CAR_Public/160914.mbx              C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

            Wednesday, September 14, 2016, Vol. 18, No. 184




                            Headlines


AFER: Ruling May Impact France's Collective Actions Procedure
ALLSAINTS USA: Illegally Procures Employees Reports, Suit Claims
BROWARD COUNTY, FL: Dispatchers Sue Over Excessive Mandatory OT
CANADA: Koskie, Troniak to Handle "Sixties Scoop" Class Action
CANTONI ORANGE: Sued in Cal. Over Information Capture Policy

CFS GROUP: "Andrews" Suit to Recover Overtime Pay
CHRYSLER GROUP: Minivan Owner Replies to Bid to Exclude Buyers
CLINICA LAS MERCEDES: "Sotolongo" Suit Removed to S.D. Florida
CREDIT ONE: California Residents File TCPA Class Action
CRYPTSY: Judge Certifies Bitcoin Customers' Class Action

DALLAS CENTRAL: Faces IYK Texas Suit Over Appraisal Policies
DALLAS CENTRAL: Faces Kaya Lodging Suit Over Appraisal Policies
DALLAS CENTRAL: Faces Lone Prince Suit Over Appraisal Policies
DALLAS CENTRAL: Faces HPTRI Corp. Suit Over Appraisal Policies
DALLAS CENTRAL: Faces Mesquite Suit Over Appraisal Policies

DALLAS CENTRAL: Faces Mountain Creek Suit Over Appraisal Policies
DALLAS CENTRAL: Faces Nanji Ventures Suit Over Appraisal Policies
DALLAS CENTRAL: Faces CCC & R Class Suit Over Appraisal Policies
DALLAS CENTRAL: Faces HPTMI II Suit Over Appraisal Policies
DALLAS CENTRAL: Faces R&B Capital Suit Over Appraisal Policies

DALLAS CENTRAL: Faces Rahim Realty Suit Over Appraisal Policies
DALLAS CENTRAL: Faces Royal Lane Suit Over Appraisal Policies
DALLAS CENTRAL: Faces Ruffin Hotel Suit Over Appraisal Policies
DALLAS CENTRAL: Faces "Ganji" Suit Over Appraisal Policies
DALLAS CENTRAL: Faces Dallas Southern Suit Over Appraisal Policy

DALLAS CENTRAL: Faces Fair Oaks Suit Over Appraisal Policies
DALLAS CENTRAL: Faces Stemmons Market Suit Over Appraisal Policy
DALLAS CENTRAL: Faces "Haglund" Suit Over Appraisal Policies
DALLAS CENTRAL: Faces Summerglen Suit Over Appraisal Policies
DALLAS CENTRAL: Faces Westchester Suit Over Appraisal Policies

DEKALB COUNTY, GA: Sued Over Old Traffic Case Court System
EVANS LAW: Illegally Collects Debt, "Heszkel" Action Claims
FBW GROUP: "Perez" Suit Seeks Overtime Pay, Damages
FMA ALLIANCE: Illegally Collects Debt, "Wieder" Suit Claims
FRESNO GOURMET: "Escobar" Suit Seeks Overtime Pay, Damages

GEO GROUP: October 24 Class Action Lead Plaintiff Motion Set
GOLDCORP INC: Rosen Law Firm Files Securities Class Action
HARRIS COUNTY: Faces W2005 Suit Over Appraisal Policies
HMR OF ALABAMA: "Cooley" Suit Seeks Overtime Pay, Missed Breaks
HOLY SACRAMENT: "Henry" Suit Seeks Overtime Pay

JETSTAR: In KWM's Potential Shareholder Class Action Watch List
JOY GLOBAL: Faces Securities Class Action in Wisconsin
JW HOMES: Waverly Class Suit Removed to South Carolina Dist.
LENOX SOCEY: Accused of Wrongful Conduct Over Debt Collection
LUNG INSTITUTE: Former Patient Files Class Action

MANNKIND: California Court Dismisses Securities Class Action
MERCK: Faces Class Action Over Implanon Birth Control
MILTON ROY: Does Not Properly Pay Employees, "Ramirez" Suit Says
MODESTO, CA: Judge May Toss Electricity Class Action Against MID
NATIONAL BOARD: "Hutton" Sues Over Data Breach

NETSUITE INC: "Palkon" Sues Over Shady Merger Deal
NEW ORLEANS, LA: New Administrator Appointed to Lead Jail Reforms
ONLINE MARKETING: Faces TCPA Class Action in California
P.A.P LANDSCAPE: "Gutierrez" Suit to Recover Overtime Pay
PINGTAN MARINE: U.S. Court Dismisses Securities Class Action

PLENTY CAFE: "Hernandez" Suit Seeks Overtime Pay, Damages
RESUBMITIT LLC: Illegally Collects Debt, "Moore" Action Claims
SIGNET JEWELERS: Glancy Prongay Files Securities Class Action
SJ R & R: Faces Pyka Suit in Va. Over Adulterated Food and Drink
TIER ONE SECURITY: "Hernandez" Suit Seeks Overtime Pay

UNITED AIRLINES: "Moss" Suit to Recover Sick Leave Benefits
WELLS FARGO: Faces "Villanueva" Class Suit in California
WEWORKS: Recent Court Ruling May Impact Arbitration Class Action

* King & Wood Provides Outlook on Australian Class Actions
* NSW Earns Position as Australia's Class Action Capital
* Number of Class Actions Reported Since CPL Adoption Limited



                            *********

AFER: Ruling May Impact France's Collective Actions Procedure
-------------------------------------------------------------
Natasha Tardif, Esq. -- natasha.tardif@eu.kwm.com --
Peta Stevenson, Esq. -- peta.stevenson@au.kwm.com -- Patricia
Matthews, Esq. -- patricia.matthews@au.kwm.com -- of King & Wood
Mallesons, in an article for Lexology, report that in 2014, France
introduced a class action regime providing for "action de groupe"
limited to the reparation of consumers' material injuries in the
fields of consumer law and anti-competitive practices.  The regime
is limited however by the requirement that only authorized
consumer associations can bring proceedings.  As such, the recent
Afer decision has important implications for the way consumer
claims are pursued in France.

The case goes back to the 2000s, when two CEOs of the French
insurance association Afer were involved in the embezzlement of
approximately EUR128 million to the detriment of the association's
members.  Both CEOs were finally convicted in 2008 and part of the
embezzled sums were confiscated by the Court. In 2013, each of the
55,114 members of Afer granted a power of attorney to Afer in
order to file a collective request for the restitution of
approximately EUR27 million that was held by the State after the
convictions.

Afer's first attempt was unsuccessful, with the Court of Appeal of
Paris holding that the association could not act on behalf of
others and that collective actions are generally prohibited under
French Law (beyond the strict and limited consumer framework,
described in King & Wood Mallesons's last Review).  On appeal,
however,the French Court of Cassation recognized the legitimacy of
Afer's application.  The Court of Cassation referred the case back
to the Court of Appeal of Versailles and on July 6, 2016,
restitution of more than EUR27 million was ordered in favor of the
55,114 members of Afer.

This decision is significant as it may provide a parallel means to
pursue collective actions in France, even though the circumstances
were very specific and may therefore be of limited precedential
value for subsequent damages claims.  The Court expressly adopted
the claimant's position that the present case did not constitute a
class action under French Law, which is subject to strict
limitations, but recognized the standing of Afer by means of
specific powers of attorney, grouping thousands of individual
claims into a single claim asking for the restitution of sums held
by the State.

Looking ahead, the possibility of extending the current French
class action system to include environmental and health-related
claims is due to be reviewed by the Parliament in the coming
months.


ALLSAINTS USA: Illegally Procures Employees Reports, Suit Claims
----------------------------------------------------------------
Barbara Mocek, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. AllSaints USA Limited, Case No. 1:16-cv-08484 (N.D.
Ill., August 30, 2016), asserts that the Defendants failed to
provide required disclosures prior to procuring background reports
on applicants and employees.

AllSaints USA Limited retails and distributes apparel and
accessories for men and women.

Barbara Mocek is a pro se plaintiff.

BROWARD COUNTY, FL: Dispatchers Sue Over Excessive Mandatory OT
---------------------------------------------------------------
Brian Ballou, writing for The Sun Sentinel, reports that mandatory
overtime for emergency dispatchers has become excessive at the
county's three 911 communications centers, according to a class
action grievance filed by the union representing those workers.

Some dispatchers say their quality of life is dismal because they
are routinely called on to work three or four additional hours
daily, while others have quit the job after going through up to a
year of training.  Some have transferred out and or taken pay cuts
to work in other areas, said a union representative.

"We told our people in the first year that things were going to
get better, and then the second year comes and we said, 'Hang in
there,' but it just didn't get any better," said
Anthony Marciano, director of the Broward Sheriff's Office unit of
the Federation of Public Employees, which represents approximately
400 dispatchers and other communications workers at the county's
three emergency call centers in Coconut Creek, Sunrise and
Pembroke Pines.

The grievance was submitted to Sheriff Scott Israel, but Marciano
said the problem stems from a lack of funding by the county, which
contracts with the Broward Sheriff's Office for the operation and
maintenance of the system, at approximately $39 million a year.

Mr. Marciano said that an additional $2 million is needed to pay
for up to 20 more communications employees to adequately staff the
centers and eliminate the need to mandate so much overtime.

There have been several incidents at the call centers in the past
two years, including one in September 2015 where a call went
unanswered because a dispatcher was ordering pizza.  Emergency
units have been sent to incorrect addresses.

Pembroke Pines commissioners have debated in recent months whether
to pull out of the county's system and return to their city-run
version, but are awaiting a report from Fitch and Associates, a
consultant hired by the county to examine the system and determine
what changes might be needed.  That report has been delayed, but
may be made public within days.

The grievance is also on hold pending the release of the Fitch
report, a decision that was made on Aug. 24, according to the
union and the Broward Sheriff's Office.

Mr. Marciano said the excessive overtime has not had any effect on
the dispatchers in terms of their ability to do their jobs, which
are inherently stressful.  But he did say that the loss of workers
has eroded some expertise at the call centers.

"When you lose up to 20 employees a year because their home life
is so disrupted, yes that affects institutional knowledge, but the
new employees who come in here are highly trained and are ready to
go from day one," Mr. Marciano said.

But still, a single explanatory sentence in the one-page grievance
points out that the overtime may indeed have an on-the-job
consequence: "BSO has failed to staff the communications
operator's classification, causing an unreasonable amount of
mandatory overtime which is negatively affecting their
professional and personal lives."


CANADA: Koskie, Troniak to Handle "Sixties Scoop" Class Action
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Manitoba Court of Queen's Bench on August 24, 2016, awarded
Koskie Minsky LLP and Troniak Law carriage of a class action
against the Attorney General of Canada on behalf of Aboriginal
persons affected by the "Sixties Scoop" in Manitoba.

Proposed representative plaintiffs Priscilla Meeches and Stewart
Garnett will now move the case towards the certification hearing
where the court will determine whether the case can be treated as
a class action.  A similarly framed class action in Ontario, Brown
v. Canada, was certified in 2014 and recently heard arguments on
the plaintiff's summary judgment motion.

The court heard the carriage motion in Winnipeg on June 17, 2016
to decide whether the proposed Meeches class action ought to
proceed as opposed to a similar class action filed by the Merchant
Law Group.  The Meeches action was commenced in
April 2016, whereas Merchant initially filed an action in 2009 but
did not advance the action.  The court found that Merchant's delay
was not in the best interests of the class members.  The court
also found that the Meeches action was framed in a more tenable
fashion similar to the Brown class action, making prospects for
certification greater, and that the expertise, experience and
resources of the Koskie Minsky LLP and Troniak Law consortium was
preferable.

The term "Sixties Scoop" refers to the alleged practice in
Manitoba whereby Aboriginal children were taken ("scooped up")
from their families for placement in foster homes or adoption with
non-Aboriginal homes.  As a result, these children lost their
identity as Aboriginal persons and suffered mentally, emotionally,
spiritually, and physically.  They were deprived of their status
and other Aboriginal-related benefits, which Canada unjustly
retained.  Aboriginal communities describe the Sixties Scoop as
destructive to their culture.

The Meeches claim alleges that on account of the scoop, Canada was
negligent and breached its fiduciary duties it owed to the
Aboriginal class members.  It seeks $200 million in damages for
breach of fiduciary duty and negligence and $50 million in
punitive damages.

"Now that carriage has been decided, we can finally push this case
ahead to the certification hearing, which gets us that much closer
to the merits of this action.  This case will hopefully provide
the potentially thousands of scooped class members in Manitoba
with the justice they deserve", says Kirk Baert, co-lead counsel
at Koskie Minsky LLP, "and we trust that Canada is paying close
attention to the situation in Manitoba".


CANTONI ORANGE: Sued in Cal. Over Information Capture Policy
------------------------------------------------------------
Alan Nguyen, on behalf of himself, the General Public, and all
others similarly situated v. Cantoni Orange County, Inc. and Does
1 through 20, Case No. 30-2016-00872250-CU-BT-CXC (Cal. Super.
Ct., August 30, 2016), arises out of the Defendants unlawful and
deceptive business practices of utilizing an "Information Capture
Policy" whereby the Defendant's employees request and record
personal identification information and credit card numbers from
customers using credit cards at the point-of-sale in the
Defendant's retail establishments.

Cantoni Orange County, Inc. sells furniture and home accessories
within California.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Phillip R. Poliner, Esq.
      Neil B. Fineman, Esq.
      FINEMAN POLINER LLP
      155 North Riverview Drive
      Anaheim Hills, CA 92808-1225
      Telephone: (714) 620-1125
      Facsimile: (714) 701-0155
      E-mail: Phillip@FinemanPoliner.com
              Neil@FinemanPoliner.com


CFS GROUP: "Andrews" Suit to Recover Overtime Pay
-------------------------------------------------
Tony Andrews, Kevin Winston, and Dyshan Scruggs, on behalf of
themselves and others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. The CFS
Group, LLC d/b/a Container First Services and the CFS Croup
Disposal & Recycling Services, LLC, Defendants, Case No. 3:16-cv-
716, (E.D. Va., August 30, 2016), seeks money damages for all
unpaid overtime compensation, pre-judgment and post-judgment
interest, injunctive relief, enjoinment from retaliation,
reasonable attorneys' fees and costs and any and all further
relief permissible under the Fair Labor Standards Act.

CFS provides trash, solid waste, and recycling collection and
dumping services throughout central Virginia with principal office
in Chester, Virginia. Plaintiffs worked as sanitation truck
drivers.

Plaintiff is represented by:

     Philip Justus Dean, Esq.
     Craig Juraj Curwood, Esq.
     Curwood Law Firm
     530 H. Main Street. Suite 710
     Richmond, VA 23219
     Telephone: (804) 788-0808
     Fax: (804) 767-6777
     Email: pdean@curwoodlaw.com
            ccurwood@curwoodlaw.com


CHRYSLER GROUP: Minivan Owner Replies to Bid to Exclude Buyers
--------------------------------------------------------------
Chalik & Chalik Law Offices on Aug. 26 disclosed that a minivan
owner filed a memorandum in a proposed class action lawsuit
against Chrysler and Dodge.  Plaintiff Robert Tomassini alleged
that the car companies sold vehicles with faulty tire valve stems.
The case was filed against Chrysler Group LLC in the U.S. District
Court for the Northern District of New York in 2014.
Mr. Tomassini filed the memorandum in response to Chrysler's
motion in April to exclude certain "uninjured" buyers from the
proposed class of plaintiffs.  In this context, the word
"uninjured" refers to those minivan owners whose vehicles did not
have failed valve stems.  Mr. Tomassini asked the judge to reject
Chrysler's motion.  The memorandum argued, "Chrysler's motion
appears reasonable at first glance, but crumbles upon inspection."

"Car manufacturers can put drivers at risk of serious accidents
and even death due to defective tires," said Jason Chalik, a
prominent Florida personal injury attorney with Chalik & Chalik
Law Offices.  "They are responsible for issuing recalls and
informing consumers about any possible faults with their vehicles.
Safety should be a priority."

Mr. Tomassini claimed that all the purchasers were economically
affected because they paid too much for the defective vehicles. He
said they would have paid less had the car company admitted that
the minivans had a dangerous defect.  According to the original
lawsuit, some Chrysler minivans have tires with valve stems that
are made of an alloy prone to rusting from salt exposure.  The
tires could deflate without warning as a result of the erosion.

The plaintiff also said in the memorandum that a judge had already
decided that Chrysler's attempt to exclude certain class
participants should be resolved at the class certification stage.
Mr. Tomassini said the proposed class would be narrowed to include
consumers who bought Chrysler and Dodge minivans manufactured from
June 10, 2009 to May 25, 2010, according to the responses
received.

In addition, Mr. Tomassini alleged that the car manufacturer
failed to submit documents "related to its knowledge and analysis
of the defect."  He claimed that the response to a third-party
subpoena produced hundreds of documents pertaining to the case.


CLINICA LAS MERCEDES: "Sotolongo" Suit Removed to S.D. Florida
--------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit entitled Laura Sotolongo and other
similarly situated individuals v. Clinica Las Mercedes, Inc.,
Jorge L. Raad, and Marlon Munoz, Case No. 16CV62068, was removed
from the Florida Southern District Court to the U.S. District
Court for the Southern District of Florida (Miami). The District
Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:16-cv-23711-RNS to the proceeding.

The Defendants operate a medical clinic located at 1479 NW 27th
Ave, Miami, FL 33125.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Anthony Maximillien Georges-Pierre, Esq.
      REMER & GEORGES-PIERRE, PLLC
      Court House Tower
      44 West Flagler Street, Suite 2200
      Miami, FL 33130
      Telephone: (305) 416-5000
      Facsimile: (305) 416-5005
      E-mail: agp@rgpattorneys.com

The Defendant is represented by:

      Sarah Marie DeFranco, Esq.
      Debra M. Leder, Esq.
      AKERMAN LLP
      350 East Las Olas Boulevard, Suite 1600
      Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301
      Telephone: (954) 463-2700
      Facsimile: (954) 463-2224
      E-mail: sarah.defranco@akerman.com
              debra.leder@akerman.com


CREDIT ONE: California Residents File TCPA Class Action
-------------------------------------------------------
Jenie Mallari-Torres, writing for Northern California Record,
reports that several California residents have filed a class-
action suit against a Las Vegas debt collector alleging it has
called some of them more than 2,000 times.

Kelly Benson, Naomi Blocker, Debra Boden, et al. filed a complaint
on Aug. 18 in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of
California against Credit One Financial, doing business as Credit
One Bank, alleging that the debt collector violated the Telephone
Consumer Protection Act and Rosenthal Fair Debt Collection
Practices Act.

According to the complaint, the plaintiffs allege that between
2011 to 2015, they received several calls daily from the defendant
in an attempt to collect on consumer debts allegedly owed by
plaintiffs.  The suit states these calls were made by an automatic
telephone dialing system and uses an artificial or prerecorded
voice.  The plaintiffs hold Credit One Financial responsible
because the defendant allegedly violated the rights of the
plaintiffs through dissented calls, harassed plaintiffs with
collection calls using an automatic dialing system and disrupted
plaintiffs' daily activities and the enjoyment of their personal
lives.

The plaintiffs request a trial by jury and seek judgment against
the defendant, damages, costs of litigation, attorney's fees and
all other relief that the court deems just.  They are represented
by Abbas Kazerounian of Kazerouni Law Group APC in Costa Mesa and
Joshua B. Swigart -- josh@westcoastlitigation.com -- and Veronica
E. McKnight of Hyde & Swigart in San Diego.

U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California Case
number 3:16-cv-02095


CRYPTSY: Judge Certifies Bitcoin Customers' Class Action
--------------------------------------------------------
Stan Higgins, writing for, reports that a Florida judge has
certified a class action lawsuit filed on behalf of customers of
the now-defunct digital currency exchange Cryptsy.

In an order issued on Aug. 24, US District Judge Kenneth Marra
approved a request by plaintiffs for class action certification,
originally filed on 27th July.

According to the order, the certification covers all Cryptsy
account holders as of 1st November, 2015.  Specifically, it
includes anyone "who held bitcoins, alternative cryptocurrencies
or any other form of monies or currency" prior to that date on the
exchange.

The lawsuit dates back to January, when after months of growing
problems with withdrawals, Cryptsy abruptly closed amid claims it
had suffered a debilitating hack a year and a half prior.  At the
time, the exchange said that it had millions in outstanding
customer liabilities.

CEO Paul Vernon, one of the defendants named in the class action
suit, said at the time that customers were misled about the health
of the exchange in order to avoid a "panic".

In the Aug. 24 court order, Judge Marra further wrote:

"The Class claims are the conversion, negligence, unjust
enrichment, specific performance, FDUPTA, fraudulent conveyance
and civil conspiracy claims contained in counts I-V and VII - IX
of the Amended Complaint."

The certification comes months after the court approved a
receiver, handing over control of Crypty's assets in the process.

A recent report from receiver James Sallah alleged that Vernon had
misappropriated millions of dollars in user funds, an allegation
Vernon later denied in an email to CoinDesk.

Despite denying the claims, Vernon, who is believed to be residing
somewhere in Asia, has yet to formally respond to the suit in
court.


DALLAS CENTRAL: Faces IYK Texas Suit Over Appraisal Policies
------------------------------------------------------------
IYK Texas Corp. v. Dallas Central Appraisal District, Case No. DC-
16-10775 filed in the Judicial District Court of Dallas County,
Texas, on August 30, 2016, seeks to stop the Defendant's practice
of placing property appraisal value that exceeds by at least ten
percent, the median level of appraisal required by law.

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

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


DALLAS CENTRAL: Faces Kaya Lodging Suit Over Appraisal Policies
---------------------------------------------------------------
Kaya Lodging, LLC v. Dallas Central Appraisal District, Case No.
DC-16-10760 filed in the Judicial District Court of Dallas County,
Texas, on August 30, 2016, seeks to stop the Defendant's practice
of placing property appraisal value that exceeds by at least ten
percent, the median level of appraisal required by law.

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

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


DALLAS CENTRAL: Faces Lone Prince Suit Over Appraisal Policies
--------------------------------------------------------------
Lone Prince Properties, LLC v. Dallas Central Appraisal District,
Case No. DC-16-10827 filed in the Judicial District Court of
Dallas County, Texas, on August 30, 2016, seeks to stop the
Defendant's practice of placing property appraisal value that
exceeds by at least ten percent, the median level of appraisal
required by law.

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

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


DALLAS CENTRAL: Faces HPTRI Corp. Suit Over Appraisal Policies
--------------------------------------------------------------
HPTRI Corporation v. Dallas Central Appraisal District, Case No.
DC-16-10791 filed in the Judicial District Court of Dallas County,
Texas, on August 30, 2016, seeks to stop the Defendant's practice
of placing property appraisal value that exceeds by at least ten
percent, the median level of appraisal required by law.

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

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


DALLAS CENTRAL: Faces Mesquite Suit Over Appraisal Policies
-----------------------------------------------------------
Mesquite Credit Union v. Dallas Central Appraisal District, Case
No. DC-16-10768 filed in the Judicial District Court of Dallas
County, Texas, on August 30, 2016, seeks to stop the Defendant's
practice of placing property appraisal value that exceeds by at
least ten percent, the median level of appraisal required by law.

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

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


DALLAS CENTRAL: Faces Mountain Creek Suit Over Appraisal Policies
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Mountain Creek View Apartment, LLC v. Dallas Central Appraisal
District, Case No. DC-16-10800 filed in the Judicial District
Court of Dallas County, Texas, on August 30, 2016, seeks to stop
the Defendant's practice of placing property appraisal value that
exceeds by at least ten percent, the median level of appraisal
required by law.

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

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


DALLAS CENTRAL: Faces Nanji Ventures Suit Over Appraisal Policies
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Nanji Ventures, Inc. v. Dallas Central Appraisal District, Case
No. DC-16-10770 filed in the Judicial District Court of Dallas
County, Texas, on August 30, 2016, seeks to stop the Defendant's
practice of placing property appraisal value that exceeds by at
least ten percent, the median level of appraisal required by law.

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

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


DALLAS CENTRAL: Faces CCC & R Class Suit Over Appraisal Policies
----------------------------------------------------------------
CCC & R Park Lane, LLC v. Dallas Central Appraisal District, Case
No. DC-16-10795 filed in the Judicial District Court of Dallas
County, Texas, on August 30, 2016, seeks to stop the Defendant's
practice of placing property appraisal value that exceeds by at
least ten percent, the median level of appraisal required by law.

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

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


DALLAS CENTRAL: Faces HPTMI II Suit Over Appraisal Policies
-----------------------------------------------------------
HPTMI II Properties Trust v. Dallas Central Appraisal District,
Case No. DC-16-10796 filed in the Judicial District Court of
Dallas County, Texas, on August 30, 2016, seeks to stop the
Defendant's practice of placing property appraisal value that
exceeds by at least ten percent, the median level of appraisal
required by law.

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

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


DALLAS CENTRAL: Faces R&B Capital Suit Over Appraisal Policies
--------------------------------------------------------------
R&B Capital, LP v. Dallas Central Appraisal District, Case No. DC-
16-10802 filed in the Judicial District Court of Dallas County,
Texas, on August 30, 2016, seeks to stop the Defendant's practice
of placing property appraisal value that exceeds by at least ten
percent, the median level of appraisal required by law.

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

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


DALLAS CENTRAL: Faces Rahim Realty Suit Over Appraisal Policies
---------------------------------------------------------------
Rahim Realty Management, LLC v. Dallas Central Appraisal District,
Case No. DC-16-10763 filed in the Judicial District Court of
Dallas County, Texas, on August 30, 2016, seeks to stop the
Defendant's practice of placing property appraisal value that
exceeds by at least ten percent, the median level of appraisal
required by law.

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

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


DALLAS CENTRAL: Faces Royal Lane Suit Over Appraisal Policies
-------------------------------------------------------------
Royal Lane Fox Hollow Apartments, LLC v. Dallas Central Appraisal
District, Case No. DC-16-10765 filed in the Judicial District
Court of Dallas County, Texas, on August 30, 2016, seeks to stop
the Defendant's practice of placing property appraisal value that
exceeds by at least ten percent, the median level of appraisal
required by law.

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

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


DALLAS CENTRAL: Faces Ruffin Hotel Suit Over Appraisal Policies
---------------------------------------------------------------
Ruffin Hotel Corporation of Texas, Inc. v. Dallas Central
Appraisal District, Case No. DC-16-10756 filed in the Judicial
District Court of Dallas County, Texas, on August 30, 2016, seeks
to stop the Defendant's practice of placing property appraisal
value that exceeds by at least ten percent, the median level of
appraisal required by law.

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

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


DALLAS CENTRAL: Faces "Ganji" Suit Over Appraisal Policies
----------------------------------------------------------
Shaun Ganji v. Dallas Central Appraisal District, Case No. DC-16-
10809 filed in the Judicial District Court of Dallas County,
Texas, on August 30, 2016, seeks to stop the Defendant's practice
of placing property appraisal value that exceeds by at least ten
percent, the median level of appraisal required by law.

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

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


DALLAS CENTRAL: Faces Dallas Southern Suit Over Appraisal Policy
----------------------------------------------------------------
Dallas Southern Distributors v. Dallas Central Appraisal District,
Case No. DC-16-10806 filed in the Judicial District Court of
Dallas County, Texas, on August 30, 2016, seeks to stop the
Defendant's practice of placing property appraisal value that
exceeds by at least ten percent, the median level of appraisal
required by law.

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

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


DALLAS CENTRAL: Faces Fair Oaks Suit Over Appraisal Policies
------------------------------------------------------------
Fair Oaks Crossing LLC v. Dallas Central Appraisal District, Case
No. DC-16-10798 filed in the Judicial District Court of Dallas
County, Texas, on August 30, 2016, seeks to stop the Defendant's
practice of placing property appraisal value that exceeds by at
least ten percent, the median level of appraisal required by law.

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

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


DALLAS CENTRAL: Faces Stemmons Market Suit Over Appraisal Policy
----------------------------------------------------------------
Stemmons Market Center One, LP v. Dallas Central Appraisal
District, Case No. DC-16-10808 filed in the Judicial District
Court of Dallas County, Texas, on August 30, 2016, seeks to stop
the Defendant's practice of placing property appraisal value that
exceeds by at least ten percent, the median level of appraisal
required by law.

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

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


DALLAS CENTRAL: Faces "Haglund" Suit Over Appraisal Policies
------------------------------------------------------------
Sltephen Haglund and Darla Haglund v. Dallas Central Appraisal
District, Case No. DC-16-10826 filed in the Judicial District
Court of Dallas County, Texas, on August 30, 2016, seeks to stop
the Defendant's practice of placing property appraisal value that
exceeds by at least ten percent, the median level of appraisal
required by law.

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

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      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 Fax
      E-mail: jestes@estesgandhi.com
              NGandhi@estesgandhi.com


DALLAS CENTRAL: Faces Summerglen Suit Over Appraisal Policies
-------------------------------------------------------------
Summerglen Apartments, LP v. Dallas Central Appraisal District,
Case No. DC-16-10772 filed in the Judicial District Court of
Dallas County, Texas, on August 30, 2016, seeks to stop the
Defendant's practice of placing property appraisal value that
exceeds by at least ten percent, the median level of appraisal
required by law.

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

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


DALLAS CENTRAL: Faces Westchester Suit Over Appraisal Policies
--------------------------------------------------------------
Westchester 4126, LLC v. Dallas Central Appraisal District, Case
No. DC-16-10779 filed in the Judicial District Court of Dallas
County, Texas, on August 30, 2016, seeks to stop the Defendant's
practice of placing property appraisal value that exceeds by at
least ten percent, the median level of appraisal required by law.

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

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


DEKALB COUNTY, GA: Sued Over Old Traffic Case Court System
----------------------------------------------------------
Elly Yu, writing for WABE, reports that lawyers for a group of
people suing DeKalb County over its old court system are seeking
class-action status, saying the court could have potentially
mishandled thousands of other traffic cases.

The lawsuit, which includes 17 plaintiffs, alleges DeKalb County's
Recorders Court reported mistakes about people's traffic cases to
the state Department of Driver Services.  That led, the suit says,
to the wrongful suspension of people's driver's licenses or the
failure to reinstate a license.

"So many people wrongly went to jail.  Some of these people had
never been arrested before in their life, and they were arrested
for driving on a suspended license when in fact their license
should have never been suspended," said Gerry Weber, senior
counsel at the Southern Center for Human Rights, one of the
attorneys representing the plaintiffs.

He said they're seeking class-action status on the lawsuit because
thousands of other people could potentially be affected and could
be wrongfully arrested.  He said hundreds of thousands of people
went through the Recorders Court each year.

Lawyers for the county couldn't be reached by deadline, but one
lawyer told the Daily Report that less than a percent of cases
handled by the court are under scrutiny for errors.

Last year, the state Legislature abolished the court after
allegations were raised about mismanagement.


EVANS LAW: Illegally Collects Debt, "Heszkel" Action Claims
-----------------------------------------------------------
Shimshon Heszkel, on behalf of himself and all other similarly
situated consumers v. Evans Law Associates, P.C., Case No. 1:16-
cv-04836 (E.D.N.Y., August 30, 2016), seeks to stop the
Defendant's unfair and unconscionable means to collect a debt.

Evans Law Associates, P.C. is a law firm located at 5355 Main St,
Williamsville, NY 14221.

Shimshon Heszkel is a pro se plaintiff.


FBW GROUP: "Perez" Suit Seeks Overtime Pay, Damages
---------------------------------------------------
David Perez, on behalf of himself and all similarly situated,
Plaintiff, v. F.B.W. Group, Inc. and Freddy Boza, individually,
Defendants, Case No. 1:16-cv-23728 (S.D. Fla., August 30, 2016),
seeks overtime, liquidated damages equal in amount to the unpaid
compensation due, reasonable attorney's fees and costs, post
judgment interest and any other and further relief under the Fair
Labor Standards Act as well as civil damages for the fraudulent
filing of information tax returns.

F.B.W. Group, Inc. is a general contractor in  Miami Dade, FL.
Plaintiff worked as a carpenter and was misclassified as an
independent contractor thus depriving him of mandatory
compensation due an employee.

Defendant is represented by:

      Michael A. Pancier, Esq.
      LAW OFFICES OF MICHAEL A. PANCIER, P.A.,
      9000 Sheridan Street, Suite 93
      Pembroke Pines, FL 33024
      Tel: (954) 862-2217
      Fax: (954) 862-2287


FMA ALLIANCE: Illegally Collects Debt, "Wieder" Suit Claims
-----------------------------------------------------------
Bruchy Wieder, on behalf of herself and all other similarly
situated consumers v. FMA Alliance, Ltd., Case No. 1:16-cv-04859
(E.D.N.Y., August 30, 2016), seeks to stop the Defendant's unfair
and unconscionable means to collect a debt.

FMA Alliance, Ltd. operates a receivables management company, and
provides debt collection services.

Bruchy Wieder is a pro se plaintiff.

FRESNO GOURMET: "Escobar" Suit Seeks Overtime Pay, Damages
----------------------------------------------------------
Apolonio Jimenez Escobar, Plaintiffs, v. Fresno Gourmet Deli Corp.
and John Does #1-3, Defendants, Case No. 1:16-cv-06816 (S.D. N.Y.,
August 30, 2016), seeks to recover unpaid wages, overtime
compensation, liquidated damages, statutory penalties and
attorneys' fees and costs pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards
Act, New York Labor Laws and the New York Wage Theft Prevention
Act.

Defendant operates as Fresno Gourmet Deli, located at 27 Avenue C,
New York, New York 10009 where Escobar was hired as a deli man,
general helper and cleaner.

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Peter H. Cooper, Esq.
      CILENTI & COOPER, PLLC
      708 Third Avenue - 6th Floor
      New York, NY 10017
      Tel. (212) 209-3933
      Fax. (212) 209-7102
      Email: info@jcpdaw.com


GEO GROUP: October 24 Class Action Lead Plaintiff Motion Set
------------------------------------------------------------
Pomerantz LLP on Aug. 25 disclosed that a class action lawsuit has
been filed against The GEO Group, Inc. ("GEO" or the "Company")
(NYSE:GEO) and certain of its officers.  The class action, filed
in United States District Court, Southern District of Florida, and
docketed under 16-cv-81494, is on behalf of a class consisting of
all persons or entities who purchased or otherwise acquired GEO
securities between March 1, 2012 and August 17, 2016 both dates
inclusive (the "Class Period").  This class action seeks to
recover damages against Defendants for alleged violations of the
federal securities laws under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
(the "Exchange Act").

If you are a shareholder who purchased GEO securities during the
Class Period, you have until October 24, 2016 to ask the Court to
appoint you as Lead Plaintiff for the class.  A copy of the
Complaint can be obtained at www.pomerantzlaw.com
To discuss this action, contact Robert S. Willoughby at
rswilloughby@pomlaw.com or 888.476.6529 (or 888.4-POMLAW), toll
free, ext. 9980.  Those who inquire by e-mail are encouraged to
include their mailing address, telephone number, and number of
shares purchased.

GEO provides government-outsourced services specializing in the
management of correctional, detention, and re-entry facilities,
and the provision of community based services and youth services
in the United States, Australia, South Africa, the United Kingdom,
and Canada.  The Company operates through four segments: U.S.
Corrections & Detention, GEO Community Services, International
Services, and Facility Construction & Design.

The Complaint alleges that throughout the Class Period, defendants
made materially false and misleading statements regarding the
Company's business, operational and compliance policies.
Specifically, defendants made false and/or misleading statements
and/or failed to disclose that: (i) GEO's facilities lacked
adequate safety and security standards and were less efficient at
offering correctional services than the Federal Bureau of Prisons'
("BOP") facilities; (ii) GEO's rehabilitative services for inmates
were less effective than those provided by BOP; (iii)
consequently, the U.S. Department of Justice ("DOJ") was unlikely
to renew and/or extend its contracts with GEO; and (iv) as a
result of the foregoing, GEO's public statements were materially
false and misleading at all relevant times.

On August 18, 2016, Deputy Attorney General Sally Yates announced
the DOJ's decision to end its use of private prisons, including
those operated by GEO, after officials concluded that GEO's
facilities are both less safe and less effective at providing
correctional services than those run by the federal government.

On this news, GEO's share price fell $12.78, or 39.58%, to close
at $19.51 on August 18, 2016.

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


GOLDCORP INC: 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 Goldcorp Inc. securities (NYSE:GG) from March 31,
2014 through August 24, 2016, inclusive (the "Class Period").  The
lawsuit seeks to recover damages for Goldcorp investors under the
federal securities laws.

To join the Goldcorp class action, go to the website at
http://www.rosenlegal.com/cases-945.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.  The case is pending in the United States District
Court for the Central District of California.

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) levels of the mineral selenium rose in one groundwater
monitoring well near the Penasquito Mine as early as October 2013;
(2) in October 2014, Goldcorp reported a rise in selenium levels
in groundwater to the Mexican government after the contamination
near the Penasquito Mine waste facility intensified; (3) in August
2016, Goldcorp told Mexican regulators that contaminated water had
also been found in other areas near the Penasquito Mine; and (4)
as a result, Goldcorp's public statements were materially false
and misleading 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-945.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.


HARRIS COUNTY: Faces W2005 Suit Over Appraisal Policies
-------------------------------------------------------
W2005 New Century Hotel Portfolio, LP v. Harris County Appraisal
District, Case No. 2016-58190 filed in the Judicial District Court
of Harris County, Texas, on August 30, 2016), is an action for
damages as a result of the Defendant's failure to appraise the
Plaintiff's property at its market value.

Harris County Appraisal District is responsible for appraising
taxable property for ad valorem taxation purposes.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


HMR OF ALABAMA: "Cooley" Suit Seeks Overtime Pay, Missed Breaks
---------------------------------------------------------------
Jacqueline Cooley, Heather Adams, Rosie Boyd, Ebony Byers,
Shakelia Calhoun, Kimberly Campbell, Myrania Carlton, Jewell
Chandler, Jalysa Embry, Apryl Evans, Voncel Freeman, Leasa Gowers,
Tasha Harris, Cecelia Hawkins, Elleon Herring, Almelia Hill,
Johnnie Hollis, Shanelle Hurrell, Regina Isaac, Travis Ivy, Angela
Jones, Santrecia Kelley, Sarah Marbury, Angela Mccray, Margaret
Mixon, Vanessa Moten, Patricia Parks, Denetha Petty, Betty
Phillips, Patricia Robinson, Toinetta Sutton, Chervon Tanner,
Treneia Toyer, Clarissa Truss, Sujutoria Truss, Cameka Turner,
David Vaughan, Debra Vaughan, Jill Vaughan, Patricia Wallace,
Constance Williams, Angela Wilson, Ruby Wilson, and Andrea Wood,
Plaintiffs, v. HMR of Alabama, Inc., Defendant, Case No. 4:16-cv-
01432 (N.D. Ala., August 30, 2016), seeks unpaid wages, unpaid
overtime wages, liquidated damages, costs, attorneys' fees, and/or
any such other relief that pursuant to the provisions of the Fair
Labor Standards Act and Alabama Common Law.

Defendants allegedly exacted an automatic meal break deduction
even when Plaintiffs performed compensable work during their meal
breaks. Plaintiffs also claim to be denied overtime pay.

HMR of Alabama, Inc. operates as Robert L. Howard Veterans Home, a
nursing home.

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Michael K. Beard, Esq.
      Jane F. Mauzy, Esq.
      MARSH, RICKARD & BRYAN, P.C.
      800 Shades Creek Parkway, Suite 600-D
      Birmingham, AL 35209
      Telephone: (205) 879-1981
      Facsimile: (205) 879-1986
      Email: mbeard@mrblaw.com
             jmauzy@mrblaw.com


HOLY SACRAMENT: "Henry" Suit Seeks Overtime Pay
-----------------------------------------------
Winsome Henry, individually on behalf of others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. Holy Sacrament Episcopal Church, Inc.,
Defendant, Case No. 2:16-cv-04639 (E.D. Pa., August 25, 2016),
seeks unpaid overtime wages, damages and attorneys' fees and costs
pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938.

Defendant is a non-profit corporation operating a church in
Broward County, Florida where Plaintiff worked as a parish
administrator. Henry was allegedly terminated in retaliation for
complaining about her unpaid overtime.

Plaintiff is represented by:

     Anthony M. Georges-Pierre, Esq.
     REMER & GEORGES-PIERRE, PLLC
     44 West Flagler Street, Suite 2200
     Miami, FL 33130
     Tel: (305) 416-5000
     Fax: (305) 416-5005
     Email: agp@rgpattorneys.com


JETSTAR: In KWM's Potential Shareholder Class Action Watch List
---------------------------------------------------------------
Misa Han, writing for The Australian Financial Review, reports
that the big banks, Jetstar, Virgin, Arrium, Dick Smith,
Surfstitch and Slater & Gordon have appeared on law firm King &
Wood Malleson's watch list for companies facing potential
shareholder and consumer class action.

The class action report from the King & Wood Mallesons, to be
released on Aug. 26, shows there were 35 class actions launched in
the 2016 financial year, following a historic high of 40 new class
actions the previous year.

KWM says the big banks may face claims from consumers for
allegedly rigging the bank bill swap rate and Jetstar and Virgin
for using "drip pricing" tactics when selling their airfares.

Meanwhile, Arrium and Dick Smith are potentially facing
shareholder class actions after entering into administration, and
Surfstitch for potential breach of continuous disclosure
obligations.

But KWM partner Peta Stevenson told The Australian Financial
Review said it would be difficult to quantify the loss for a
potential class action against the big banks for alleged
manipulation of the bank bill swap rate because each individual's
loss would depend on the facts of the case.

"In the ANZ bank fee case there was only one set of terms and
conditions, whereas in the BBSW case they would have to prove
particular conduct happened on a particular day.  It is a much
more difficult case to prove causation and it's going to be much
more costly to provide individual evidence.  It doesn't form
neatly into the kind of cases big funders might be attracted to,"
Ms Stevenson said.

She said a BBSW class action would not be lucrative for litigation
funders because the cost of running such claim might be too high.

Consumer actions growing

Ms. Stevenson said there has been a lot of spotlight on consumer
class actions, with the biggest single settlement being the $250
million DePuy hip replacement product case and the $1.75 billion
class action being launched against Volkswagen Group for the
emission-rigging devices.

Herbert Smith Freehills partner Jason Betts -- jason.betts@hsf.com
-- said shareholder class action remained the "engine room of
growth" because that is the type of claim litigation funders
support and most class action litigation will not be brought
without litigation funder support.

"Most of the shareholder claims are fought over a company's
alleged failure to revise its guidance early enough," Mr. Betts
said.

He said class action firms traditionally went after companies with
large market caps but they have expanded their radar to small caps
and private companies which fail to meet guidance on float.

"I strongly expect that our local market will see more
international funders.  There will be an increase in the number of
class actions they fund and maybe also set up Australian
businesses to pursue opportunities more directly," he said.
Mr. Betts said Australia's strict regulatory environment made ASX-
listed companies lucrative targets of shareholder class action.

Diane Jones of litigation funder JustKapital said she was
surprised at the number of class actions without litigation
funding.  Last financial year more than half of class actions were
unfunded.

"Perhaps it suggests a lot of law firms are looking for work and
trying to get a funder after the event.  It presents opportunities
for litigation funders," she said.

Ms. Jones picked Dick Smith shareholder action and a second Murray
Goulburn shareholder action as most likely in this financial year.

"I think there will be an action against Dick Smith. It just cries
out for action," she said.


JOY GLOBAL: Faces Securities Class Action in Wisconsin
------------------------------------------------------
Gainey McKenna & Egleston on Aug. 25 disclosed that a class action
lawsuit has been filed against Joy Global Inc. ("Joy Global" or
the "Company") in the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Wisconsin on behalf of current stock holders of Joy
Global, seeking to pursue remedies under the Securities Exchange
Act of 1934 (the "Exchange Act").

The Complaint alleges that Joy Global and the members of its board
of directors violated Section 14(a) and 20(a) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 (the "Exchange Act"), 15.U.S.C. Secs. 78n(a),
78t(a), and SEC Rule 14a-9, 17 C.F.R. 240.14a-9, in connection
with the proposed merger between Joy Global and Komatsu America
Corp. ("Komatsu"), the U.S.-based subsidiary of the Japanese
multinational corporation Komatsu Ltd. (the "Proposed Merger").
The Complaint further alleges that the merger consideration and
the process by which Defendants propose to consummate the proposed
merger are fundamentally unfair to Plaintiff and the other common
shareholders of Joy Global.  Indeed, a senior research analyst
covering Joy Global at Milwaukee-based Robert W. Baird & Co. Inc.
has stated that "the value of the transaction, which boils down to
$28.30 (per share), effectively does not extract as much value as
there should be for Joy's shareholders.  In our view, something
closer to $40, frankly above $40, would accomplish that."

If you wish to discuss your rights or interests regarding this
class action, please contact Thomas J. McKenna, Esq. or Gregory M.
Egleston, Esq. of Gainey McKenna & Egleston at (212) 983-1300, or
via e-mail at tjmckenna@gme-law.com or gegleston@gme-law.com


JW HOMES: Waverly Class Suit Removed to South Carolina Dist.
------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit captioned Waverly at Hamlin Plantation
Townhome Association Inc. and Ed Peyser, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated v. JW Homes LLC,
Residential Partners LLC, John Wieland, Sue Wieland, Jack Wieland,
Lindsey Parker, Robert Parker, JWC Phoenix LLC, Jeffrey Laliberte,
WS JWH LLC, JW Land Investment LLC, Middlesex Partners LLC,
Wheelock Street Investment Management LLC, Wheelock Real Estate
Land Fund LP, JWC Guilford LLC, Annisquam Development LLC, OOTB
LLC, and Bridgemill Land LLC, Case No. 2016-CP-10-02754, was
removed from the Charleston County Court of Common Pleas to the
U.S. District Court for the District of South Carolina
(Charleston). The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:16-cv-
02973-DCN to the proceeding.

The case asserts property damages claims.

The Defendants own and operate a real estate investment firm in
South Carolina.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Ivon Keith McCarty, Esq.
      MCCARTY LAW FIRM
      1212 Wappoo Road
      Charleston, SC 29407
      Telephone: (843) 793-1272
      E-mail: ikeithmccarty@gmail.com

         - and -

      John C. Hayes IV, Esq.
      Mary-Margaret F. Noland, Esq.
      HAYES LAW FIRM
      180 Meeting Street
      Charleston, SC 29401
      Telephone: (843) 805-7003
      E-mail: jhayes@hayeslaw.org
              mnoland@hayeslaw.org

The Defendant is represented by:

      Marvin Dewitt Infinger, Esq.
      NEXSEN PRUET
      PO Box 486
      Charleston, SC 29401
      Telephone: (843) 577-9440
      E-mail: minfinger@nexsenpruet.com

LENOX SOCEY: Accused of Wrongful Conduct Over Debt Collection
-------------------------------------------------------------
Barry Hochberg, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated v. Lenox, Socey, Formidoni, Giordano, Cooley, Lang &
Casey, P.C., Robert F. Casey, P.C., Robert F. Casey, and John Does
1-25, Case No. 3:16-cv-05307-BRM-LHG (D.N.J., August 30, 2016),
seeks to stop the Defendant's unfair and unconscionable means to
collect a debt.

The Defendants operate a law firm in Lawrence Township, New
Jersey.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Joseph K. Jones, Esq.
      JONES, WOLF & KAPASI, LLC
      375 Passaic Avenue, Suite 100
      Fairfield, NJ 07004
      Telephone: (973) 227-5900
      Facsimile: (973) 244-0019
      E-mail: jkj@legaljones.com

LUNG INSTITUTE: Former Patient Files Class Action
-------------------------------------------------
Tony Marrero, writing for Tampa Bay Times, reports that diagnosed
with lung disease and determined to shed her oxygen tank,
Tammy Rivero resorted to an unorthodox treatment.

In 2014, Ms. Rivero took out a home equity loan to pay $7,500 and
traveled from her western North Carolina home to Florida to
undergo stem-cell therapy at the Lung Institute in Tampa.  The
institute claimed she would see results in a matter of weeks,
according to a lawsuit Ms. Rivero filed.

Instead, according to the suit, she got worse.  Now Ms. Rivero,
58, is the first of what her attorney says are dozens of former
patients seeking class-action status in a legal action against the
institute.

Ms. Rivero's suit says the Lung Institute violated Florida's
Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act by duping clients into
believing stem-cell therapy worked despite the absence of credible
medical evidence.

"It's one thing for folks that have an incurable disease to try
experimental treatments," said Ms. Rivero's attorney, Ben Vinson
Jr. of Tampa.  "But it's another when the person offering the
treatment knows it doesn't work."

Speaking for the institute, Lynne Flaherty Margnelli, executive
vice president of Regenerative Medicine Solutions, said in a
statement to the Tampa Bay Times: "Lung Institute prides itself on
putting patient care first and always operates with the patients'
best interests in mind.  We do not believe the case has any merit
and we look forward to resolving this matter."

A 2015 Times story said there is little evidence that the
institute's treatment works for patients with incurable lung
conditions such as chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, or COPD.

Dr. Burton Feinerman, who was medical director at the Lung
Institute when the Times story ran, said then that the American
medical establishment is too slow to embrace developments.

"The U.S. is so far behind the rest of the world, it's pathetic,"
said Dr. Feinerman, who has since retired.  "Doctors are not
scientists.  They know how to read a cookbook, but God forbid if
you want to add a new recipe."

Stem cells can reproduce themselves to repair tissues and mature
into cells that perform a specific function, such as in the skin,
muscle or blood.  As part of the institute's treatment, adult stem
cells are harvested from individual patients and later
reintroduced into the body with the promise to restore
deteriorating tissue, such as lung tissue scarred by COPD.

According to the suit, the cost of the procedures ranged from
$5,000 to $12,000.  The suit claims the institute, which occupies
a fourth floor of a downtown Tampa office building, brings in at
least $2 million a month.

Each patient is responsible for paying the full cost of the
procedure because the institute does not accept health insurance,
Medicare or Medicaid.  The suit claims the institute urged
prospective patients who could not afford the cost of the
procedure to raise the funds through bake sales and Kickstarter
campaigns.

Mr. Vinson said Ms. Rivero was not told that she would have to pay
for followup treatments, which she could not afford.


MANNKIND: California Court Dismisses Securities Class Action
------------------------------------------------------------
RTT News reports that MannKind Corp. (MNKD) said that the United
States District Court for the Central District of California has
dismissed the class action that was pending against MannKind and
two of its executives.

The court granted the defendants' motion to dismiss the
plaintiffs' amended class action complaint without leave to amend,
thereby closing the case.  The plaintiffs can appeal the decision
within 30 days.


MERCK: Faces Class Action Over Implanon Birth Control
-----------------------------------------------------
Gordon Gibb, writing for LawyersandSettlement.com, reports that
Washington, DCYou may not have heard much about Implanon birth
control previously.  But you will, given the emergence of an
Implanon birth control personal injury lawsuit that's been filed
as a class action.  The issue in the current lawsuit is device
migration.  But there can be other issues as well.

Implanon Device Migration: "Where the Heck Is It?" First, a
refresher as to exactly what Implanon is: an implantable birth
control device, small and thin akin to the size of a toothpick,
that's inserted below the skin in the upper arm and designed to
provide birth control protection through the measured release of
the progestin etonogestrel for about three years before removal.
Various advocates of the device claim that it can last as long as
four years -- but three years is the recommended window.

It's one of the latest examples of the so-called 'set-it-and-
forget-it' line of devices that does not require the ingestion of
a daily birth control pill, or the management of a dermal patch
that requires changing at regular intervals.  For busy women prone
to forget their birth control pill, the automatic dispensary
option is viewed with some favor.  The US Food and Drug
Administration (FDA) approved Implanon, marketed by Merck & Co.,
in July of 2006.

After ten years on the market, it has been reported that some
500,000 women use the device for birth control.

However, lawsuits are beginning to emerge.  Co-plaintiff Brook
Reynolds, who joined the class action Implanon birth control
personal injury lawsuit, alleges that the Implanon device she
received in 2012 migrated away from the initial implantation site.
In 2014, when Reynolds attended her doctor's office to have the
device removed, her physician was unable to locate it.

The toothpick-sized device had migrated away from the original
implantation site.  Other plaintiffs cite remarkably similar
issues to those of Brook Reynolds.  Co-plaintiffs Jenni Akins,
Major Akins, Ruby Ginns, Robert Reynolds and Julie Reynolds allege
that Merck & Co. and subsidiary Organon failed to warn of the
potential for migration.

There is, indeed, little mention -- if any -- about the potential
for device migration by way of information generally available to
consumers.  The Contraceptive Technology Update (06/01/16) carried
a report that lauded the effectiveness of the implantable Implanon
and its successor, Nexplanon, in terms of effectiveness. While
common side effects were outlined, there was no mention of the
potential for device migration.

In another example, Planned Parenthood on its website includes
more common Implanon birth control side effects -- as well as
less-common side effects -- but makes no mention with regard to
the potential for device migration.  Under the heading of 'Serious
Side Effects of the Birth Control Implant' Planned Parenthood
lists as the last item, "tell your health care provider
immediately if the implant comes out or you have concerns about
its location."   Device migration is not mentioned.  Reference to
'concerns about its location' is subject to interpretation.

It is not until we look to Merck.com before we get any sense as to
the possibility of device migration.  In a downloadable pdf
document intended for consumers, there is references made at the
bottom of a bullet listing of common side effects - but is not
part of the active list.

"Implants have been reported to be found in a blood vessel
including a blood vessel in the lung."

And,

"Implants have been found in the pulmonary artery (a blood vessel
in the lung). If the implant cannot be found in the arm, your
healthcare professional may use imaging methods on the chest. If
the implant is located in the chest, surgery may be needed."

Downloading a document intended for doctors and healthcare
providers reveals more information - specifically with regard to
guidance for the removal of a spent implant, which is normal after
a few years.  The Implanon is meant to be retrieved at the end of
its useful life cycle:

"Confirm that the entire implant, which is 4 centimeters long, has
been removed by measuring its length.  There have been reports of
broken implants while in the patient's arm. In some cases,
difficult removal of the broken implant has been reported.

"There have been reports of migration of the implant; usually this
involves minor movement relative to the original position [see
Warnings and Precautions (5.1)] (original reference), but may lead
to the implant not being palpable in the location in which it was
placed.  An implant that has been deeply inserted or has migrated
may not be palpable and therefore imaging procedures, as described
below, may be required for localization.

"Exploratory surgery without knowledge of the exact location of
the implant is strongly discouraged."

This is a dilemma faced, in particular, by Brook Reynolds,
according to the Implanon birth control consumer fraud lawsuit to
which she belongs.  When Reynolds attended her doctor to have the
device removed, her physician was not able to locate it.
Presumably, diagnostic imaging was unsuccessful in locating the
device and thus, the location of the Implanon remains a mystery.
As suggested by the manufacturer's dissertation to doctors noted
above, exploratory surgery is not recommended without first
knowing where the device is.  In Brook's case, without knowing
where the device is, surgery appears out of the question.

Thus, the Implanon originally received by plaintiff Brook Reynolds
appears to be irretrievable.  The continued migration of the
toothpick-sized object could subject her to Implanon birth control
personal injury, including ectopic pregnancy and potential damage
to her vascular system -- not to mention her peace of mind, living
daily without a clear picture of where this thing is.


MILTON ROY: Does Not Properly Pay Employees, "Ramirez" Suit Says
----------------------------------------------------------------
Daniel Ramirez, individually and on behalf of other persons
similarly situated v. Milton Roy, LLC; Haskel International, LLC;
Accudyne Industires, LLC; and Does 1 through 10, Case No. BC
632276 (Cal. Super. Ct., August 30, 2016), is brought against the
Defendants for failure to pay non-exempt production employees all
the minimum wages and overtime wages owed to them.

The Defendants are engaged in the business of manufacturing pumps
and other highly engineered products and equipment and operate a
facility in Burbank, California.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Gregory N. Karasik, Esq.
      KARASIK LAW FIRM
      11835 W. Olympic Blvd. Ste. 1275
      Los Angeles, CA 90064
      Telephone: (310) 312-6800
      Facsimile: (310) 943-2582
      E-mail: greg@karasiklawfirm.com

         - and -

      Emil Davtyan, Esq.
      DAVTYAN PROFESSIONAL LAW CORPORATION
      21900 Burbank Blvd., Suite 300
      Woodland Hills, CA 91367
      Telephone: (818) 992-2935
      E-mail: emil@davtyanlaw.com


MODESTO, CA: Judge May Toss Electricity Class Action Against MID
----------------------------------------------------------------
Garth Stapley, writing for Modesto Bee, reports that a judge is
inclined to throw out one of two class-action lawsuits against the
Modesto Irrigation District because it was filed 13 days after a
statute of limitations expired, the judge said in a tentative
ruling on Aug. 25.

Both lawsuits seek refunds for tens of thousands of electricity
customers because they're forced to subsidize farmers' water
prices, plaintiffs say.

Attorneys are expected to debate before Stanislaus County Superior
Court Judge William Mayhew on Aug. 26.  He could issue a final
ruling then or sometime after.

Plaintiff Andrew Hobbs beat the deadline by one day by filing his
lawsuit on March 15, 119 days after the MID board restructured
electricity rates.  It appears that case will continue to move
toward trial.

The other plaintiff, Dave Thomas, worked separately with another
law firm and filed his lawsuit two weeks later, missing a deadline
set in the state's water code.  In legal briefs, his attorneys
reasoned that the 120-day filing clock resets each time MID
collects an alleged illegal tax, presumably with each monthly
bill, essentially extending the window indefinitely.

"Our state Constitution explicitly protects against not just the
initial passage of an illegal tax but the subsequent imposition
and collection of the illegal tax," Mr. Thomas' lawyers contended
in a brief.

But Judge Mayhew sided with MID in his tentative ruling, saying
Mr. Thomas' lawsuit "was not commenced within this time period and
is thus barred."  MID's attorneys had noted that state lawmakers
enacted the statute of limitations to provide utilities with
"certainty when setting electric rates, so they may rely on
projected revenues, stabilize their finances and make their
services more efficient, and to avoid needless litigation."

"We're very pleased with the tentative ruling," MID spokeswoman
Melissa Williams said on Aug. 25.

Both plaintiffs recently asked Mayhew to merge their lawsuits into
one.  That request will be moot, he said in a separate tentative
ruling, if Thomas' lawsuit is tossed.

Overcharging electricity customers to benefit farmers might be
legal under state law if voters were asked to approve the
arrangement, but MID has not.  Neither has the MID board -- a
majority of whose members are farmers -- raised power rates in
recent years, since an attorney in 2012 warned the board that
doing so without letting customers vote might be illegal.

The district's average yearly profit from selling electricity, or
income minus expenses, has been more than $93 million since 2010,
according to bonding documents.  MID uses the extra money to repay
debt, build reserves and cover the farm water subsidy, amounting
to $17 million this year.

Both plaintiffs live in Modesto.  Mr. Hobbs' lawsuit goes further
than Mr. Thomas' by also accusing MID of overcharging residential
customers to subsidize businesses paying lower electricity rates,
particularly large industry.

Thomas has been an officer of the Stanislaus Taxpayers Association
for many years, although that group is not involved in either
lawsuit.

The court hearing was scheduled for 8:30 a.m. on Aug. 26 in
Department 21 at the City Tower building, 801 10th St., Modesto.


NATIONAL BOARD: "Hutton" Sues Over Data Breach
----------------------------------------------
Rhonda L. Hutton, O.D. and Tawny P. Kaeochinda, O.D., on behalf of
themselves and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v.
National Board of Examiners in Optometry, Inc., Defendant, Case
No. 1:16-cv-03025 (D. Md., August 30, 2016), seeks damages and
restitution resulting from negligence, breach of contract and
violation of the California Customer Records Act and the
California Business and Professions Code.  The suit further seeks
injunctive relief requiring the Board to implement and maintain
reasonable and effective security practices.

National Board of Examiners in Optometry is the testing
organization in the field of optometry in the United States of
America and Puerto Rico. The organization creates and administers
various exams in the optometry profession. As part of its exam
administration process, the NBEO collects the personal identifying
and financial information of exam-takers, including but not
limited to names, birth dates, Social Security numbers, addresses,
and credit card information. It recently suffered a data breach
involving the Personal Information of exam-takers.

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Norman E. Siegel, Esq.
      Barrett J. Vahle, Esq.
      J. Austin Moore, Esq.
      STUEVE SIEGEL HANSON LLP
      460 Nichols Road, Suite 200
      Kansas City, MO 64112
      Tel: (816) 714-7100
      Fax: (816) 714-7101
      Email: siegel@stuevesiegel.com
             vahle@stuevesiegel.com
             moore@stuevesiegel.com

             - and -

      Hassan Zavareei, Esq.
      TYCKO & ZAVAREEI LLP
      1828 L. Street, NW, Suite 1000
      Washington, DC 20036
      Tel: (202) 973-0910
      Fax: (202) 973-0950
      Email: hzavareei@tzlegal.com


NETSUITE INC: "Palkon" Sues Over Shady Merger Deal
--------------------------------------------------
Dennis Palkon, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. Netsuite Inc., Zachary Nelson, Evan
Goldberg, James McGeever, Billy Beane, Deborah A. Farrington,
Catherine Kinney, Kevin Thompson, Edward J. Zander, Steve Gomo,
Oracle Corporation, OC Acquisition LLC, and Napa Acquisition
Corporation, Defendants, Case No. 4:16-cv-04975, (N.D. Cal.,
August 30, 2016), seeks to block the Defendants from consummating,
or closing a merger; rescissory damages; reasonable allowance for
attorney and expert fees; and such other and further relief for
violation of the Securities and Exchange Act.

NetSuite is into cloud computing business management software
suites with NetSuite Restricted Holdings LLC, its single biggest
stockholder.  NetSuite and Oracle entered into a confidentiality
agreement where Oracle offered to acquire NetSuite for $100.00 per
share in cash.

The complaint says the Defendants filed a Solicitation Statement
with the SEC in connection with the merger. It allegedly omitted
material information that must be disclosed to NetSuite
stockholders including financial projections for fiscal years
2016-2021 for EBITDA, EBIT, taxes or tax rate, capital
expenditures and changes in net working capital. With regards to
its discounted cash flow analysis, said proposal fails to disclose
NetSuite's net operating losses in the net debt.

The proposal also fails to disclose the timing and nature of all
communications regarding future employment or directorship of
NetSuite's officers and directors, including who participated in
all such communications.

Zachary Nelson, Evan Goldberg, James McGeever, Billy Beane,
Deborah A. Farrington, Catherine Kinney, Kevin Thompson, Edward J.
Zander and Steve Gomo are members of the Netsuite Board of
Directors.

Palkon owns Netsuite Common Stock.

Plaintiff is represented by:

     Adam C. McCall, Esq.
     LEVI & KORSINSKY LLP
     445 South Figueroa Street, 31st Floor
     Los Angeles, CA 90071
     Tel: (213) 985-7290
     Fax: (202) 333-2121
     Email: amccall@zlk.com

            - and -

     Brian D. Long, Esq.
     Gina M. Serra, Esq.
     RIGRODSKY & LONG, P.A.
     2 Righter Parkway, Suite 120
     Wilmington, DE 19803
     Tel: (302) 295-5310

            - and -

     Richard A. Maniskas
     RYAN & MANISKAS, LLP
     995 Old Eagle School Road, Suite 311
     Wayne, PA 19087
     Tel: (484) 588-5516


NEW ORLEANS, LA: New Administrator Appointed to Lead Jail Reforms
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Jim Mustian, writing for The New Orleans Advocate, reports that a
veteran corrections leader who for seven years oversaw the prison
system in Maryland has been tapped to clean up New Orleans'
scandal-plagued jail.

Gary D. Maynard, 73, essentially will become a surrogate for
Sheriff Marlin Gusman, assuming operational control of the Orleans
Justice Center as he seeks to implement a series of court-ordered
reforms that have languished for three years.  He will be known
formally as the jail's "independent compliance director."

The sheriff, announcing the appointment at a news conference on
Aug. 25, touted Mr. Maynard's four decades of corrections
experience and called him "a welcome addition to our team."

Sheriff Gusman said he looks forward to working alongside Maynard
to reach compliance with a federal consent decree -- a sweeping,
173-point plan intended to improve conditions at the jail.

"I'm the sheriff," Sheriff Gusman said when asked to describe his
role moving forward.  "As the sheriff, ultimately I'm responsible
for everything that the people elected me to, and I'm going to
carry out that responsibility."

Mr. Maynard, who also has served as head of state corrections in
Iowa and South Carolina, said he toured the New Orleans jail and
intends to begin work immediately.

He is well known nationally among the corrections community and
once served as president of the American Corrections Association.

He also is no stranger to controversy, having served at the helm
of the Maryland prison system at a time when more than a dozen
guards were indicted for misconduct at the notorious Baltimore
City Detention Center on racketeering and drug charges.

A federal investigation revealed that a group of corrupt
corrections officers aided an inmate gang in smuggling drugs and
cellphones into the lockup.

Mr. Maynard resigned his position in December 2013 to join the
Criminal Justice Institute, a nonprofit organization that provides
consultation to prisons and jails.

"I've been through some pretty bad situations and some riots and
hostage situations," Mr. Maynard said.  "I've always been drawn
toward challenges.  That's what drew me down here.  I think this
is going to be a big challenge."

Mr. Maynard's appointment stems from a compromise Sheriff Gusman
struck earlier this summer with the U.S. Justice Department, Mayor
Mitch Landrieu's administration and the MacArthur Justice Center,
the civil rights law firm that represents New Orleans inmates in a
class-action lawsuit over jail conditions.

The sheriff averted a federal takeover of the Orleans Justice
Center in the deal by agreeing to give operational control of the
facility to an outside administrator, who will answer only to the
federal judge overseeing the jail reforms.

Mr. Maynard faces a tall task.  The city's jail remains grossly
understaffed and prone to inmate violence, a situation that
prompted the plaintiffs in the class-action lawsuit this year to
attempt to sideline Sheriff Gusman completely and place the
Orleans Justice Center in federal receivership.

"While the selection is still subject to the final approval of the
court, we look forward to working with the compliance director on
much-needed reforms to the conditions at the Orleans Parish jail,"
said Emily Washington, an attorney with the MacArthur Justice
Center.

"We continue to have serious concerns for the safety of the men,
women and kids held in the jail," she said, "but we are optimistic
that the compliance director's skill set and corrections
experience will provide the leadership necessary to advance
reforms at the facility."

The 11th-hour compromise Sheriff Gusman struck, which came in the
middle of a lengthy court hearing, allowed the sheriff to retain a
nominal role in jail operations, such as picking the compliance
director from among up to three candidates nominated by the
plaintiffs.

The plaintiffs sifted through 83 applications for the post and
selected two finalists: Maynard and Wendell France Sr., who also
has served as a corrections administrator in Maryland.

The sheriff, in turn, appointed a bipartisan "evaluation panel" to
help him vet the finalists.  That panel included several law
enforcement officials, civil rights advocates and religious
leaders.

Sheriff Gusman said on Aug. 25 that Mr. Maynard also will serve as
a "conduit to gain access to financial and operational resources
that the Sheriff's Office has been denied for years."

Mr. Maynard's responsibilities will include crafting a jail budget
that Sheriff Gusman has said must include pay raises for his
deputies, long a key point of dispute between the Sheriff's Office
and the Landrieu administration in their fight over jail funding.

"Through our collective work," Sheriff Gusman said, "we will
achieve clarity on the budget needed to operate the Orleans
Justice Center and meet the other items outlined in the consent
decree."

Mayor Landrieu issued a statement on Aug. 25 saying Mr. Maynard
"will be capable of leading the urgent and daunting task of
bringing the Orleans Parish jail into constitutional compliance as
expeditiously as possible."

"Once approved by the court, we look forward to working with
Mr. Maynard to ensure the jail is safe, secure, well-run and
right-sized," the mayor said in his statement.


ONLINE MARKETING: Faces TCPA Class Action in California
-------------------------------------------------------
Wadi Reformado, writing for, reports that an Aliso Viejo company
faces a class-action suit from a Kansas man over its calls to
solicit its services.

Bill Justesen filed a complaint on behalf of all others similarly
situated on Aug. 22 in the U.S. District Court for the Central
District of California, Southern Division against Online Marketing
Group LLC and Doe individuals, alleging violation of the Telephone
Consumer Protection Act.

According to the complaint, the plaintiff alleges that in July, he
suffered damages from being contacted on his cellular telephone
without his consent.  The plaintiff holds Online Marketing Group
LLC and Doe Individuals responsible because the defendants
allegedly used an automatic telephone dialing system to contact
plaintiff to solicit its services for search engine optimization.

The plaintiff requests a trial by jury and seeks statutory
damages, to enjoin the defendant, all legal fees and any other
relief as the court deems just.  He is represented by John P.
Kristensen and David L. Weisberg of Kristensen Weisberg LLP in Los
Angeles.

U.S. District Court for the Central District of California,
Southern Division Case number 8:16-cv-01546


P.A.P LANDSCAPE: "Gutierrez" Suit to Recover Overtime Pay
---------------------------------------------------------
Santos Luis Gutierrez, individually and on behalf of others
similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. P.A.P Landscape and Design, Inc.
and Peter A. Poten, Defendant, Case No. 1:16-cv-04852, (E.D. N.Y.,
August 30, 2016), seeks compensation, hours, wages, and any
deductions or credits taken against wages, damages for unpaid
overtime wages and any improper deductions or credits taken
against wages, liquidated damages, unpaid overtime wages, spread
of hours pay, as well as damages for violation of the
recordkeeping provisions, pre-judgment and post-judgment interest
as applicable, costs and attorneys' fees and all such other and
further relief under the Fair Labor Standards Act and New York
Labor Laws.

Defendants own, operate, and/or control a landscaping company
which maintains its principal executive office at 6 Birch Hill
Road, Locust Valley, New York 11560 under the name "P.A.P.
Landscaping and Design" where Gutierrez was employed by Defendants
as a grass cutter, house cleaner and landscaper.

Plaintiff is represented by:

     Michael Faillace, Esq.
     MICHAEL FAILLACE & ASSOCIATES, P.C.
     60 East 42nd Street, Suite 2540
     New York, NY 10165
     Tel: (212) 317-1200


PINGTAN MARINE: U.S. Court Dismisses Securities Class Action
------------------------------------------------------------
MidnightTrader.com reports that Pingtan Marine Enterprise (PME), a
China-based fishing company, said that a federal court in New York
dismissed a putative federal securities class action filed against
the company, its officers and directors.

In January 2015, Pingtan was sued for allegedly falsely
representing in its securities filings that it received profits
from its wholly owned subsidiary based in China.  The complaint
alleged that this was materially misleading.  The company filed a
motion to dismiss the complaint on various grounds, including that
its securities filings were not materially misleading and the
complaint did not allege loss causation.

The court ruled the plaintiffs failed to identify a material
misrepresentation or omission, and failed to plausibly allege loss
causation against the company.  All claims against Pingtan, and
its directors and officers were dismissed on Jul. 19.


PLENTY CAFE: "Hernandez" Suit Seeks Overtime Pay, Damages
---------------------------------------------------------
Alejandro Hernandez, Sebastian Espitia, Juan Rodriguez Ricardo
Mora and Erick Guzman, on behalf of themselves and others
similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. Plenty Cafe Bakery Catering
LLC, Jessica Weiss, Ruben Weiss and Reba Mangers, Defendants, Case
No. 1:16-cv-06820 (S.D. Fla., August 30, 2016), seeks overtime,
liquidated damages equal in amount to the unpaid compensation due,
reasonable attorneys fees and costs, post judgment interest and
any other and further relief under the Fair Labor Standards Act as
well as civil damages for the fraudulent filing of information tax
returns.

PLENTY CAFE BAKERY CATERING LLC is a Bakery restaurant located at
1457 3 AVENUE, NEW YORK, NY, 10028. It offers American comfort
classics such as fried chicken, plus sandwiches & salads.

Defendant is represented by:

      Michael A. Pancier, Esq.
      LAW OFFICES OF MICHAEL A. PANCIER, P.A.,
      9000 Sheridan Street, Suite 93
      Pembroke Pines, FL 33024
      Tel: (954) 862-2217
      Fax: (954) 862-2287


RESUBMITIT LLC: Illegally Collects Debt, "Moore" Action Claims
--------------------------------------------------------------
Mary Moore, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated
v. ReSubmitit, LLC, Money Transfer Systems, Inc., MTSI-Resubmitit,
Inc., Bank of the Ozarks, Case No. 8:16-cv-02530-MSS-JSS (M.D.
Fla., August 30, 2016), seeks to stop the Defendant's unfair and
unconscionable means to collect a debt.

The Defendants operate a privately held company based in
Clearwater, FL specializing in electronic check re-presentment
services.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Andrew Silver, Esq.
      Jeffrey D. Kaliel, Esq.
      TYCKO & ZAVAREEI LLP
      1828 L Street, N.W., Suite 1000
      Washington, DC 20036
      Telephone: (202) 973-0900
      Facsimile: (202) 973-0950
      E-mail: asilver@tzlegal.com
              jkaliel@tzlegal.com

         - and -

      Jeffrey M. Ostrow, Esq.
      Scott A. Edelsberg, Esq.
      KOPELOWITZ OSTROW, PA
      One West Las Olas Blvd Ste 500
      Ft Lauderdale, FL 33301
      Telephone: (954) 525-4100
      Facsimile: (954) 525-4300
      E-mail: ostrow@kolawyers.com
              edelsberg@kolawyers.com


SIGNET JEWELERS: Glancy Prongay Files Securities Class Action
-------------------------------------------------------------
Glancy Prongay & Murray LLP ("GPM") on Aug. 26 disclosed that that
it has filed a class action lawsuit in the United States District
Court for the Southern District of New York on behalf of a class
(the "Class") consisting of persons and entities that acquired
Signet Jewelers Limited ("Signet" or the "Company") (NYSE: SIG)
securities between January 7, 2016 and June 3, 2016 (the "Class
Period").

If you are a member of the Class described above, you may move the
Court no later than sixty (60) days from the date of this notice,
to serve as lead plaintiff.  Please contact Casey Sadler at 888-
773-9224 or 310-201-9150, or at shareholders@glancylaw.com to
discuss this matter.

The complaint alleges that throughout the Class Period, Defendants
made false and/or misleading statements, as well as failed to
disclose material adverse facts about the Company's business,
operations, and prospects.  Specifically, Defendants made false
and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose: (1) that
the Company was experiencing difficulty ensuring the safety of
customers' jewelry while in the custody of Signet's brands; (2)
that employees at stores under at least one of Signet's brands
(Kay) were swapping customers' stones for less valuable stones;
(3) that the Company was experiencing a drop-off in customer
confidence; (4) that the Company was facing increasing competitive
pressures; (5) that, as result of the foregoing, the Company's
financial performance was being negatively impacted; and (6) that,
as a result of the foregoing, Defendants' positive statements
about Signet's business, operations, and prospects, were false and
misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis.

To be a member of the Class you need not take any action at this
time; you may retain counsel of your choice or take no action and
remain an absent member of the Class.  If you wish to learn more
about this action, or if you have any questions concerning this
announcement or your rights or interests with respect to these
matters, please contact Casey Sadler, Esquire, of Glancy Prongay &
Murray LLP, 1925 Century Park East, Suite 2100, Los Angeles,
California 90067, at (310) 201-9150, by e-mail to
shareholders@glancylaw.com, or visit our website at
http://www.glancylaw.com


SJ R & R: Faces Pyka Suit in Va. Over Adulterated Food and Drink
----------------------------------------------------------------
Laura L. Pyka, individually and on behalf of all persons similarly
situated v. SJ R & R Inc., d/b/a Tropical Smoothie Cafe; My TSC
Corporation, d/b/a Tropical Smoothie Cafe; and Batch-Wood, LLC,
d/b/a Tropical Smoothie Cafe of Herndon, Case No. 2016-12264 (Va.
Cir. Ct., August 30, 2016), is brought on behalf of all persons
who were exposed, by consumption of adulterated food and drink, to
the Hepatitis A virus (HAV) at the  Defendants' restaurants during
the exposure period in July and August 2016.

The Defendants own and operate Tropical Smoothie Cafe restaurants
in Virginia.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Salvator J. Zambri, Esq.
      Christopher J. Regan, Esq.
      REGAN ZAMBRI & LONG, PLLC
      1919 M Street, NW, Suite 350
      Washington, DC 20036
      Telephone: (202) 463-3030
      Facsimile: (202) 463-0667
      E-mail: szambri@reganfrrm.com
              cregan@reganfrrm.com


TIER ONE SECURITY: "Hernandez" Suit Seeks Overtime Pay
------------------------------------------------------
Fernando Hernandez, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Tier One Security, Incorporated
and Shawn Fluitt, Defendants, Case No. 5:16-cv-00868 (W.D. Tex.,
August 30, 2016), seeks to recover unpaid wages and other damages.

Defendants operate a business that provides gate guard services
for frac sites, drilling sites, ranches and other rural locations
throughout the state of Texas where Plaintiff worked as a gate
guard. Defendants misclassified Plaintiff as independent
contractors thus depriving him of mandatory compensation due an
employee.

Defendant is represented by:

      Todd Slobin, Esq.
      Ricardo J. Prieto
      11 Greenway Plaza, Suite 1515
      Houston, TX 77046
      Telephone: (713) 621-2277
      Facsimile: (713) 621-0993
      Tel: tslobin@eeoc.net
           rprieto@eeoc.net


UNITED AIRLINES: "Moss" Suit to Recover Sick Leave Benefits
-----------------------------------------------------------
Michael Moss, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. United Airlines, Inc., United Continental
Holdings, Inc., United Air Lines, Inc., Continental Airlines,
Inc., a Delaware corporation, Defendants, Case No. 1:16-cv-04852,
(E.D. N.Y., August 30, 2016), seeks compensation, fees and
expenses, including attorneys' fees, prejudgment interest on the
amount of lost wages or employment benefits due, compensatory
and/or liquidated damages in an amount equal to the amount of lost
compensation and other benefits and such other and further relief
pursuant to the Uniformed Services Employment and Reemployment
Rights Act of 1994.

Moss was commissioned as an officer with the United States Marine
Corps as an F/A-18 pilot. Moss was hired by United on February 21,
2000 as a pilot, where he worked until furloughed in September,
2009. On January 24, 2012, Moss was recalled from furlough, began
training and was placed as a pilot under the Continental
subsidiary.

Plaintiff Moss and the Sub-Class did not accrue sick time while on
long term military leaves of absence. Moss was not credited for
sixty-five hours of sick leave for the 13 months he performed
military service obligations. Continental allegedly disallowed
pilots who are on military leave to accrue sick time thereby
denying members of the benefit of employment.

United Airlines, Inc. is a corporation organized under the laws of
the State of Delaware with its principal place of business in the
State of Illinois.

Plaintiff is represented by:

     Joseph J. Siprut, Esq.
     Richard L. Miller II, Esq.
     Richard S. Wilson, Esq.
     SIPRUT PC
     17 North State Street, Suite 1600
     Chicago, IL 60602
     Phone: (312) 236-0000
     Fax: (312) 878-1342
     Email: rmiller@siprut.com
            rwilson@siprut.com
            siprut@siprut.com

            - and -

     Brian J. Lawler, Esq.
     PILOT LAW, P.C.
     1551 9th Avenue
     San Diego, CA 92101
     Phone: (866) 512-2465
     Fax: (619) 231-4984
     Email: blawler@pilotlawcorp.com

            - and -

     Gene J. Stonebarger, Esq.
     STONEBARGER LAW
     75 Iron Point Circle, Suite 145
     Folsom, CA 95630
     Phone: (916) 235-7140
     Fax: (916) 235-7141
     Email: gostonebarger@stonebargerlaw.com


WELLS FARGO: Faces "Villanueva" Class Suit in California
--------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been commenced against Wells Fargo
Bank, N.A. and Does 1 through 100, Inclusive.

The case is captioned Jonathan Villanueva, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A.
and Does 1 through 100, Inclusive, Case No. CGC 16 553969 (Cal.
Super. Ct., August 30, 2016).

Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. provides personal, small business, and
commercial banking services.


WEWORKS: Recent Court Ruling May Impact Arbitration Class Action
----------------------------------------------------------------
Dominique Paul Noth, writing for, reports that when the United
States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit joined the Seventh
Circuit on August 22 in declaring certain arbitration agreements
were overly broad for denying worker rights, the decision struck
fear in the hearts of corporations everywhere.

And it certainly struck the nervous system of their lawyers.
Fisher Phillips, a gigantic firm (33 offices, 350 attorneys) whose
central practice is representing employers, headlined the case as
"Employers Lose Latest Battle In National War" and bluntly tells
employers this decision is their "most bruising loss in the
ongoing war involving class action waivers."

Employment agreements requiring employees to submit workplace
claims to an arbitrator rather than utilizing the courts have
become increasingly commonplace.  It is a favored tactic in
avoiding or lowering the cost of litigation and an attractive way
to prevent workers from realizing what they're giving up.  This
tactic also abates these companies' biggest fear, a class or
collective action that gives workers a bigger say in how they are
treated.

The August 22 decision is not only a big blow against employers,
it has also exposed to the air the hidden seven-eighths of their
iceberg attack on worker rights.

Most everyone is familiar with the top eighth of the iceberg. This
is the ferocious direct and public assault on union coffers and
members through right to work (for less) laws in 25 states and
legislation like Wisconsin Act 10 that takes bargaining rights
away from state workers except for fire and police unions that
have supported Gov. Scott Walker.  The tone of the battle has
become familiar.

But while the public and most unions were focused on the surface,
worker rights have been chipped away through methods like
arbitration agreements, supposed human resource companies,
designations as individual contractors and other sophisticated
litigious tools that unions tend not to fight because the victims
are not usually union workers.

Not anymore.  Today you will find that union leaders and
representatives are very active in training these workers, who may
never even become union members, on worker rights and how to
retain/recover them.

One such case is directly affected by this Ninth Circuit Court of
Appeals decision.  It undermines a primary defense by WeWorks in
Tara Zoumer's case before the NLRB.  The company, which creates
shared office space for a network of corporations, argued its
arbitration agreement discharged them from any responsibility
though Ms. Zoumer refused to sign because it included a class
action waiver.

Ms. Zoumer had been newly hired by WeWorks as an associate
community manager in Berkeley, Calif. and thought that she had
found her dream job- until she found that her duties required more
overtime than her salary allowed.  When she turned to other
employees for help and advice, WeWorks waved the arbitration
agreement at her including class action waivers, which she refused
to sign.

California is among the sweeping territory covered by the Ninth
Ciruit -- also Washington, Arizona, Nevada, Oregon, Hawaii, Idaho,
Montana, and Alaska -- and the Seventh District has Wisconsin,
Illinois and Indiana.  Both now support the NLRB position limiting
the scope of arbitration agreements.  Since other appeals courts
have ruled the other way in cases within their jurisdiction, this
can only be resolved by the U.S. Supreme Court -- and clearly
won't even be brought up until the court is at full strength.

The WeWorks case demonstrates how a union expert was needed to
combat the signing away of overtime and of the right to collective
action or class action lawsuits.  The irony is how WeWorks and
many other startups pride themselves publicly on how good they are
to workers.  These new revelations of their labor practices seem
to have thrown a monkey wrench into the public offering of a
shared workspace company once valued at $15 billion.

Seth Goldstein, a New York City-based representative for OPEIU,
which primarily covers office workers, says he, his team and his
superiors are fully aware such action may not result in more union
members.  But it opens avenues for thousands of workers who didn't
know their rights had vanished -- until it was too late. Right-
wing think tanks have had some 30 years to develop such strategies
that attack the basis of union organizing -- workers talking to
each other about conditions and salaries.

The Times investigation determined that many firms thwart
meaningful legal action through runaway use of arbitration
agreements.  The investigation named Uber, Lyft, Amazon and Google
as arbitration devotees.

Today's court calendars and NLRB filings demonstrate how these
barricades to worker rights are being attacked with the quiet and
sometimes secret help of union experts -- many around the country
who don't speak of their actions until they're good and ready.

"They're out there, but it's something folks don't usually talk
about," said Phil Neuenfeldt, president of the Wisconsin AFL-CIO.

The stealth is understandable.  Corporations are expert at their
own methods and have lawyers on retainer, so many unions don't
want their efforts known too early -- and then they want the court
of public opinion to help.

Since he has openly filed, Mr. Goldstein is willing to discuss
several such cases.

People's World has already done several stories about the
rollbacks he helped impose on the giant home improvement chain
Menards, which has been ordered by the NLRB to change its handbook
and post its violation of labor law in all its stores and on its
website.  The surprise for many was how quickly Menards submitted.

Now Mr. Goldstein has expanded to truck drivers.  Some 1,200
Menard drivers have been told they are independent contractors,
but their contracts with these separate companies may be thrown
out if the NLRB agrees with Goldstein that Menards misclassified
drivers to avoid employer overtime and health regulations.

Another of Mr. Goldstein's efforts is truly novel, though he
doubts he'll win the first round.  It involves the widespread use
of Professional Employment Organizations, or PEO's, which seem to
work on smoothing human resources concerns but may actually have
hired the employee who still believes the boss is the employer.

Aside from benefits, payroll, workers' compensation, recruiting
and risk/safety, many PEOS engage in "employee leasing" in which
the PEO is actually an official employer of the worker at a
company.  Typically, responsibilities are shared between the
leasing company (PEO) and the business owner.  Mr. Goldstein, who
merged his efforts with Tara Zoumer's lawyer in her case, has now
focused on Tri-Net, a massive PEO that has a special employee
leasing contract with WeWorks.

His attack opens a serious legal question that the NLRB is now
contemplating and again expands the traditional management target:
Aren't the PEOs acting as co-employer equally responsible as the
company when worker rights are breached? Given how many companies
hire PEOs to help their business or even lease employees to them,
the nervousness of their lawyers could now escalate into
paroxysms.

Update: The board for Region 2 of the NLRB found August 26 that
WeWorks and Tri-Net violated the National Labor Relations Act. The
board agreed that WeWorks and Tri-Net served as co-employers for
the complaining employee.  Penalty details are forthcoming.


* King & Wood Provides Outlook on Australian Class Actions
----------------------------------------------------------
Peta Stevenson, Esq., and Moira Saville, Esq., of King & Wood
Mallesons, in an article for Lexology, report that a large number
of hearings have been set down in Australia, including:

   -- for the two Christmas Island class actions -- the first is a
negligence claim in relation to the sinking of asylum seeker
vessel SIEV221 (26 September 2016) and the second by detainees
alleging negligence in failure to provide adequate health care (14
November 2016),

   -- the claim by residents of the residential facility Grand
Western Lodge (commencing 27 September 2016), a claim by investors
of misleading conduct against Villa World Developments regarding a
Gold Coast property development (5 October 2016),

   -- the Allco shareholder class action (24 October 2016),
the Snake Valley bushfire class action (6 February 2017),
the Mickleham-Kilmore Bushfire class action (13 February 2017),
the Walla Walla class action brought in relation to negligent
management of a tip (April 2017),

   -- Sandhurst Trustees (on behalf of debenture holders of
Wickham Securities, 3 July 2017),

   -- the Johnson and Johnson class action over transvaginal mesh
surgery (4 July 2017) and,

   -- the Wivenhoe Dam class action for water-related damage (now
postponed to October 2017).

Significant appeals:

An application for leave to appeal, and the appeal itself, has
been heard in the McGraw Hill class action in respect of the
decision to order the defendants' chief executive officer to file
an affidavit in relation to the applicability of findings in two
earlier cases regarding certain aspects of the ratings
methodologies.  Judgment is reserved.

The Timbercorp appeal is due to be heard by the High Court in
September 2016.

Judgments:

King & Wood Mallesons awaits judgment on the common fund
application in the QBE class action.

Settlements:

A number of class action settlements are awaiting Court approval,
including the claim against the Commonwealth by workers with
intellectual disabilities claiming discrimination in relation to
the payment of wages (as yet undisclosed, August 30, 2016) and the
shareholder action against Tamaya Resources ($6.75 million,
September 16, 2016).  The equine influenza class action has been
abandoned, with an in principle settlement providing for
discontinuance of proceedings and no compensation (August 30,
2016).

Just outside the review period we have seen:

   -- approval of the OZ Minerals settlement ($32.5 million,  July
18, 2016) and settlement of the Rivercity class action in relation
to the preparation of traffic forecasts ($121 million, 10 August
2016).

   -- conditional settlement of the Jack River bushfire class
action and Billabong securities class action.

   -- the High Court's dismissal of the bank fees class action
against ANZ, with a majority holding that late payment fees did
not constitute penalties and are not otherwise unconscionable,
unjust or unfair under relevant statutory provisions.

Proposed class actions

A significant number of matters are being examined by law firms or
reported by media outlets as potential class action candidates.
Potential actions include:

Securities: actions against Arrium, Surfstitch, Dick Smith, a
second action in relation to Murray Goulburn, PaperlinX SPS Trust,
and Slater and Gordon.

Other investment and financial product claims: potentially include
an action against ANZ in relation to financial and investment
advice in failed investments in agribusiness schemes.

Government and public interest claims: against the Department of
Defence for toxic contamination of the land surrounding RAAF Base
Williamstown (with an additional investigation in relation to
contamination at Oakey); by drivers who suffered loss at the Road
Safety Remuneration Tribunal; against the Queensland government in
relation to contamination of land by underground gas company Linc
Energy; and by current and former employees of NSW Ambulance
Service for bullying and harassment.

Consumer claims:

   -- against egg producers for alleged misleading "free range"
claims;

   -- claims by farmers against milk processors for
representations about milk prices;

   -- against CommInsure for "unethical" processing of insurance
claims (with numerous firms investigating claims);

   -- against Dick Smith by gift card holders;

   -- against Thermomix for defective product injuries; by
7/Eleven franchisees over failure to disclose costs of running
franchises;

   -- against Bayer for an allegedly defective contraceptive
device;

   -- against Bet365 for failure to disclose onerous conditions of
bets offered;

   -- by patients of the Cosmetic Institute who allege negligence
in the performance of breast surgery;

   -- against poker machine manufacturers for misleading and
deceptive poker machine designs;

   -- against various banks for alleged rigging of the bank bill
swap rate;

   -- against Evocca College for substandard teaching and unfair
marketing practices;

   -- against Jetstar and Virgin for "drip pricing" tactics;
and against GSK regarding the side effects of anti-depressant
Paroxetine.

   -- Natural Disasters/Events: a class action in relation to the
2013 Lithgow bushfires.

Class actions commenced after the review period include:
   -- an action by India-based investors against the Australian-
based assets of the Pearls Group,

   -- an action by the families of passengers on Malaysian
Airlines flight MH17, and

   -- an action against PPTEP by Indonesian seaweed farmers in
relation to the 2009 Montara oil spill.

Regime change

On August 5, 2016, the Queensland Attorney-General Yvonne D'Ath
announced that legislation would be introduced within the month of
August to establish a class action regime in the Supreme Court.
Legislation that broadly mirrored the Federal, NSW and Victorian
regimes was introduced under the previous government but lapsed at
the 2015 election, and it is expected that a similar form will be
used.  Ms. D'Ath stated:

At present, Queenslanders who wish to take class action lawsuits
have to operate through other jurisdictions to do so.  For people
who are often involved in emotionally and financially difficult
circumstances, this can limit their access to justice through
unnecessary complexity and inconvenience.  There can also be an
additional cost burden for claimants who currently need to pursue
class action matters through other jurisdictions.  For cases that
are particularly pertinent to Queensland, it will also allow the
knowledge and expertise of our judges and lawyers to be better
utilized.

Only one class action was filed in Queensland in 2015/2016,
although a number of recent class actions with an obvious
Queensland nexus have been filed in the New South Wales Supreme
Court, such as the Queensland floods class action and Bank of
Queensland in relation to conduct by Brisbane-based Sherwin
Financial as well as two actions filed in the past 12 months
against Cash Converters regarding conduct affecting Queenslanders.

In Western Australia, the Law Reform Commission's report on
representative proceedings was released in October 2015,
recommending that the existing, limited procedure under the
Supreme Court Rules be supplemented with legislation to
accommodate greater access to representative proceedings.  While
the recommendation has received in principle support from the
present government and opposition alike, it is not expected that
any reforms will be introduced before the next State election in
March 2018.  In the meantime, a number of bushfire-related
proceedings are having to rely on the Supreme Court procedure.


* NSW Earns Position as Australia's Class Action Capital
--------------------------------------------------------
The Australian reports that NSW has secured its position as the
nation's class action capital after securing 83 per cent of new
class actions launched last year.

The surge in class actions in that state coincides with the
introduction of new rules on legal fees that allow NSW solicitors
to match those in Victoria and charge a 25 per cent premium for
successful cases.

In the year since the rules changed, 29 new class actions were
filed in NSW in the Federal and Supreme courts out of a national
total of 35.  This lifts the state's share from last year's 58 per
cent.

The state's dominance in new class actions has been identified a
report on class actions in Australia published on Aug. 26 by law
firm King & Wood Mallesons.

The report found the Federal Court has a clear lead as the
favorite jurisdiction for class actions lawyers.

It has 63 current class actions -- well ahead of the 15 that are
running in the Victorian Supreme Court and the 14 in the NSW
Supreme Court.

It also found that Slater & Gordon, once a leading force in class
actions, had filed no new class actions last year as the firm
grappled with a collapsing share price and troubled operations in
Britain.  Two other law firms are considering class actions
against Slaters.

Three new litigation funders have joined the Australian market:
New York-based Galactic Litigation Partners, Jersey-based Vannin
Capital and JustKapital which is listed on the Australian
Securities Exchange.

Sixteen of the 35 new class actions had been financed by
litigation funders but the report says the federal government has
still not responded to the Productivity Commission's 2014
recommendation for litigation funders to be licensed.

Moira Saville -- moira.saville@au.kwm.com -- one of the report's
co-authors, said NSW had traditionally been viewed as the nation's
litigation capital, but the rise of class actions had helped erode
that position.

This had been because major plaintiff law firms were based in
Victoria, which was ahead of NSW in permitting solicitors to
charge a 25 per cent "uplift" on their fees in successful cases.

Before an equivalent uplift was allowed in NSW, "Victoria really
had the running", Ms. Saville said.

"But we have now seen this huge rise in NSW actions.

"This may mean NSW is now an equal choice to Victoria and there
are many more solicitors in NSW trying their hand at it now. There
are 19 firms filing class actions," she said.

Partner Peta Stevenson, a co-author, said Queensland's decision to
allow class actions meant that state was attempting to retain
these claims for the state's courts instead of having them run in
NSW or Victoria.

The report says 16 class actions were settled last year for
$411.38 million, well below 2014's tally of almost $1 billion.

However, the terms of four significant settlements remain
confidential.

The most significant single settlement was $250m for a consumer
claim relating to DePuy International hip replacement products. By
contrast, no securities class action settled for more than $50m.

However, the report says last year was remarkable for the number
of class actions that failed.

These included the equine influenza class action, a settlement
that was rejected by the court in the Willmot Forest proceedings
and a permanent stay on a class action against Leighton Holdings
that had been launched by Mark Elliot's Melbourne City
Investments.

Other failures included MCI's claim against Treasury Wine Estates
and a claim against the Australian Securities & Investments
Commission that had been brought by former Storm Financial
investors.

The report warns there is an increasing trend for multiple class
actions to be filed against the same defendant or relating to the
same conduct after five sets of related claims were lodged last
year.

It says this trend leaves defendants to question when they can be
sure that litigation is truly over or whether they might need to
defend the same case several times.


* Number of Class Actions Reported Since CPL Adoption Limited
-------------------------------------------------------------
Peta Stevenson, Esq., and Liu Qian, Esq., of King & Wood
Mallesons, in an article for Lexology, report that while the term
"class action" is not known under PRC law, "representative
actions" are recognized under the Civil Procedure Law (CPL) with
mechanisms for claims involving either:

   -- an undetermined number of unidentified plaintiffs at the
point at which the case is filed (Article 54); or

   -- numerous plaintiffs, whose number and identity is known when
the action is initiated (Article 53).

Despite this framework, class actions are not yet common practice
in China.  This is because the Supreme People's Court (SPC) has
actively discouraged the lower level courts from accepting and
hearing proceedings in the form of class actions, and encourages
courts to divide class action into individual cases.

In addition, securities-related class actions are currently
prohibited in China.  In the Notice of Supreme People's Court on
Accepting Tort Cases Triggered By Misrepresentation in Security
Market, the SPC demands the lower courts accept and hear a
securities-related misrepresentation case in the form of an
individual case or a joint action (with ten or fewer plaintiffs),
rather than a class action.

There have been a limited number of class actions reported in the
PRC since the class action mechanism was adopted in CPL in 1991.
As noted in The Review 2014/2015, the types of claims in these
class actions have related to land acquisition, environment
contamination, consumer protection, copyright protection and
financial products, although no one type of claim dominates the
case list.

As a matter of practice, the SPC requires the lower courts to
report the class actions they accept to their superior courts.
Courts in different geographic areas are required to communicate
internally and to make unified decisions with the guidance of
their superior courts.

Looking ahead, & Wood Mallesons anticipates a continuing increase
in the attempts to use the class actions mechanisms provided by
the CPL across a broad range of actions.



                            *********

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  * * *