the same person.

"That is not a basis for the court to deny final approval," she
said.

Saveri is with Saveri and Saveri in San Francisco; Mejia is with
Cooley LLP, also in San Francisco.

The case is captioned, IN RE: LITHIUM ION BATTERIES ANTITRUST
LITIGATION, Case No. 13-MD-02420 YGR (DMR) (N.D. Cal.)


MEDICREDIT INC: Class Certification Sought in "Hopkins" Suit
------------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit captioned TINA HOPKINS, Plaintiff, v. MEDICREDIT,
INC., the Defendant, Case No. 4:16-cv-01429-CDP (Mo. Cir. Ct.),
the Plaintiff moves the Court to certify a class:

     "all persons with a collections account in Defendant's
     office who received a collections voice message, in which
     message, Defendant failed to include the disclosures
     required."

The Plaintiff further asks the Court to appoint Pontello Law, LLC
as class counsel, and appoint Plaintiff as class representative.

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

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Dominic M. Pontello, Esq.
          PONTELLO LAW, LLC
          5988 Mid Rivers Mall Dr., Suite 114
          St. Charles, MO 63304
          Telephone: (636) 541 7673
          Facsimile: (636) 441 6881
          E-mail: dominic@pontellolaw.com


MERIDIAN FINANCIAL: Saulsberry Appeals Ruling to Ninth Circuit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiff Arnold Saulsberry filed an appeal from a court ruling in
the lawsuit styled Arnold Saulsberry v. Meridian Financial
Services, Inc., Case No. 2:14-cv-06256-JGB-JPR, in the U.S.
District Court for the Central District of California, Los
Angeles.

The appellate case is captioned as Arnold Saulsberry v. Meridian
Financial Services, Inc., Case No. 16-80115, in the United States
Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.

As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the Plaintiff
filed a Ninth Circuit appeal from a court ruling also entered in
the District Court case.  That appellate case is captioned as
Arnold Saulsberry v. Meridian Financial Services Inc., Case No.
16-55952.

Plaintiff-Petitioner ARNOLD SAULSBERRY, Individually and On Behalf
of All Others Similarly Situated, is represented by:

          Asaf Agazanof, Esq.
          ASAF LAW APC
          8730 Wilshire Blvd., Suite 310
          Beverly Hills, CA 90211
          Telephone: (424) 254-8870
          Facsimile: (888) 254-0651
          E-mail: asaf@lawasaf.com

               - and -

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

Defendant-Respondent MERIDIAN FINANCIAL SERVICES, INC., is
represented by:

          Mark Ellis, Esq.
          Andrew M. Steinheimer, Esq.
          ELLIS LAW GROUP, LLP
          740 University Avenue
          Sacramento, CA 95825
          Telephone: (916) 283-8820
          Facsimile: (916) 283-8821
          E-mail: MEllis@EllisLawGrp.com
                  ASteinheimer@EllisLawGrp.com


METRO TECH: "Blystone" Suit Seeks Certification of FLSA Class
-------------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit titled NATHAN BLYSTONE, individually, and on behalf
of all other similarly situated employees, the Plaintiff, v. METRO
TECH SERVICE CORPORATION, the Defendant, Case No. 3:16-cv-00942
(M.D. Tenn.), the Plaintiff moves the Court to:

     (1) authorize the case to proceed as a collective action for
     overtime violations under the Fair Labor Standards Act
     (FLSA), on behalf of non-exempt employees who worked as
     technicians for Defendant within the last three years;

     (2) issue an Order directing Defendant to immediately
     provide a list of names, last known addresses, and last
     known telephone numbers for all putative class members
     within the last three years;

     (3) issue an Order that notice be attached to current
     employees' next scheduled paycheck, and be mailed to the
     employees so that they can assert their claims on a timely
     basis as part of this litigation; and

     (4) order that the opt-in plaintiffs' Consent Forms be
     deemed "filed" on the date they are postmarked.

A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=je97pBoo

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Michael L. Russell, Esq.
          Emily S. Emmons, Esq.
          GILBERT RUSSELL McWHERTER
          SCOTT BOBBITT PLC
          341 Cool Springs Boulevard, Suite 230
          Franklin, TN, 37067
          Telephone: 615 354 1144
          Facsimile: 731 664 1540
          E-mail: mrussell@gilbertfirm.com
                  eemmons@gilbertfirm.com

               - and -

          Leonard V. Feigel, Esq.
          Christopher G. Ward, Esq.
          FOLEY & LARDNER LLP
          One Independent Drive, Suite 1300
          Jacksonville, FL 32202-5017
          E-mail: Ifeigel@foley.com
          cward@foley.com

               - and -

          Stanley E. Graham, Esq.
          WALLER LANSDEN DORTCH & DAVIS, LLP
          511 Union Street, Suite 2700
          Nashville, TN 37219
          E-mail: Stan.graham@wallerlaw.com


MILLER AND STEENO: Certification of Classes & Subclass Sought
-------------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit entitled MAURICE STRADER, on behalf of plaintiff
and a class, the Plaintiff, v. MILLER AND STEENO, P.C.; RONALD C.
MILLER; LVNV FUNDING, LLC; RESURGENT CAPITAL SERVICES, L.P.; and
ALEGIS GROUP LLC, the Defendants, Case No. 1:16-cv-05199 (N.D.
Ill.), the Plaintiff asks the Court for certification of two
classes and one subclass.

The classes Plaintiff seeks to certify are:

     The LVNV class consists of (a) all individuals (b) against
     whom Arrow obtained a judgment (c) which LVNV claims or
     purports to have acquired (d) where any attempt was
     thereafter made to collect the judgment (e) without
     notifying the individual of the involvement of LVNV.

     The LVNV subclass consists of class members where there was
     any communication other than the filing of pleadings.

     The Miller class consists of (a) all individuals (b) against
     whom party A obtained a judgment (c) which Party B claims or
     purports to have acquired (d) where any attempt was
     thereafter made to collect the judgment by Miller and Steeno
     (e) without notifying the individual of the involvement of
     party B. The Miller subclass consists of class members where
     there was any communication other than the filing of
     pleadings.

The Plaintiff further requests that Edelman, Combs, Latturner &
Goodwin, LLC be appointed counsel for the classes.

A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=GMQd8pAK

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Daniel A. Edelman, Esq.
          Cassandra P. Miller, Esq.
          EDELMAN, COMBS, LATTURNER & GOODWIN, L.L.C.
          20 S. Clark Street, Suite 1500
          Chicago, IL 60603
          Telephone: (312) 739 4200
          Facsimile: (312) 419 0379


MILLER AND STEENO: Status Hearing in "Strader" Suit on Dec. 19
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Clerk of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of
Illinois made a docket entry on September 6, 2016, in the case
captioned Maurice Strader v. Miller and Steeno, P.C., et al., Case
No. 1:16-cv-05199 (N.D. Ill.), relating to a hearing held before
the Honorable Sharon Johnson Coleman.

The minute entry states that:

   -- Defendants' motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim
      is stricken as moot in light of the Plaintiff's filing of a
      first amended complaint;

   -- Plaintiff's motion to certify class is stricken as moot in
      light of the Plaintiff's amended motion for class
      certification;

   -- Defendants' motion to dismiss the first amended complaint
      is due on October 4, 2016;

   -- response is due by November 1, 2016, and reply is due by
      November 15, 2016; and

   -- status hearing is set for December 19, 2016, at 9:00 a.m.

A copy of the Notification of Docket Entry is available at no
charge at http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=q78gusVS


MILLER STARK: "Zolandz" Suit Seeks Certification of Class
---------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit styled CYNTHIA ZOLANDZ, Individually and on Behalf
of All Others Similarly Situated, the Plaintiff, v. MILLER STARK
KLEIN & ASSOCIATES, and ICOLLECT.COM. CORP., the Defendants, Case
No. 16-cv-1163 (E.D. Wisc.), the Plaintiff moves the court to
certify a class.

The Plaintiff further requests that the Court both stay the motion
for class certification and to grant Plaintiff (and Defendants)
relief from the Local Rules setting automatic briefing schedules
and requiring briefs and supporting material to be filed with the
motion.

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

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

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

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          John D. Blythin, Esq.
          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


MURRAY GOULBURN: Lawyers Seek Farmers for Milk Price Cut Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
Sallese Gibson, writing for ABC, reports that two Victorian law
firms are looking to build a case against dairy processors that
retrospectively cut the prices paid to farmers for milk.

Murray Goulburn and Fonterra announced earlier this year farmers
would have to give back hundreds of millions of dollars already
paid to them due to a global downturn in the sector.

Firms Adley Burstyner and Harwood Andrews held a meeting in
Devonport on Aug. 25 to gauge interest in a case to win that money
back.

Group claims expert David Burstyner was confident the proposed
clawback was not legal.

"The processors have said to farmers towards the end of the year,
'The price we paid to you is higher than we now think was OK for
our bank balance, so we want back some of the money we paid you',"
he said.

"I'd love to be able to do that every time I bought something, but
that's just not legal.

"We have a lot of farmers who've told us they're hurting and
they'd like to take action against Murray Goulburn and Fonterra."

Mr. Burstyner believed Murray Goulburn and Fonterra sat on
important warning signs about their financial situation.

"Processors had information from August 2015 that their financial
performance was down but they didn't say anything to farmers until
April," he said.

"[That] meant farmers spent 10 months thinking they were getting a
higher price which Murray Goulburn knew, or should have known,
they weren't going to be able to pay."

What's to stop a future clawback?

It is hoped the potential class action will set a precedent,
protecting farmers from a similar situation in the future.

"The outcome we are hoping for is that we reverse the clawback,
and that has the effect that there will never again be a clawback
attempt," Mr. Burstyner said.

"If nothing is done then we're in the scenario where processors
have initiated the clawback and they'll think, 'Oh, we can do this
again'."

About six farmers attended the Devonport session.

Mr. Burstyner said the case would need more if it was to get up.

"We'll need hundreds or thousands of farmers," he said.

"We have 200 to 300 farmers [in Victoria] that have expressed
interest in the case."

A separate case has been launched against Murray Goulburn by a
group of shareholders in Victoria.

Another meeting was to be held in Smithton on Aug. 26.


MYLAN: NY Attorney General Started Probe on EpiPen Prices
--------------------------------------------------------
Josh Russell, writing for Courthouse News Service, reported that
just in time for back-to-school season, New York Attorney General
Eric Schneiderman announced the start of an investigation on
September 6, into soaring EpiPen prices.

"No child's life should be put at risk because a parent, school,
or healthcare provider cannot afford a simple, life-saving device
because of a drug-maker's anti-competitive practices,"
Schneiderman said in a statement. "If Mylan engaged in anti-
competitive business practices, or violated antitrust laws with
the intent and effect of limiting lower cost competition, we will
hold them accountable. Allergy sufferers have enough concerns to
worry about--the availability of life-saving medical treatment
should not be one of them. I will bring the full resources of my
office to this critical investigation."

Dutch pharmaceutical giant Mylan has been under fire for weeks in
the wake of a news investigation into the pricing of EpiPens -- a
portable device used to counteract allergic reactions.

Since Mylan's merger with Dey Pharma in 2007, the cost of EpiPens
have jumped 400 percent.

In addition to triggering condemnation from politicians -- and
from noted pharmaceutical price-gouger Martin Shkreli -- EpiPen
consumers have been flooding the courts with class actions.

Mylan reacted to the public outcry with an Aug. 25 launch of an
initiative to double its patient-assistance program.

Offering to cover up to $300 of out-of pocket costs, Mylan says it
is effectively eliminating out-of-pocket expenses for uninsured
and underinsured patients.

Mylan also claims that its EpiPen4Schools program has provided
700,000 free EpiPen auto-injectors to more than 65,000
participating schools.

"The program continues to adhere to all applicable laws and
regulations," a representative for the company said in a
statement. "There are no purchase requirements for participation
in the program, nor have there ever been to receive free EpiPen
Auto-Injectors."

"Previously, schools who wished to purchase EpiPen Auto-Injectors
beyond those they were eligible to receive free under the program
could elect to do so at a certain discount level with a limited
purchase restriction, but such restriction no longer remains," the
statement continues. "The positive impact of the program has been
demonstrated by the hundreds of uses of EpiPen auto-injectors
provided through the EpiPen4Schools program during anaphylactic
events in schools."

Schneiderman's office says it is investigating whether Mylan
"inserted potentially anticompetitive terms into its EpiPen sales
contracts with numerous local school systems."


NATIONAL FOOTBALL: Settlement Objectors Head to Supreme Court
-------------------------------------------------------------
P.J. D'Annunzio, writing for The National Law Journal, reports
that a faction of retired professional football players unhappy
with the terms of the NFL's $1 billion concussion litigation
settlement have asked the U.S. Supreme Court to hear their
grievances.

In a petition for writ of certiorari filed late on Aug. 30,
lawyers representing dozens of player -- out of the roughly 20,000
who would be compensated under the settlement, upheld in April by
the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit -- took issue with
the neurological science used to form the basis of the settlement,
as well as the district judge's handling of discovery.

"The district court barred evidentiary inquiry into the 'science'
despite the fact that one of the core allegations was that the NFL
had concealed and manipulated scientific research regarding the
links between repeated head trauma and neurodegenerative
disorders, like chronic traumatic encephalopathy ('CTE')," the
petition said.

CTE has long been a sticking point in the litigation.  Objectors
have consistently rejected the settlement because it doesn't
include payment for players diagnosed with chronic traumatic -
encephalopathy, which can only be discovered through an autopsy.
Citing the objectors' prior defeats in district court and the
Third Circuit, co-lead counsel for the settling players,
Christopher Seeger -- cseeger@seegerweiss.com -- of Seeger Weiss,
called on the justices to deny the objectors' petition.

"Despite the fact that the claims process has not opened due to
delays caused by these appeals, more than 9,000 retired players
have sought enrollment in the settlement's benefits," Mr. Seeger
said in a statement on Aug. 31.  "These appeals come with
devastating consequences for the thousands of retired NFL players
suffering from neurocognitive injuries and effectively stand
between truly injured retired players and their sole prospect for
obtaining benefits while still alive."

He added, "While we are pleased several appellants have decided
against petitioning the U.S. Supreme Court, it is clear the few
lawyers still objecting to this settlement have motives other than
what is in the best interest of the retired NFL player community."

Cullin O'Brien, a Fort Lauderdale, Florida, attorney representing
the petitioners, did not respond to a request for comment.
In April, responding to the objectors' appeal of the deal, Third
Circuit Judge Thomas Ambro wrote that there is no such thing as a
perfect settlement.

The objectors "aim to ensure that the claims of retired players
are not given up in exchange for anything less than a generous
settlement agreement negotiated by very able representatives,"
Judge Ambro said.  "But they risk making the perfect the enemy of
the good.  This settlement will provide nearly $1 billion in value
to the class of retired players. It is a testament to the players,
researchers, and advocates who have worked to expose the true
human costs of a sport so many love. Though not perfect, it is
fair."

The concussion litigation has been marked by disagreement among
the players' lawyers since the first iterations of the settlement.
U.S. District Judge Anita Brody of the Eastern District of
Pennsylvania, who presided over the case, rejected the first deal
the parties struck two years ago for $760 million. The lead
counsel for the players and the lawyers for the NFL came back in
the summer of 2014 with a second deal that did away with a $675
million cap on the fund from which injured former players would
draw -- Judge Brody's chief concern had been that there wouldn't
be enough money in the fund to compensate all eligible players
over the 65-year life of the fund.


NATIONAL FOOTBALL: Faces Concussion Case in Los Angeles
-------------------------------------------------------
Don DeBenedictis, writing for Courthouse News Service, reported
that in a federal class action in Los Angeles, two mothers -- one
of them a consultant in the $1 billion NFL concussion litigation -
- trace their adult sons' deaths to brain injuries they suffered
playing Pop Warner youth football.

Kimberly Archie and Jo Cornell sued Pop Warner Little Scholars and
two other organizations, claiming they failed to protect children
from head trauma while playing tackle football and misled parents
about safety policies, coaches training and helmet standards.

Due to "gross negligence and fraudulent misrepresentations,"
children "suffered repeated head trauma, including multiple
concussions, which has led to severe chronic brain injuries,
including but not limited to depression and Chronic Traumatic
Encephalopathy," the women say in the Sept. 1 federal lawsuit.

There are two other defendants. The National Operating Committee
on Standards Athletic Equipment "sets the standards for athletic
equipment safety," the complaint states. The mothers call NOCSEA
"a self-appointed standard setting body whose members' primary
focus is to generate profits."

The third defendant is USA Football, which the complaint describes
as "the official youth football development partner of the NFL and
its thirty-two teams."

The mothers demand, among other things, that Pop Warner be ordered
to put warning labels on helmets about the dangers of brain injury
from tackle football.

Archie's son, Paul Bright Jr., played Pop Warner football for
seven years, beginning when he was 7 years old. He died in a
motorcycle crash at 24 after several years of increasingly erratic
and reckless behavior, his mother says.

Cornell's son, Tyler Cornell, played for five years, beginning
when he was about 8. He developed "behavioral issues" and
depression, and committed suicide when he was 25.

Autopsies showed that both young men had CTE.

Litigation over sports-related brain injuries has not declined
since the NFL settled a multi-billion consolidated case from pro
football players. That agreement, approved by an appellate court
in April, could give as much as $5 million to each of 20,000 NFL
players who develop symptoms in the next 65 years.

Players and former players from the National Hockey League and
major college athletics conferences have filed class actions of
their own.

Pop Warner this year had settled two lawsuits involving young
players with neurological injuries. Archie's and Cornell's
complaint is the first such class action.

Representatives for Pop Warner and USA Football could not be
reached for comment late on September 2.

Mike Oliver, the NOCSEA executive director and legal counsel, said
he had just begun to read the complaint and was not prepared to
comment on it.

"This is the first time we've been sued as a defendant in any
litigation in 20 years or more," Oliver said.

The mothers say that Oliver's group claims that all Pop Warner
helmets meet NOCSEA standards, while concealing that "there are no
youth-specific helmet safety standards."

They also claim the defendants told parents -- falsely -- that a
Football USA training program for coaches, Heads Up Football,
reduced injuries by 87 percent compared to other youth programs.

The New York Times reported, however, that the study cited by
Football USA actually found no meaningful reduction in injuries.

Archie and Cornell say that their sons' deaths, and other young
players' problems, could have been avoided had the defendants
established proper guidelines and procedures, provided safe
helmets and trained coaches how to recognize, prevent and treat
brain injuries.

Instead, the mothers say, "The defendants acted willfully,
wantonly, egregiously, with reckless abandon, and with a high
degree of moral culpability" and with "callous indifference to the
rights and duties owed to plaintiffs . . . and the public at
large."

Archie's involvement in youth sport safety long precedes her son's
death. A onetime cheerleading coach and McDonald's trainer, Archie
is a paralegal who started an organization to promote cheerleader
safety after her daughter broke an arm during practice. Her work
broadened to encompass all youth sports, and eventually the NFL
concussion litigation, in which she served as a consultant,
according to news stories and online profiles.

Among the plaintiffs' law firms she worked with in the NFL case
was Girardi Keese, which represents her and Cornell in the new
class action.

Firm partners Thomas Girardi and Robert Finnerty could not be
reached for comment on September 2.

The mothers seek class certification and punitive damages for
negligence, fraud, misrepresentation, unfair competition and false
advertising, and a court order banning deceptive practices and
requiring warning labels on youth football helmets.


NATIONAL MILK: $52MM Settlement Wins Preliminary Approval
---------------------------------------------------------
Nicholas Iovino, writing for Courthouse News Service, reported
that some of the nation's largest dairy producers will pay $52
million to settle an antitrust class action in Oakland, Calif.,
with consumers in 15 states and the District of Columbia.

U.S. District Judge Jeffery White granted preliminary approval of
the $52 million settlement on Aug. 25.

In the underlying lawsuit, lead plaintiff Matthew Edwards sued a
cadre of dairy giants, including Land O' Lakes, the National Milk
Producers Federation, Dairy Farmers of America and Agri-Mark, in
Federal Court in September 2011.

The dairy producers were accused of conspiring to prematurely
slaughter more than 500,000 cows between 2003 and 2010 to limit
the production of raw milk and drive up prices for yogurt, sour
cream and other dairy products.

"The biggest dairy producers in the country, responsible for
almost 70 percent of the nation's milk, conspired together in a
classic price-fixing scheme, forcing higher prices for a basic
food item onto honest consumers and families," said Steve Berman,
managing partner of Hagens Berman, one of the law firms
representing the plaintiff class, in a statement. "We're pleased
that this settlement will return some of what consumers lost due
to this massive fraud perpetrated for ill-gotten gains."

The class includes all consumers who from 2003 to present
purchased cream, half & half, yogurt, cottage cheese or sour cream
in California, Kansas, Massachusetts, Michigan, Missouri,
Nebraska, Nevada, New Hampshire, Oregon, South Dakota, Tennessee,
Vermont, West Virginia, Wisconsin and the District of Columbia.

The National Milk Producers Federation said in a statement the
dairy industry group, Cooperatives Working Together (CWT), "has
worked diligently to put this legacy issue behind us."

"Settlement of this litigation is the most sensible and
responsible course of action to maintain the current CWT Export
Assistance program and allow us to focus on the future," said Jim
Mulhern, president and CEO of the National Milk Producers
Federation.

Cheryl Leahy, general counsel for animal rights organization
Compassion Over Killing, said her organization "was proud to have
spearheaded the research" that led to this class action
litigation.

"Not only was the price of milk artificially inflated, but this
scheme ultimately cost 500,000 young cows their lives," Leahy said
in a statement.

In their motion for settlement approval, the plaintiffs estimate
73 million class members are eligible to receive a portion of the
$52 million fund.

No proof of purchase is required to submit a claim. Two levels of
fixed cash payments will be set based on class members' purchases
and the number of claims submitted.

Any cash remaining after a first round of disbursement may be
distributed in a second round as grocery loyalty cards, continuing
until all funds are exhausted, according to the settlement
approval motion.

Alternatively, leftover funds may also be distributed to attorneys
general in the affected jurisdictions "for use in prosecuting
antitrust claims."

Under the agreement, 18 class representatives will receive
incentive awards of $5,000 each for a total of $90,000.

Affected consumers can submit claims or objections, or ask to be
excluded from the settlement, at www.boughtmilk.com.

The deadline to file objections against the settlement is Dec. 2,
2016.

A fairness hearing on a motion for final settlement approval is
scheduled for Dec. 16, 2016, in Oakland.

The case is captioned, MATTHEW EDWARDS, et al., individually and
on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v.
NATIONAL MILK PRODUCERS FEDERATION, aka COOPERATIVES WORKING
TOGETHER; DAIRY FARMERS OF AMERICA, INC.; LAND O'LAKES, INC.;
DAIRYLEA COOPERATIVE INC.; and AGRI-MARK, INC., Defendants., Case
No. 11-CV-04766-JSW (N.D. Cal.)


NATURMED INC: Court Strikes Class Certification Bid in "Nichols"
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit captioned Mary Ann Nichols, the Plaintiff, v.
Naturmed, Inc., the Defendant, Case No. 1:16-cv-07356 (N.D. Ill.),
the Hon. Judge Robert W. Gettleman entered an order:

     1. striking Plaintiff's motion to certify class;

     2. withdrawing application to appear pro hac; and

     3. granting motion to withdraw Sheila Carmody as attorney.

According to the docket entry made by the Clerk on August 31,
2016, motion hearing was held on that day.

A copy of the Order is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=zCvYmZg7


NCO FINANCIAL: FDCPA Class Certification Sought in "Pirrone" Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Jennifer M. Pirrone moves to certify the action entitled JENNIFER
M. PIRRONE, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated
v. NCO FINANCIAL SYSTEMS, INC., Case No. 2:15-cv-04000-WB (E.D.
Pa.), as a class action and appoint her as class representative.

For her claim under the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act, the
Plaintiff seeks certification of this Class:

     All persons with addresses within the jurisdiction of the
     United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit who,
     beginning one year prior to the filing of the Complaint
     through and including the final resolution of this case,
     were sent one or more letter(s) from Defendant attempting to
     collect a consumer debt which disclosed a bar code visible
     through the window of the envelope that when read or
     scanned, revealed the account number, reference number,
     registration code or other unique identification number
     associated with the person's account.

A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=T9CPCI0W

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          James A. Francis, Esq.
          David A. Searles, Esq.
          FRANCIS & MAILMAN, P.C.
          Land Title Building, Suite 1902
          100 South Broad Street
          Philadelphia, PA 19110
          Telephone: (215) 735-8600
          E-mail: jfrancis@consumerlawfirm.com
                  dsearles@consumerlawfirm.com


NCR CORPORATION: "Meadows" Suit Seeks Certification of FLSA Class
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit captioned MICHAEL MEADOWS, Individually, and on
Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, the Plaintiffs, v. NCR
CORPORATION, the Defendant, Case No. 1:16-cv-06221 (N.D. Ill.),
the Plaintiffs ask the Court for conditional certification of:

     "all individuals who currently work or formerly worked for
     Defendant as customer engineers, technicians or any other
     similarly titled position from June 15, 2013 to the
     present."

The Plaintiffs further ask the Court for an order:

     (1) providing court-facilitated notice of the action to the
     Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) Class;

     (2) advising Defendant to produce a computer-readable data
     file containing the names, addresses, telephone numbers and
     email addresses of the FLSA class members; and

     (3) authorizing Plaintiffs to send notice, at their expense,
     by U.S. First Class Mail and e-mail to all members of the
     FLSA Class to inform them of their right to opt-in to the
     lawsuit.

A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=vv4aNKJY

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Ryan F. Stephan, Esq.
          STEPHAN ZOURAS, LLP
          205 North Michigan Avenue, Suite 2560
          Chicago, IL 60601
          Telephone: (312) 233 1550
          Facsimile: (312) 233 1560
          E-mail: rstephan@stephanzouras.com


NEW YORK: Hearing Held on Bronx Speedy-Trial Case
-------------------------------------------------
Adam Klasfeld, writing for Courthouse News Service, reported that
New York State's lawyers have argued that the federal judiciary
has no authority to order Bronx Criminal Court to address the
years of backlogs that have gutted speedy-trial rights there.

But a federal judge in Manhattan pointed out at hearing on
September 7, that attorneys advocating for Jim Crow laws in
Mississippi and Alabama may have used that same argument to try to
defeat legal challenges to segregation.

"We are not arguing about segregation in the South, but if we
were, [the state] would be making the same arguments that you are
making," U.S. District Judge George Daniels said. "Oh, comity,
that's for us to decide. The federal courts, you should defer to
us."

The veteran jurist made several similar analogies during arguments
that stretched more than 90 minutes.

Daniels, who is black, spent several years as a criminal court
judge and a defense attorney before his 16-year stint on the
federal bench. He is now presiding over a proposed civil-rights
class action claiming that tens of thousands of people languish in
Bronx jails awaiting trial for misdemeanors.

The Bronx Defenders, the nonprofit group behind the lawsuit, says
that the average wait for a bench trial in that borough's criminal
court is 642 days and a jury trial takes an "astonishing" 827
days.

As of this past January, the group said 2,378 misdemeanor cases
remained pending in the Bronx for more than 365 days and 538 cases
for at least two years.

Four black and Latino men sued New York's Gov. Andrew Cuomo, Chief
Judge Janet DiFiore, and Chief Administrative Judge Lawrence Marks
in May, seeking a federal court order to curb the delays.

In her first attempt to throw out the lawsuit, New York Assistant
Attorney General Alissa Wright blasted the lawsuit as a "broad,
widespread challenge to the criminal justice system in the Bronx."
She added that the plaintiffs provided "no precedent for such
intrusive and invasive oversight."

But Daniels kept returning to precedents that predate the
victories of the Civil Rights movement.

"Suppose we were transported someplace else," the judge mused, and
what appeared to be the setup for a fairly typical Socratic
exercise in a courtroom soon took on a more biting edge.

"Suppose we were transported to Mississippi of the 1930s," he
continued. "[The state argues:] 'We want to deny this class of
people trials.' You wouldn't be arguing to me that the federal
courts couldn't do anything about that?"

Wright asserted that, unlike in the segregation era, New York does
not have an official policy of denying Bronx Criminal Court
defendants their Sixth Amendment rights.

Daniels countered that the state's intentions are irrelevant.

"The motive of the state is not determinative of the right of the
individual," he said. "The individual has the right to a speedy
trial."

In any event, the judge noted, the University of Alabama claimed
that it had no official policy of discrimination when it was
finally forced to desegregate in 1963.

When pressed by the state about how a federal court could reform
Bronx criminal-court backlogs, Daniels found one potential model
in a phrase from Brown v. The Board of Education: "With all
deliberate speed."

The point, he said, was that the federal court would not have to
oversee the state judges at all, but mandate that they correct the
constitutional violations.

The black and Latino plaintiffs in this lawsuit are still a long
way from such an outcome.

At this stage, they need to prove that they have standing to sue,
requiring them to prove that they are likely to be arrested,
prosecuted in the Bronx, and be deprived of the right of a jury
trial by the state.

Daniels grilled civil-rights attorney Scott Levy on whether his
plaintiffs fit that bill.

Lead plaintiff Christopher Trowbridge, a 42-year-old black man
from the South Bronx, claims that he is likely to land in Bronx
Criminal Court a seventh time because of his longtime struggle
with substance abuse.

"That is not something that goes away overnight," Levy, with the
Bronx Defenders, noted.

Another plaintiff Juan Ortiz, a 61-year-old Latino man, has been
busted 14 times for shoplifting within 2-1/2 years.

Levy argued that Ortiz has a medical compulsion that makes him
likely to be face further court delays in the Bronx.

The judge seemed skeptical that a "kleptomaniac" was the best
class representative.

"It seems to me that [Ortiz is] the least likely person to want a
speedy trial," he quipped.

Daniels joked that most attorneys attempt to convince him that
their clients will not commit crimes in the future, but that
Levy's task is to prove the opposite in order to prove standing.

For plaintiff Michael Torres, a 43-year-old construction worker,
the problem is not a likelihood of recidivism, but a repeated
mistake by the police. Torres carries a pocket knife in New York
City, where the NYPD has enforced a highly-publicized crackdown on
so-called gravity knives.

Critics say this policy relies on a vague and discriminatory
definition of what is banned. Over the past decade, 86 percent of
the thousands of New Yorkers arrested under the statute have been
black or Latino.

Daniels promised to quickly review the extensive court record
before issuing a ruling.

Though an unstated subtext of the hearing, the rampant civil-
rights violations being claimed are happening in New York City's
most diverse county.

The Bronx is unique among the five boroughs for having a Hispanic
majority. More than 40 percent of its residents are black, and it
has the lowest white population of any of the five boroughs.


NOTTOWAY PLANTATION: "Wilford" Suit Certification of FLSA Class
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit titled TRAVIS WILFORD, the Plaintiff, v. NOTTOWAY
PLANTATION, INC, NOTTOWAY PROPERTIES, INC. NOTTOWAY PROPERTIES,
LLC, NOTTOWAY PLANTATION, AND NOTTOWAY PLANTATION & RESORT, the
Defendants, Case No. 3:16-cv-00135-JJB-EWD (M.D. La.), the
Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an order conditionally
certifying this class of similarly situated individuals pursuant
to the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA):

     "all persons, who from August 2013, previously worked or
     currently work for Nottoway Plantation, Inc.; Nottoway
     Properties, Inc.; and/or Nottoway Properties, LLC
     (collectively Nottoway or Defendants) as hourly employees
     performing restaurant, banquet and/or event-related duties
     (including, but not limited to, persons who worked as
     servers, dishwashers, bussers, cleaning personnel, etc.) who
     were not paid minimum wage for all hours that they were
     clocked in to work (and worked) each week and who were not
     paid at a rate of one and one half times their regular rate
     of pay for all hours worked in excess of 40 per week in
     violation of the FLSA."

A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=W9ExM5Rn

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


NRA GROUP: Class Certification Bid in "Bernal" Suit Granted
-----------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit captioned Joseph Bernal, Plaintiff, v. NRA Group,
LLC, the Defendant, Case No. 1:16-cv-01904 (N.D. Ill.), the Hon.
Judge Gary Feinerman granted Plaintiff's motion for class
certification of "all persons in the State of Illinois from whom
NRA attempted to collect a delinquent consumer debt allegedly owed
for a Six Flags account, via a collection letter identical to the
letter that is attached to the complaint, as to which a
percentage-based charge for collection costs had been added to the
debt, from February 3, 2015 to the present."

The claim to be tried is whether Defendant violated the FDCPA by
seeking collect delinquent consumer debt using a form collection
letter that assesses percentage-based collection costs.

According to the docket entry made by the Clerk on August 30,
2016, the parties shall confer regarding class notice and shall
file a status report with their joint proposal or competing
proposals by September 14, 2016. Status hearing set for September
12, 2016 is stricken and re-set for September 22, 2016 at 9:00
a.m.

A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=SXLU6MOK


OAKLAND COUNTY, MI: Fails to Seal Criminal Records, Suit Says
-------------------------------------------------------------
Rose Bouboushian, writing for Courthouse News Service, reported
that Michigan promises certain youthful offenders that it will
seal their records after probation but one woman claims in a
federal class action that Oakland County court officials have been
shirking this duty.

The program in Michigan -- called the Holmes Youthful Trainee Act,
or HYTA -- has been a fixture of state law since 1967, according
to the federal complaint filed in Detroit.  It allows eligible
defendants under the age of 21 to have their criminal records
sealed if they plead guilty to the charged offense and complete
their probation successfully.  In addition to sealing the
proceedings, participation ensures that the offenders' record
reflects a dismissal of the criminal charges.

A woman who participated in this program in 1994 brought the
underlying lawsuit on Aug. 31 against the Oakland County Clerk's
Office, the circuit court, and the clerk and chief judge in charge
of those offices.

TCU says she expected her record to be sealed but received a copy
of her criminal record this past January "as part of notice of an
adverse employment decision."

Though the woman sued under her name, this article uses TCU's
initials in light of privacy concerns.

Claiming that she is not alone, TCU says the Oakland Clerk's
Office has "consistently made erroneous docket entries which fail
to reflect the dismissal of the plaintiff's and class members'
underlying criminal charge."

Plus, the office has "consistently transmitted the erroneous
docket entries to the Michigan State Police, leading to those
records' public availability," according to the 16-page complaint.

TCU accuses clerk Lisa Brown of having "negligently failed to
supervise her office and/or establish procedures for her office
which should have been in place to prevent the wrongful
transmission of the plaintiff's and class members' non-public
records."

Chief Judge Nanci Grant's failure to keep the records private
meanwhile has caused the plaintiffs "social stigma, adverse
employment decisions, and resulting economic and emotional harm,"
according to the lawsuit.

TCU's four-count complaint alleges breach of contract and
constitutional violations.

The class seeks compensatory and punitive damages, plus an
injunction.
They are represented by the Alyson Oliver Law Group in Troy, Mich.

The defendants did not return requests for comment.


PAD AND PUBLICATION: Class Cert. Bid in Podiatry Suit Withdrawn
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit styled Podiatry In Motion, Inc., the Plaintiff, v.
Pad and Publication Assembly Corporation, et al., the Defendant,
Case No. 1:16-cv-06357 (N.D. Ill.), the Hon. Judge Sharon Johnson
Coleman entered an order withdrawing Plaintiff's motion to certify
a class.

According to the docket entry made by the Clerk on September 6,
2016, a status hearing was held that day. Another status hearing
is set on September 20, 2016 at 09:00 am. The Defendant's answer
is due by the next date.

A copy of the Order is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=dpd3pb7M


PASSION TRANSPORTATION: Class Cert. Hearing Continued to Oct. 18
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Hon. Judge is Edmond E. Chang entered an order in the lawsuit
captioned ABC Business Forms, Inc., the Plaintiff, v. Passion
Transportation, Inc., et al., Case No. 1:16-cv-08426 (N.D. Ill.),
granting motion to continue hearing of class certification (which
cannot be decided at this early stage).

According to the docket entry made by the Clerk on September 7,
2016, an initial status hearing is set for October 18, 2016 at
9:30 a.m. The parties must file a joint initial status report at
least 3 business days before the initial status hearing.

The Plaintiff must still file the report even if not all
Defendants have been served or have responded to requests to craft
a joint report. Because the Procedures are occasionally revised,
counsel must read them anew even if counsel has appeared before
Judge Chang in other cases, the Court said.

A copy of the Order is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=Maycsg5l


PIERCE MANUFACTURING: "Ehmann" Seeks Certification of FLSA Class
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit styled ERIC EHMANN on behalf of himself and all
others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. PIERCE MANUFACTURING,
INC., the Defendant, Case No. 16-CV-247 (E.D. Wisc.), Mr. Eric
Ehmann moves the Court to conditionally certify a Fair Labor
Standards Act (FLSA) collective action and authorize and order
notice sent to members of a class of:

     "all current and former Production employees employed with
     or placed at Defendant, Pierce Manufacturing, Inc., in the
     State of Wisconsin after February 29, 2013, who have not
     been compensated for all hours worked in excess of forty
     (40) hours in a workweek as a result of impermissible time
     shaving by Defendant."

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

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          James A. Walcheske, Esq.
          Scott S. Luzi, Esq.
          Jesse R. Dill, Esq.
          WALCHESKE & LUZI, LLC
          Brookfield - Main Office
          15850 W. Bluemound Road, Suite 304
          Brookfield, WI 53005
          Telephone: (262) 780 1953
          Facsimile: (262) 565 6469


POMONA UNIFIED: Court Wants Supplemental Brief on Class Cert. Bid
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit captioned J.V., et al., the Plaintiff, v. Pomona
Unified School District, et al., the Defendant, Case No. 2:15-cv-
07895-JAK-MRW (C.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge John A. Kronstadt
directs the Plaintiff to file a class certification supplemental
brief not to exceed 12 pages, which shall address these issues:

     (i) standing of the named Plaintiffs;

     (ii) adequacy of the proposed class representatives in light
     of their current education locations and their particular
     health conditions; and

     (iii) the appropriateness of affirmative injunctive relief,
     which shall specify the injunctive relief sought and whether
     such relief as to training and reporting injuries to
     students, will apply to all class members in a common
     fashion.

Defendant shall file a response by September 15, 2016. Upon
receipt of the parties' supplemental briefs, the Motion for Class
Certification will be taken under submission and a ruling will be
issued.

The Counsel is directed to report that they would be open to a
further settlement session with Magistrate Judge Wilner after the
rulings on the Motion for Class Certification and pending motion
to dismiss and motion to compel.

A copy of the Order is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=pV8Z8yR7


REXALL: Sept. 28 Deadline Set for Glucosamine Settlement Claims
---------------------------------------------------------------
Joe Ducey, writing for abc15, reports that you may not know the
maker, Rexall.  But you should know all the brand names its
Glucosamine supplement is sold under.  They include Target, CVS,
Walgreens, Kroger, Kirkland and Safeway.

A class action lawsuit alleges there were false statements made
about potential health benefits.  A settlement means $8 back per
bottle, up to $104 back.  The deadline to file is September 28th.

The manufacturer claims no wrongdoing.


RTG FURNITURE: Hankinson Seeks Certification of Three Classes
-------------------------------------------------------------
The Plaintiffs in the lawsuit titled Benjamin Hankinson, James
Guerra, and Jeanette Gandolfo, Lisa Palmer, Donald Anderson, and
Lisa Prihoda, individually and on behalf of others similarly
situated v. R.T.G. Furniture Corp., d/b/a Rooms to Go, RTG
America, LLC, The Jeffrey Seaman 2009 Annuity Trust, RTG Furniture
Corp. of Georgia, d/b/a Rooms to Go, RTG Furniture of Texas, L.P.,
d/b/a Rooms to Go, RTG Texas Holdings, Inc., and R.T.G. Furniture
Corp. of Texas, Case No. 9:15-cv-81139-JIC (S.D. Fla.), seek
certification for these classes:

     a) Florida Class: All residents of Florida who purchased
        ForceField Protection Plans from Defendants, from
        August 12, 2010 to August 12, 2015,

        i. Florida "Slamming" Subclass: All residents of Florida
           who purchased ForceField Protection Plans from
           Defendants, whose ForceField Protection Plans were
           added to their bills without their knowledge from
           August 12, 2011 to August 12; 2015;


     b) Georgia Class: All residents of Georgia who purchased
        ForceField Protection Plans from Defendants, from
        August 12, 2009 to August 12, 2015; and

     c) Texas Class: All residents of Texas who purchased
        ForceField Protection Plans from Defendants, from
        August 12, 2011 to August 12, 2015.

Plaintiffs Hankins, Guerra, and Gandolfo, Florida residents, seek
appointment as the representatives for the class of Florida
purchasers.  Plaintiff Palmer, a Florida resident, seeks
appointment as the representative for the Florida slamming
subclass.  Plaintiff Prihoda, a Texas resident, seeks appointment
as the representative for the class of Texas purchasers.
Plaintiff Anderson, a Georgia resident, seeks appointment as the
representative for the class of Georgia purchasers.

The Plaintiffs also seek appointment of Cohen Milstein Sellers &
Toll, PLLC, as class counsel for all classes.

A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=2FiAQVJ4

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Theodore J. Leopold, Esq.
          Leslie M. Kroeger, Esq.
          Diana L. Martin, Esq.
          COHEN MILSTEIN SELLERS & TOLL PLLC
          2925 PGA Boulevard, Suite 200
          Palm Beach Gardens, FL 33410
          Telephone: (561) 515-1400
          Facsimile: (561) 515-1401
          E-mail: tleopold@cohenmilstein.com
                  lkroeger@cohenmilstein.com
                  dmartin@cohenmilstein.com

               - and -

          Douglas J. McNamara, Esq.
          Eric A. Kafka, Esq.
          COHEN MILSTEIN SELLERS & TOLL PLLC
          1100 New York Avenue, NW
          East Tower, 5th Floor
          Washington, DC 20005
          Telephone: (202) 408-4600
          Facsimile: (202) 408-4699
          E-mail: dmcnamara@cohenmilstein.com
                  ekafka@cohenmilstein.com

Defendant R.T.G. Furniture Corp. is represented by:

          Jamie Zysk Isani, Esq.
          Douglas C. Dreier, Esq.
          HUNTON & WILLIAMS LLP
          1111 Brickell Avenue, Suite 2500
          Miami, FL 33131
          Telephone: (305) 810-2500
          Facsimile: (305) 810-1675
          E-mail: jisani@hunton.com
                  ddreier@hunton.com

               - and -

          Walfrido J. Martinez, Esq.
          HUNTON & WILLIAMS LLP
          200 Park Avenue
          New York, NY 10166
          Telephone: (212) 309-1316
          Facsimile: (212) 309-1100
          E-mail: wmartinez@hunton.com

               - and -

          Randi Engel Schnell, Esq.
          Frank M. Lowrey IV, Esq.
          Joshua F. Thorpe, Esq.
          BONDURANT MIXSON & ELMORE LLP
          One Atlantic Center
          1201 West Peachtree Street NW, Suite 3900
          Atlanta, GA 30309
          Telephone: (404) 881-4100
          Facsimile: (404) 881-4111
          E-mail: schnell@bmelaw.com
                  flowery@bmelaw.com
                  thorpe@bmelaw.com


SAINT-GOBAIN: Residents Challenge Class Action Dismissal Motion
---------------------------------------------------------------
Edward Damon, writing for Bennington Banner, reports that
residents who filed a class action lawsuit over PFOA contamination
want a federal court in Vermont to throw out a company's motion to
dismiss the case.

Attorneys for Saint-Gobain Performance Plastics had previously
argued the case should be dismissed or stayed because the company
challenged the state's drinking water standard for PFOA, a man-
made chemical that has been found in private wells.

North Bennington residents' attorneys, in an Aug. 17 memorandum,
argue the company's challenge in court "has no direct bearing on
any of the legal issues" the lawsuit raises.  The document states
the court should deny Saint-Gobain's motion to dismiss the case
because, in part, the company's attorneys cited a legal precedent
that does not apply. PFOA, or perfluorooctanoic acid, has been
linked to kidney and testicular cancers, as well as high blood
pressure and cholesterol and thyroid problems.  Of the 483 wells
around North Bennington tested since February, 249 were found to
have PFOA levels above what the state says is safe, or 20 parts
per trillion (ppt).  The Department of Environmental Conservation
(DEC) believes it came from the former Saint-Gobain/ChemFab plant
on Water Street.

North Bennington residents filed a class action lawsuit against
Saint-Gobain in May.  The complaint seeks at least $5 million in
damages, as well as a court order for the company to pay to
connect affected homes to municipal water, clean up contamination
and implement long-term medical studies.

Saint-Gobain's attorneys filed a motion July 19 to dismiss or stay
the lawsuit proceedings, because the company has challenged
Vermont's 20 ppt health advisory standard for PFOA in drinking
water, which the memorandum describes as "the lowest set by any
state, federal or even foreign government."  The EPA earlier this
year set 70 ppt as the federal standard.

Saint-Gobain argued the case should be dismissed under the Burford
abstention doctrine, which allows a federal court to abstain from
hearing a case so a state court or agency can determine policies
and laws.

The Aug. 17 memorandum states Saint-Gobain's use of abstention is
"wholly unwarranted."  Residents' attorneys cite case law to argue
the court can only dismiss a case if it presents "difficult
questions of state law bearing on policy problems of substantial
public import whose importance transcends the result in the case
then at bar," or, if being tried in federal court "would be
disruptive of state efforts to establish a coherent policy with
respect to a matter of substantial public concern."

The memorandum states neither the plaintiff's class definition nor
their claims for damages depend on the state-imposed 20 ppt limit.


SAN BERNARDINO, CA: Must Face Wrongful-Arrest Class Action
----------------------------------------------------------
Matt Reynolds, writing for Courthouse News Service, reported that
a federal judge in Los Angeles refused to dismiss a class action
accusing San Bernardino County of wrongfully arresting and jailing
hundreds of innocent people on warrants for other people.

Lead plaintiff Manuel Bravo Martinez in April sued the county and
its sheriff's department and the city of Colton and its police,
claiming as many as 450 were jailed after police and sheriff's
officers failed to check identities properly.

Martinez was jailed at the San Bernardino County Jail Central
Detention Center on Aug. 11, 2015 after a Colton police officer
stopped him during a morning drive for failing to use the proper
child restraint in his vehicle.

Martinez said officers arrested him after running a warrant check
and finding an outstanding warrant for another Manuel Martinez who
was facing fraud, drugs and weapon charges.

But there were four identifiable crucial differences between the
subject of the warrant and him, Martinez said.

Martinez's middle name is Bravo, which is not true of the suspect.
Nor is Martinez a Jr., as the suspect is.

Their birth dates are two months and eight days apart, Martinez
had an address in Hawaii though the man in the warrant lived in
California, and their drivers' license numbers are different.

That didn't stop Colton police Officer Matthew Collins from
arresting and jailing him despite his protests, Martinez said. He
said jailers too should have realized their error because his
fingerprints were on file from a 2007 misdemeanor conviction for
reckless driving.

Martinez spent the night in jail, was arraigned the next day and
posted $100,000 bond. He was cleared when San Bernardino County
Superior Court Judge Raymond Haight "did what the jailers and
arresting officer should have done but refused to do" and compared
his identifying information with the identifiers on the warrant,
Martinez said in the complaint.

Martinez is represented by Donald Cook, who has made it a mission
to fix California's warrant system.

"This is not the result of aberrational behavior," Cook said in an
interview. "This is the result of a systematic failure by law
enforcement to simply exonerate the innocent, the people that they
really know, should know, are innocent. They have an attitude of
they don't really care if in fact it's not the right person."

Cook has filed multiple lawsuits against Los Angeles County to
address the same problem. In Martinez's April 14 lawsuit, Cook
says the problem could be solved easily, if officials use the
unique identifying numbers on warrants.

"Related to this are the agencies' indifference to instances where
the same person is repeatedly arrested on a warrant meant for
another, an indifference that manifests itself by the agencies'
refusal to do anything to prevent the person's re-arrest on the
same warrant notwithstanding the agencies' knowledge, beforehand,
that the person is not the warrant's subject," the lawsuit states.

San Bernardino County asked the court to throw the case out, but
on August 30, U.S. District Judge Christina Snyder refused to do
that.

Snyder said Martinez had has sufficiently pleaded that Colton and
its police department have customs and policies that could
indicate deliberate indifference to Martinez's rights under the
Fourth Amendment.

Martinez also made a false arrest claim under the due process
clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, and Snyder refused the
county's request to dismiss it because it was not the arresting
agency.

Snyder did find, however, that Colton and its police were not
liable for the alleged false arrest because Martinez was booked in
a county, rather than a city, jail. She also found that as an
arresting officer Collins was entitled to immunity, but not San
Bernardino County Sheriff Jim McMahon.

The lawsuit contends that sheriff's department records going back
five years show that up to 450 prisoners have been jailed on
warrants for other people, and that McMahon knew of the problem
but did nothing about it.

Snyder gave Martinez until Sept. 8 to amend the complaint against
Collins, regarding immunity.

The Sheriff's Department was not available for comment after
business hours on September 1.

Colton, pop. 55,000, is immediately south of the city of San
Bernardino, toward the eastern edge of the enormous Los Angeles
metroplex. Famous Old West Sheriff Wyatt Earp spent his last years
in Colton, running a jewelry store.

The case is captioned, MANUEL BRAVO MARTINEZ v. CITY OF COLTON, ET
AL., EDCV16-702-CAS(DTBx)(C.D. Cal.)


SARATOGA DIAGNOSTICS: America's Health Seeks Class Certification
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit titled AMERICA'S HEALTH & RESOURCE CENTER, LTD, an
Illinois Corporation, individually and as the representative of a
class of similarly-situated persons, the Plaintiff, v. SARATOGA
DIAGNOSTICS, INC., THOMAS G. PALLONE and JOHN DOES 1-12, Case No.
1:16-cv-05608 (N.D. Ill.), the Plaintiff moves the Court for entry
of an order certifying a class:

     "each person that was sent one or more telephone facsimile
     messages promoting the commercial availability or quality of
     property, goods, or services offered by "Saratoga", but not
     stating on its first page that the recipient may make a
     request to the sender not to send any future ads and that
     failure to comply with such a request within 30 days is
     unlawful."

According to the complaint, the Plaintiff files the motion soon
after the filing of its amended class action complaint in order to
avoid an attempt by Defendant(s) to moot Plaintiff's individual
claims in the class action.

The Plaintiff says additional discovery is necessary for the court
to determine whether to certify the class Plaintiff seeks to
represent. As a result, Plaintiff will seek leave to pursue class
discovery as soon as practicable.

A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=hVTKgF48

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Phillip A. Bock, Esq.
          Tod A. Lewis, Esq.
          David M. Oppenheim, Esq.
          James M. Smith, Esq.
          BOCK, HATCH, LEWIS
          & OPPENHEIM, LLC
          134 N. La Salle St,, Ste. 1000
          Chicago, IL 60602
          Telephone: (312) 658 5500
          Facsimile: (312) 658 5555


SEQUENOM INC: Sued in S.D. Cal. Over Merger with LabCorp
-------------------------------------------------------
ASIA TRADE DEVELOPMENT LIMITED, on behalf of itself and all others
similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. SEQUENOM, INC., KENNETH F.
BUECHLER, MYLA LAI-GOLDMAN, RICHARD A. LERNER, RONALD M. LINDSA Y,
DAVID PENDARVIS, CATHERINE J. MACKEY, CHARLES
P. SLACIK, DIRK V AN DEN BOOM, the Defendants, Case No. 3:16-cv-
02113-AJB-JMA (S.D. Cal., Aug. 22, 2016), seeks to level playing
field and to ensure that if stockholders are to be ultimately
stripped of their respective equity interests through a Proposed
acquisition, that the proposed acquisition is conducted in a
manner that is not overtly improper, unfair and illegal, and that
all material information concerning the Proposed Acquisition is
disclosed to the Sequenom stockholders so that they are able to
make informed decisions as to whether to tender their shares in
favor or against the Proposed Acquisition.

On December 2.2015, LabCorp submitted to Sequenom, through J.P.
Morgan, a non-binding indication of interest in an acquisition of
Sequenom for an all-cash purchase price of between $1.90 and $2.06
per share of Common Stock, subject to LabCorp's satisfactory
completion of due diligence and validation of certain assumptions
and estimates supporting the proposed purchase price. The offer
included no exclusivity period but indicated that, if Sequenom
signed a letter of intent, LabCorp would request an exclusivity
period of ninety days to reach a mutually agreeable definitive
agreement. The indication of interest also included an expiration
date of December 18, 2015.

The compensation afforded under the Proposed Acquisition to
Company stockholders significantly undervalues the Company.
Pursuant to the terms of the Merger Agreement, the transaction
values Company stock at approximately $2.40 per share.
Significantly, the Company last traded as high as high as $2.82
per share as recently as August 2015, or 17.5% greater than the
price contemplated in the Proposed Acquisition. Furthermore, the
Company has traded as high as $2.84 in the last year, or 18.3%
greater than the price contemplated in the Proposed Acquisition.

Sequenom is a life sciences company that develops and
commercializes molecular diagnostics testing services for the
women's health and oncology markets in the United States and
internationally.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Evan J. Smith, Esq.
          BRODSKY & SMITH, LLC
          9595 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 900
          Beverly Hills, CA 90212
          Telephone: (877) 534 2590
          Facsimile: (610) 667 9029
          E-mail: esmith@brodsky-smith.com


SPIRIT AIRLINES: 11th Cir. Affirmed Dismissal of Costumer Case
--------------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reported that though it revived the case
before, the 11th Circuit affirmed dismissal on September 2, of a
would-be class action in Atlanta over a "passenger use fee" that
Spirit Airlines imposes on customers.

In this civil RICO case, plaintiffs seek to represent a class of
customers claiming that Spirit Airlines, Inc. engaged in an
elaborate criminal enterprise involving the use of mail and wire
fraud. The complaint specifically alleged that Spirit portrayed
its Passenger Usage Fee as a government-imposed or authorized fee
when, in fact, it was merely a portion of the base fare price of
an airline ticket charged by the airline.

The district court held that the plaintiffs failed to adequately
allege proximate cause; and they also failed to properly plead the
existence of a RICO enterprise.

The Appeals court said, "In this case, there is no distinction
between the corporate defendant and an enterprise composed of the
corporation and some of its corporate officers. While the outside
vendors may be distinct, the second amended complaint did not
plausibly allege that they shared a common purpose with Spirit to
misrepresent the Passenger Usage Fee, as we have already
discussed. And the corporate officers and agents plainly are not
distinct from the corporate defendant itself for purposes of a
RICO association-in-fact enterprise. In short, the district court
correctly dismissed the plaintiffs' second amended complaint
because the plaintiffs failed to adequately allege the common
purpose or distinctiveness required of a RICO enterprise."

The case is captioned, BRYAN RAY, on behalf of himself and all
others similarly situated, GRETEL DORTA, MICHAEL DIORIO, Ph.D.,
DEBORAH GIBSON, JENNIFER SILY, DONNA TILTON, JOSH RUBIN, DONALD M.
BADACZEWSKI, Plaintiffs - Appellants, versus SPIRIT AIRLINES,
INC., a Delaware corporation, Defendant - Appellee., No. 15-13792
(11th Cir.).

A copy of the Eleventh Circuit's decision is available at
https://is.gd/xVCZub


STARBUCKS: Manager Files Class Action Over Unpaid Overtime Wages
----------------------------------------------------------------
Frances McMorris, writing for Tampa Bay Business Journal, reports
that a manager at a Starbucks in Hillsborough County is bringing a
potential class action suit against the coffee giant for failing
to pay her and other store managers overtime.

Lacey Smith, a Hillsborough Country resident, filed suit in
federal court in the Middle District of Florida, Tampa division,
alleging that Starbucks violated federal labor laws when it failed
to compensate her and other store managers for overtime they
worked.

Reached for comment, Reggie Borges in Starbucks Global Corporate
Communications, said: "We find no merit to the claims.  Our
partners (employees) are the key to Starbucks success, and we are
proud of the competitive wage and benefits we offer."

In her complaint, Ms. Smith said she began working at a local
Starbucks in Tampa as a store manager in July 2013, where she was
paid a salary to perform managerial work that exempted her from
receiving overtime pay.

However, Ms. Smith alleges that "the majority of her time was
spent performing the non-exempt work of an hourly barista."

Even though she had the title of manager, Ms. Smith contends she
and other potential class members "had no authority to hire or
terminate any other employee."  Nor did she have any special or
professional qualifications and skills.  Additionally, she and
other managers "had no control whatsoever" over Starbucks'
business operations, "even from an administrative standpoint."

Ms. Smith alleges that she worked in excess of 40 hours during the
workweek and that she and others like her "were entitled to be
compensated for these overtime hours" at one and one-half times
the regular hourly rate.

The lawsuit is seeking class action status for all store managers
whom the Seattle-based coffee giant failed to pay for all the
overtime hours that they worked from May 2013 to the present.

The suit comes about a month after Starbucks CEO Howard Schultz
announced a pay raise for employees.  Beginning in October, all
Starbucks employees and managers in the company's U.S.-operated
stores will get at least a 5 percent raise.

This isn't the first time Starbucks has been hit with a lawsuit
alleging failure to pay overtime.  The coffee company, which has
23,921 stores worldwide, settled an overtime pay case with more
than 350 employees back in 2008.


SUBARU: Oct. 1 Deadline Set for Oil Consumption Settlement Claims
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Joe Ducey, writing for abc15, reports that a class action suit
alleges certain year models of Forester, Impreza, Outback and
others had a defect that caused excess oil consumption.  The
settlement means extending warranties by three years or getting
compensation for repairs.

The deadline to file is October 1.  Subaru admitted no wrongdoing.


TD BANK: MZL Capital Seeks 3rd Cir. Review of D.N.J. Ruling
-----------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs MZL Capital Holdings Inc. and Thomas Raic filed an
appeal from a court ruling in their lawsuit entitled MZL Capital
Holdings Inc, et al. v. TD Bank NA, Case No. 1-14-cv-05772, in the
U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey.

The appellate case is captioned as MZL Capital Holdings Inc, et
al. v. TD Bank NA, Case No. 16-3523, in the United States Court of
Appeals for the Third Circuit.

As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, MZL alleges
that the Defendant misleads its customers specifically by failing
to disclose the foreign currency transaction fee it is charging to
online consumers.

TD Bank, N.A., describes itself as America's most convenient bank,
promotes its business banking as simple, where it does the work
for you, offering services that support your day to day needs, to
help one achieve your business financial goals.

Plaintiffs-Appellants MZL CAPITAL HOLDINGS INC, On behalf of
themselves and all others similarly situated, and THOMAS RAIC are
represented by:

          Bruce H. Nagel, Esq.
          NAGEL RICE LLP
          103 Eisenhower Parkway
          Roseland, NJ 07069
          Telephone: (973) 618-0400
          E-mail: bnagel@nagelrice.com

MZL CAPITAL HOLDINGS INC. is also represented by:

          Bradley L. Rice, Esq.
          NAGEL RICE LLP
          103 Eisenhower Parkway
          Roseland, NJ 07069
          Telephone: (973) 618-0400
          Facsimile: (973) 618-9194
          E-mail: brice@nagelrice.com

Defendant-Appellee TD BANK NA is represented by:

          Jeffrey P. Catenacci, Esq.
          James S. Richter, Esq.
          WINSTON & STRAWN LLP
          One Gateway Center, 7th Floor
          Newark, NJ 07102
          Telephone: (973) 848-7676
          E-mail: jcatenacci@winston.com
                  jrichter@winston.com


TIME WARNER: 2nd Cir. Affirmed Dismissal of Antitrust Case
----------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reported that the Second Circuit split
2-1 on September 2, in affirming dismissal of an antitrust class
action in Manhattan, against Time Warner Cable for bundling
premium-television services with leases for set-top cable boxes.

The case is captioned, ANGELA KAUFMAN, individually and on behalf
of all others similarly situated, JENNY LELL, LESI ZUMI,
individually, JEFFREY SEALS, an individual, JASON DALEN, MATTHEW
MEEDS, individually and as a representative of those persons
similarly situated, ALLAN FROMEN, NOAM NAHARY, ROBERT MITCHELL,
MATTHEW MCALENEY, WILLIAM STEINKE, DANIELLE KNERR, Plaintiffs-
Appellants, v. TIME WARNER, TIME WARNER CABLE, INC., DOES 1
through 10, inclusive, Defendants-Appellants, Docket No. 11-2512-
cv (2nd Cir.).


TOTAL PETROCHEMICALS: Cert. of 2 Classes Sought in "Barton" Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Michael West, one of the Plaintiffs in the lawsuit titled JAMES
ROBERT BARTON, JR., on behalf of himself and a class of persons
similarly situated v. TOTAL PETROCHEMICALS USA, INC., Case No.
1:15-cv-00471-RC (E.D. Tex.), moves for class certification and
seeks to represent that class of plan participants in the Total
Petrochemicals & Refining USA, Inc.'s Capital Accumulation Plan,
who held Company Stock on November 25, 2015, and sold their
Company Stock between Nov. 25, 2014, and October 25, 2015 -- the
time period after the Defendants announced that the Company Stock
Fund would no longer be an investment option in the Plan but
before the Company announced the "Special Withdrawal Period."

James R. Barton, one of the Plaintiffs, moves class certification
and seeks to represent that class of Plan participants, who held
company stock as of December 31, 2015, which was subject to the
"blackout period" and forcefully liquidated by the Defendants
between December 31, 2015, and January 12, 2016, when the
"blackout period" was lifted.

Messrs. West and Barton seek remedies under the Employee
Retirement Income Security Act to recover losses to the Total
Petrochemical & Refining USA, Inc.'s Capital Accumulation Plan,
which is a defined contribution plan and a class of its
participants arising from the Defendants' alleged breaches of
their fiduciary duties.

The Plaintiffs further ask that Jill S. Pierce, Esq., Jane S.
Leger, Esq., and Mark C. Sparks, Esq., be designated as Class
Counsel.

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

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Jill Swearingen Pierce, Esq.
          BRADLEY, STEELE & PIERCE, LLP
          3120 Central Mall Drive
          Port Arthur, TX 77642
          Telephone: (409) 724-6644
          Facsimile: (409) 724-7585
          E-mail: jpierce@bradlaw.net

               - and -

          Jane Swearingen Leger, Esq.
          FERGUSON LAW FIRM
          350 Pine Street, Suite 1440
          Beaumont, TX 77701
          Telephone: (409) 832-9700
          Facsimile: (409) 832-9708
          E-mail: jleger@thefergusonlawfirm.com

               - and -

          Mark C. Sparks, Esq.
          MOSTYN LAW
          6280 Delaware Street
          Beaumont, TX 77706
          Telephone: (409) 832-2777
          Facsimile: (409) 832-2703
          E-mail: mark@mostynlaw.com


TUMI STORES: "Cartwright" Suit Seeks Unpaid Overtime Under FLSA
---------------------------------------------------------------
BRIANA CARTWRIGHT, GABRIEL CASTRO, AND JACQUELINE ANDREA VALDEZ,
INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF ALL OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED, the
Plaintiff, v. TUMI STORES, INC., AND DOES 1-25, INCLUSIVE, the
Defendants, Case No. BC631409 (Cal. Super. Ct., Aug. 22, 2016),
seeks damages in the amount of unpaid overtime compensation,
liquidated damages as provided by the Fair Labor Standards Act.
(FLSA), interest, and all other compensatory, equitable and other
legal relief.

The Plaintiffs and members of the California Class were regularly
and consistently required to work more than 8 hours in any work
day (sometimes exceeding 12 hours), and more than 40 hours in a
workweek and were not compensated for such work at premium rates.

Tumi sells comprehensive assortment of travel, business, handbags,
and wallets items.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Rhonda Wills, Esq.
          WILLS LAW FIRM
          1776 Yorktown St., Suite 570
          Houston, TX 77056
          Telephone: (713) 528 4455
          Facsimile: (713) 528 2047
          E-mail: rwills@rwillslawfirm.com

               - and -

          George P. Moschopoulos, Esq.
          THE LAW OFFICE OF
          GEORGE MOSCHOPOULOS, APC
          34197 Pacific Coast Highway, Suite 100
          Dana Point, CA 92629
          Telephone: (714) 904 1669
          Facsimile: (949) 272 0428
          E-mail: GeorzeM@logmapc.com


UBER TECHNOLOGIES: Arbitration Clauses Valid, 9th Cir. Ruled
------------------------------------------------------------
Maria Dinzeo, writing for Courthouse News Service, reported that
in a major blow to thousands of Uber drivers suing to be treated
like employees, the Ninth Circuit on September 7, largely upheld
the ride-hailing giant's 2013 and 2014 arbitration agreements.

The three-judge panel's ruling will force drivers to arbitrate
their disputes individually with Uber outside of a court, which
class attorney Shannon Liss-Riordan said was one reason she pushed
hard for approval of a $100 million settlement with Uber earlier
this year.

U.S. District Judge Edward Chen rejected the proposed agreement
last month, saying the $100 million payout for a class of 380,000
current and former California and Massachusetts drivers was too
low. In that case, drivers claimed they are employees -- not
independent contractors as they are currently classified -- and
that Uber should reimburse them for their expenses.

"This decision is not good for the class," Liss-Riordan said in an
email sent to Courthouse News. "We were very aware that this
decision was likely coming, which was the primary argument for why
I was urging the district court to approve the settlement."

In its ruling on September 7, the Ninth Circuit panel reversed
Chen's ruling that the 2013 and 2014 arbitration agreements signed
by drivers are invalid and unenforceable in another class action
led by former Uber drivers Abdul Kadir Mohamed and Ronald
Gillette. The drivers in that case claimed Uber kicked them off
the app after running background checks without their knowledge.

In June, Circuit Judges Richard Tallman, Richard Clifton and
Sandra Ikuta heard Uber's appeal of Chen's ruling.

Writing for the panel in September 7 ruling, Tallman said the
contracts clearly stated that all disputes should be handled by a
private arbitrator and that these provisions were not
unconscionable. Tallman said the panel's decision hinged on the
requirement that the arbitration provision be binding, and it's
not binding if there's an opportunity to opt out.

"Taken together, these two principles compel us to find that the
2014 agreement, at least, is not adhesive, which supports our
holding that the delegation provision is not unconscionable,"
Tallman wrote.

Turning to the 2013 agreement, he added, "The district court's
conclusion that the right to opt out of the 2013 agreement was
illusory fares no better."

Tallman noted that although the drivers had argued that the opt-
out agreement was too difficult to find and understand, "there
were some drivers who did opt out and whose opt-outs Uber
recognized. Thus, the promise was not illusory. The fact that the
opt-out provision was 'buried in the agreement' does not change
this analysis."

Chen had also found the 2013 agreement unenforceable as a matter
of public policy, since it contained a non-severable provision
requiring drivers to waive their rights to pursue civil penalties
under California's Private Attorney General Act.

Tallman called that holding erroneous, and said that part of the
agreement can be severed and litigated in court.

"Thus, while plaintiffs' PAGA claim must be litigated in court,
the PAGA waiver does not invalidate the remainder of the
arbitration provision in the 2013 agreement, and it should be
enforced according to its terms," he wrote.

Liss-Riordan took this as a small victory.

"We do still have the possibility of the PAGA penalties (which are
mostly for the state of California), and we have more than 1,500
Uber drivers signed up in California to pursue individual
arbitrations if necessary," she said.



Uber attorney Ted Boutrous said in an emailed statement on
September 7, "Arbitration is a fair, speedy and less costly
alternative to class action litigation. We've always believed our
optional arbitration agreements should have applied in this case,
and we're pleased with the court's decision on September 7."

The case is captioned, ABDUL KADIR MOHAMED, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff-Appellee, v.
UBER TECHNOLOGIES, INC.; RASIER, LLC, Defendants-Appellants, and
HIREASE, LLC, Defendant., No. 15-16178 (9th Cir.)


UNITED STATES: Military Law Task Force Wins 9th Cir. Fee Appeal
---------------------------------------------------------------
Ryan Borchers, writing for Courthouse News Service, reported that
the Ninth Circuit blasted a federal judge on September 6, for
stiffing a military-law group on half the fees it wanted after
winning its government-records suit.

A subcommittee of the National Lawyers Guild, the Military Law
Task Force initiated the underlying case in 2005.  Fueled by the
end of Operation Iraqi Freedom and the declassification of the
documents, the task force substantially prevailed in its demand
for Department of Defense records on an incident involving an
Italian journalist in Iraq and the military's rules of engagement
in Fallujah, Iraq.

Though the group wanted $381,633 in attorneys' fees, consistent
with its attorneys' billing rates, the Northern District of
California awarded it just $180,520 in fees and $1,059 in costs.
This award matched the government's argument about a $200-per-hour
prevailing market rate.

When U.S. District Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers upheld that award
later, she faulted the task force for not having submitted its own
arguments about prevailing market rates.

Gonzalez Rogers said the task force doomed its request by
demanding only its attorneys' current billing rate.

Reversing 2-1 on September 6, the Ninth Circuit said the task
force in fact "provided substantial evidence of the prevailing
market rate for the applicable periods."

"In justification of the rates that it found reasonable, the court
below said that 'Plaintiffs fail to provide evidence of prevailing
market rates in this forum during the time period at issue,'" the
majority opinion states. "In view of the evidence in the record
discussed above regarding MLTF's rates, we cannot agree with this
conclusion. As our case law makes clear, it is incumbent upon the
district court to provide a "concise but clear explanation of its
reasons for the fee award."

Writing for the majority, U.S. Senior Circuit Judge Barrington
Parker scoffed at the government's argument that the task force
forfeited its opportunity to argue for historical rates by only
advocating in its brief for current rates.

"From time to time, fee applicants request awards higher than that
which the evidence may, upon close review by a neutral judge,
fairly permit," said Parker, sitting on the panel by designation
from the Second Circuit in Manhattan. "But a fee applicant's
decision to request a higher rate does not permit a court to
disregard different rates if the evidence in the record supports
them."

Parker conceded that the task force "might have been more careful
to alert the district court of the substantial evidence of
prevailing historical rates in the declarations, but there is no
question here that the evidence was properly submitted to the
district court."

"Furthermore, the fact that MLTF cited to the relevant
declarations in its moving papers is not consistent with the
government's position that the pertinent evidence was buried in an
impenetrable record," Parker wrote, abbreviating the task force's
name. "Accordingly, we vacate the district court's fee award and
remand for a recalculation of the appropriate rate."

The 19-page opinion closes with another victory for the task
force. Parker said the group is also entitled to seek attorneys'
fees for the cost of its appeal.

Arce Law Group in Manhattan and Phoenix, Ariz.-based attorney
represented the task force on appeal.

"To us, it was a pretty clear abuse of discretion that resulted in
a manifest injustice," Arce attorney Will Gordon Kaupp, of San
Francisco, said about the reversal.

Colleen Flynn, a fellow Arce attorney who represented the task
force, said she to see looks forward to completion of the case.

"It's long overdue," Flynn added. "It's important to know you're
going to get paid if you win."

Attorney Ford added that the precedent "could be helpful for
future litigants who seek public [records] under the Freedom of
Information Act."

In a 4-page dissent, U.S. Circuit Judge Johnnie Rawlinson said she
would affirm because the task force made no mention of the
underlying fee award in its notice of appeal.

"Rather, it referenced only the district court's denial of the
motion for reconsideration," Rawlinson wrote.  She added: "I am
not persuaded that the 'fair inference' of an intent to appeal
should be so facilely bestowed upon Appellants who have failed to
comply with the rules of appellate procedure."

Rawlinson also believes that the lower court acted within its
discretion.

"The district court was not required to accept these rates as
prevailing market rates for 2006--2008, not only because the rates
were for different years, but also for different types of cases,"
the dissent states. "Not one of the referenced cases arose under
the Freedom of Information Act, as does this case. Rather, the
rates cited were awarded in 'a recent large class-action First
Amendment case,' 'a consumer class action,' and civil rights
litigation."

The Department of Justice declined to comment. Gerard Sinzdak
represented the government on appeal.

The case is captioned, MARGUERITE HIKEN; THE MILITARY LAW TASK
FORCE, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE; UNITED
STATES CENTRAL COMMAND, Defendants-Appellees., No. 13-17073 (9th
Cir.)


UTOPIA HOME CARE: Judge Tosses Overtime Pay Class Action
--------------------------------------------------------
Amy Baxter, writing for Home Health Care News, reports that recent
changes in federal overtime laws that impact home health care
workers and other domestic workers have led to a boom in
collective action lawsuits throughout the industry.  However, home
care workers in New York won't be able to sue for overtime pay
through a class action lawsuit, a recent judge in the state ruled.

The case, Cowell v. Utopia Home Care, Inc., involved up to 5,000
home health aides and personal care attendants who were seeking
collective action status for unpaid overtime over a three-year
period across six states.  With multiple changes happening at the
federal and state level, home health care has quickly become a top
target for lawsuits involving labor and wage issues in the past
few years.

The plaintiff sought overtime for work she claimed fell outside of
the companionship exemption -- the old labor rules that dictated
whether home health care workers were entitled to overtime and
minimum wage protections, or not.  While that dispute continues, a
New York magistrate judge ruled that the case could not be opened
up to other home health care workers to recover damages for
similar reasons.  Utopia Home Care is headquartered in New York
and provides home care services in six states.

The judge ruled this way because the complexities of the old rules
and exemptions did not apply flatly to each potential new
plaintiff -- up to 5,000 of them -- according to Phillip Davidoff,
a new York-based attorney with law firm Ford Harrison, which
defended Utopia.

"There were not common factual questions and answer in this case,"
Mr. Davidoff told Home Health Care News.  "A court would have to
go through each plaintiff individually and determine through a
'mini trial' of each person to see if they met that exemption work
rule unrelated to the care of a patient. . . . The judge ruled
this is an appropriate case for collective action."

The case largely reflects the lingering effects of confusing
overtime and wage rules within the home health industry.  Since
the Department of Labor (DOL) ruled that all home care workers are
eligible for overtime and minimum wage protections, disputes over
exemption rules could become far and few between in the future,
according to Davidoff.

"It will clarify these legal issues for home health agencies, for
sure," Mr. Davidoff said.  "On a go-forward basis, now in New York
and nationwide, home health workers are entitled to overtime. That
issue won't be hotly litigated in the future."

However, for the next few years, until the statute of limitations
run out, home health care workers could still seek backpay for
overtime or other wage-related issues.

Class Action Protections

For home health agencies with hundreds of employees, the threat of
a class action lawsuit can be severe.  Fortunately, there are a
few things that companies can do to better protect themselves from
the possibility of being faced with such a lawsuit.

As evidenced with the New York ruling, having clear policies in
place is perhaps the most essential step in defeating this threat.
Written work procedures, policies and practices must be fact-based
for home care staff, and analysis of factors that differ from
worker to worker must be conducted depending on their patient's
needs and condition.  For example, companies need to ensure their
policies are clearly stated and compliant for workers who provide
care for longer shifts.

"For the old rules and things that have happened already, there's
nothing agencies can do," Mr. Davidoff said.  "In general,
agencies can tighten up their policies and procedures.  For
example, they need to ensure that time worked is properly
recorded, and written agreements can be helpful."

Of course, to avoid being sued for wage issues, home health
businesses need to ensure they are in full compliance with FLSA
overtime and hours worked rules and pay individuals properly for
their work.  This includes meeting minimum wage requirements,
correcting tracking intra-day travel time, on-call time and
training.


VERIZON: Temp Workers File FLSA Class Action in Pennsylvania
------------------------------------------------------------
Tim Ryan, writing for Courthouse News Service, reported that a
federal class action in Philadelphia claims Verizon dodged paying
overtime to workers who filled in during a recent high-profile
union strike by misclassifying them as independent contractors.

The class-action lawsuit filed on September 1, in Eastern
Pennsylvania Federal Court alleges Verizon used a "fissured
employment" scheme to shed its responsibility of paying workers
the time-and-a-half overtime rate required under federal law, even
though the temporary workers routinely clocked as many as 91 hours
a week.

Through this system, Verizon allegedly classified employees who
filled in during the union strike as independent contractors of
three subordinate companies -- Tesinc, Evans Splicing and PS
Splicing -- even though it still made the workers follow Verizon's
"exacting" procedures.

This let Verizon dodge the increased cost of employees working
more than 40 hours per week while distancing itself from legal
responsibility, according to the complaint.

However, the named plaintiffs, led by Robert Donoghue, say this
method should not get around established federal law, arguing "it
is the economic reality of the relationship - not Verizon's self-
serving labels - that controls whether plaintiffs met the
definition of an 'employee' under the [Fair Labor Standards Act,
or FLSA] and comparable state and wage hour laws."

On April 13, roughly 36,000 Verizon workers began a strike that
stretched through states on the East Coast, from Massachusetts to
Virginia.The strike would not end for nearly seven weeks, leading
Verizon to hire replacement wireline workers to help keep service
to customers of the country's largest wireless carrier, September
1, class action states.

Pointing to a Verizon press release, the class says Verizon had
actually been preparing for the strike ahead of time, training
non-union workers in its repair procedures before it began.

During the strike, the named plaintiffs and members of the class
they represent worked as replacement wireline workers who were
tasked with maintaining and repairing the copper and fiber cables
Verizon uses to deliver television, phone and Internet services to
its customers, according to the complaint.

While the telecom giant classified the temporary workers as
independent contractors, the named plaintiffs say they underwent
similar procedures as traditional employees."For example,
defendants ran through background checks on plaintiffs and the
class members, made them complete I-9 employee eligibility
verification forms, required them to participate in mandatory 'on-
boarding' programs and safety meetings, withheld money from their
paychecks for workers' compensation and took other deductions from
their pay," the workers claim in the complaint.

Verizon acted as a joint employer of the temporary workers along
with Tesinc, Evans and PS Splicing, and together these companies
failed to give the workers the overtime pay to which they were
entitled, the class claims in the 28-page lawsuit.

The plaintiffs seek unpaid overtime wages they say are owed to
them, as well as compensatory and liquidated damages to be
determined for violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act as well
as Pennsylvania and New Jersey wage laws. They are represented by
David Cohen of Stephan Zouras LLP in Philadelphia.

Verizon declined to comment on the lawsuit, saying it does not
comment on ongoing litigation.


WALNUT RIDGE, AR: To Refund Fire Fees to Avert Class Action
-----------------------------------------------------------
Megan Heyl, writing for The Times Dispatch, reports that the
Walnut Ridge City Council voted to initiate the refunding process
of three years worth of fire fees that may be considered an
illegal exaction in the court of law.

The fee was removed from the water bill at the last city council
meeting after a fax from Mark Rees Law Firm out of Jonesboro
requested information regarding what the firm labeled as the
Walnut Ridge fire tax.

City Attorney Nancy Hall conducted research and determined that
the fee could be an illegal exaction.  Even though no ruling has
been made, the council authorized Hall and Mayor Charles Snapp to
develop a method of offering rebates for the last three years
worth of fees, which represent the statute of limitations on this
type of case.

The amount collected in those three years has been determined to
be $255,740.93, which will now be designated to its own line item
within the city budget.

The rebates will be offered for three years due to the statute of
limitations.  Anyone who paid the fee between Aug. 15, 2013, and
Aug. 15, 2016, can claim a rebate for the amount paid during that
time, a maximum of $108 for residential meters and $90 for
commercial meters.

Mr. Snapp said there is still work needing to be done before the
rebates can be collected.  He added that the city would publicize
and send out notices once the rebates can be claimed.

Until all rebates have been given or the statute of limitation
expires on Sept. 30, 2019, the city will still be vulnerable to a
class action lawsuit.  Ms. Hall explained that if a suit is filed,
then the city will have to cease rebates and all who did not
receive one will automatically be included in the class action
lawsuit.

Aldermen said they have spoken with several citizens who don't
want the rebate.  Mr. Snapp added that there has been an
overwhelming outpour of support for the fire department.

Fire Chief Frank Owens asked if there was a way for citizens to
request money be paid back to the city.  Ms. Hall said that they
are working on ways for citizens to turn back the money if they
desire but it has to show that the city paid the rebate in order
for them to be opted out of a class action lawsuit.

If a lawsuit were filed, Mr. Hall said there are still two lines
of defense the city could use.  The first of which is the
voluntary payment rule that states if a person voluntarily pays
with full knowledge or access to full knowledge of the facts, then
they have no claims to get that money back.  She said this defense
would most likely be enough to stop a lawsuit but if it wasn't,
then the city could also argue that such a suit could financially
cripple the city.

If the lawsuit is filed and then thrown out, then anybody who
hadn't collected a rebate is no longer entitled to a payout.

Ms. Hall said the best outcome for the city would be for everyone
to collect early.  As it stands, she is not sure what will happen
to any remaining funds after the three-year period.  A request
from Mark Rees Law Firm was for any remaining funds to be paid to
the state.


WELLS FARGO: To Pay $185MM Civil Penalty over Fake Accounts
-----------------------------------------------------------
The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) on Sept. 8 fined
Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. $100 million for the widespread illegal
practice of secretly opening unauthorized deposit and credit card
accounts. Spurred by sales targets and compensation incentives,
employees boosted sales figures by covertly opening accounts and
funding them by transferring funds from consumers' authorized
accounts without their knowledge or consent, often racking up fees
or other charges. According to the bank's own analysis, employees
opened more than two million deposit and credit card accounts that
may not have been authorized by consumers.

Wells Fargo will pay full restitution to all victims and:

     -- a $100 million fine to the CFPB's Civil Penalty Fund.

     -- an additional $35 million penalty to the Office of the
        Comptroller of the Currency, and

     -- another $50 million to the City and County of Los Angeles.

"Wells Fargo employees secretly opened unauthorized accounts to
hit sales targets and receive bonuses," said CFPB Director Richard
Cordray. "Because of the severity of these violations, Wells Fargo
is paying the largest penalty the CFPB has ever imposed. Today's
action should serve notice to the entire industry that financial
incentive programs, if not monitored carefully, carry serious
risks that can have serious legal consequences."

The full text of the CFPB's Consent Order can be found at:
https://is.gd/LjcGry

Wells Fargo, headquartered in Sioux Falls, S.D., is one of the
biggest banks in the country and offers many consumer financial
products and services, including savings and checking accounts,
credit cards, debit and ATM cards, and online-banking services. In
recent years, the bank has sought to distinguish itself in the
marketplace as a leader in "cross selling" these products and
services to existing customers who did not already have them. When
cross selling is based on efforts to generate more business from
existing customers based on strong customer satisfaction and
excellent customer service, it is a common and accepted business
practice. But here the bank had compensation incentive programs
for its employees that encouraged them to sign up existing clients
for deposit accounts, credit cards, debit cards, and online
banking, and the bank failed to monitor the implementation of
these programs with adequate care.

According to the enforcement action, thousands of Wells Fargo
employees illegally enrolled consumers in these products and
services without their knowledge or consent in order to obtain
financial compensation for meeting sales targets. The Dodd-Frank
Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act prohibits unfair,
deceptive, and abusive acts and practices. Wells Fargo's
violations include:

     (1) Opening deposit accounts and transferring funds without
authorization: According to the bank's own analysis, employees
opened roughly 1.5 million deposit accounts that may not have been
authorized by consumers. Employees then transferred funds from
consumers' authorized accounts to temporarily fund the new,
unauthorized accounts. This widespread practice gave the employees
credit for opening the new accounts, allowing them to earn
additional compensation and to meet the bank's sales goals.
Consumers, in turn, were sometimes harmed because the bank charged
them for insufficient funds or overdraft fees because the money
was not in their original accounts.

     (2) Applying for credit card accounts without authorization:
According to the bank's own analysis, Wells Fargo employees
applied for roughly 565,000 credit card accounts that may not have
been authorized by consumers. On those unauthorized credit cards,
many consumers incurred annual fees, as well as associated finance
or interest charges and other fees.

     (3) Issuing and activating debit cards without authorization:
Wells Fargo employees requested and issued debit cards without
consumers' knowledge or consent, going so far as to create PINs
without telling consumers.

     (4) Creating phony email addresses to enroll consumers in
online-banking services: Wells Fargo employees created phony email
addresses not belonging to consumers to enroll them in online-
banking services without their knowledge or consent.

                        Enforcement Action

Under the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection
Act, the CFPB has the authority to take action against
institutions violating consumer financial laws, including engaging
in unfair, deceptive, or abusive acts or practices.  The order
goes back to Jan. 1, 2011. Among the things the CFPB's order
requires of Wells Fargo:

     (1) Pay full refunds to consumers: Wells Fargo must refund
all affected consumers the sum of all monthly maintenance fees,
nonsufficient fund fees, overdraft charges, and other fees they
paid because of the creation of the unauthorized accounts. These
refunds are expected to total at least $2.5 million. Consumers are
not required to take any action to get refunds to which they are
entitled.

     (2) Ensure proper sales practices: Wells Fargo must hire an
independent consultant to conduct a thorough review of its
procedures. Recommendations may include requiring employees to
undergo ethical-sales training and reviewing the bank's
performance measurements and sales goals to make sure they are
consistent with preventing improper sales practices.

     (3)  Pay a $100 million fine: Wells Fargo will pay a $100
million penalty to the CFPB's Civil Penalty Fund.  The penalty is
the largest the CFPB has imposed to date.

The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau --
http://www.consumerfinance.gov/-- is a 21st century agency that
helps consumer finance markets work by making rules more
effective, by consistently and fairly enforcing those rules, and
by empowering consumers to take more control over their economic
lives.


WORLD WRESTLING: Bagwel et al. Seek to Certify Class & Subclasses
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit entitled Marcus Bagwell and Scott Levy,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, the
Plaintiffs, v. World Wrestling Entertainment, Inc. and WCW, Inc.,
the Defendants, Case No. 3:16-cv-01350-JCH (D. Conn.), the
Plaintiffs move the Court to certify a class and subclasses
consisting of:

WWE Network Class:

     "all individuals to whom WWE or WCW-WWE are obligated to pay
     royalties to for WWE's/ WCW-WWE's sales of "WWF or WCW Video
     Products" (as defined in boilerplate booking contracts)
     featuring "WWF or WCW pay per views or WWF or WWE non pay
     per views" (as defined in boilerplate booking contracts)."

The included class is further defined by these two Subclasses:

WWE Controlled Performers

     1) For the signing period of January 1, 1992 until
        January 1, 1999,

        "all persons who signed a WWF Booking Contract when
        the definition of WWF Video Products was, video
        programs."

     2) For the signing period of January 1, 1999 until January
        1, 2004,

        "all persons who signed a WWF, WWE, or WCW-WWE Booking
        Contract when the definition of WWE (or any other name
        WWE has used including World Wrestling Federation (WWF)
        or WCW Video Products was, video cassettes, videodiscs,
        CD ROM, or other technology, including technology not yet
        created."

Excluded from the class are those who have signed a WWE
"Nostalgia" or " Legends" Contract, a Booking Contract with WWE
from January 1, 2004 -- prospectively (all WWE contracts in this
time period declare that no royalties will be paid for internet
subscriptions and video on demand fees), or a settlement agreement
with WWE or WCW-WWE, that releases any claims in law or equity
against WWE, except for enforcement of any royalty obligations
that may exist.

A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=piwmHu4A

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Brenden P. Leydon, Esq.
          TOOHER WOCL & LEYDON, L.L.C.
          80 Fourth Street
          Stamford, CT 06905
          Telephone: (203) 324 6164
          Facsimile: (203) 324 1407
          E-mail: BLeydon@tooherwocol.com

               - and -

          Clinton A. Krislov, Esq.
          Matthew T. Peterson, Esq.
          KRISLOV & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
          20 N. Wacker Dr., Suite 1300
          Chicago, Illinois 60606
          Telephone: (312) 606 0500
          Facsimile: (312) 606 0207
          E-mail: clint@krislovlaw.com
                  matthew@krislovlaw.com



* Class Action Law Firms Investigate Retirement Savings Plans
-------------------------------------------------------------
Suzanne Woolley, writing for Bloomberg News, reports that American
workers often fail to scrutinize the details of their 401(k) plans
-- they're just happy to have one and trust their nest egg will
grow.  But more lawyers are saying that the guy with the horns and
hooves appears if you look hard enough.

Class-action law firms are furiously investigating retirement
savings plans offered by a wide range of corporations and
nonprofits, including universities.  A mounting number of lawsuits
against plans allege excessive fees and a lack of attention to
plan design: In other words, that sponsors are breaching their
fiduciary duty.

That duty means your financial interest comes first. Complaints
filed in courthouses across the country allege plan sponsors have
tossed that rule aside and are, in some cases, profiting off the
backs of employees.  The defendants have either denied the claims
and pledged to contest the lawsuits, or declined to comment on
pending litigation.

Here's a guide to some of the main allegations -- claims likely to
be featured in more cases to come.

Excessive fees mean less for you to retire on

Most of the recent lawsuits allege multibillion-dollar plan
sponsors didn't always choose the cheapest share class available.
In many cases, they used higher-priced funds designed for smaller
retail investors when they had the leverage to negotiate far lower
institutional pricing.

In some instances, an identical version of a pricier mutual fund
in a plan was available in a far cheaper institutional-priced
share class.  During the period targeted by a lawsuit against
Cornell University's plan (university plans are similar to 401(k)s
but are called 403(b)s), some of the retail-share priced funds had
fees of 0.44 percent.  Identical funds priced at the lower
institutional rate were available for 0.19 percent, according to
the complaint.

"Cornell University continues to responsibly manage its retirement
plans for the greatest possible benefit to employees and retirees,
and has been responsive to their interests in having a reasonable
range of funds available," said Cornell's Vice President for
University Relations Joel Malina. He said Cornell will fight the
litigation.1

Expenses have a big impact on returns.  After 25 years, $10,000
invested in a fund with an annual expense ratio of 0.45 percent
and an average annual return of about 6 percent would grow to
$86,840, according to this Vanguard calculator.  Slash the expense
ratio to about 0.2 percent and the balance swells to $92,811.

"There's been a tremendous decrease in fees in 401(k) plans as a
result of the litigation we've brought, but [we] haven't seen an
accompanying decrease in fees for employees of universities," said
Jerome Schlichter, of Schlichter Bogard & Denton, a litigation
pioneer in the 401(k) and 403(b) worlds, and the firm behind most
of the recent lawsuits.

Too many investment options equals poor choices

In general, abundant choice in a retirement plan isn't better --
it's just confusing.  Lawsuits filed in August against Columbia
University,3 Cornell, Northwestern University,4 the University of
Southern California,5 and others cite investment lineups that, for
the periods targeted by the lawsuits, ranged from 120 options
(Columbia) to more than 440 (Johns Hopkins University).  The
universities dismissed the allegations as unfounded.

Dan Pawlisch, leader of Aon Hewitt's 403(b) client practice, is
co-author of a January paper titled "How 403(b) Plans are Wasting
Nearly $10 Billion Annually, and What Can Be Done to Fix It "
(PDF).  In the past, he said, "there weren't fiduciary committees
to monitor funds, and no one wanted to decide what funds to pick,
so people just said, 'Let's just give participants all the
funds.'"

The issue with that strategy? When confronted with hundreds of
funds, many investors just shut down.  The Aon Hewitt paper said
offering a tier of target-date funds, plus a tier of core funds
with as few as 4 to 6 investment options, can be a good solution.
Some of the investment lineups for the 403(b) plans being sued by
Mr. Schlichter -- which is almost all of them -- have gone down to
double-digit lineups of 30 to 40 offerings since the period
targeted by the lawsuits.  A reasonable number of options for a
large retirement plan is around 15, the lawyers contend.

Too many record-keepers equals higher fees

Plans also cut into employee savings by using multiple record-
keepers.  A lawsuit filed against the 403(b) plan at Johns Hopkins
said that, during the period targeted in the complaint, the plan
used five record-keepers7 and cost plan participants millions of
dollars.

Lawyers for the plan participants argued that a "reasonable"
record-keeping fee for the plan would be a set amount of between
$500,000 and $850,000, or about $35 per participant.  It estimated
that the plan paid record-keepers at least $4.5 million to $6.1
million per year, or between $225 and $340 per participant, from
2010 to 2015.  Aside from adding to expenses for the plan,
spreading assets out across so many companies also means plans
don't reach the scale needed to negotiate lower fees. Johns
Hopkins rejected the allegations.

Company self-dealing means poor investments

Some of the recent lawsuits focus on the 401(k) plans of
financial-services companies.  Those complaints allege that
defendants engaged in self-dealing by including their own,
sometimes expensive or underperforming mutual funds in employee
plans when cheaper options were available elsewhere.

One of the most recent lawsuits leveling self-dealing claims is
against the 401(k) plan at brokerage firm Edward Jones. Along with
allegations of unreasonable fees, the suit alleges relationships
between Edward Jones and the 401(k) plan's mutual funds were the
reason for their inclusion rather than the best interest of the
plan participants.  "The lawsuit's allegations that Edward Jones,
its affiliates and plan fiduciaries violated their fiduciary
duties or engaged in prohibited transactions related to plan
assets are not true," the company said.9

Allegations of self-dealing also show up in a lawsuit against
Morgan Stanley10 and its board.  That complaint alleges that the
inclusion of the bank's proprietary funds cost employees hundreds
of millions of dollars, and that the funds were offered to profit
the bank, rather than plan participants.  One example the lawsuit
cites is a proprietary small-cap growth fund that underperformed
99 percent of peer funds in 2014 and 94 percent in 2015. Morgan
Stanley said the allegations are without merit.

James Carroll, a partner at Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom
LLP who represents defendants, like companies and banks, in 401(k)
litigation, sees a problem in lawsuits that focus on short-term
fund performance.  After all, the conventional wisdom with 401(k)s
is to leave them alone and let them grow.  "The plaintiff's
lawsuits -- aka the what-have-you-done-for-me-lately point of view
-- focuses on relatively short-term investment performance over
three to five years whereas retirement money should be looked at
over two to three decades," he said.  If fiduciaries respond to
the threat of being sued by moving investments in and out of plans
all the time, that's not helpful to plan participants, he added.

Class-action lawyers, who get a big chunk of any settlement (let
alone verdicts), are probably unmoved by such arguments.  Also,
those payouts and even just the threat of expensive litigation may
have more plan sponsors monitoring and managing their plans
carefully.  But Mr. Carroll warned that "the inevitable conclusion
of these lawsuits imposing enormous costs on plans will be
corporate action to reduce voluntary contributions."


* Sweltering Temperature in U.S. Prisons Spark Lawsuits
-------------------------------------------------------
Alice Speri, writing for The Intercept, reports that in the summer
months, 84 inmates at the Price Daniel Unit, a medium-security
prison four hours west of Dallas, share a 10-gallon cooler of
water that's kept locked in a common area.  An inmate there can
expect to receive one 8 oz. cup every four hours, according to
Benny Hernandez, a man serving a 10-year sentence at the prison.
The National Academy of Medicine recommends that adults drink
about twice that amount under normal conditions and even more in
hot climates.  According to Mr. Hernandez, in the summer the
temperature in his prison's housing areas can reach an astonishing
140 degrees.

The prison provides ice for the cooler twice a day, but the ice
has long melted before the hottest part of the day, he wrote in a
post on Prison Writers, a website where inmates share their
experiences behind bars.  "Prisoners look upon the summer months
in the Texas Department of Criminal Justice (TDCJ) with dread and
trepidation," he wrote.  "For one is acutely aware that one may
not survive another summer.  Many do not."

The TDCJ, which runs Texas prisons and houses more than 146,000
inmates, is currently in the middle of litigation over what
inmates and advocates have said is deadly heat in its facilities.
But Texas is not the only state facing such lawsuits.  Louisiana
is defending its refusal to install air conditioning on death row,
while prisons and jails across the country have been ordered by
courts to address their sweltering temperatures and extend
protections to inmates, particularly the ill and elderly.

A spokesperson for TDCJ wrote in a statement to The Intercept that
"the well-being of staff and offenders is a top priority for the
agency and we remain committed to making sure that both are safe
during the extreme heat."  He said that only 30 of the state's 109
prisons have air conditioning in all inmate housing areas, because
many were built before that became a common feature and
retrofitting them would be "extremely expensive." Instead, he
said, the agency has taken measures like offering water and ice,
restricting inmate activities, and training staff to recognize
heat-related illness.  The spokesperson said that inmates have
"the ability to access water throughout the day" and that ice and
water coolers are refilled continuously -- contradicting the
accounts of inmates who said that ice rations are often reduced
and sometimes outright denied, that in some facilities they are
given no ice or cold water for days at a time, that ice is so
scarce that inmates will buy it off each other, and that inmates
residing in a given cell block are given ice water to pass down
the row of cells, which often leads to violence and hoarding of
the vital resource.

Mr. Hernandez, the Price Daniel Unit inmate, acknowledged that
prison officials there took some "precautionary measures," like
the water cooler and placing fans in common areas of the prison,
but said that was hardly enough.  Inmates have fans in their cells
only if they can afford to buy them from the prison commissary,
and "once the temperature exceeds 95 degrees Fahrenheit, the fans
simply circulate hot air," he wrote.

"It routinely feels as if one's sitting in a convection oven being
slowly cooked alive."

In a 2014 report documenting the "deadly heat" inside Texas
prisons, researchers with the University of Texas School of Law's
Human Rights Clinic found that since 2007, at least 14 inmates had
died from extreme heat exposure in prisons across the state. The
report documented at length the failures of prison officials to
prevent heat-related injury to inmates and concluded with a series
of recommendations, including frequent monitoring of inmates at
higher risk and the installation of air conditioning to ensure
temperatures do not exceed 85 degrees.  A year later, nothing had
changed, and the same researchers issued a second report
condemning the "reckless indifference" of prison authorities.

"They refuse to even acknowledge that there is a problem," Ariel
Dulitzky, director of the Human Rights Clinic, told The Intercept.
"They'll say that everybody suffers from extreme heat, that it
isn't an issue particularly affecting inmates, and that there are
other people in Texas that don't have AC either. So that's their
point, we all suffer."

The 14 fatalities cited in the report are an extremely
conservative estimate, Mr. Dulitzky noted.  He and others have
been fighting to obtain inmates' death records, and based on their
ages, medical conditions, and the given day's heat index, believe
that "several dozens" died at least in part as a result of extreme
heat exposure in 2014 and 2015 alone.

Earlier this summer, a federal judge certified a class action
after inmates at another Texas prison -- the Wallace Pack Unit,
which houses sick, disabled, and elderly prisoners serving time
for nonviolent crimes -- sued TDCJ officials in an effort to keep
the temperature below 88 degrees and prevent heat-stroke deaths.
Plaintiffs in that case, originally filed in 2014, described
sleeping on the floor to get some relief from the heat, metal
walls trapping heat "like a parked car," and metal tables that
"get so heated that prisoners have to lay towels on them to rest
their elbows on."

Fred Wallace, a 72-year-old plaintiff who is clinically obese and
suffers from high blood pressure, said in a statement read by his
lawyer that one day he felt he was going to pass out from the heat
and asked a guard if he could go to the prison's barber shop, a
cooler area.  He was denied permission.

"I felt so sick that I sat down on the floor," he said in his
testimony.  "Only when the guard returned 15 minutes later and
said, 'You look like you're going to die,' did he allow me to
enter the barber shop."

"The only national standard is the Eighth Amendment"

"I realize that there is a small, yet vocal segment of our society
that feels that prisoners deserve exactly what we are currently
getting," wrote Mr. Hernandez, the Price Daniel Unit inmate.
"Unfortunately for them, the U.S. Constitution does not stop at
the Texas border."

But Texas, which has not set a maximum temperature standard for
its prisons, is hardly unique.  There's no national standard for
temperatures in prisons and jails, and as jurisdiction over
prisons is decentralized among states and the federal system, and
jurisdiction over jails is even more fragmented among thousands of
local authorities across the country, fights over excessive heat
in detention can only be waged facility by facility.

"The only national standard we have is the Eighth Amendment to the
Constitution, which prohibits cruel and unusual punishment," David
Fathi, director of the American Civil Liberties Union National
Prison Project, told The Intercept.

A spokesperson for the Bureau of Prisons confirmed that "there are
not any federal regulations concerning temperature control in
federal prisons," pointing instead to "guidelines" in a Facilities
Operations Manual that discuss ventilation and set target
temperatures at 76 degrees in the summer and 68 in the winter.
The guidelines also note that due to the facilities' age,
"occupants may experience a range of temperatures in their space
that is a few degrees on either side of the targeted set point."
Those standards do not apply to state and local facilities, which
can vary widely.

But while it's true that many of the country's facilities are old
and ill-equipped, that's no excuse for failing to provide inmates
with constitutionally required safe and humane housing, critics
say.  And politics, more than money, is often the obstacle.

Louisiana, for instance, made headlines earlier this summer when
it was revealed that the state had spent more than $1 million of
public funds on legal fees in an attempt to defend its refusal to
install air conditioning on death row at Angola prison -- even
though the air conditioning would cost only about $225,000, plus
operating costs, according to expert testimony.  That astonished
U.S. District Judge Brian Jackson.  "Is this really what the state
wants to do?" Jackson asked, calling the bill "stunning." "It just
seems so unnecessary."

Judge Jackson declined to comment on the pending case, as did the
Louisiana Department of Public Safety and Corrections. But the
department's secretary Jimmy LeBlanc told the Associated Press in
June that installing air conditioning at Angola would open a
"Pandora's box."  "My biggest concern is the impact on the whole
system and the cost," he said.

Critics say the real problem is the political cost of being
perceived as granting "luxuries" to prisoners.

"Part of the reason why you see this kind of irrational behavior -
- spending far more to fight the lawsuit than it would cost to
just air-condition the prison -- is because AC is seen as a luxury
and prison officials don't want to be seen as running luxurious
prisons," said Mr. Fathi.  "Climate control is not a matter of
comfort and luxury -- it's a matter of life or death."

So far, the ACLU and other rights groups have been making that
case one facility at a time.  In Wisconsin, they won a court order
to air-condition a prison where temperatures were reaching
"potentially lethal levels."  In Mississippi, they won an order to
provide fans, iced water, and daily showers when the heat index
exceeds 90 degrees. They also secured protections for inmates more
susceptible to heat-related injury at the Baltimore City Jail.  In
the Maricopa County jail in Arizona, run by Sheriff Joe Arpaio,
the ACLU won an order that inmates on certain kinds of medication
that make them more vulnerable to heat be housed in temperatures
of 85 degrees or below.

"Unfortunately, because we have this very decentralized criminal
justice system, you have to fight it out state by state and
facility by facility" said Mr. Fathi.

"Everyone understands that if you leave a child in a car on a hot
day, there's a serious risk this child could be injured or die,"
he added.  "And that's exactly what we're doing when we leave
prisoners locked in cells when the heat and humidity climb beyond
a certain level."


* Spokeo v. Robins Ruling May Create More Class Action Litigation
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Angela Zambrano and Robert Velevis, writing for Texas Lawyer,
report that the U.S. Supreme Court's recent Spokeo v. Robins
decision has been heralded by the Texas business community as an
important limitation on class action liability.  The decision,
however, has triggered concerns in at least some states that it
might have the unintended consequence of creating more class
action litigation in state court forums that are viewed by some
defendants as less favorable.


* Three Groups Point Out Issues with CFPB Arbitration Proposal
--------------------------------------------------------------
SubPrime reports that one of the noteworthy quotes from those old
Bugs Bunny cartoons that involved Marvin the Martian included the
phrase, "Well, back to the old drawing board."

That phrase also summarized the sentiment the American Bankers
Association, the Consumer Bankers Association and the Financial
Services Roundtable emphasized when they crafted and submitted a
42-page rebuttal for the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau
regarding its proposal associated with arbitration.

Back in May, the CFPB released its proposed rules that would
prohibit mandatory arbitration clauses that the bureau said denies
groups of consumers "their day in court."  Compliance experts from
ABA, CBA and the Financial Services Roundtable retorted that "day
in court" doesn't provide the remedies CFPB officials claim.

"The proposed rule does not benefit society or consumers," the
groups said in the letter that's available here.  "Both lose
because, as taxpayers, consumers will have to pay for additional
resources needed by courts to accommodate the permanent influx of
6,042 additional class actions every five years.  They lose
because the cost of defending and settling cases -- estimated to
be between $2.62 billion and $5.23 billion every five years (100
additional lawsuits each month) -- will be passed along to
consumers in whole or in part in the form of higher prices or
reduced services.

"Finally, they lose because, in exchange for waiting years to
recover an average of $32.35, they lose all of the benefits of
arbitration -- benefits that the bureau itself touts to its own
employees and expressly acknowledges in the proposed rule," the
groups continued.

"These unrecognized social costs do not serve the public interest
or protect consumers.  It is not in the public interest to have a
judicial system that is overburdened with unproductive class
actions that return little or nothing to consumers but generate
billions of dollars for their lawyers," they went on to say.

The rebuttal was signed by:

   -- Nessa Feddis, vice president and senior counsel at the ABA's
Center for Regulatory Compliance

   -- Steven Zeisel, the CBA's executive vice president and
general counsel

   -- Richard Foster, senior vice president & senior counsel for
regulatory and legal affairs at the Financial Services Roundtable

This trio stressed consumers are not protected if they pay more
for financial services and lose the convenience, low cost and
efficiency of arbitration, especially for "non-classable" claims
that class actions cannot address.

"Moreover, banning class action waivers is not necessary to
address concerns related to resolving small dollar claims and
harms about which people will be unaware.  Nor is it necessary to
regulate or modify corporate behavior," they wrote.

"These matters are addressed through a variety of other means,
including internal corporate compliant processes, the complaint
portals of the bureau and other government agencies, public
opinion and social media, and through the tools for remedial
action available to dozens of government agencies, including the
Bureau, which have aggressively used their enforcement authority,"
they added.

Messrs. Feddis, Zeisel and Foster made one other point, stating
that the CFPB failed to consider alternatives, as the Dodd-Frank
Act requires, that would address the need for a ban of class
action waivers.

"The bureau should, for example, allow the enforcement of class
action waivers for matters that the entity has identified and
resolved prior to a class action being filed.  It should also
allow enforcement of class action waivers where consumer
protection statutes provide greater relief for plaintiffs who
pursue individual actions rather than class actions," they said.

The groups made a wide array of arguments as to why arbitration is
much more efficient for both consumers and financial services
providers.

"The proposed rule should not be made final because it is not in
the public interest, it does not and is not needed to protect
consumers, and it is not consistent with the (CFPB's study), all
of which are prerequisites for adopting such a rule," they said.
"Nor did the bureau, as required, consider alternatives such as
allowing enforcement of class action waivers for matters that the
entity has identified and resolved prior to a class action being
filed.

"Moreover, numerous important issues -- including consumer
satisfaction with arbitration, the impact on consumers if
companies abandon arbitration, the cost to consumers of 6,042
additional class actions, alternative arbitration terms and the
impact of arbitration education -- have yet to be studied," they
went on to say.


                            *********

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  * * *