CAR_Public/160919.mbx              C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

            Monday, September 19, 2016, Vol. 18, No. 187




                            Headlines


AFFORDABLE HOME: Faces "Harrison" Suit Under FLSA, Ind. Wage Act
AMEDISYS INC: Court Trims Claims in Securities Class Suit
AMERICAN RENAL: "Esposito" Suit Claims Securities Act Violation
APPLE COMPUTERS: Faces "Cluff" Class Suit in Utah Dist. Ct.
ARKANSAS: Desegration Case Settlement Stands, 8th Cir. Rules

B&G FOODS: Faces "Horton" Lawsuit Over "Mislabeling" of Cereal
BBI LLC: "Davis" Lawsuit Asserts FLSA Violation
BEHRMAN BROTHERS: Faces "Garner" Suit Alleging WARN Act Violation
BENNY'S BURRITOS: Faces "Tapia" Suit Under FLSA, NY Labor Law
BIG E: "Cairo" Class Suit Removed to Florida Dist. Ct.

BLUE CROSS: Faces "Mahajan" Suit Alleging False Representation
BLUENRGY GROUP: "Lyons" Lawsuit Alleges Securities Laws Violation
BRINK'S INC: Faces "Adkins" Suit Under FLSA, Cal. Labor Code
BRINKER FLORIDA: "Lozada" Suit to Recover Overtime Pay
CENTRAL CREDIT: Faces "Schmitz" Suit Over FDCPA Violation

COBALT MORTGAGE: Settlement Objector Barred from Contacting Class
CONAIR CORP: Court Accepts Experts' Testimonies
CORELOGIC NATIONAL: Bid to Strike Proposed Subclasses Denied
CREDIT ONE: Court Stays Proceedings Pending Arbitration Outcome
CRICKET COMMS: "Scott" Case Remanded to Maryland State Court

DALLAS CENTRAL: Faces 6080A NCX Suit Over Appraisal Policies
DALLAS CENTRAL: Faces AFS 1122 Suit Over Appraisal Policies
DALLAS CENTRAL: Faces AGF Spring Suit Over Appraisal Policies
DALLAS CENTRAL: Faces "Wood" Suit in Tex. Over Appraisal Policies
DALLAS CENTRAL: Faces Grove Business Suit Over Appraisal Policies

DALLAS CENTRAL: Faces JP Stemmons Suit Over Appraisal Policies
DALLAS CENTRAL: Faces Landmark Suit Over Appraisal Policies
DALLAS CENTRAL: Faces MLRP 9660 Suit Over Appraisal Policies
DALLAS CENTRAL: Faces MLRP Park Suit Over Appraisal Policies
DALLAS CENTRAL: Faces Rosewood Suit Over Appraisal Policies

DALLAS CENTRAL: Faces University Drive Suit Over Appraisal Policy
DELUXE CORP: Court Narrows Claims in "Byler", Denies Transfer Bid
DIAMOND TOUCH: "Ramirez" Class Suit Removed to S.D. Florida
DOUBLE EAGLE: "Gordon" Lawsuit Seeks to Recoup Pay Under FLSA
E.I. DU PONT: Faces "Chance" Lawsuit Alleging Violation of FLSA

EASTCHESTER EVENTS: Faces "Pino" Suit Seeking to Recover Tips
ELITE PERSONNEL: Sued in N.J. Over Racial Discrimination
ELIZABETH ARDEN: Litigation Related to Revlon Merger Pending
ENVIRONMENTAL DRILLING: "Bertothy" Suit Invokes FLSA, Wage Act
ENVISION HEALTHCARE: Sued Over Proposed Sale to AmSurg Corp.

EVERALBUM INC: "McLemore" Lawsuit Alleges Violation of TCPA
FIFTH THIRD BANK: Miller Sues Over Illegal Phone Call Recording
FIORENTINO RISTORANTE: Faces Suit Under FLSA, NY Labor Laws
FRANCISCAN ALLIANCE: "Jewett" ERISA Suit Transferred to N.D. Ind.
FXCM INC: Court Dismisses Chicago Cops Retirement Fund's Suit

GABE'S CASING: Faces "Scheriger" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT
GLASSDOOR INC: Pincaro Suit Alleges Personal Data Breach
GLENTEX INC: Faces "De La Rosa" Lawsuit Alleging FLSA Violation
GODIVA AMERICAN: Faces "Varona" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
GOOGLE INC: 876 Plaintiffs Severed from Corley & Amaral Cases

HARRIS COUNTY: Faces Timber Ridge Suit Over Appraisal Policies
HARVEST CHADDS: Faces "Bland" Lawsuit Under FLSA, Pa. Wage Act
HOME PROPERTIES: Court Denies Motion to Deposit Funds
INNOVENTIONS INTL: Plaintiff Retains Standing under Calif. Law
ITT EDUCATIONAL: Faces "Federman" Suit Alleging WARN Act Breach

IY KHANDII: "Williams" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime
JOHN WEILAND: Arbitration Clause Enforceable, SC High Court Says
KANSAS CITY LANDSMEN: 8th Cir. Affirmed $17K Attorney's Fee Award
KOCH FOODS: Maplevale Farms Files Antitrust Suit Over Broilers
LEO EDELSBERG: Sued Over Americans with Disabilities Act Breach

LIBERTY MUTUAL: 9th Cir. Reinstates Claim in "Moyle" Case
LUMBER LIQUIDATORS: Faces "Gonzalez" Suit Over Toxic Flooring
LUXURY SUITES: Nevada Judge Rejects Settlement, 40% Fee Award
MAGNA HEALTH: "Johnson" Suit Seeks Unpaid Overtime, Backwages
MARIETTA MEMORIAL: Nurses' Suit Has Conditional Certification

MEDPRO GROUP: Carrel's Breach of Contract Claim Dismissed
MICHAEL SMITH: Sued Over NY Religious Corporations Law Violation
MIDLAND CREDIT: Arbitration Agreement Enforceable, NJ Judge Says
MIDLAND FUNDING: Fraudulent Judgment Victims' Suit Dismissed
MINES MANAGEMENT: O'Rourke, Schubert and Assad Suits Filed

MINES MANAGEMENT: Court Dismisses "Assad" Suit Over Merger Deal
MODERNIZE INC: "Johansen" Sues Over Unsolicited Sales Calls
NCR CORP: Waived Right on Class Arbitration Issue, Court Says
NEVADA CHECKER: Court Dismisses "Noble" Complaint
NGL WAREHOUSE Faces "Aguilar" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime

PATHWAY LEASING: Franklin Merrill Alleges Violation of FLSA
PMLRA PIZZA: Federal Circuit Appeal Lodged in "Reeves" Case
REALTIME STAFFING: Doesn't Properly Pay Employees, Action Claims
REMX INC: Arbitration Agreement Enforceable, Cal. App. Says
RENNERT MIAMI: "Luckett" Suit to Recover Overtime Pay

ROCKVILLE AUTO: Faces "Radfar" Suit Under FLSA, Md. Labor Laws
SIGNET JEWELERS: Sued in N.Y. Over Misleading Financial Reports
SKY VIEW: Meneses Suit Seeks Overtime Pay, Illegal Deductions
SODEXO INC: Faces "Mejia" Lawsuit Under FLSA, Cal. Labor Laws
SOUTHEASTERN CONFERENCE: "Richardson" Sues over Football Hazard

STARBUCKS CORPORATION: "Crittenden" Suit Transferred to N.D. Cal.
STATE STREET: Faces "Abreu" Lawsuit Alleging Violation of FCRA
SUNTRUST BANKS: Court Grants Class Certification in ERISA Case
SUPERIOR SCHOOLS: Faces "Rumsey" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT
SUPER QUALITY: Faces "Canizalez" Suit Under FLSA, Col. Wage Laws

T-N-T OF YORK: EEOC Files Suit Alleging Racial Discrimination
TJX COMPANIES: Must Defend Against Suit Over Deceptive Prices
TOWN OF PARRISH: Faces "Criswell" Suit Alleging Violation of FLSA
TRANSUNION: Illinois Judge Narrows Claims in Sgouros Suit
TRANSWORLD SYSTEMS: Illegally Collects Debt, "Shrem" Suit Claims

UNITED NATIONS: 2nd Cir. Affirms Dismissal of Suit Over Epidemic
UNITED STATES: Veterans' Suit v. Defense Dept. Dismissed
UNITED STATES: 8th Cir. Revives Johnson Claims Against USDA
VGC INC: Ala. Suit Alleges Failure to Pay Min. Wage Under FLSA
VILLA SERENA: "Martin" Sues Over Retalliation, Unpaid OT, Wages

VISIONWORKS OF AMERICA: Summary Judgment Bid Granted in Part
VIVIFY SERVICES: Faces "Davis" Suit in Ill. Cir. Ct.
WALGREEN CO: 7th Reverses Approval of Settlement in Merger Case
WASHINGTON SUBURBAN: Wins Summary Judgment in "Floyd" Suit
XE SERVICES: Motions to Dismiss on Hold Pending Arbitration


                            *********


AFFORDABLE HOME: Faces "Harrison" Suit Under FLSA, Ind. Wage Act
----------------------------------------------------------------
HEATHER HARRISON, individually and on behalf of all similarly
situated persons, Plaintiff, v. AFFORDABLE HOME CARE, LLC,
Defendant, Case No. 1:16-cv-02371-SEB-MPB (S.D. Ind., September 2,
2016), alleges willful violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act
and the Indiana Minimum Wage Law.

AFFORDABLE HOME CARE, LLC provides homecare services.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Robert T. Dassow, Esq.
     William F. Eckhart, Esq.
     HOVDE DASSOW & DEETS, LLC
     Meridian Tower
     10201 N. Illinois Street, Suite 500
     Indianapolis, IN 46290

        - and -

     Molly E. Nephew, Esq.
     Jacob R. Rusch, Esq.
     David H. Grounds, Esq.
     JOHNSON BECKER, PLLC
     444 Cedar Street, Suite 1800
     Saint Paul, MN 55101
     Phone: (612) 436-1800
     Fax: (612) 436-1801
     E-mail: jrusch@johnsonbecker.com
             dgrounds@johnsonbecker.com
             mnephew@johnsonbecker.com


AMEDISYS INC: Court Trims Claims in Securities Class Suit
---------------------------------------------------------
Chief District Judge Brian A. Jackson of the United States
District Court for the Middle District of Louisiana granted in
part Defendants' motion to dismiss Plaintiffs' First Amended
Complaint (FAC) in the case captioned, ROBERT F. BACH, ET AL., v.
AMEDISYS, INC., ET AL, Case No. 10-00395-BAJ-RLB (M.D. La.).

Lead Plaintiffs Public Employees' Retirement System of Mississippi
(Mississippi PERS) and Puerto Rico Teachers' Retirement System
(Puerto Rico TRS) (Plaintiffs) bring the consolidated class action
on behalf of all who purchased or otherwise acquired Amedisys's
publicly traded securities from August 2, 2005 to September 30,
2011 (the Class Period). They allege that Amedisys and seven
current or former members of Amedisys's senior management
(Individual Defendants) defrauded investors by concealing a
Medicare fraud scheme in violation of Section 10(b) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (Exchange Act), 15 U.S.C. Sec.
78j(b), and Rule 10b-5, 17 C.F.R. Sec. 240.10b-5, as promulgated
thereunder. Plaintiffs also bring claims against Individual
Defendants under Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act, 15 U.S.C. Sec.
78t(a).

On November 12, 2013, Amedisys issued a press release announcing
that it had agreed to enter into a $150 million settlement with
the Department of Justice based upon the allegations.

Defendants seek to have Plaintiffs' First Amended Consolidated
Securities Class Action Complaint dismissed for failure to state a
claim upon which relief can be granted pursuant to Federal Rule of
Civil Procedure (Rule) 12(b)(6).

In his Ruling and Order dated August 19, 2016 available at
https://is.gd/yaljhy from Leagle.com, Judge Jackson granted the
motion to dismiss Plaintiffs' First Amended Consolidated
Securities Class Action Complaint as to Plaintiffs' Section 10(b)
and Rule 10b-5 claims against defendants Graham, Redman, Giblin,
Browne, and Schwartz and Plaintiffs' Section 20(a) claims against
Browne and Giblin because Plaintiffs have not adequately pled
Section 20(a) claims against Browne and Giblin.

The Court denied with respect to Plaintiffs' Section 10(b) and
Rule 10b-5 claims against defendants Amedisys, Borne, and Jeter,
and Plaintiffs' Section 20(a) claims against Borne, Jeter,
Schwartz, Redman, and Graham because Plaintiff has adequately pled
Section 20(a) claims against Borne, Jeter, Schwartz, Redman, and
Graham.

Robert F. Bach and Diane E. Bach are represented by Jeremy A.
Lieberman, Esq. -- jalieberman@pomlaw.com -- and Marc I. Gross,
Esq. -- migross@ponlaw.com -- POMERANTZ GROSSMAN HUFFORD DAHLSTROM
& GROSS LLP -- Gerald D. Wells, III, Esq. -- gwells@cwg-law.com --
CONNOLLY WELLS & GRAY, LLP -- J. Gerard Stranch, Esq. --
gerards@BSJFirm.com -- BRANSTETTER, STRANCH & JENNINGS

City of Birmingham Retirement and Relief System is represented by
Gerald D. Wells, III, Esq. -- CONNOLLY WELLS & GRAY, LLP -- J.
Gerard Stranch, Branstetter, Esq. -- gerards@BSJFirm.com --
STRANCH & JENNINGS

Nirav T. Patel is represented by Richard J. Arsenault, Esq. --
rarsenault@nbalawfirm.com -- Charles Michael Bollinger, Esq. --
cbollinger@nbalawfirm.com -- NEBLETT, BEARD & ARSENAULT -- Gerald
D. Wells, III, Esq. -- gwells@cwg-law.com -- CONNOLLY WELLS &
GRAY, LLP -- J. Gerard Stranch, Esq. -- gerards@BSJFirm.com --
BRANSTETTER, STRANCH & JENNINGS

Amedisys Securities Investors is represented by Gerald D. Wells,
III, Esq. -- gwells@cwg-law.com -- CONNOLLY WELLS & GRAY, LLP --
J. Gerard Stranch, Esq. -- gerards@BSJFirm.com -- BRANSTETTER,
STRANCH & JENNINGS

Amedisys, Inc.,  et al. are represented by Richard Franklin
Zimmerman, Jr., Esq. -- richard@kswb.com -- and Julie Moffett
McCall, Esq. -- julie@kswb.com -- KANTROW, SPAHT, WEAVER & BLITZER
-- Darren A. Shuler, Esq. -- dshuler@kslaw.com -- David E.
Meadows, Esq. -- dmeadows@kslaw.com -- David Tetrick, Jr., Esq. --
dtetrick@kslaw.com -- and -- Michael R. Smith, Esq. --
msmith@kslaw.com -- KING & SPALDING, LLP

Alice Schwartz is represented by Alfred Paul LeBlanc, Jr., Esq. --
paul.leblanc@phelps.com -- Jane Robert Goldsmith, Esq. --
jane.goldsmith@phelps.com -- Jessica C. Huffman, Esq. --
jessica.huffman@phelps.com -- Karleen Joseph Green, Esq. --
karleen.green@phelps.com -- and Shelton Dennis Blunt, Esq. --
dennis.blunt@phelps.com -- PHELPS DUNBAR, LLP

The Plan Administrative Committee, et al. are represented by
Thomas W. Darling, Esq. -- GAUDRY, RANSON, HIGGINS & GREMILLION --
Darren A. Shuler, Esq. -- dshuler@kslaw.com -- David Tetrick, Jr.,
Esq. -- dtetrick@kslaw.com -- and Michael B. Wakefield, Esq. --
mwakefield@kslaw.com -- KING & SPALDING


AMERICAN RENAL: "Esposito" Suit Claims Securities Act Violation
---------------------------------------------------------------
MARY ESPOSITO, Individually and on Behalf of All Other Persons
Similarly Situated, Plaintiff, v. AMERICAN RENAL ASSOCIATES
HOLDINGS, INC., JOSEPH A. CARLUCCI, JONATHAN L. WILCOX, and SYED
T. KAMAL, Defendants, Case 1:16-cv-11797 (D. Mass., September 2,
2016), is a federal securities class action on behalf of a class
consisting of all persons other than Defendants who purchased or
otherwise acquired ARA securities pursuant to a Registration
Statement or on a U.S. stock exchange between April 20, 2016 and
August 18, 2016, both dates inclusive.

AMERICAN RENAL ASSOCIATES HOLDINGS, INC., a provider of outpatient
dialysis services, owns and operates approximately 200 dialysis
clinics throughout the country.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

     Mark A. Delaney, Esq.
     Leslie R. Stern, Esq.
     Mark A. Delaney, Esq.
     BERMAN DEVALERIO
     One Liberty Square
     Boston, MA 02109
     Phone: (617) 542-8300
     Fax: (617) 542-1194
     E-mail: lstern@bermandevalerio.com
             mdelaney@berrmandevalerio.com

        - and -

     Robert C. Finkel, Esq.
     WOLF POPPER LLP
     845 Third Avenue
     New York, NY 10022
     Phone: 212-759-4600


APPLE COMPUTERS: Faces "Cluff" Class Suit in Utah Dist. Ct.
-----------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been commenced against Apple Computers.

The case is captioned Julie Cluff, Ron Cluff, Zachary Christensen,
Jerri Lynn Larsen, Bodi Smith, Amanda Larsen, Kevin Smith, on
behalf of himself and others similarly situated v. Apple
Computers, Case No. 2:16-cv-00916-EJF (D. Utah, August 31, 2016).

Apple Computers designs, develops, and sells consumer electronics,
computer software, and online services.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Zane L. Christensen, Esq.
      Steven A. Christensen, Esq.
      CHRISTENSEN YOUNG & ASSOCIATES
      9980 S 300 W ste 200
      Sandy, UT 84070
      Telephone: (866) 861-3333
      E-mail: zanechristensen@christensenyounglaw.com
              stevenchristen@gmail.com

ARKANSAS: Desegration Case Settlement Stands, 8th Cir. Rules
------------------------------------------------------------
Circuit Judge Jane Kelly of the Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit
affirmed a district court's denial of a Rule 60(b)(5) motion filed
by several school districts in Arkansas seeking termination of the
Garland County School Desegregation Case Comprehensive Settlement
Agreement reached in the case captioned, W.T. Davis, Individually
and on behalf of a Class of Taxpayers of Garland County, Arkansas,
Similarly Situated, and; Garland County Chapter of the N.A.A.C.P.,
Plaintiffs-Appellees, v. Hot Springs School District; Arkansas,
State of; Arkansas State Board of Education, Defendants-Appellees,
Earle Love, Individually, and as a Member of the Arkansas State
Board of Education; L.D. Harris, Individually, and as a Member of
the Arkansas State Board of Education; Jeff Starling,
Individually, and as a Member of the Arkansas State Board of
Education; Robert L. Newton, Individually, and as a Member of the
Arkansas State Board of Education; Dr. Harry P. McDonald,
Individually, and as a Member of the Arkansas State Board of
Education; Rae-Perry, Individually, and as a Member of the
Arkansas State Board of Education; Elaine Scott, Individually, and
as a Member of the Arkansas State Board of Education; Walter
Turnbow, Individually, and as a Member of the Arkansas State Board
of Education; Nancy Wood, Individually, and as a Member of the
Arkansas State Board of Education; Garland County Board of
Education; Van Smith, Individually, and as a Member of the Garland
County Board of Education; Carl L. Johnson, Individually, and as a
Member of the Garland County Board of Education; Flora Kimball,
Individually, and as a Member of the Garland County Board of
Education; Ira Livers, Individually, and as a Member of the
Garland County Board of Education; John Wainscott, Individually,
and as a Member of the Garland County Board of Education; E.T.
Shuffield, Individually, and as a Member of the Garland County
Board of Education, Defendants, Cutter Morning Star School
District; Fountain Lake School District; Jessieville School
District; Lake Hamilton School District; Lakeside School District;
Mountain Pine School District, Defendants-Appellants, Case No. 15-
1919 (8th Cir.).

On August 18, 1989, W.T. Davis filed, individually and on behalf
of a class of taxpayers of Garland County, Arkansas, a class
action lawsuit against Garland County alleging that it maintained
a racially-segregated public school system in violation of the
Fourteenth Amendment and 42 U.S.C. Sec. 1983. The parties agreed
to settle the case and entered into the Agreement on November 25,
1991.

In 2012, the district court, as a result of independent
litigation, held the provision of the School Choice Act limiting
transfers on the basis of race violated the Equal Protection
Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. In 2013, the Arkansas
legislature repealed the 1989 Act and replaced it with the
Arkansas Public School Choice Act of 2013 (2013 School Choice
Act). See Ark. Code Ann. Sec. 6-18-1901 et seq.  The 2013 School
Choice Act removed the race-based limitation on public school
transfers and included a provision preventing the receiving school
district from discriminating on the basis of race.

Cutter Morning Star School District, Fountain Lake School
District, Jessieville School District, Lake Hamilton School
District, and Mountain Pine School District (the school districts)
sought termination of the Garland County School Desegregation Case
Comprehensive Settlement Agreement (the Agreement) and relief from
the district court's 1992 order enforcing it. The district court
concluded that the school districts had failed to meet the
standard for termination under Rule 60(b)(5) and denied their
motion.

On appeal, the school districts argued that their Rule 60(b)(5)
motion should be governed by the standard set forth in Rufo v.
Inmates of Suffolk County Jail, which requires a party seeking
modification of a consent decree to establish "that a significant
change in circumstances warrants revision."

In her Order dated August 18, 2016 available at
https://is.gd/OGz1h2 from Leagle.com, Judge Kelly agreed with the
district court that the school districts have not shown evidence
of full compliance and that the change in the law presented by the
school districts, standing alone, is not enough to require
termination of the Agreement in the case.

Hot Springs School District and Arkansas State Board of Education
are represented by Allen P. Roberts, Esq. --
kroberts@cdcglobal.com -- and -- Jeremy Christopher Lasiter, Esq.
-- Jeremy.Lasiter@arkansas.gov

Earl Love, et al. are represented by Dan Franklin Bufford, Esq.
Jess Askew, III, Esq. M. Samuel Jones, III, Esq. --
sjones@mwlaw.com -- MITCHELL WILLIAMS -- Ashley Welch Hudson, Esq.
-- Ashley.Hudson@KutakRock.com -- KUTAK ROCK LLP -- Luke K.
Burton, Esq. -- lburton@irell.com -- IRELL & MANELLA LLP; D. Scott
Hickman, Esq. -- shickman@srvhlaw.com -- SHERRARD ROE VOIGT
HARBISON

W.T. Davis, et al. are represented by Quincy Byrum Hurst, Jr.,
Esq. -- qbyrum@hurstlaw.org -- and Justin Byrum Hurst, Esq. --
josh@hurstlaw.org -- HURST LAW GROUP


B&G FOODS: Faces "Horton" Lawsuit Over "Mislabeling" of Cereal
--------------------------------------------------------------
Michael Horton, individually and on behalf of a class of similarly
situated individuals, Plaintiff, v. B&G Foods, Inc., a Delaware
Corporation; B&G Foods North America, Inc., a Delaware
Corporation; Defendants, Case 2:16-cv-06638-GW-E (C.D. Cal.,
September 2, 2016), alleges that the company mislabels and falsely
advertises its cereal as containing maple in violation of the
California Consumer Legal Remedies Act, the California False
Advertising Law, the California Unfair Competition Law, the
California Sherman Food, Drug and Cosmetic Law, the Federal Food,
Drug and Cosmetic Act.

B&G Foods, Inc. and B&G Food North America, Inc. manufactures,
markets and distributes Cream of Wheat Instant Hot Cereal.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Gerald B. Malanga, Esq.
     LATTIE, MALANGA, LIBERTINO, LLP
     3731 Wishire Boulevard, Suite 860
     Los Angeles, CA 90010
     Phone: (323) 938-3102
     Fax: (323) 938-0110


BBI LLC: "Davis" Lawsuit Asserts FLSA Violation
-----------------------------------------------
EUGENE DAVIS and CALVIN WALKER, individually and on behalf of a
class of similarly situated individuals, Plaintiffs, v. BBI LLC
Defendant, Case No. 1:16-cv-03325-LMM (N.D. Ga., September 2,
2016), alleges violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act by the
Defendant against installation and repair technicians, who
performed satellite television installation and repair services
for the Defendant.

BBI LLC's core business is performing installation and repair
services for subscribers of DirecTV.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

     John Mays, Esq.
     MAYS & KERR, LLC
     235 Peachtree Street NE
     202 North Tower
     Atlanta, GA 30303
     Phone: (404) 410-7998
     Fax: (404) 855-0820
     E-mail: john@maysandkerr.com

        - and -

     Harold Lichten, Esq.
     Thomas Fowler, Esq.
     LICHTEN & LISS-RIORDAN, P.C.
     729 Boylston Street, Suite 2000
     Boston, MA 02116
     Phone: (617) 994-5800
     Fax: (617) 994-5801
     E-mail: hlichten@llrlaw.com
             tfowler@llrlaw.com


BEHRMAN BROTHERS: Faces "Garner" Suit Alleging WARN Act Violation
-----------------------------------------------------------------
WINIFRED MARIE GARNER and SOPHIA THEUS, on their own behalf and on
behalf of all other persons similarly situated, Plaintiffs,
v. BEHRMAN BROTHERS IV, LLC and BEHRMAN BROTHERS MANAGEMENT CORP.,
Defendants, Case No. 1:16-cv-6968 (S.D.N.Y., September 6, 2016),
seeks to recover damages equivalent to 60 days' pay and Employee
Retirement Income Security Act benefits by reason of Defendants'
alleged violation of the Plaintiffs' rights under the Worker
Adjustment and Retraining Notification Act.

BEHRMAN BROTHERS MANAGEMENT CORP. is an investment advisory firm.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

     Stuart J. Miller, Esq.
     LANKENAU & MILLER, LLP
     132 Nassau Street, Suite 1100
     New York, NY 10038
     Phone: (212) 581-5005
     Fax: (212) 581-2122
     E-mail: sjm@lankmill.com

        - and -

     Mary E. Olsen, Esq.
     M. Vance McCrary, Esq.
     THE GARDNER FIRM, P.C.
     210 S. Washington Avenue
     Mobile, AL 36602
     Phone: (251) 433-8100
     Fax: (251) 433-8181
     E-mail: molsen@thegardnerfirm.com



BENNY'S BURRITOS: Faces "Tapia" Suit Under FLSA, NY Labor Law
-------------------------------------------------------------
ANDRES FUENTES TAPIA, CESAR GRANADOS, JAIME GUADARRAMA DE
JESUS, JOSE SONTAY, RUBEN PEREZ, and JAVIER FLORES SEGUNDO
Plaintiffs, v. BENNY'S BURRITOS, INC. (d/b/a BENNY'S BURRITOS),
EGG WHITE, INC. (d/b/a BLOCKHEADS), 954 SECOND CORP. (d/b/a
BLOCKHEADS), KIOSK 50 CORP. (d/b/a BLOCKHEADS), JOHN DOE CORP.
(d/b/a BLOCKHEADS), DONALD SOFER and KENNETH SOFER,
Defendants, Case 1:16-cv-06957 (S.D.N.Y., September 6, 2016),
seeks to recover unpaid minimum wages pursuant to the Fair Labor
Standards Act of 1938 and the N.Y. Labor Law.

Defendants own, operate, and/or control a chain of Mexican
restaurants.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

     Michael A. Faillace, Esq.
     MICHAEL FAILLACE &ASSOCIATES, P.C.
     60 East 42nd Street, Suite 2540
     New York, NY 10165
     Phone: (212) 317-1200
     Fax: (212) 317-1620


BIG E: "Cairo" Class Suit Removed to Florida Dist. Ct.
------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit styled Fabian Cairo, and other similarly
situated delivery drivers v. Big E Transport, LLC, Case No. 15-CA-
11463, was removed from the 13th Judicial Circuit in and for
Hillsborough County, Florida to the U.S. District Court Middle
District of Florida (Tampa). The District Court Clerk assigned
Case No. 8:16-cv-02539-VMC-TGW to the proceeding.

The case asserts labor-related claims.

Big E Transport, LLC operates a freight shipping and trucking
company in Richmond, Virginia.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Brody Max Shulman, Esq.
      Jason S. Remer, Esq.
      REMER & GEORGES-PIERRE, PLLC
      44 W Flager St Ste 2200
      Miami, FL 33130-6807
      Telephone: (305) 416-5000
      Facsimile: (305) 415-5005
      E-mail: bshulman@rgpattorneys.com
              jremer@rgpattorneys.com

The Defendant is represented by:

      Charles J. Thomas, Esq.
      Gregory Alan Hearing, Esq.
      THOMPSON, SIZEMORE, GONZALEZ & HEARING, PA
      201 N Franklin St-Ste 1600, PO Box 639
      Tampa, FL 33601-0639
      Telephone: (813) 273-0050
      Facsimile: (813) 273-0072
      E-mail: cthomas@tsghlaw.com
              ghearing@tsghlaw.com


BLUE CROSS: Faces "Mahajan" Suit Alleging False Representation
--------------------------------------------------------------
Jacqueline Wyka Mahajan, individually, and as a guardian ad litem
for G.D. Mahajan, for themselves and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. Blue Cross Blue Shield
Association, Defendant, Case 1:16-cv-06944-PKC (S.D.N.Y.,
September 3, 2016), alleges that Defendant's representations
concerning the availability of covered benefits under its Service
Benefit Plan were materially false.

Blue Cross Blue Shield Association -- http://www.bcbs.com/-- is a
national federation of 36 independent and locally operated Blue
Cross and Blue Shield companies.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Damon McDougal, Esq.
     LAW OFFICES OF DAMON MCDOUGAL LLC
     300 Winston Drive #103
     Cliffside Park, NJ 07010
     Phone: (973) 536-5470
     E-mail: mcdougallaw.dm@gmail.com


BLUENRGY GROUP: "Lyons" Lawsuit Alleges Securities Laws Violation
-----------------------------------------------------------------
KENNETH LYONS, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, vs. BLUENRGY GROUP LIMITED, f/k/a CBD ENERGY
LIMITED, RICHARD PILLINGER, TODD BARLOW, CARLO BOTTO, WILLIAM
MORRO, and JAMES GREER Defendants, Case 4:16-cv-02704 (S.D. Tex.,
September 6, 2016), was filed on behalf of a purported class
consisting of all persons or entities, other than Defendants, who
purchase or otherwise acquired the common stock of BlueNRGY, f/k/a
CBD Energy Limited during the period from June 13, 2014 to October
24, 2014.

BLUENRGY GROUP LIMITED and its subsidiaries operate in the global
renewal energy and energy-efficiency sectors, providing various
renewal energy services and technologies.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Keith R. Lorenze, Esq.
     THE ROSEN LAW FIRM, P.A.
     101 Greenwood Avenue, Suite 440
     Jenkintown, PA 19046
     Phone: (215) 600-2817
     Fax: (212) 202-3827
     Email: klorenze@rosenlegal.com

        - and -

     Phillip Kim, Esq.
     Laurence M. Rosen, Esq.
     Yu Shi, Esq.
     THE ROSEN LAW FIRM, P.A.
     275 Madison Avenue, 34th Floor
     New York, NY 10016
     Phone: (212) 686-1060
     Fax: (212) 202-3827
     E-mail: pkim@rosenlegal.com
             lrosen@rosenlegal.com
             yshi@rosenlegal.com


BRINK'S INC: Faces "Adkins" Suit Under FLSA, Cal. Labor Code
------------------------------------------------------------
WILLIAM ADKINS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. BRINK'S, INC., Defendant, Case No. 2:16-
at-01108 (E.D. Cal., September 2, 2016), was filed under the Fair
Labor Standards Act and the California Labor Code.

Brink's, Inc. is a security and protection company.

The Plaintiff is represented:

     Adam Rose, Esq.
     LAW OFFICE OF ROBERT L. STARR
     23901 Calabasas Road, Suite 2072
     Calabasas, CA 91302
     Phone: (818) 225-9040
     Fax: (818) 225-9042
     E-mail: adam@starrlaw.com


BRINKER FLORIDA: "Lozada" Suit to Recover Overtime Pay
------------------------------------------------------
Angel Lozada, on his behalf and on behalf of others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. Brinker Florida, Inc., Defendant, Case No.
Case No. 1:16-cv-23736 (S.D. Fla., August 31, 2016), seeks to
recover unpaid minimum wages, unpaid overtime compensation, and
liquidated damages, prejudgment interest, and reasonable
attorneys' fees and costs under the Fair Labor Standards Act and
Florida Labor Law.

Brinker of Florida, Inc. operates as Chili's Bar and Grill where
Plaintiff was employed as a server and waiter. Lozada claims to
have worked off the clock and was not compensated accordingly.

Defendant is represented by:

      Paul F. Penichet, Esq.
      PENICHET LAW
      9655 S. Dixie Highway, Suite 310
      Miami, FL 33156
      Tel: (305) 373-8809
      Fax: (305) 373-8810
      Email: Paul@penichetlaw.com


CENTRAL CREDIT: Faces "Schmitz" Suit Over FDCPA Violation
---------------------------------------------------------
SHEILA SCHMITZ, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly
Situated, Plaintiff, vs. CENTRAL CREDIT SERVICES, LLC, and
SYNCHRONY BANK, Defendants, Case No.: 16-cv-1199 (E.D. Wis.,
September 6, 2016), seeks redress for collection practices that
allegedly violate the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act, and
Wisconsin Consumer Act, Wisconsin Statutes.

CENTRAL CREDIT SERVICES, LLC is a collection agency.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


COBALT MORTGAGE: Settlement Objector Barred from Contacting Class
-----------------------------------------------------------------
District Judge John C. Coughenour of the United States District
Court for the Western District of Washington granted Defendant
Cobalt's motion for preliminary injunction and motion for a
corrective communication in the case captioned, FRANCENE GREWE and
LORI EBELHARD, on behalf of others similarly situated, Plaintiff,
v. COBALT MORTGAGE, INC., Defendant, Case No. C16-577-JCC (W.D.
Wash.).

On April 21, 2016, the matter was filed in the Court after the
parties participated in mediation. The same day, April 21, the
parties sought certification of the Fair Labor Standards Act
(FLSA) collective action and approval of the settlement achieved
at mediation.

On May 2, 2016, Eric Engelland moved to intervene and objected to
the proposed settlement. The Court granted the motion to
intervene, considered Mr. Engelland's objections, and ordered the
parties to submit additional briefing before it would approve the
settlement.

After approving the collective action settlement and adopting a
notice process, the Court has been informed that Engelland's
counsel Jeff James, Esq., sent a letter to putative members of the
settlement class who may also be potential class members in the
Bell-Beals suit pending in King County Superior Court.

Cobalt seeks a preliminary injunction prohibiting Engelland,
James, and the law firm of Sebris Busto James, from further
communicating with the putative class until September 12, 2016,
one week after Court-approved notice materials are sent. On August
11, 2016, Cobalt also moved the Court to issue a corrective
communication to those contacted by Engelland.

In his Order dated August 19, 2016 available at
https://is.gd/x9ZYJP from Leagle.com, Judge Coughnenor found that
the requirements of Fed. R. Civ. P. 65(a) are satisfied and that
James's letter was misleading and potentially confusing to
putative class members.

Engelland and his counsel were prohibited from further contact
with the putative class discussing the Grewe settlement, including
communications that discourage settlement participation, until
September 12, 2016 and to provide Cobalt's counsel with a list of
individuals to whom James's July 28, 2016, letter was sent.

Francene Grewe and Lori Eberhard are represented by Beth E.
Terrell, Esq. -- bterrell@tmdwlaw.com -- TERRELL MARSHALL LAW
GROUP PLLC -- Rowdy B. Meeks, Esq. -- Meeks@rmlegalgroup.com --
ROWDY MEEKS LEGAL GROUP LLC

Cobalt Mortgage Inc. is represented by Taylor S. Ball, Esq. --
taylorball@dwt.com -- Ryan Coby Hess, Esq. -- ryanhess@dwt.com --
and Sheehan H. Sullivan Weiss, Esq. -- sheehanweiss@dwt.com  --
AVIS WRIGHT TREMAINE


CONAIR CORP: Court Accepts Experts' Testimonies
-----------------------------------------------
District Judge Roger T. Benitez of the United States District
Court for the Southern District of California denied Defendant's
motion to exclude Plaintiffs' expert Phil Van Herle and
Plaintiffs' motion to exclude portions of the testimony of
Defendant's expert Robert Carnahan in the case captioned, CYNTHIA
L. CZUCHAJ, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, et al., Plaintiffs, v. CONAIR CORPORATION, a Delaware
corporation, Defendant, Case No. 3:13-CV-01901-BEN-RBB (S.D. Cal.)

The certified class action arises out of Defendant's sales of its
Infiniti Pro 1875 Watt model 259/279 hair dryer. Plaintiffs allege
that there are two defects in the hair dryer. First, they allege
that the strain relief to the power cord of the hair dryer had a
tendency to cause the power cord to fail, resulting in the
expulsion of sparks and molten metal particles that presented a
fire hazard and burn risk (cord defect). Second, they contend that
the hair dryer's heater coils "sawed" through their mica support
boards inside the barrel of the hair dryer, eventually coming into
contact and short-circuiting, resulting in coils breaking and
discharging from the barrel, which also presented a fire hazard
and burn risk (coil defect).

The parties each retained their own respective engineering experts
to proffer opinions related to these alleged defects. Plaintiffs
retained Phil Van Herle of 4X Forensic Engineering Laboratories.
Defendant retained Robert Carnahan of Exponent Failure Analysis
Associates. The experts have produced expert reports required by
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26 and have been deposed.

In Defendant's motion, it argues that Mr. Van Herle is not
qualified to testify about the alleged cord and coil defects and
that Mr. Van Herle's opinions are not reliable because they are
based on flawed or inadequate testing.

Plaintiffs seek to preclude Mr. Carnahan from offering opinions on
particular issues that they contend he expressed no opinion on in
his Rule 26 Report.

In his Order dated August 19, 2016 available at
https://is.gd/vXeXdg from Leagle.com, Judge Benitez found that
each party's engineering expert satisfies the requirements of Rule
702 and may testify at trial.

Cynthia L Czuchaj is represented by Isam C. Khoury, Esq. --
ikhoury@ckslaw.com -- Jeff Geraci, Esq. -- jgeraci@ckslaw.com --
Michael D. Singer, Esq. -- msinger@ckslaw.com -- and Timothy D.
Cohelan, Esq. -- tcohelan@ckslaw.com -- COHELAN KHOURY & SINGER --
Jerusalem F. Beligan, Esq. -- jbeligan@bisnarchase.com -- BISNAR &
CHASE -- Katherine J. Odenbreit, Esq. -- kodenbreit@mahoney-
law.net -- ODENBREIT LAW, APC

Conair Corporation is represented by Ryan Donald Saba, Esq. --
rsaba@rosensaba.com -- and Momo Emily Takahashi, Esq. --
mtakahashi@rosensaba.com -- ROSEN SABA LLP


CORELOGIC NATIONAL: Bid to Strike Proposed Subclasses Denied
------------------------------------------------------------
Senior District Judge Robert E. Payne of the United States
District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia denied
Defendant's motion to strike proposed subclasses in the case
captioned, TYRONE HENDERSON, et al., Plaintiffs, v. CORELOGIC
NATIONAL BACKGROUND DATA, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 3:12CV97 (E.D.
Va.).

On July 16, 2015, Plaintiffs Tyrone Henderson (Henderson) and
James Hines (Hines) filed a second amended class action complaint
on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated,
alleging that Defendant National Background Data, LLC (NED) had
violated the Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA). The SAC presents
two claims under the FCRA:

     -- Count One alleges, on behalf of the putative nationwide
        class, that NBD violated the FCRA by failing to send
        notices to consumers and to "maintain strict procedures"
        to ensure that the criminal records it provided to its
        customers were "complete and up to date," in violation of
        15 U.S.C Sec. 1681k(a).

     -- Count Two, an individual claim on behalf of Henderson and
        Hines, alleges that NBD failed to use reasonable
        procedures to assure maximum accuracy of its reports, in
        violation of U.S.C. Sec. 1681e(b).

On August 25, 2015, Plaintiffs filed a renewed motion for class
certification, seeking to certify of  "All natural persons
residing in the United States who (a) were the subject of a report
sold by NBD to Verifications, ADP or HR Plus, (b) where NBD's
Results Returned database indicates that it was furnished for an
employment purpose, (c) where NBD's Results Returned database
showed that the report contained at least one adverse criminal
record hit, (d) within five years next preceding the filing of
this action and during its pendency. " The Court denied
Plaintiffs' motion without prejudice holding that the class
definition was overly broad and was not adequately tethered to the
element of "incompleteness" that Plaintiffs are required to prove
to succeed on their Sec. 1681k claim.

In accordance with the Order, Plaintiffs filed a third motion for
class certification on May 9, 2016 and proposed these subclasses:

     SUBCLASS 1: (i) NBD's Results Returned database shows a
        criminal record hit from a Virginia General District
        Court; (ii) NBD did not return a SSN to its customers; and
        (iii) the computer database of the Executive Secretary of
        the Supreme Court of Virginia contains a SSN or Drivers
        License number associated with that criminal record.

     SUBCLASS 2: (i) NBD's Results Returned database shows a
        criminal record hit from a Pennsylvania General District
        Court; (ii) NBD did not return a SSN to its customers; and
        (iii) the computer database of the Pennsylvania
        Administrative Office of Pennsylvania Courts (AOPC)
        contains a SSN associated with that criminal record.

     SUBCLASS 3: (i) NBD's Results Returned database show a
        criminal record hit from a state Sex Offender Registry;
        (ii) where the age and/or date of birth provided for that
        consumer by Verifications, ADP or HR Plus did not match
        the age and/or date of birth contained in that State's
        publically accessible Sex Offender Registry.

In support of their first and second proposed subclasses,
Plaintiffs have offered the declarations of Robert Smith (Smith)
and Michael Hollander (Hollander), respectively. Smith is an
employee in the Office of the Executive Secretary of the Supreme
Court of Virginia. In his declaration, Smith explains that, based
on his review of a sample of General District Court records, most
of the records contain Social Security Numbers (SSNs) and/or
operator's license numbers. Hollander is a staff attorney at
Community Legal Services, Inc., a free legal services program
based in Pennsylvania. Hollander's declaration briefly discusses
the operation of the records database maintained by the
Administrative Office of Pennsylvania Courts and describes the
procedures for accessing that database.

Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(c), NBD filed a motion to strike
Plaintiffs' proposed subclasses and the Smith and Hollander
declarations offered in support thereof, arguing that:

     -- Plaintiffs' proposed subclasses must be stricken because
        Plaintiffs' "belated disclosure" of the subclasses was a
        "complete surprise" and "Plaintiffs had never mentioned
        the use of any third-party governmental databases to try
        and achieve class certification in this case, let alone
        databases that were specific to Virginia, Pennsylvania, or
        state sex offender websites."

     -- the Smith and Hollander declarations should be excluded
        because Plaintiffs did not disclose these witnesses as
        required by Fed. R. Civ. P. 26 before attaching the
        declarations in support of their motion for class
        certification.

In his Memorandum Opinion dated September 1, 2016 available at
https://is.gd/S6hth2 from Leagle.com, Judge Payne held that
Plaintiffs did not violate Fed. R. Civ. P. 26 by failing to
disclose the proposed subclasses and that complete rejection of
the evidence from Smith and Hollander would be an excessive
sanction given that the evidence was, in large part, made
necessary by NBD's positions and the decision on summary judgment.

Counsel were directed to develop and submit for review a plan for
reopening limited discovery relating to the proposed subclasses by
September 11, 2016.

Tyrone Henderson  and James O. Hines, Jr. are represented by
Lauren K.W. Brennan, Esq. -- lbrennan@consumerlawfirm.com -- David
Anthony Searles, Esq. -- dsearles@consumerlawfirm.com -- and --
James Arthur Francis, Esq. -- jfrancis@consumerlawfirm.com --
FRANCIS & MAILMAN PC -- Leonard Anthony Bennett, Esq. --
leonard@clalegal.com -- Susan Mary Rotkis, Esq. --
susan@clalegal.com -- Casey Shannon Nash, Esq. --
casey@clalegal.com -- Janelle Mason Mikac, Esq. --
janelle@clalegal.com -- and Matthew James Erausquin, Esq. --
matt@clalegal.com -- CONSUMER LITGATION ASSOCIATES PC

Corelogic National Background Data, LLC is represented by Alan
Durrum Wingfield, Esq. -- allan.wingfield@troutmansanders.com --
David Neal Anthony, Esq. -- david.anthony@troutmansnaders.com --
John C. Lynch, Esq. -- john.lynch@troutmansanders.com --
and Timothy James St. George, Esq. --
timothy.stgeorge@troutmansanders.com -- TROUTMAN SANDERS LLP


CREDIT ONE: Court Stays Proceedings Pending Arbitration Outcome
---------------------------------------------------------------
District Judge Matthew F. Kennelly of the United States District
Court for the Northern District of Illinois denied A.D.'s motion
for class certification, denied Credit One's motion to dismiss,
and granted Credit One's motion to compel arbitration and stay
proceedings in the case captioned, A.D., by and through her
guardian ad litem Judith Serrano, on behalf of herself and all
others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. CREDIT ONE BANK, N.A.,
Defendant, Case No. 14 C 10106 (N.D. Ill.).

Credit One is a national bank that provides banking services and
credit cards throughout the United States. Judith Serrano, the
plaintiff's mother, has been one of its customers since about
2003, when she opened a credit card account with Credit One and
began using the card for everyday purchases. A.D., Serrano's
daughter, is not an account holder and is not named on her
mother's account.

A.D. filed this suit against Credit One in December 2014 after
receiving "at least twelve calls at different times" from Credit
One to her cellular phone. She alleged that these calls were made
"using an automatic telephone dialing system," and that she never
gave consent to receive such calls. Credit One answered A.D.'s
complaint in February 2015. In its answer, it asserted an
affirmative defense in which it "reserved its right to compel
arbitration." It provided no further explanation. Credit One moved
to stay proceedings in April 2015 to await an anticipated FCC
ruling, moved for leave to file a third-party complaint against
Serrano in May 2015, and moved to transfer venue in August 2015.
The Court denied each of these motions, none of which was based
upon the asserted affirmative defense that this dispute was
subject to arbitration.

Credit One moves to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(1) for lack of
subject matter jurisdiction, asserting that A.D. and the members
of the putative class did not suffer a justiciable injury-in-fact
sufficient to confer standing to sue as required by Article III of
the Constitution. Credit One also moves to compel arbitration and
stay or dismiss the case pursuant to the arbitration agreement in
the Cardholder Agreement applicable to Serrano's Credit One
account. A.D. opposes both motions and moves to certify a class of
similarly situated persons who also received autodialed telephone
calls without first giving Credit One consent to call them.

In his Memorandum Opinion dated August 19, 2016 available at
https://is.gd/ik9A6D from Leagle.com, Judge Kennelly concluded
that A.D. has identified a concrete injury-in-fact that she
herself suffered, and she has alleged that the injury is fairly
traceable to Credit One's conduct and is judicially redressable.
And because A.D. has standing, the Court may exercise subject
matter jurisdiction over her case. A.D. is bound to the terms of
the Cardholder Agreement, and Credit One has a contractual right
to arbitrate the dispute and denied the motion for class
certification. The Court accordingly stayed the case pending the
outcome of arbitration.

A joint status report regarding the status of arbitration
proceedings is to be filed as of February 28, 2017.

A. D. is represented by Mark Daniel Ankcorn, Esq. --
mark@ankcorn.com -- ANKCORN LAW FIRM, PC; and Roberto Carlos
Robledo, Esq. -- roberto@robertorobledo.com -- LAW OFFICES OF
ROBERTO ROBLEDO

Credit One Bank, N.A. is represented by David Jay Kaminski, Esq.
-- kaminskid@cmtlaw.com -- and Charles R. Messer, Esq. --
messerc@cmtlaw.com -- CARLSON & MESSER LLP; Gordon Kenneth Walton,
Esq. -- Walton@novakjuris.com -- WALTON LAW GROUP LLC


CRICKET COMMS: "Scott" Case Remanded to Maryland State Court
------------------------------------------------------------
District Judge George L. Russell, III of the United States
District Court for the District of Maryland granted Plaintiff
Michael A. Scott's motions to remand and to strike new materials
and arguments or for leave to file a surreply in the case
captioned, MICHAEL A. SCOTT, Plaintiff, v. CRICKET COMMUNICATIONS,
LLC, Defendant. MICHAEL A. SCOTT, Plaintiff, v. CRICKET
COMMUNICATIONS, LLC, Defendant, Case Nos. GLR-15-3330, GLR-15-3759
(D. Md.).

Sometime between July 2013 and March 2014, Scott purchased two
Samsung Galaxy S4 cellphones from Cricket that cost "hundreds of
dollars each." The paperwork accompanying the cellphones expressly
stated that Cricket's Code Division Multiple Access (CDMA) network
provided "unsurpassed nationwide coverage." Unbeknownst to Scott,
however, at least as early as July 2013, AT&T had acquired Cricket
and intended to shut down Cricket's CDMA network and switch
previous Cricket customers to AT&T's Global Systems for Mobile
(GSM) network. Though Cricket knew the CDMA network would be shut
down, Cricket "locked" Scott's cellphones for use exclusively on
Cricket's CDMA network. This rendered Scott's cellphones "useless
and worthless" and "obsolete."

Scott filed a putative Class Action Complaint on September 24,
2015 in the Circuit Court for Baltimore City, Maryland (Scott I).
Scott defines the class as "all Maryland citizens who, between
July 12, 2013 and March 13, 2014, purchased a CDMA mobile
telephone from Cricket which was locked for use only on Cricket's
CDMA network." Scott raises a single claim for violation of the
MMWA stemming from alleged breaches of express warranties and the
implied warranties of merchantability and fitness for a particular
purpose.  The Court removed Scott I and Scott II to the instant
court.

In the motion, Scott presents three primary arguments for why the
Court should grant his Motion to Remand. First, Cricket does not
sufficiently allege the number of class members and amount in
controversy required for CAFA jurisdiction because Cricket's
Notice of Removal addresses a class that Cricket defined, not the
far more narrow class that Scott defined in his Complaint (the
Class). Second, even assuming Cricket met its preliminary burden
of sufficiently alleging federal jurisdiction, Cricket failed to
present facts demonstrating federal jurisdiction because Cricket's
facts, like its allegations, are broader than the Class. Third,
Scott is the only named plaintiff in the putative MMWA class
action and the MMWA expressly prohibits federal jurisdiction over
MMWA class actions with fewer than 100 named plaintiffs.

Among other things, Cricket argued the Court should not remand the
case because federal jurisdiction exists under the look-through
doctrine discussed in Vaden v. Discover Bank, 556 U.S. 49 (2009).
Scott contends that even assuming the look-through doctrine
applies, remand is warranted because Cricket's Notice of Removal
is based entirely on the look-through doctrine and the Court does
not have CAFA or federal-question jurisdiction.

In his Memorandum Opinion dated August 19, 2016 available at
https://is.gd/ZE4B43 from Leagle.com, Judge Russell, III concluded
that Cricket fails to prove federal jurisdiction by a
preponderance of the evidence because Cricket does not tailor its
evidence to Scott's narrowly defined Class and that Vaden v.
Discover Bank, 556 U.S. 49 (2009) provides no basis for the
Court's jurisdiction over Scott II.

The Court denied as moot Scott's motion to strike new materials
and argument or for leave to file surreply.

Michael A. Scott is represented by:

      Benjamin Howard Carney, Esq.
      Martin Eugene Wolf, Esq.
      GORDON, WOLF & CARNEY, CHTS.
      102 W. Pennsylvania Avenue, Suite 402
      Towson, MD 21204
      Tel:(410)825-2300

Cricket Communications, LLC is represented by Reginald Goeke, Esq.
-- rgoeke@mayerbrown.com -- and Archis A. Parasharami, Esq. --
aparasharami@mayerbrown.com -- MAYER BROWN LLP -- John Edward
McCann, Jr., Esq. -- jmccann@milesstockbridge.com -- MILES AND
STOCKBRIDGE PC


DALLAS CENTRAL: Faces 6080A NCX Suit Over Appraisal Policies
------------------------------------------------------------
6080A NCX, LLC (6060 North Central Expressway) v. Dallas Central
Appraisal District, Case No. DC-16-10904 (D. Tex., August 31,
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 AFS 1122 Suit Over Appraisal Policies
-----------------------------------------------------------
AFS 1122 Alma Ltd. v. Dallas Central Appraisal District, Case No.
DC-16-10954 (D. Tex., August 31, 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.
      Jennifer C. Tobin, 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
              jtobin@gpd.com


DALLAS CENTRAL: Faces AGF Spring Suit Over Appraisal Policies
-------------------------------------------------------------
AGF Spring Creek Coit II, Ltd. v. Dallas Central Appraisal
District, Case No. DC-16-10947 (D. Tex., August 31, 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.
      Jennifer C. Tobin, 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
              jtobin@gpd.com


DALLAS CENTRAL: Faces "Wood" Suit in Tex. Over Appraisal Policies
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Douglas Wood v. Dallas Central Appraisal District, Case No. DC-16-
10935 (D. Tex., August 31, 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:

      Christina Davis, Esq.
      DAVIS LAW OFFICE, PC
      5605 FM 423, Suite 500-327
      Frisco, TX 75034
      Telephone: (817)829-5010
      Facsimile: (469)535-3023
      E-mail: davislawoffice@yahoo.com


DALLAS CENTRAL: Faces Grove Business Suit Over Appraisal Policies
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Grove Business Park Joint Venture v. Dallas Central Appraisal
District, Case No. DC-16-10902 (D. Tex., August 31, 2016), seeks
to stop the Defendant's practice of placing property appraisal
value that exceeds by at least ten percent, the median level of
appraisal required by law.

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

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


DALLAS CENTRAL: Faces JP Stemmons Suit Over Appraisal Policies
--------------------------------------------------------------
JP Stemmons LP v. Dallas Central Appraisal District, Case No. DC-
16-10945 (D. Tex., August 31, 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.
      Jennifer C. Tobin, Esq.
      Dallas A. Sessions, 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
              jtobin@gpd.com
              dsessions@gpd.com


DALLAS CENTRAL: Faces Landmark Suit Over Appraisal Policies
-----------------------------------------------------------
Landmark at Laurel Heights LLC v. Dallas Central Appraisal
District, Case No. DC-16-10898 (D. Tex., August 31, 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.
      Jennifer C. Tobin, Esq.
      Kathleen F. Donovan, 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
              jtobin@gpd.com
              kdonovan@gpd.com


DALLAS CENTRAL: Faces MLRP 9660 Suit Over Appraisal Policies
------------------------------------------------------------
MLRP 9660 Dilworth LLC v. Dallas Central Appraisal District, Case
No. DC-16-10919 (D. Tex., August 31, 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.
      Jennifer C. Tobin, Esq.
      Dallas A. Sessions, 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
              jtobin@gpd.com
              dsessions@gpd.com


DALLAS CENTRAL: Faces MLRP Park Suit Over Appraisal Policies
------------------------------------------------------------
MLRP Park West Crossing LLC v. Dallas Central Appraisal District,
Case No. DC-16-10920 (D. Tex., August 31, 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.
      Jennifer C. Tobin, Esq.
      Dallas A. Sessions, 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
              jtobin@gpd.com
              dsessions@gpd.com


DALLAS CENTRAL: Faces Rosewood Suit Over Appraisal Policies
-----------------------------------------------------------
Rosewood Court LLC v. Dallas Central Appraisal District, Case No.
DC-16-10939 (D. Tex., August 31, 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.
      Jennifer C. Tobin, Esq.
      Dallas A. Sessions, 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
              jtobin@gpd.com
              dsessions@gpd.com


DALLAS CENTRAL: Faces University Drive Suit Over Appraisal Policy
-----------------------------------------------------------------
University Drive LLC (Collins Center) v. Dallas Central Appraisal
District, Case No. DC-16-10938 (D. Tex, August 31, 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.
      Jennifer C. Tobin, Esq.
      Dallas A. Sessions, 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
              jtobin@gpd.com
              dsessions@gpd.com


DELUXE CORP: Court Narrows Claims in "Byler", Denies Transfer Bid
-----------------------------------------------------------------
District Judge Anthony J. Battaglia of the United States District
Court for the Southern District of California granted in part
Defendant's motion to dismiss for lack of subject matter
jurisdiction, granted in part Defendant's motion to dismiss for
failure to state a claim, and denied its motion to transfer venue
of the case captioned, ALEXANDRA BYLER, KAY CATLIN, JENNIFER
GRAVES, and ELIZABETH O'LEARY, Plaintiffs, v. DELUXE CORPORATION,
d/b/a DELUXE CHECK PRINTERS, Defendant, Case No. 16CV493 AJB (JLB)
(S.D. Cal.).

Named Plaintiffs Alexandra Byler, Kay Catlin, Jennifer Graves, and
Elizabeth O'Leary (Plaintiffs), on behalf of themselves and other
similarly situated consumers, allege they were charged excessive,
deceptive, unfair, and unethical fees for the delivery of new and
replacement checks by Defendant. The shipping costs at issue are
for the following shipping options: (1) "Basic: Standard
Delivery": $8.00; (2) "Better: Four-Day Express Delivery": $32.45;
and (3) "Best: Checks Next Day": $49.60.

Plaintiffs allege that these charges violated the California
Unfair Competition Law (UCL), California Business & Professions
Code; the California Consumers Legal Remedies Act (CLRA); the
Illinois Consumer Fraud Act (ICFA); the Missouri Merchandising
Practices Act (MMPA); the Massachusetts Consumer Protection Act,
Massachusetts General Laws, Chapter 93A; and similar consumer
protection statutes of other states

Plaintiffs' main contention is that the shipping and delivery
charges are not reasonably related to the costs Defendant incurred
in delivering or shipping the checks to consumers. Plaintiffs
allege that Defendant maintains other websites under other brand
names besides Deluxe, which use the same manufacturing facilities
and provide the same delivery services as Defendant does for its
Deluxe brand checks. Plaintiffs assert that Defendant charges
significantly less for the same service through those alternative
websites, which, according to Plaintiffs, establishes that the
charges assessed on Deluxe's website do not represent the actual
charges incurred in shipping and handling.

Defendant raises both a facial and factual challenge to the
Court's subject matter jurisdiction. Defendant's facial attack
alleges that Plaintiffs' claimed injury is not facially plausible,
and the factual attack alleges that Plaintiffs' allegations are
too speculative.

In his Order dated August 18, 2016 available at
https://is.gd/Zz7dJt from Leagle.com, Judge Battaglia dismissed
Plaintiffs' claims for injunctive relief because Plaintiffs have
not alleged an intent to purchase the products in the future and
therefore lack standing to seek injunctive relief. To the extent
Defendant's arguments regarding failure to state a claim are
predicated on Defendant's assertion that Plaintiffs lack standing
to sue under particular state statutes. Having thoroughly
considered the allegations in the first amended complaint, the
Court finds Plaintiffs have sufficiently alleged fraudulent
conduct under the UCL.  Having thoroughly considered the
allegations in the first amended complaint, the Court found
Plaintiffs have sufficiently alleged fraudulent conduct under the
UCL.

Alexander Byler, et al. are represented by:

      Anthony S. Bruning, Esq.
      Ryan L. Bruning, Esq.
      THE BRUNING LAW FIRM
      555 Washington Ave Suite
      600 St. Louis, MO 63101
      Tel:(314)735-8100

Deluxe Corporation is represented by Eileen M. Ahern, Esq. --
eahern@willenken.com -- and Paul Jen Loh, Esq. --
ploh@willenken.com -- WILLENKEN WILSON LOH AND DELGADO LLP


DIAMOND TOUCH: "Ramirez" Class Suit Removed to S.D. Florida
-----------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit captioned Bryan Ramirez and other
similarly situated individuals v. Diamond Touch, Inc. d/b/a
Granbury Solutions, Case No. 16-005918-CA-01, was removed from the
11th Judicial Circuit Court, Miami-Dade County, FL to the U.S.
District Court Southern District of Florida (Miami). The District
Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:16-cv-23744-UU to the proceeding.

The Plaintiff alleges violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act.

Diamond Touch, Inc. offers data management and query software,
development software, educational or reference software, industry
specific software, network applications software, network
management software and networking software.

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:

      Allison Gluvna Folk, Esq.
      Jennifer A. Schwartz, Esq.
      JACKSON LEWIS P.C.
      One Biscayne Tower, Suite 3500
      2 S. Biscayne Boulevard
      Miami, FL 33131
      Telephone: (305) 577-7600
      Facsimile: (305) 373-4466
      E-mail: allison.folk@jacksonlewis.com
              Jennifer.Schwartz@jacksonlewis.com


DOUBLE EAGLE: "Gordon" Lawsuit Seeks to Recoup Pay Under FLSA
-------------------------------------------------------------
AMY GORDON, on her own behalf and on behalf of all similarly
situated individuals, Plaintiff, v. DOUBLE EAGLE OF SARASOTA d/b/a
TOMMY KNOCKERS, a Florida for Profit Corporation, and
MARK ROSATO, individually, Defendants, Case 8:16-cv-02561-EAK-AEP
(M.D. Fla., September 2, 2016), alleges that Defendants violated
the Fair Labor Standards Act by failing to pay Plaintiff at least
the full minimum wage for all hours worked.

Defendant, Double Eagle of Sarasota d/b/a Tommy Knockers, is a
restaurant establishment located in Bradenton, Manatee County,
Florida.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Marc R. Edelman, Esq.
     MORGAN & MORGAN
     201 N. Franklin Street, #700
     Tampa, FL 33602
     Phone: 813-223-5505
     Fax: 813-257-0572
     Email: MEdelman@forthepeople.com


E.I. DU PONT: Faces "Chance" Lawsuit Alleging Violation of FLSA
---------------------------------------------------------------
Gene R. Chance v. E.I. Du Pont De Nemours and Co., Case 1:16-cv-
00376-MAC (E.D. Tex., September 2, 2016), was filed under the Fair
Labor Standards Act.

E.I. Du Pont De Nemours and Co. -- http://www.dupont.com/-- is an
innovator in products and services markets, manufacturing products
for a variety of application.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     John Werner, Esq.
     REAUD, MORGAN & QUINN, L.L.P.
     801 Laurel Street
     P.O. Box 26005
     Beaumont, TX 77720-6005
     Phone: (409) 838-1000)
     Fax: (409) 833-8236


EASTCHESTER EVENTS: Faces "Pino" Suit Seeking to Recover Tips
-------------------------------------------------------------
ANA PINO, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated,
Plaintiffs, v. EASTCHESTER EVENTS INC.; GJIETO NICAJ; LOUIS
GIGANTE; LOUIS GIGANTE JR.; and any other related entities,
Defendants, INDEX NO. 157436/2016 (N.Y. Super., September 6,
2016), seeks to recover alleged retained tips and gratuities owed
to Plaintiff for violation of the New York Labor Law.

EASTCHESTER EVENTS INC. operates catering venues.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Brett R. Cohen, Esq.
     Jeffrey K. Brown, Esq.
     Michael A. Tompkins, Esq.
     LEEDS BROWN LAW, P.C.
     One Old Country Road, Suite 347
     Carle Place, NY 11514
     Phone: (516) 873-9550


ELITE PERSONNEL: Sued in N.J. Over Racial Discrimination
--------------------------------------------------------
Ileana Rodriguez v. Elite Personnel Inc. and John Does 1-5 and 6-
10, Case No. 5072-16 (N.J. Super. Ct., August 31, 2016), alleges
hostile work environment on the basis of race, national origin and
ancestry.

Elite Personnel Inc. operates an employment agency located at 933
NJ-23, Pompton Plains, NJ 07444.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Kevin M. Costello, Esq.
      COSTELLO & MAINS, LLC
      18000 Horizon Way, Suite 800
      Mount Laurel, NJ 08054
      Telephone: (856) 727-9700


ELIZABETH ARDEN: Litigation Related to Revlon Merger Pending
------------------------------------------------------------
Elizabeth Arden, Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on August 15, 2016, for the
fiscal year ended June 30, 2016, that in connection with the
Revlon Merger, five putative shareholder class action lawsuits
have been filed in the Circuit Court of the Seventeenth Judicial
Circuit in and for Broward County, Florida:

     (1) Parker v. Elizabeth Arden, Inc. et al., Case No. CACE-16-
011781, filed on June 24, 2016, and amended on July 26, 2016 (the
"Parker Complaint");

     (2) Christiansen v. Rhone Capital L.L.C. et al., Case No.
CACE-16-011746, filed on June 29, 2016 and amended on July 14,
2016 (the "Christiansen Complaint");

     (3) Ross v. Elizabeth Arden, Inc., et al, Case No, CACE-16-
013220, filed on July 19, 2016 (the "Ross Complaint");

     (4) Hutson v. Elizabeth Arden, Inc., et al., Case No. CACE-
16-013566, filed on July 25, 2016 (the "Hutson Complaint"); and

     (5) Stein v. Rhone Capital L.L.C. et al, Case No. CACE-16-
013580, filed on July 25, 2016 (the "Stein Complaint"), referred
to collectively as the "Complaints."

The Christiansen claim is also a derivative lawsuit.

The Company said, "All of the Complaints name the members of our
board of directors, Revlon, Inc., Revlon Consumer Products
Corporation and RR Transaction Corp. as defendants. The Parker,
Ross and Hutson Complaints name Elizabeth Arden, Inc. as a
defendant. The Christiansen, Stein and Parker Complaints also name
Rhone Capital L.L.C., Nightingale Onshore Holdings, L.P. and
Nightingale Offshore Holdings, L.P., as defendants."

"The Complaints allege that (i) the members of our board of
directors breached their fiduciary duties to our shareholders with
respect to the Revlon Merger, by, among other things, approving
the Revlon Merger pursuant to an unfair process and at an
inadequate and unfair price, and (ii) Revlon, RCPC, and Revlon Sub
aided and abetted the breaches of fiduciary duty by the members of
the board. The Christiansen and Stein Complaints also allege that
Rhone Capital L.L.C., Nightingale Onshore Holdings, L.P. and
Nightingale Offshore Holdings, L.P. breached alleged fiduciary
duties owed by such entities to the holders of our common stock
and to us. The plaintiffs in these lawsuits generally seek, among
other things, injunctive relief prohibiting consummation of the
Revlon Merger, compensatory damages and rescissory damages in the
event the Revlon Merger is consummated, an order to disclose all
material information to the shareholders in advance of a
shareholder vote and an award of attorneys' fees and expenses.

"We intend to vigorously defend these claims. Litigation costs
associated with these matters may be significant and additional
lawsuits arising out of or relating to the Revlon Merger may be
filed in the future."


ENVIRONMENTAL DRILLING: "Bertothy" Suit Invokes FLSA, Wage Act
--------------------------------------------------------------
TRENT BERTOTHY on Behalf of Himself and on Behalf of All Others
Similarly Situated, Plaintiff, V. ENVIRONMENTAL DRILLING
SOLUTIONS, L.L.C., Defendant, Case 2:16-cv-01371-CB (W.D. Penn.,
September 2, 2016), was filed under the Fair Labor Standards Act
and the Pennsylvania Minimum Wage Act.

Defendant Environmental Drilling Solutions, L.L.C. is an oilfield
service company that specializes in removing waste byproduct from
drilling fluids during the process of drilling an oil well.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Don J. Foty, Esq.
     KENNEDY HODGES, L.L.P.
     4409 Montrose Blvd, Ste. 200
     Houston, TX 77006
     Phone: (713) 523-0001
     Fax: (713) 523-1116
     E-mail: dfoty@kennedyhodges.com


ENVISION HEALTHCARE: Sued Over Proposed Sale to AmSurg Corp.
------------------------------------------------------------
Eric Voth, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. Envision Healthcare Holdings, Inc.,  William A.
Sanger,  Michael L. Smith,  Ronald A. Williams,  Carol J. Burt,
Leonard M. Riggs, Jr.,  Richard J. Schnall,  Mark V. Mactas,
James D. Shelton,  Amsurg Corp., and  New Amethyst Corp., Case No.
1:16-cv-02213 (D. Col., August 31, 2016),  is brought on behalf of
all public stockholders of Envision Healthcare Holdings, Inc., to
enjoin the proposed acquisition of Envision by AmSurg Corp.,
through a flawed process and inadequate consideration.

Envision Healthcare Holdings, Inc. is a family of healthcare
companies focused on delivering high quality care to patients in
their homes and in the hospital.

AmSurg Corp. provides community-based healthcare transportation
services, including emergency, non-emergency, managed
transportation, air ambulance, and disaster response.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Rusty E. Glenn, Esq.
      THE SHUMAN LAW FIRM
      600 17th Street, Suite 2800
      South Denver, CO 80202
      Telephone: (303) 861-3003
      Facsimile: (303) 536-7849
      E-mail: rusty@shumanlawfirm.com

         - and -

      Kip B. Shuman, Esq.
      THE SHUMAN LAW FIRM
      Post-Montgomery Ctr.
      One Montgomery Street, Ste. 1800
      San Francisco, CA 94104
      Telephone: (303) 861-3003
      Facsimile: (303) 536-7849
      E-mail: kip@shumanlawfirm.com

         - and -

      Donald J. Enright, Esq.
      LEVI & KORSINSKY, LLP
      1101 30th Street, N.W., Suite 115
      Washington, DC 20007
      Telephone: (202) 524-4290
      E-mail: denright@zlk.com


EVERALBUM INC: "McLemore" Lawsuit Alleges Violation of TCPA
-----------------------------------------------------------
TAMIKA MCLEMORE, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. EVERALBUM, INC., a Delaware
corporation, Defendant, Case 3:16-cv-05133 (N.D. Cal., September
6, 2016), seeks to stop Defendant's practice of sending alleged
unsolicited text messages to cellular telephones.  The suit
alleges violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act.

Everalbum, Inc. offers an app-based photo storage and backup
service.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Richard T. Drury, Esq.
     Rebecca Davis, Esq.
     LOZEAU DRURY LLP
     410 12th Street, Suite 250
     Oakland, CA 94607
     Phone: (510) 836-4200
     Fax: (510) 836-4205
     E-mail: richard@lozeaudrury.com
     rebecca@lozeaudrury.com

        - and -

     Steven L. Woodrow, Esq.
     Patrick H. Peluso, Esq.
     WOODROW & PELUSO, LLC
     3900 East Mexico Ave., Suite 300
     Denver, CO 80210
     Phone: (720) 213-0675
     Fax: (303) 927-0809
     E-mail: swoodrow@woodrowpeluso.com
             ppeluso@woodrowpeluso.com

        - and -

     Stefan Coleman, Esq.
     LAW OFFICES OF STEFAN COLEMAN, P.A.
     201 S Biscayne Blvd., 28th Floor
     Miami, FL 33131
     Phone: (877) 333-9427
     Fax: (888) 498-8946
     E-mail: Law@stefancoleman.com


FIFTH THIRD BANK: Miller Sues Over Illegal Phone Call Recording
---------------------------------------------------------------
Wyatt Miller, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. Fifth Third Bank, Vantiv, Inc., National
Processing Company and Ironwood Financial, LLC, Defendants, Case
No. 1:16-cv-08531, (N.D. Ill., August 31, 2016), seeks damages,
reasonable attorneys' fees, expenses and costs and such other and
further relief under the California Penal Code.

Fifth Third is a national bank, maintaining a nationwide credit
and debit card payment processing division that employs Vantiv and
National Processing Company for its payment processing business.
Fifth Third employs Ironwood, a sales and marketing firm, to sell
these payment processing services to small businesses around the
country. Plaintiff is a small business owner who alleges that that
Ironwood secretly recorded telemarketing calls made by Ironwood on
behalf of Fifth Third, Vantiv and National Processing Company.

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Myron M. Cherry, Esq.
      Jacie C. Zolna, Esq.
      Benjamin R. Swetland, Esq.
      MYRON M. CHERRY &ASSOCIATES LLC
      30 North LaSalle Street, Suite 2300
      Chicago, IL 60602
      Tel: (312) 372-2100
      Email: mcherry@cherry-law.com
             jzolna@cherry-law.com
             bswetland@cherry-law.com


FIORENTINO RISTORANTE: Faces Suit Under FLSA, NY Labor Laws
-----------------------------------------------------------
CARLOS AURELIO LLIVICHUZHCA DOMINGUEZ, JOSE AVELAR, and LUIS
IGNA, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated,
Plaintiffs, v. FIORENTINO RISTORANTE, INC. (d/b/a
FIORENTINO'S RISTORANTE), ANTHONY FIORENTINO and HELEN DOE,
Defendants, Case 1:16-cv-04939 (E.D.N.Y., September 2, 2016),
alleges violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act, the New York
Labor Law, and the "spread of hours" and overtime wage orders of
the New York Commission of Labor.

Defendants own, operate, and/or control an Italian restaurant.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

     Michael Faillace, Esq.
     MICHAEL FAILLACE &ASSOCIATES, P.C.
     60 East 42nd Street, Suite 2540
     New York, NY 10165
     Phone: (212) 317-1200
     Fax: (212) 317-1620


FRANCISCAN ALLIANCE: "Jewett" ERISA Suit Transferred to N.D. Ind.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
JEAN L. JEWETT, on behalf of herself, individually, and on behalf
of all others similarly situated, and on behalf of the FRANCISCAN
ALLIANCE PENSION SECURITY PLAN, Plaintiff, v. FRANCISCAN ALLIANCE,
INC., an Indiana Non-profit Corporation, THE PENSION
COMMITTEE FOR THE FRANCISCAN ALLIANCE PENSION SECURITY PLAN, JOHN
and JANE DOES 1-20, MEMBERS OF THE PENSION COMMITTEE FOR THE
FRANCISCAN ALLIANCE PENSION SECURITY PLAN, each an individual, and
JOHN and JANE DOES 21-40, each an individual, Defendants, case
3:16-cv-00591-JD-JEM (April 22, 2016) was transferred from the
U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois to the
U.S. District Court for Northern District of Indiana.

The suit alleges violation of the Employee Retirement Income
Security Act.

Defendant Franciscan Alliance, Inc. and Affiliates, by and through
its subsidiaries and/or affiliates, operates a healthcare
conglomerate in Illinois, Indiana, and Michigan and provides
healthcare services in the communities it serves.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Carol V. Gilden, Esq.
     COHEN MILSTEIN SELLERS & TOLL, PLLC
     190 South LaSalle Street, Suite 1705
     Chicago, IL 60603
     Phone: (312) 357-0370
     Fax: (312) 357-0369
     Email: cgilden@cohenmilstein.com

        - and -

     Karen L. Handorf, Esq.
     Michelle C. Yau, Esq.
     Kira L. Hettinger, Esq.
     COHEN MILSTEIN SELLERS & TOLL, PLLC
     1100 New York Avenue, N.W.
     Suite 500, West Tower
     Washington, DC 20005
     Phone: (202) 408-4600
     Fax: (202) 408-4699
     Email: khandorf@cohenmilstein.com
            myau@cohenmilstein.com
            khettinger@cohenmilstein.com

        - and -

     Lynn Lincoln Sarko, Esq.
     Laura R. Gerber, Esq.
     KELLER ROHRBACK L.L.P.
     1201 Third Avenue, Suite 3200
     Seattle, WA 98101
     Phone: (206) 623-1900
     Fax: (206) 623-3384
     Email: lsarko@kellerrohrback.com
            lgerber@kellerrohrback.com

        - and -

     Ron Kilgard, Esq.
     KELLER ROHRBACK P.L.C.
     3101 North Central Avenue, Suite 1400
     Phoenix, AZ 85012
     Phone: (602) 248-0088
     Fax: (602) 248- 2822
     Email: rkilgard@kellerrohrback.com


FXCM INC: Court Dismisses Chicago Cops Retirement Fund's Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
District Judge Kimba M. Wood of the United States District Court
for the Southern District of New York granted Defendants' motion
to dismiss the complaint in the case captioned, RETIREMENT BOARD
OF THE POLICEMEN'S ANNUITY AND BENEFIT FUND OF CHICAGO ON BEHALF
OF THE POLICEMEN'S ANNUITY AND BENEFIT FUND OF CHICAGO,
Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated,
Plaintiff, v. FXCM INC., DROR NIV, and ROBERT LANDE, Defendants,
Case No. 15-CV-3599(KMW) (S.D.N.Y.).

At its heart, this case is about FXCM's significant losses during
an unpredictable market event. In 2011, the Swiss National Bank
("SNB") pegged the Swiss Franc to the Euro at 1.2:1, meaning that
1 Euro would be worth at least 1.2 Swiss Francs.  On January 15,
2015, to investors' great surprise, the SNB suddenly removed this
peg; prices and liquidity changed rapidly as the value of the
Swiss Franc rose in relation to the Euro.  As a result of this
abrupt change in the SNB's policy, FXCM lost $275 million.
Plaintiff attributes FXCM's loss to its allegedly risky business
model and lack of a risk management department. Plaintiff alleges
that Defendants' statements regarding the riskless nature of
FXCM's business model and its risk management controls were
materially false or misleading.

Plaintiff, Retirement Board of the Policemen's Annuity and Benefit
Fund of Chicago, on behalf of the Policemen's Annuity and Benefit
Fund of Chicago, brings the putative class action against FXCM,
Dror Niv, and Robert Lande.  Plaintiff is an institutional
investor that purchased FXCM common stock between June 11, 2013
and January 20, 2015, inclusive (the Class Period). Defendant FXCM
was one of the first currency brokerage firms to serve retail
customers, and during the Class Period it was one of the largest
retail foreign exchange (FX) firms in the world.

Plaintiff asserts claims under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the Exchange Act). Plaintiff
alleges that Defendants made materially false or misleading
statements relating to FXCM's business model and risk management
practices, and that these statements misled investors about the
risky nature of FXCM's business, causing hundreds of millions of
dollars in losses to class members.

Defendants have moved to dismiss the Complaint pursuant to the
Private Securities Litigation Reform Act, 15 U.S.C. Sec. 78u-4,
and the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 8(a), 9(b), and 12(b)(6).
Defendants attribute FXCM's large loss to the SNB's surprise
decision, market dysfunction, and lack of liquidity.

In the Opinion and Order dated August 18, 2016 available at
https://is.gd/Hm9eGg from Leagle.com, Judge Wood, among others,
held that Plaintiff's allegations fail to support a strong
inference that Defendants acted with scienter. At best,
Plaintiff's allegations permit a weak inference of scienter -- one
that is less compelling than the inference that Defendants were
blindsided by the SNB's decision.  The Judge also said Plaintiffs
fail to allege circumstantial evidence of conscious misbehavior or
recklessness.

Plaintiff is granted leave to re-plead its Complaint within 30
days of the decision.

Retirement Board of the Policemen's Annuity and Benefit Fund of
Chicago on Behalf of the Policemen's Annuity and Benefit Fund of
Chicago is represented by Beth Ann Kaswan, Esq. --
kswan@scottandscottllp.com -- SCOTT SCOTT, L.L.P

FXCM Inc., et al. are represented by Paul Richard Bessette, Esq.
-- pbessette@kslaw.com -- and -- Israel Dahan, Esq. --
idahan@kslaw.com -- KING & SPALDING LLP


GABE'S CASING: Faces "Scheriger" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT
------------------------------------------------------------
Matthew Scheriger, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. Gabe's Casing & Laydown Service, Inc., Linda
K. Wallett, and Lewis Holley, Case No. 7:16-cv-00323 (W.D. Tex.,
August 31, 2016), is brought against the Defendants for failure to
pay overtime wages in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act.

The Defendants have been involved in oilfield casing services to
clients in at least in Texas and Tennessee.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Jack Siegel, Esq.
      SIEGEL LAW GROUP PLLC
      10440 N. Central Expy., Suite 1040
      Dallas, TX 75231
      Telephone: (214) 706-0834
      Facsimile: (469) 339-0204

         - and -

      J. Derek Braziel, Esq.
      Jay Forester, Esq.
      LEE & BRAZIEL, L.L.P.
      1801 N. Lamar Street, Suite 325
      Dallas, TX 75202
      Telephone: (214) 749-1400
      Facsimile: (214) 749-1010


GLASSDOOR INC: Pincaro Suit Alleges Personal Data Breach
--------------------------------------------------------
Paulo Pincaro, Melissa Nau, and Timothy L. Keiser, on behalf of
themselves and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v.
Glassdoor, Inc., Defendant, Case No. 1:16-cv-06870 (S.D.N.Y.,
August 31, 2016), seeks damages, injunctive relief, and
declaratory relief for violation of the Stored Communications Act.

Glassdoor is a jobs and recruiting website where employees and
former employees can anonymously review companies and their
management. On July 22, 2016, Glassdoor sent an email out to its
members updating its Terms of Use where it exposed the addresses
of more than 2 percent of its members, in excess of 600,000
people.

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Sergei Lemberg, Esq.
      LEMBERG LAW, LLC
      43 Danbury Road
      Wilton, CT 06897
      Telephone: (203) 653-2250
      Facsimile: (203) 653-3424


GLENTEX INC: Faces "De La Rosa" Lawsuit Alleging FLSA Violation
---------------------------------------------------------------
NATHALIE DE LA ROSA, Plaintiff, vs. GLENTEX, INC. d/b/a WOODY'S, a
Florida Corporation, Defendant, Case 4:16-cv-10070-JEM (S.D. Fla.,
September 6, 2016), seeks to recover compensation and other relief
under the Fair Labor Standards Act.

GLENTEX, INC. is a hotel and restaurant company.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Chad E. Levy, Esq.
     LAW OFFICES LEVY & LEVY, P.A.
     915 Middle River Drive, #518
     Ft. Lauderdale, FL 33304
     Phone: (954) 763-5722
     Fax: (954) 763-5723
     E-mail: chad@levylevylaw.com


GODIVA AMERICAN: Faces "Varona" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Yayset Varona and other similarly-situated individuals v. Godiva
American, Corp. d/b/a Santa Fe News and Espresso and Alejandro
Scolnik, Case No. 1:16-cv-23732-JEM (S.D. Fla., August 31, 2016),
seeks to recover unpaid overtime wages and damages pursuant to the
Fair Labor Standards Act.

The Defendants operate a newsstand, magazine coffee shop and
restaurant located in Bal Harbour, Miami Beach.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Zandro E. Palma, Esq.
      ZANDRO E. PALMA, P.A.
      9100 S. Dadeland Blvd., Suite 1500
      Miami, FL 33157
      Telephone: (305) 446-1500
      Facsimile: (305) 446-1502
      E-mail: zep@thepalmalawgroup.com


GOOGLE INC: 876 Plaintiffs Severed from Corley & Amaral Cases
-------------------------------------------------------------
District Judge Lucy H. Koh of the United States District Court for
the Northern District of California granted Defendant's motion to
sever claims of individual plaintiffs, except Plaintiffs Ryan
Corley, William Dormann, and Shannon Mehaffey, in the cases
captioned, RYAN CORLEY, et al., Plaintiffs, v. GOOGLE, INC.,
Defendant. KEITH AMARAL, et al., Plaintiffs, v. GOOGLE, INC.,
Defendant, Case Nos. 16-CV-00473-LHK, 16-CV-02553-LHK (N.D. Cal.).

Plaintiffs in the cases, Corley v. Google, Inc. (Corley), and
Amaral v. Google, Inc. (Amaral), are 879 individuals who had
Google Apps for Education accounts from November 1, 2010 to April
Google). They allege that the Defendant violated the Wiretap Act
by intercepting and scanning Plaintiffs' emails.

On January 27, 2016, Plaintiffs filed the original complaint in
Corley. There were four Plaintiffs in the original complaint, all
of whom were current or former students of the University of
California, Berkeley (Berkeley). These Plaintiffs were Ryan
Corley, William Dormann, Shannon Mehaffey, and Teddey Xiao. On
February 8, 2016, Plaintiffs' counsel filed a notice of voluntary
dismissal as to Teddey Xiao.

The Corley case was originally assigned to U.S. Magistrate Judge
Nathanael Cousins, but was related to Gmail, and reassigned to
Judge Koh on February 12, 2016. On March 11, 2016, Plaintiffs'
counsel in Corley sought leave to file the First Amended Complaint
in order to add "an additional 700 plaintiffs."

Following the initial case management conference, the Court
ordered the parties to file briefs addressing the propriety of
mass joinder. At the April 28, 2016 case management conference,
Plaintiffs' counsel confirmed that he would file a separate action
with more than a hundred Plaintiffs in state court. After
reviewing the parties' briefs and learning about Plaintiffs'
counsel's decision to file a separate action in state court, the
Court invited Google at the April 28, 2016 case management
conference to file a motion to sever.

Google moved to sever filed in the Corley and Amaral cases. With
the Court's permission, Public Citizen, Inc. filed an amicus brief
opposing Google's motion to sever.

In her Order dated August 19, 2016 available at
https://is.gd/mfhQYS from Leagle.com, Judge Koh held that the
severance or dismissal decision does implicate the statute of
limitations. Google ceased scanning GAFE emails on April 30, 2014.
The Wiretap Act has a two-year statute of limitations. Both the
Corley case, filed on January 27, 2016, and the Amaral case, filed
on April 29, 2016, fall within this statute of limitations, which
would fall on April 30, 2016. If the Court were to dismiss all but
the original three Plaintiffs in Corley, the statute of
limitations would likely bar the other 876 Plaintiffs from
bringing suit. Given the fact that the instant case presents novel
legal issues and that other courts generally caution against
dismissal, the Court declines to dismiss 876 Plaintiffs.

The Court directed the 876 Plaintiffs to file their individual
complaints within 45 days upon issuance of the Order should they
elect to proceed with their claims. Plaintiffs may not add new
causes of actions or parties without leave of the Court or
stipulation of the parties pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil
Procedure 15.

Keith Amaral, et al. are represented by Ray Edwin Gallo, Esq. --
rgallo@gallo-law.com -- Dominic R. Valerian, Esq. --
dvalerian@gallo-law.com -- and Warren Stramiello, Esq. --
wstramiello@gallo-law.com -- GALLO LLP

Google Inc. is represented by Michael Graham Rhodes, Esq. --
rhodesmg@cooley.com -- Amy McCowan Smith, Esq. --
amsmith@cooley.com -- Karen Lynn Burhans, Esq. --
kburhans@cooley.com -- Kyle Christopher Wong, Esq. --
kwong@cooley.com -- and Whitty Somvichian, Esq. --
wsomvichian@cooley.com -- COOLEY LLP


HARRIS COUNTY: Faces Timber Ridge Suit Over Appraisal Policies
--------------------------------------------------------------
Timber Ridge Housing II, LTD. v. Harris County Appraisal District,
Case No. 2016-58572 (D. Tex., August 31, 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:

      Gregory J. Dalton, Esq.
      GREGORY J. DALTON, P.C.
      PO Box 109
      Katy, TX 77492
      Telephone: (281) 391-1985
      Facsimile: (281) 391-1987
      E-mail: greg@gdaltonlaw.com


HARVEST CHADDS: Faces "Bland" Lawsuit Under FLSA, Pa. Wage Act
--------------------------------------------------------------
RACHEL BLAND, on behalf of herself and similarly situated
employees, Plaintiff, v. HARVEST CHADDS FORD, LLC, Defendant, Case
2:16-cv-04773-NIQA (E.D. Pa., September 2, 2016), seeks all
available relief under the Fair Labor Standards Act and the
Pennsylvania Minimum Wage Act.

Defendant owns and operates a Harvest Seasonal Grill & Wine Bar in
Glen Mills, Pennsylvania.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Peter Winebrake, Esq.
     R. Andrew Santillo, Esq.
     Mark J. Gottesfeld, Esq.
     WINEBRAKE & SANTILLO, LLC
     715 Twining Road, Suite 211
     Dresher, PA 19025
     Phone: (215) 884-2491
     E-mail: pwinebrake@winebrakelaw.com


HOME PROPERTIES: Court Denies Motion to Deposit Funds
-----------------------------------------------------
In the case captioned, MARIUSZ G. JARZYNA, Plaintiff, v. HOME
PROPERTIES, L.P., et al., Defendants, Case No. 27655 (E.D. Pa.),
District Judge Eduardo C. Robreno of the United States District
Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania:

     -- denied Defendant's motion to deposit funds into court and
        enter judgment in favor of Plaintiff, and

     -- granted a motion to strike a declaration of Francis J.
        Farina, Plaintiff's counsel.

The case arises out of a landlord-tenant relationship that
deteriorated, causing the landlord, a residential management
company, to refer certain amounts purportedly owed to it by its
former tenant to a debt collection agency. The former tenant,
Plaintiff Mariusz Jarzyna (Plaintiff), brought the action on
behalf of himself and other similarly situated former tenants
against the residential management company, Home Properties, L.P.
(Home), and the debt collection agency, Fair Collections and
Outsourcing, Inc. (FCO), alleging violations of the Fair Debt
Collection Practices Act (FDCPA) as well as certain other state
consumer protection laws.

After the Court's decision on summary judgment and the motions for
reconsideration, the only liability issues that remain for trial
are Plaintiff's FDCPA claim that certain of FCO's standard dunning
letters lacked the requisite disclosures, in violation of 15
U.S.C. Sec. 1692g(a), and Home's counterclaim for Plaintiff's
alleged breach of the lease agreement. The only claims that have
been decided in Plaintiff's favor are Plaintiff's FDCPA claims
against FCO with respect to FCO's failure to identify as a debt
collector when leaving voice messages on Plaintiff's cell phone,
in violation of Sections 1692e(11) and 1692d(6), and FCO's
attempts to collect a debt that Plaintiff did not owe, in
violation of Sections 1692f(1), 1692e(2), and 1692e(10) (Count I).

The case has reached the class certification stage. Plaintiff
filed a supplemental motion for class certification on April 22,
2016 of "All persons residing in Pennsylvania, New York, New
Jersey, Massachusetts, Maryland, Maine, Florida, Illinois and
Washington, D.C.[,] who, during the period January 1, 2008 through
the date of the filing of Plaintiff's Third Amended Class Action
Complaint on April 8, 2013 (Doc. No. 205) (the Class Period):a)
have been identified and/or readily identifiable by Home
Properties, L.P. (Home) to have been assessed Thirty Day Notice
Fees by Home -- and with the balance placed with FCO for
collection, in violation of 15 U.S.C. Sections 1692f(1), 1692e(2),
and 1692e(10); and b) who have been subject of FCO's standard,
common, and uniform policy not to identify themselves as a debt
collector when leaving messages on cellular/personal phones in
violation of 15 U.S.C. Sections 1692e(11) and 1692d(6). "

In connection with the class certification proceedings, FCO filed
two motions. First, FCO filed a Motion to Deposit Funds in the
amount of $1,001.00, plus the cost of $400.00 for filing fees into
Court and Enter Judgment in Favor of Plaintiff. Second, FCO filed
a Motion to Strike the Declaration of Frank Farina, Esquire. Mr.
Farina is one of Plaintiff's attorneys; he filed the declaration
at issue in support of Plaintiff's motion for class certification.

In his Memorandum dated August 18, 2016 available at
https://is.gd/it5NRL from Leagle.com, Judge Robreno held that FCO
proposes an improper use of Rule 67; Plaintiff has a personal
stake in the class claims pled in the Third Amended Complaint; and
even if Plaintiff's claims were moot, he would be permitted to
proceed to class certification under the relation back doctrine
and picking off exception. Any one of these three reasons,
standing alone, is a sufficient basis for denying FCO's motion to
deposit funds and to enter judgment in favor of Plaintiff. The
Court granted the motion to strike Mr. Farina's affidavit because
the presence of a lawyer for a party acting as an expert witness
in a case would surely undermine the public's confidence in the
legal system.

Mariusz G. Jarzyna is represented by:

      Francis J. Farina, Esq.
      Jacob T. Thielen, Esq.
      Joseph A. O'Keefe, Esq.
      O'KEEFE, MILLER & THIELEN, P.C.

Home Properties, L.P. is represented by Candidus K. Dougherty,
Esq. -- cdougherty@swartzcambell.com -- SWARTZ CAMPBELL LLC

Fair Collections And Outsourcing, Inc., et al. are represented by
Ronald S. Canter, Esq. -- rcanter@roncanterllc.com -- THE LAW
OFFICES OF RONALD S. CANTER LLC


INNOVENTIONS INTL: Plaintiff Retains Standing under Calif. Law
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the case captioned, ELSA POLO, on behalf of herself and all
others similarly situated, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. INNOVENTIONS
INTERNATIONAL, LLC, a limited liability company, Defendant-
Appellee, Case No. 27655 (9th Cir.), Circuit Judge Milan D. Smith,
Jr. of the Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit reversed a district
court's grant of summary judgment in favor of Innoventions
International, LLC, and remanded the action to the district court.

Elsa Polo sued Innoventions in California state court. She alleged
several causes of action, including four class claims. The
gravamen of her complaint was that Innoventions had marketed a
product called DiabeStevia with "grossly misleading and
exaggerated claims" concerning its use and effectiveness -- in
particular, with the claim that it could be used to treat
diabetes. Based upon Polo's allegation that the classes included
"hundreds of customers," Innoventions removed the case to federal
court pursuant to the provisions of the Class Action Fairness Act
of 2005, which provides for original jurisdiction in the federal
district courts over certain class actions.

Polo went through several rounds of pleading before settling on a
Third Amended Complaint (TAC). The TAC alleged, among other
things, that Polo had been diagnosed with Type 2 diabetes; that
Innoventions marketed DiabeStevia as a treatment for diabetes;
that relying upon Innoventions's claims, Polo stopped taking her
prescribed diabetes medication, and instead began treating her
diabetes with DiabeStevia; and that DiabeStevia failed to perform
as advertised, causing Polo to suffer "life threatening illness."
Based upon these and other allegations, Polo asserted nine
different causes of action in her TAC.

On summary judgment, the district court found undisputed that Polo
does not have diabetes, and that she had stopped taking her
diabetes medication at least five months before she purchased and
used DiabeStevia. With respect to Polo's claim under California's
Consumers Legal Remedies Act, the district court found that
Innoventions had undisputedly refunded Polo her entire purchase
price, including tax and shipping. As a result, the district court
held that Polo lacked Article III standing for all of her claims,
granted summary judgment in favor of Innoventions, and dismissed
the case.

On appeal, Polo argues that upon making that determination, the
district court was required to remand the case to state court,
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Sec. 1447(c).

In his Opinion dated August 18, 2016 available at
https://is.gd/3gmcmz from Leagle.com, Judge Smith, Jr. found that
although Innoventions refunded Polo's purchase price, it did not
provided the notice and remedy to class members required by the
CLRA.  Polo retains standing under California law and remanded the
case to state court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Sec. 1447(c).

"At a minimum, we cannot say with 'absolute certainty' that remand
would be futile. Therefore, the district court should have
remanded this case to state court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Sec.
1447(c)," the Ninth Circuit said.

Elsa Polo is represented by Christopher Law Rudd, Esq. --
clrudd@c2lawgroup.com -- THE C2 LAW GROUP, P.C.

Innoventions International, LLC is represented by Thomas J.
Peistrup, Esq. -- tpeistrup@leechtishman.com -- TANTALO & ADLER
LLP


ITT EDUCATIONAL: Faces "Federman" Suit Alleging WARN Act Breach
---------------------------------------------------------------
ALLEN FEDERMAN and STEVE RYAN, on behalf of themselves and all
others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. ITT EDUCATIONAL
SERVICES, INC., Defendant, Case 1:16-cv-00780-UNA (D. Del.,
September 6, 2016), was filed on behalf of former employees of
Defendant who were terminated without cause, as part of, or as the
foreseeable result of the mass layoffs or plant closings ordered
by Defendant on or about September 6, 2016, and within 30 days of
that date, who were not provided 60 days advance written notice of
their terminations by Defendant, as required by the Worker
Adjustment and Retraining Notification Act and the California
Labor Code.

ITT EDUCATIONAL SERVICES, INC. -- http://www.ittesi.com/--
provides technology-oriented undergraduate and graduate degree
programs.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

     Christopher D. Loizides, Esq.
     LOIZIDES, P.A.
     1225 King Street, Suite 800
     Wilmington, DE 19801
     Phone: (302) 654-0248
     Email: loizides@loizides.com

        - and -

     Jack A. Raisner, Esq.
     Rene S. Roupinian, Esq.
     OUTTEN & GOLDEN LLP
     3 Park Avenue, 29th Floor
     New York, NY 10016
     Phone: (212) 245-1000
     Email: jar@outtengolden.com
            rsr@outtengolden.com


IY KHANDII: "Williams" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime
------------------------------------------------------------
Ashley Williams, individually and other similarly situated v. IY
Khandii, LLC  d/b/a IY Khandii Lash Boutique and Khadijah I.
Chapell, Case No. 0:16-cv-62080-WJZ (S.D. Fla., August 31, 2016),
seeks to recover unpaid overtime wages and damages pursuant to the
Fair Labor Standards Act.

The Defendants operate a beauty salon located at 245 N State Rd 7,
Plantation, FL 33317.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Anthony M. Georges-Pierre, Esq.
      REMER & GEORGES-PIERRE, PLLC
      44 West Flagler St., Suite 2200
      Miami, FL 33130
      Telephone: (305) 416-5000
      Facsimile: (305) 416-5005
      E-mail: agp@rgpattorneys.com
              apetisco@rgpattorneys.com
              rregueiro@rgpattorneys.com
              pn@rgpattorneys.com


JOHN WEILAND: Arbitration Clause Enforceable, SC High Court Says
----------------------------------------------------------------
Chief Justice Costa M. Pleicones of the South Carolina Supreme
Court reversed Court of Appeals' decision affirming circuit court
order denying petitioner's motion to compel arbitration in the
case captioned, Ralph Wayne Parsons, Jr., and Louise C. Parsons,
Respondents, v. John Wieland Homes and Neighborhoods of the
Carolinas, Inc., Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., and South Carolina Bank &
Trust, N.A., Defendants, Of which John Wieland Homes and
Neighborhoods of the Carolinas, Inc. is Petitioner, Case No. 27655
(S.C.).

In 2002, JWH purchased approximately 65 acres of land for the
development of a residential subdivision. The land was previously
utilized as a textile-related industrial site. Following the
purchase, JWH demolished and removed all visible evidence of the
industrial site and removed various underground pipes, valves, and
tanks remaining from the industrial operations. In 2008, the
Parsons discovered PVC pipes and a metal lined concrete box buried
on their Property. The PVC pipes and box contained "black sludge,"
which tested positive as a hazardous substance.

The Parsons claim they were unaware the Property was previously an
industrial site and contained hazardous substances. In 2011, the
Parsons filed the present lawsuit alleging JWH breached the
purchase agreement by failing to disclose defects with the
Property, selling property that was contaminated, and selling
property with known underground pipes. The Parsons further alleged
breach of contract, breach of implied warranties, unfair trade
practices, negligent misrepresentation, negligence and gross
negligence, and fraud.

JWH moved to compel arbitration and dismiss the complaint. The
motion asserted that all of the Parsons' claims arose out of the
purchase agreement, and the Parsons clearly agreed that all such
disputes would be decided by arbitration. The circuit court denied
the motion and found the arbitration clause was unenforceable. The
Court of Appeals affirmed the circuit court's finding that the
scope of the arbitration clause was restricted to Warranty claims
and declined to address the circuit court's application of the
outrageous torts exception doctrine.

The Court granted JWH's petition for a writ of certiorari to
review the Court of Appeals' decision.

In the Order dated August 17, 2016 available at
https://is.gd/ypM6Hv from Leagle.com, Judge Pleicones found that
the Court of Appeals erred in affirming the circuit court's
refusal to enforce the arbitration clause holding that the
arbitration clause was located within the Warranty, its scope was
limited to the terms of the Warranty and that the outrageous torts
exception to arbitration enforcement is no longer viable and the
Parsons' unconscionability argument is without merit.

John Weiland Homes and Neighborhoods of the Carolinas, Inc. is
represented by Trenholm G. Walker, Esq. -- gtw@p-tw.com -- and Ian
W. Freeman, Esq. -- iwf@p-tw.com -- Pratt-Thomas Walker, PA

Ralph Wayne Parsons, Jr., and Louise C. Parsons are represented by
Herbert W. Hamilton, Esq. -- herb.hamilton@hamiltonmartens.com --
Hamilton Martens Ballou & Carroll, LLC


KANSAS CITY LANDSMEN: 8th Cir. Affirmed $17K Attorney's Fee Award
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Circuit Judge James B. Loken of the Court of Appeals, Eighth
Circuit affirmed the district court's judgment in the case
captioned, John T. Galloway, individually and on behalf of a
class, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. The Kansas City Landsmen, LLC, et
al., Defendants-Appellees, Case No. 15-1629 (8th Cir.)

John T. Galloway, on behalf of himself and a class of similarly
situated consumers, alleged that 21 Budget rental car businesses
(defendants) willfully violated the Fair and Accurate Credit
Transactions Act (FACTA) by issuing receipts that contained more
than five digits of customers' credit card numbers.  15 U.S.C.
Sec. 1681c(g)(1). After the suit was filed, defendants installed
software to ensure their receipts complied with FACTA.

The parties then mediated and agreed on a proposed class action
settlement. The district court rejected the first settlement
because "the compensation provided to the class is inadequate,"
but the court approved a revised settlement providing that
plaintiffs would be offered reduced prices on car rentals and
enjoining defendants to comply with FACTA. In a "clear sailing"
provision, defendants agreed not to contest class counsel's
request for an award of attorney's fees and costs of no more than
$175,000, and a class representative incentive fee of no more than
$3,000.

After the certificate redemption period expired, plaintiffs filed
an unopposed motion for an award of $147,717.75 in attorneys'
fees, $5,699.01 in litigation expenses, and a $3,000 class
representative incentive fee for named plaintiff Galloway.
Applying Sec. 1712(a)-(c), the district court awarded $23,137.46
in attorneys' fees and costs, and a $1,000 class representative
incentive fee.

In ruling on plaintiffs' attorney's fee request, the district
court first applied Sec. 1712(a) and determined that a reasonable
fee attributable to the award of coupon certificates to class
members was $2,666.67, which was 33% of $8,000, the value of the
redeemed coupons. The court then used the lodestar method
prescribed in Sec. 1712(b) to determine that 10% of the total fee
requested, or $14,771.78, was a reasonable fee for the injunctive
relief provided to the class. Applying Sec. 1712(c), the court
added the two fee components together and awarded $17,438.45 as a
reasonable attorney's fee, plus the costs plaintiffs requested.

On appeal, plaintiffs argue that "the plain language of 28 U.S.C.
Sec. 1712 gives class counsel the right to elect that all of its
fees be calculated under the lodestar methodology" prescribed in
Sec. 1712(b) and that the district court erred in construing Sec.
1712(a) as mandating that any fee award attributable to the coupon
portion of the settlement must be based solely on the value of
coupons redeemed.

In his Order dated August 19, 2016 available at
https://is.gd/k8Unq2 from Leagle.com, Judge Loken concluded that
Sec. 1712 leaves the court discretion to apply either method, with
or without adjustments, or some combination of the two, subject to
abuse of discretion review. The Appeals Court further held that
the district court erred by following the approach in In re HP
Inkjet Printer Litig., 716 F.3d 1173, 1181-83 (9th Cir. 2013), in
applying Sec. 1712(a)-(c) without explicitly stating that the
award was based on an exercise of the court's discretion to
determine a reasonable attorney's fee.

According to the Appeals Court, "Our review of the record
persuades us that any award greater than $17,438.45 would be
unreasonable in light of class counsel's limited success in
obtaining value for the class. Cf. Gumbhir v. Curators of the
Univ. of Mo., 157 F.3d 1141, 1147 (8th Cir. 1998), cert. denied,
526 U.S. 1005 (1999). Thus, we conclude any error was harmless."


KOCH FOODS: Maplevale Farms Files Antitrust Suit Over Broilers
--------------------------------------------------------------
Maplevale Farms, Inc., individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff, vs. Koch Foods, Inc., JCG Foods of
Alabama, LLC, JCG Foods of Georgia, LLC, Koch Meats Co., Inc.,
Tyson Foods, Inc., Tyson Chicken, Inc., Tyson Breeders, Inc.,
Tyson Poultry, Inc., Pilgrim's Pride Corporation, Perdue Farms,
Inc., Sanderson Farms, Inc., Sanderson Farms, Inc. (Foods
Division), Sanderson Farms, Inc. (Production Division), Sanderson
Farms, Inc. (Processing Division), Wayne Farms, LLC, Mountaire
Farms, Inc., Mountaire Farms, LLC, Mountaire Farms of Delaware,
Inc., Peco Foods, Inc., Foster Farms, LLC, House of Raeford Farms,
Inc., Simmons Foods, Inc., Fieldale Farms Corporation,
George's, Inc., George's Farms, Inc., O.K. Foods, Inc., O.K.
Farms, Inc., and O.K. Industries, Inc. Defendants, Case No. 1:16-
cv-08637 (N.D. Ill., September 2, 2016), is an antitrust suit on
behalf of all persons who purchased Broilers directly from any of
the Defendants or their subsidiaries or affiliates for use or
delivery in the United States from at least as early as January 1,
2008 until the Present.

Each Defendant's corporate family sold or distributed Broilers.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Steven Hart, Esq.
     Brian Eldridge, Esq.
     Kyle Pozan, Esq.
     HART MCLAUGHLIN & ELDRIDGE
     121 West Wacker Drive, Suite 1050
     Chicago, IL 60601
     Phone: (312) 955-0545
     Fax: (312) 971-9243
     E-mail: shart@hmelegal.com
             beldridge@hmelegal.com
             kpozan@hmelegal.com

       - and -

     W. Joseph Bruckner, Esq.
     Heidi M. Silton, Esq.
     Elizabeth R. Odette, Esq.
     Brian D. Clark, Esq.
     LOCKRIDGE GRINDAL NAUEN P.L.L.P.
     100 Washington Avenue South, Suite 2200
     Minneapolis, MN 55401
     Phone: (612) 339-6900
     Fax: (612) 339-0981
     E-mail: wjbruckner@locklaw.com
             hmsilton@locklaw.com
             erodette@locklaw.com
             bdclark@locklaw.com

        - and -

     Bruce L. Simon, Esq.
     Aaron M. Sheanin, Esq.
     PEARSON, SIMON & WARSHAW, LLP
     44 Montgomery Street, Suite 2450
     San Francisco, CA 94104
     Phone: (415) 433-9000
     Fax: (415) 433-9008
     E-mail: bsimon@pswlaw.com
             asheanin@pswlaw.com

        - and -

     Clifford H. Pearson, Esq.
     Michael H. Pearson, Esq.
     PEARSON SIMON & WARSHAW, LLP
     15165 Ventura Boulevard, Suite 400
     Sherman Oaks, CA 92403
     Phone: (818) 788-8300
     Fax: (818) 788-8104
     E-mail: cpearson@pswlaw.com
             mpearson@pswlaw.com

        - and -

     Linda P. Nussbaum, Esq.
     NUSSBAUM LAW GROUP, P.C.
     570 Lexington Avenue, 19th Floor
     New York, NY 10022
     E-mail: lnussbaum@nussbaumpc.com

        - and -

     Arthur N. Bailey, Esq.
     Marco Cercone, Esq.
     RUPP BAASE PFALZGRAF CUNNINGHAM, LLC
     1600 Liberty Building
     424 Main Street
     Buffalo, NY 14202
     Phone: (716) 854-3400
     Fax: (716) 332-0336
     E-mail: bailey@ruppbaase.com
             cercone@ruppbaase.com


LEO EDELSBERG: Sued Over Americans with Disabilities Act Breach
---------------------------------------------------------------
Andres Gomez, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. Leo Edelsberg, O.D., P.A. d/b/a Optical World, Case
No. 1:16-cv-23738-JEM (S.D. Fla., August 31, 2016), is brought
against the Defendants for violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act.

Leo Edelsberg, O.D., P.A. operates an optical center in Aventura,
Florida.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


LIBERTY MUTUAL: 9th Cir. Reinstates Claim in "Moyle" Case
---------------------------------------------------------
Circuit Judge Harry Pregerson of the Court of Appeals, Ninth
Circuit, affirmed in part a lower court order granting summary
judgment in favor of Liberty Mutual Insurance Company in the case
captioned, GEOFFREY MOYLE, an individual, on behalf of themselves;
PAULINE ARWOOD, an individual, on behalf of themselves; THOMAS
ROLLASON, an individual, on behalf of themselves; JEANNIE SANDERS,
an individual, on behalf of themselves, Plaintiffs-
Appellants/Cross-Appellees, v. LIBERTY MUTUAL RETIREMENT BENEFIT
PLAN; LIBERTY MUTUAL RETIREMENT PLAN RETIREMENT BOARD; LIBERTY
MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY, a Massachusetts company; LIBERTY MUTUAL
INSURANCE GROUP INC., a Massachusetts company, Defendants-
Appellees/Cross-Appellants, Case Nos. 13-56330, 13-56412 (9th
Cir.).

Appellants filed the class action against Liberty Mutual for
violating the Employee Retirement Income Security Act ("ERISA").
Appellants asserted four claims for relief:

     (1) Appellants are entitled to past service credit under the
         terms of the retirement plan, under 29 U.S.C. Sec.
         1132(a)(1)(B);

     (2) Appellants are entitled to equitable relief under
         29 U.S.C. Sec. 1132(a)(3);

     (3) Liberty Mutual violated its duty to provide Appellants
         with documents relevant to their claim; and

     (4) Liberty Mutual violated its duty to disclose information
        about past service retirement credit in its Summary Plan
        Descriptions.

Appellants seek the equitable remedies of reformation and
surcharge for both claims (2) and (4).

Appellants are former employees of Old Golden Eagle Insurance
Company (Golden Eagle). Golden Eagle did not offer a retirement
plan to its employees. When Liberty Mutual purchased Golden Eagle
through a conservatorship sale, Appellants became employees of
Liberty Mutual. Liberty Mutual argues that it never made any
representation to Appellants that they would receive past service
credit for their time with Golden Eagle. Liberty Mutual also
argues that under the terms of the retirement plan, Appellants are
entitled only to past service credit for purposes of eligibility,
vesting, early retirement, and spousal benefits, and not for
retirement benefits accrual.

The district court granted summary judgment in favor of Liberty
Mutual on all four claims. Appellants appealed on claims (1), (2),
and (4). Liberty Mutual cross-appealed, alleging that Appellants'
suit is time-barred and that class certification was improper.

In his Opinion dated August 18, 2016 available at
https://is.gd/H3yyK5 from Leagle.com, Judge Pregerson affirmed the
district court's grant of summary judgment as to:

     -- claim (1) under 29 U.S.C. Sec. 1132(a)(1)(B) because
        Appellants are not entitled to past service credit under
        the terms of the Retirement Plan; and

     -- claim (4) under 29 C.F.R. Sections 2520.102-3(l) and
        2520.102-2(a) because Appellants are unable to prove harm
        or detrimental reliance on Liberty Mutual's failure to
        disclose information about past service credit in the
        Summary Plan Descriptions.

The Court reversed as to district court's grant of summary
judgment as to claim (2) under 29 U.S.C. Sec. 1132(a)(3) finding
that the district court erred in granting summary judgment on the
claim because there are triable issues of fact.

The case is remanded for determinations of fact and equitable
relief in the form of reformation and surcharge.

Geoffrey Moyle, et al. are represented by Matthew Butler, Esq. --
mbutler@butler-firm.com -- and Michael Olinik,  Esq. --
molinik@butler-firm.com -- THE BUTLER FIRM --  Craig Nicholas ,
Esq. -- cnicholas@nicholaslaw.org -- and Alex Tomasevic, Esq. --
atomasevic@nicholaslaw.org -- NICHOLAS & TOMASEVIC, LLP

Liberty Mutual Retirement Benefit Plan, et al. are represented by
Ashley Abel, Esq. -- AbelA@jacksonlewis.com -- JACKSON LEWIS P.C.


LUMBER LIQUIDATORS: Faces "Gonzalez" Suit Over Toxic Flooring
-------------------------------------------------------------
Jason Gonzalez and Katie Gonzalez, on behalf of themselves and all
others similarly situated v. Lumber Liquidators Inc., Case No.
2:16-cv-06567-DSF-AGR (C.D. Cal., August 31, 2016), alleges that
the Defendants manufactured, labeled and sold Chinese Flooring
that fails to comply with relevant and applicable formaldehyde
standards. The Chinese Flooring emits and off-gasses excessive
levels of formaldehyde, which is categorized as a known human
carcinogen by the United States National Toxicology Program and
the International Agency for Research on Cancer.

Lumber Liquidators, Inc. is a Delaware corporation with its
principal place of business at 3000 John Deere Road, Toano,
Virginia 23168. Lumber is a retailer of hardwood flooring.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Daniel K. Bryson, Esq.
      Patrick M. Wallace, Esq.
      WHITFIELD BRYSON AND MASON LLP
      900 West Morgan Street
      Raleigh, NC 27603
      Telephone: (919) 600-5000
      Facsimile: (919) 600-5035
      E-mail: dan@wbmllp.com
              pat@wbmllp.com

         - and -

      Mark J. Uyeno, Esq.
      Alexander Robertson IV, Esq.
      ROBERTSON AND ASSOCIATES LLP
      32121 Lindero Canyon Road Suite 200
      Westlake Village, CA 91361
      Telephone: (818) 851-3850
      Facsimile: (818) 851-3851
      E-mail: muyeno@arobertsonlaw.com
              arobertson@arobertsonlaw.com

         - and -

      Robert Ahdoot, Esq.
      Tina Wolfson, Esq.
      AHDOOT AND WOLFSON PC
      1016 Palm Avenue
      West Hollywood, CA 90069
      Telephone: (310) 474-9111
      Facsimile: (310) 474-8585
      E-mail: rahdoot@ahdootwolfson.com
              twolfson@ahdootwolfson.com


LUXURY SUITES: Nevada Judge Rejects Settlement, 40% Fee Award
-------------------------------------------------------------
Chief District Judge Gloria M. Navarro of the United States
District Court for the District of Nevada denied the parties'
renewed motion for an order requesting the court to grant
provisional approval of the proposed settlement agreement and
preliminarily certify Plaintiff's proposed class action for
purposes of settlement in the case captioned, ALICE SINANYAN, an
individual; JAMES KOURY, an individual and trustee of the Koury
Family Trust; and SEHAK TUNA, an individual, on behalf of
themselves and others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. LUXURY
SUITES INTERNATIONAL, LLC, a Nevada limited liability company;
RE/MAX PROPERTIES, LLC, a Nevada limited liability company;
JETLIVING HOTELS, LLC, a Nevada limited liability company; and
DOES 1 through 100, inclusive, Defendants, Case No. 2:15-CV-00225-
GMN-VCF (D. Nev.).

The action involves claims brought by Alice Sinanyan (Plaintiff),
individually and on behalf of a putative class of approximately
110 condominium owners at the Signature at MGM Grand (The
Signature), against property rental manager JetLiving Hotels, LLC
(JetLiving). Plaintiff alleges that JetLiving violated its
contractual, statutory, and common law duties by failing to
disclose its collection of a "resort fee" from rental guests, and
the parties have now reached a settlement.

The Complaint alleges these causes of action against JetLiving:
(1) breach of contract; (2) breach of implied covenant of good
faith and fair dealing; (3) intentional misrepresentation; (4)
fraudulent concealment; (5) negligent misrepresentation; (6)
violation of Nevada Revised Statutes Sec. 41.600; (7) breach of
fiduciary duty; and (8) unjust enrichment.

On January 14, 2016, the parties reached a tentative settlement
through mediation.  The total settlement amount is $250,000, which
the parties propose allocating in this manner:

     (1) attorney's fees not to exceed the amount of $100,000;

     (2) costs not to exceed $10,000;

     (3) an incentive payment in the amount of $10,000 for
         plaintiff Alice Sinanyan;

     (4) administrative expenses in the amount of no greater than
         $9,000; and

     (5) an allocation of the remaining $121,000 "on a pro rata
         basis based on the total resort fees collected by
         JetLiving from the rental of the individual Putative
         Class member's unit divided by the total resort fees
         collected by JetLiving from the rental of all non-opt out
         Putative Class members' units.

On February 24, 2016, the parties filed their first joint motion
for an order requesting that the Court adopt the parties' proposed
order which was denied because "Plaintiff had not provided a basis
for concluding that the proposed fee award was reasonable." The
parties have filed a renewed joint motion for an order in which
the parties repeat their initial requests.

In her Order dated August 17, 2016 available at
https://is.gd/IFV5Ld from Leagle.com, Judge Navarro concluded that
the Plaintiff has failed to justify why Plaintiff's counsel is
entitled to 40% of the Settlement Amount.

"Because neither the percentage method nor the lodestar method
supports a 40% fee award to Counsel, the Court must again deny the
parties' Motion for an Order approving the Proposed Settlement,"
Judge Navarro explained.  "Plaintiff has indicated that
"Plaintiffs' counsel will consider reducing its request for fees
to 33 percent of the common fund."  In the event Counsel does so,
the Court cautions Counsel that any request for fees above 25%
must clearly identify the special circumstances that justify such
an award."

Alice Sinanyan and James Koury are represented by Don Springmeyer,
Esq. -- dspringmeyer@wrslawyers.com -- Justin C. Jones, Esq. --
jjones@wrslawyers.com -- and Royi Moas, Esq. --
rmoas@wrslawyers.com -- WOLF, RIFKIN, SHAPIRO, SCHULMAN & RABKIN,
LLP

Luxury Suites International, LLC is represented by Amy R.
Lancaster, Esq. -- arl@sinkeldamlaw.com -- and Gary Sinkeldam,
Esq. -- gps@sinkeldamlaw.com -- LAW OFFICE OF GARY P. SINKELDAM --
John Scott Burris, Esq. -- j.scott.burris@wilsonelser.com -- and
Reuben H. Cawley, Esq. -- reuben.cawley@wilsonelser.com -- WILSON,
ELSER, MOSKOWITZ, EDELMAN & DICKER LLP

Jab Affiliates, LLC dba Las Vegas Suites is represented by
Steven R. Dunn, Esq. -- steven@dunnlawfirm.net -- DUNN FIRM, P.C.

JetLiving Hotels, LLC is represented by Andrew M. Legolvan, Esq.
-- alegolvan@gordonrees.com -- and Craig J. Mariam, Esq. --
cmariam@gordonrees.com -- GORDON & REES LLP


MAGNA HEALTH: "Johnson" Suit Seeks Unpaid Overtime, Backwages
-------------------------------------------------------------
Terry Johnson, individually and on behalf of all similarly
situated, Plaintiff, Magna Health Care, Inc., Defendant, Case No.
4:16-cv-00568 (N.D. Okla., August 31, 2016), seeks unpaid back
wages due, liquidated damages, prejudgment and post-judgment
interest and such other and further relief under the Fair Labor
Standards Act.

Defendant provides health services throughout the United States,
including in Oklahoma where Plaintiff was employed as a
Habilitation Training Specialist travelling to group homes or
other health care institutions to train Defendant's clients in
functional skills. Johnson claims to be uncompensated for off-the-
clock work.

Defendant is represented by:

      J. Vince Hightower, Esq.
      19151 Sandy Creek Circle
      Kansas, OK 74347
      Tel: (918) 232 3573
      Email: Jvh255@aol.com

             - and -

      J. Derek Braziel, Esq.
      J. Forester, Esq.
      LEE & BRAZIEL, L.L.P.
      1801 N. Lamar Street, Suite 325
      Dallas, TX 75202
      Tel: (214) 749-1400 phone
      Fax: (214) 749-1010 fax


MARIETTA MEMORIAL: Nurses' Suit Has Conditional Certification
-------------------------------------------------------------
District Judge Algenon L. Marbley of the United States District
Court for the Southern District of Ohio, Eastern Division, granted
Plaintiffs' motion for conditional collective action certification
under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) and denied as moot
Plaintiffs' motion for reconsideration and motion to stay in the
case captioned, LYNNETT MYERS, et al., Plaintiffs, v. MARIETTA
MEMORIAL HOSPITAL, et al., Defendants, Case No. 2:15-CV-2956,(S.D.
Ohio.).

Plaintiffs Lynnett Myers, Carol Butler, and Arva Lowther are
former nurses at Defendant Marietta Memorial Hospital, which is
operated by Memorial Health System. Memorial Health System also
operates Defendants Selby General Hospital and Marietta Health
Care, Inc., and all of these entities function as joint employers
of Memorial Health System's commenced this collective and class
action against Defendants Marietta Memorial Hospital, Marietta
Health Care, Inc., and Selby General Hospital on October 29, 2015.
They have brought causes of action under the FLSA as well as the
Ohio Minimum Fair Wage Standards Act (OMFWSA). Plaintiffs allege
that Defendants' policy of automatically deducting thirty minutes
for a meal break for employees who do direct patient care violates
the FLSA because employees are routinely prohibited from either
taking an uninterrupted meal break or canceling the automatic
deduction.

On January 7, 2016, Plaintiffs moved for conditional collective
action certification and also asked for expedited discovery and
issuance of notice to the proposed class. Defendants opposed
certification. On March 10, 2016, Defendants noticed the
depositions of Plaintiffs Myers, Butler, and Lowther as well as
Opt-in Plaintiff Stacy Hanlon, and on March 17, 2016, Plaintiffs
filed a motion requesting expedited certification and a protective
order to prohibit the depositions.

Defendants filed a motion to compel the depositions. The
Magistrate Judge granted the motion to compel in part and denied
Plaintiffs' motion to expedite. Acknowledging that there was no
need for discovery on the conditional certification issue and that
taking depositions of Plaintiffs at the point in the litigation
was inconsistent with the Court's typical procedure in a FLSA
collective action, the Magistrate Judge nevertheless granted the
motion to compel Plaintiffs' depositions because Plaintiffs had
not argued that they would be prejudiced or that the proposed
depositions were improper under Federal Rules of Civil Procedure
26(b), 26(c), or 30.

Plaintiffs moved for reconsideration of the Magistrate Judge's
order denying the motion to expedite and granting the motion to
compel; and also asked the Court to stay the depositions of
Plaintiffs pending the resolution of the motion for
reconsideration.

Plaintiffs also asked the Court to certify conditionally a class
"All of Defendants' current and former hourly employees who were
responsible for direct patient care and were subject to
Defendants' automatic meal deduction policy during the three years
before this Complaint was filed up to the present."

In the Opinion and Order dated August 17, 2016 available at
https://is.gd/mdyDKe from Leagle.com, Judge Marbley found that
Plaintiffs have made the modest factual showing that they are
similarly situated to other employees at Memorial Health System
who provide direct patient care. The motion for reconsideration is
denied as moot because the depositions have not yet been
conducted, Plaintiffs have not been prejudiced by the Magistrate
Judge's order allowing discovery before the resolution of the
conditional-certification motion and the motion to stay pending a
resolution of the motion for motion for reconsideration.

Lynnett Myers, et al. are represented by:

      Marcy J. Stevens, Esq.
      Steven Charles Babin, Jr., Esq.
      Lance Chapin, Esq.
      CHAPIN LEGAL GROUP, LLC
      580 S. High Street, Suite 330
      Columbus, OH 43215
      Tel:(614)221-9100

Marietta Memorial Hospital, eta al. are represented by James
Edward Davidson, Esq. -- james.davidson@icemiller.com -- and
Catherine L. Strauss, Esq. -- Catherine.Strauss@icemiller.com --
ICE MILLER LLP


MEDPRO GROUP: Carrel's Breach of Contract Claim Dismissed
---------------------------------------------------------
District Judge Theresa L. Springman of the United States District
Court for the Northern District of Indiana granted Defendant's
motion for partial judgment on the pleadings in the case
captioned, GRETCHEN B. CARREL, on behalf of herself and all other
similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. MEDPRO GROUP, INC., Defendant,
Case No. 1:16-CV-130-TLS (N.D. Ind.).

The litigation was initiated when the Plaintiff, Gretchen B.
Carrel, filed a three-count Class Action Complaint for Damages in
state court against her former employer, MedPro Group, Inc.
Attached to the Complaint were two pages describing a Paid Time
Off (PTO) policy that the Plaintiff alleges she was subject to as
a MedPro employee. The Plaintiff alleges that the Defendant did
not pay her the full amount of earned PTO due to her when she
resigned from employment and that this failure is a violation of
Indiana's Wage Payment Act, Ind. Code Sec. 22-2-5-2, et seq.
(Count I), or, alternatively, was a breach of contract or unjust
enrichment (Count II). In Count III of the Complaint, the
Plaintiff alleges that the Defendant violated the Family Medical
Leave Act's (FMLA) prohibition against illegal interference,
discrimination, or retaliation for exercising her FMLA rights when
it reduced her earned PTO while she was on FMLA leave.

After the Defendant removed the case to the District Court and
answered the Complaint, it moved for judgment on the pleading for
the breach of contract claim asserted in Count II. The Defendant
argues that the claim is not viable because it is premised on a
provision of the MedPro Employee Handbook, and the Handbook
contains a disclaimer that it is not a contract. The Defendant
points out that the Employee Handbook containing the PTO policy
includes a disclaimer on the first page, which states that
"Nothing in this Handbook is intended to create (nor shall be
construed as creating) an express or implied contract of
employment or to guarantee employment for any term or to promise
that any specific procedures must be followed by Medical
Protective. There is no contract of employment between Medical
protective and any of its employees."

The Plaintiff objects to reliance on the Handbook language to
support the Defendant's Motion.

In her Opinion and Order dated August 18, 2016 available at
https://is.gd/oU7hqx from Leagle.com, Judge Springman dismissed
the breach of contract claim because the Complaint does not
contain "enough facts to state a claim to relief that is plausible
on its face" and does not state sufficient facts to raise the
Plaintiff's right to relief on a breach of contract claim above
the speculative level.

Gretchen B. Carrel is represented by Matthew J. Elliott, Esq. --
melliott@beckmanlawson.com -- BECKMAN LAWSON LLP

MedPro Group Inc. is represented by Edward E. Hollis, Esq. --
edward.hollis@FaegreBD.com -- Rozlyn M. Fulgoni-Britton -
rozlyn.fulgoni-britton@FaegreBD.com -- and Toni M. Everton, Esq.
-- toni.everton@FaegreBD.com - FAEGRE BAKER DANIELS


MICHAEL SMITH: Sued Over NY Religious Corporations Law Violation
----------------------------------------------------------------
Barry Rachnowitz, Iris Rachnowitz, Marvin Abrams, Rose Abrams,
Corinne Lewis, Barbara Bromberg, Jonathon Fessler, Windy Fessler,
Zelda Gerstl, Harvey Meyer, Lois Meyer and Barbara Isralewitz, on
behalf of themselves and all other members of the Howard Beach
Judea Center, similarly situated v. Michael Smith, Lawrence
Bernstein, Gertrude Roffel, Dorie Pearlman, and John and Jane Does
1-10, Case No. 710480/2016 (N.Y. Super. Ct., August 31, 2016), is
an action for damages as a result of the Defendant's
implementation of a plan to consolidate with the Chabad of Howard
Beach without the requisite approval of two-thirds of Howard Beach
Judea Center's (HBJC's) members, to change the nature of the
worship at HBJC, and to threaten to remove or demote Rabbi
Hirschfeld in favor of another rabbi who will conduct services in
another Judaic tradition which violates the New York Religious
Corporations Law.

The Defendants operate Howard Beach Judea Center, a religious
corporation organized under the laws of the State of New York and
maintains its principal office in Queens County, New York.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Henry L. Saurbom Jr., Esq.
      KAISER SAURBORN & MAIR, P.C.
      111 Broadway, 181h Floor
      New York, NY 10006
      Telephone: (212) 338-9100
      E-mail: saurborn@ksmlaw.com


MIDLAND CREDIT: Arbitration Agreement Enforceable, NJ Judge Says
----------------------------------------------------------------
District Judge Jose L. Linares of the United States District Court
for the District of New Jersey granted Defendant's motion to
dismiss the complaint and to compel arbitration in the case
captioned, VICKEY JEFFREYS, Plaintiff, v. MIDLAND CREDIT
MANAGEMENT, INC., Defendant, Case No. 15-8470 (JLL) (D.N.J.)

The plaintiff brought the action on behalf of herself and others
similarly situated to recover damages for alleged violations of
the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA) by the defendant,
Midland Credit Management, Inc. (MCM). The plaintiff had a credit
card account with an entity known as Credit One Bank, N.A.
(COBNA). The cardholder agreement for that account contained
provisions under the heading "ARBITRATION" that required that:
(1)"Any controversy or dispute be resolved by binding
arbitration"; and (2) "Arbitration replaces the right to go to
court, including the right to a jury and the right to participate
in a class action or similar proceeding".

The plaintiff eventually incurred a debt on her account that COBNA
determined to be uncollectable. COBNA then charged off the debt,
and sold it to an entity known as Sherman Originator III, LLC
(SOLLC). SOLLC, in turn, sold the debt to Midland Funding, LLC
(MFLLC), which in turn referred the matter for collection to its
servicer, MCM. MCM attempted to collect the debt by mailing a
letter seeking payment to the plaintiff.

In the motion, MCM, pursuant to the cardholder agreement, demanded
that the dispute be referred to arbitration. The Plaintiff
opposed, arguing that MCM lacks the standing to enforce the
provisions in issue because it is a "nonsignatory" to the
cardholder agreement and that the arbitration provisions and class
action provisions are unconscionable, reasoning that they "are
adhesive agreements" that "presented terms on a take-it-or-leave-
it basis".

In his Opinion dated August 18, 2016 available at
https://is.gd/eUG1FF from Leagle.com, Judge Linares concluded that
MCM has been assigned the debt, and thus MCM is authorized to
invoke the provisions in issue from the cardholder agreement in
order to address the plaintiff's claims. The Court found that
Plaintiff's argument regarding conscionability is without merit
because the arbitration provisions were neither procedurally nor
substantively unconscionable.

Vickey Jeffreys is represented by:

      Yongmoon Kim, Esq.
      KIM LAW FIRM LLC
      911 Arch St. #101
      Philadelphia, PA 19107
      Tel:(855)996-6342

Midland Credit Management, Inc. is represented by Andrew Michael
Schwartz, Esq. -- easchwartz@mdwcg.com -- Lawrence J. Bartel, III,
Esq. -- ljbartel@mdwcg.com -- and Ronald Michael Metcho, II, Esq.
-- rmmetcho@mdwcg.com -- MARSHALL DENNEHEY WARNER COLEMAN & GOGGIN
PC


MIDLAND FUNDING: Fraudulent Judgment Victims' Suit Dismissed
------------------------------------------------------------
District Judge Barbara M.G. Lynn of the United States District
Court for the Northern District of Texas dismissed, without
prejudice, for lack of subject matter jurisdiction the case
captioned, TEXAS ASSOCIATION OF FRAUDULENT JUDGMENT VICTIMS,
Plaintiff, v. MIDLAND FUNDING LLC, Defendant, Case No. 3:15-CV-
2858-M (N.D. Tex.).

Plaintiff filed the action against Midland Funding LLC (Midland)
and several other defendants, in the 134th Judicial District Court
of Dallas County, Texas, seeking equitable relief from judgments
rendered in Texas courts that are allegedly void for lack of
subject matter jurisdiction and fraud on the court.  In the
Original Petition, Plaintiff alleged it was the "assignee" of an
individual against whom Midland obtained an allegedly void
judgment. Plaintiff subsequently filed a "First Amended Class
Action Petition" in the state court action, purporting to
represent a class of more than 1,000 individuals against whom
Midland obtained an allegedly void judgment.

Midland thereafter removed, pursuant to the Class Action Fairness
Act of 2005, 28 U.S.C. Sec. 1332(2) & 1453, the action and eight
other lawsuits filed by Plaintiff in various Dallas County courts
similarly seeking equitable relief from allegedly void judgments
rendered in state court. The Court consolidated the removed cases
into the action.

During a Rule 16 Conference, the Court sua sponte questioned
whether Plaintiff had standing to bring the claims asserted.  The
Court ordered Plaintiff to produce all the documents that it
contends establish its standing to bring this lawsuit, including:
(1) all documents relating to Plaintiff's incorporation and
business activities; (2) a list of Plaintiff's members and other
persons with legal authority to act for Plaintiff; and (3) copies
of assignments from individual judgment debtors, if any.

Plaintiff failed to provide copies of the alleged assignments from
the identified individuals. Nor did Plaintiff provide any
documents relating to its incorporation or business activities.

After noting the deficiencies in Plaintiff's response, the Court
granted Plaintiff one final opportunity to submit evidence to
establish its standing.

In her Memorandum Opinion and Order dated September 2, 2016
available at https://is.gd/aQkJaX from Leagle.com, Judge Lynn
concluded that Plaintiff lacks standing to bring any of its claims
against Midland. The Court determined that it is appropriate to
sanction Plaintiff's counsel, William Ross Teter, Esq., pursuant
to 28 U.S.C. Sec. 1927 finding that Mr. Teter's conduct
unreasonably and vexatiously multiplied the litigation by
obfuscating and delaying the Court's resolution of the threshold
issue of standing.

Midland is directed to submit evidence of its attorney's fees
incurred from October 15, 2015 to the date of the Memorandum
Opinion and Order, no later than two weeks from the date of the
Memorandum Opinion and Order. Mr. Teter may respond no later than
two weeks after Midland submits its evidence of attorney's fees.

Texas Association of Fraudulent Victims is represented by:

      William Ross Teter, Esq.
      TETER LAW FIRM
      PO Box 815823
      Dallas, TX 75381-5823
      Tel:(214)850-8095

Midland Funding LLC is represented by Aimee Guidry Szygenda, Esq.
-- aszygenda@mcglinchey.com -- Gregg D. Stevens, Esq. --
gstevens@mcglinchey.com -- and Jeffrey R. Seewald, Esq. --
jseewald@mcglinchey.com -- MCGLINCHEY STAFFORD


MINES MANAGEMENT: O'Rourke, Schubert and Assad Suits Filed
----------------------------------------------------------
Mines Management, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on August 15, 2016, for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2016, that the Company is
defending against class action lawsuits related to a merger
agreement.

Since the announcement of the merger, the Company, members of the
Company's board of directors, Merger Sub and Hecla were named as
defendants in three putative stockholder class actions, brought by
purported stockholders of the Company, challenging the proposed
merger:

     -- Two of the lawsuits were filed in the Superior Court in
        Spokane County, Washington, and are captioned O'Rourke v.
        Dobbs, et al., No.16202116-1 (Spokane Cnty, Wash. June 6,
        2016) and Schubert v. Dobbs, et al., No. 16202667-7
        (Spokane Cnty, Wash. July 14, 2016) (together, the "state
        lawsuits").

     -- The other lawsuit was filed in the United States District
        Court for the Eastern District of Washington, and is
        captioned Assad v. Mines Management, Inc., et al., No.
       16-cv-00256-SMJ (E.D. Wash. July 12, 2016) (the "federal
        lawsuit").

The plaintiffs in the state lawsuits generally claim that (i) the
members of the Company's board of directors breached their
fiduciary duties to the Company's stockholders by authorizing the
merger with Hecla for what the plaintiff asserts is inadequate
consideration and pursuant to an inadequate process and with
inadequate disclosures and (ii) Hecla and Merger Sub aided and
abetted the other defendants' alleged breach of duties. The
plaintiffs seek, among other things, to enjoin the merger, rescind
the transaction or obtain rescissory damages if the merger is
consummated, obtain other unspecified damages and recover
attorneys' fees and costs.

The plaintiff in the federal lawsuit generally claims that (i) the
Company and the members of the  Company's board of directors
issued a proxy statement containing false and misleading
statements and (ii) the members of the Company's board of
directors, Hecla and Merger Sub are liable as controlling persons
of the Company. The plaintiff seeks, among other things, to enjoin
the merger, rescind the transaction or obtain rescissory damages
if the merger is consummated, require the members of the Company's
board of directors to disseminate a proxy statement that does not
contain any untrue statements of material fact and that states all
material facts required or necessary to make the statements
contained therein not misleading, obtain other unspecified damages
and recover attorneys' fees and costs. Although it is not possible
to predict the outcome of litigation matters with certainty, each
of the Company, its directors, Hecla and Merger Sub believe that
each of the lawsuits are without merit, and the parties intend to
vigorously defend against all claims asserted.


MINES MANAGEMENT: Court Dismisses "Assad" Suit Over Merger Deal
---------------------------------------------------------------
District Judge Salvador Mendoza, Jr. of the United States District
Court for the Eastern District of Washington denied Plaintiff's
motion for preliminary injunction and granted Defendants' motion
to dismiss in the case captioned, GEORGE ASSAD, Plaintiff, v.
MINES MANAGEMENT, INC., GLENN DOBBS, RUSSELL C. BABCOCK, DOUGLAS
D. DOBBS, ROY G. FRANKLIN, JERRY G. POGUE, ROBERT L. RUSSELL,
HECLA MINING COMPANY, AND HL IDAHO CORP., Defendants, Case No.
2:16-CV-00256-SMJ (E.D. Wash.).

Plaintiff George Assad alleges violations of Section 14(a) and
Section 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 in connection
with a proposed acquisition of Mines Management, Inc. (Mines) by
Hecla Mining Company (Hecla). Specifically, Assad alleges that the
Defendants withheld certain material information from the proxy
statement Defendants filed with the SEC.

Assad has moved for a preliminary injunction to enjoin the
stockholders vote scheduled for September 12. Defendants have
moved to dismiss. Assad argues that the proxy statement failed to
disclose four categories of material information, in violation of
Section 14(a): (1) Mines' and Hecla's financial projections; (2)
information concerning the analysis performed by CG in its
fairness opinion; (3) confidentiality agreements entered into by
Mines and potential bidders; and (4) potential conflicts of
interest.

Defendants moved to dismiss for failure to state a claim. The
Defendants have moved to dismiss. In light of a revised proxy
statement filed by Defendants, the only remaining issues in this
case are whether the Defendants omitted certain "financial
projections" from the proxy statement and, if so, whether the
omission constituted an omission of material fact that made any
portion of the proxy statement misleading.

In his Order dated September 2, 2016 available at
https://is.gd/SJ6luF from Leagle.com, Judge Mendoza, Jr. found
that Assad failed to plead facts sufficient to show that the proxy
statement contained a material and misleading omission. Because
plaintiff fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted,
he cannot show likelihood of success on the merits for the purpose
of a preliminary injunction.

George Assad is represented by Roger M. Townsend, Esq. --
rtownsend@bjtlegal.com -- BRESKIN JOHNSON & TOWNSEND PLLC

George Assad is represented by Brendan W. Donckers, Esq. --
bdonckers@bjtlegal.com -- BRESKIN JOHNSON & TOWNSEND PLLC -- Brian
D. Long, Esq. -- bdl@rl-legal.com -- Gina M. Serra, Esq. --
gms@rl-legal.com -- and Seth D. Rigrodsky, Esq. -- sdr@rl-
legal.com -- RIGRODSKY & LONG PA

Mines Management Inc, et al. are represented by Devon Largio, Esq.
-- devon.largio@kirkland.com -- and Joshua Z. Rabinovitz, Esq. --
joshua.rabinovitz@kirkland.com -- KIRKLAND & ELLIS LLP -- and Todd
Reuter, Esq. -- todd.reuter@foster.com -- FOSTER PEPPER PLLC

Hecla Mining Company and HL Idaho Corp are represented by B. John
Casey, Esq. -- john.casey@klgates.com -- Daniel-Charles V. Wolf,
Esq. -- dc.wolf@klgates.com -- and Philip M. Guess, Esq. --
Philip.Guess@klgates.com -- K & L GATES LLP


MODERNIZE INC: "Johansen" Sues Over Unsolicited Sales Calls
-----------------------------------------------------------
Ken Johansen on behalf of himself and others similarly situated,
Plaintiff, v. Modernize, Inc., Defendant, Case No. 2:16-cv-00839
(S.D. Ohio, August 31, 2016), seeks injunctive relief prohibiting
violations of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act by the
Defendant; treble damages and statutory damages; and attorneys'
fees and costs, and such other relief under the Telephone Consumer
Protection Act.

Modernize, Inc. -- https://modernize.com/about -- is a Delaware
corporation that has its principal office at 804 Congress Avenue,
Suite 400, Austin, Texas 78701. It connects home improvement
contractors to homeowners who subscribe to their service.

Defendant has been calling Johansen's home telephone number
despite it being on the National Do Not Call Registry for more
than seven years.

Defendant is represented by:

      Brian K. Murphy, Esq.
      Joseph F. Murray, Esq.
      Geoffrey J. Moul, Esq.
      MURRAY MURPHY MOUL + BASIL LLP
      1114 Dublin Road
      Columbus, OH 43215
      Tel: (614) 488-0400
      Fax: (614) 488-0401
      E-mail: murphy@mmmb.com
              murray@mmmb.com
              moul@mmmb.com

              - and -

      Edward A. Broderick, Esq.
      Anthony I. Paronich, Esq.
      BRODERICK LAW, P.C.
      99 High Street, Suite 304
      Boston, MA 02110
      Tel: (508) 221-1510
      Fax: (617) 830-0327
      Email: ted@broderick-law.com
             anthony@broderick-law.com


NCR CORP: Waived Right on Class Arbitration Issue, Court Says
-------------------------------------------------------------
District Judge Marsha J. Pechman of the United States District
court for the Western District of Washington held that NCR Corp.
has waived its right to object to an arbitrator's authority to
decide the class arbitration issue in the case captioned, NCR
CORPORATION, Plaintiff, v. CHRIS GOH, Defendant, Case No. C16-127-
MJP (W.D. Wash.).  The Court denied NCR's motion for summary
judgment and granted Goh's motion for summary judgment.

In or around August 2013, Plaintiff NCR Corporation (NCR) hired
Defendant Chris Goh as a customer engineer in Seattle, Washington.
As a condition of employment, Mr. Goh was required to undergo a
background check. In connection with the hiring process, Mr. Goh
and NCR also entered into a "Mutual Agreement to Arbitrate all
Employment Related Claims." In May 2014, approximately eight
months after he commenced employment with NCR, Mr. Goh voluntarily
terminated his employment.

On June 25, 2015, Mr. Goh and Douglass Jones, another former NCR
employee, jointly filed a demand for arbitration against NCR in
Seattle (Seattle Arbitration). The demand alleged NCR failed to
provide the disclosure required under the Fair Credit Reporting
Act (FCRA) prior to running a background check on employees and
applicants. In additional to their individual claims, Mr. Goh and
Mr. Jones also sought to assert claims on behalf of all other
persons on whom NCR had obtained background reports.

On September 8, 2015, the AAA informed the Parties that, although
the Agreement between NCR and Mr. Goh provides for the appointed
arbitrator to be licensed to practice law in the state where the
arbitration takes place, the AAA only had one arbitrator on its
Class Action Panel who was licensed in Washington. On October 1,
2015, Mr. Goh agreed to the selection of a provisional arbitrator
to decide the class arbitration issue. The AAA announced selection
of Arbitrator James Paulson on December 8, 2015.

On December 22, 2015, Mr. Paulson established January 29, 2016 as
the deadline for the Parties to submit briefing on the class
arbitration issue. On January 27, 2016, two days before deadline
for the Parties to submit their briefs, NCR advised the AAA and
Mr. Goh that it planned to file an action in the Western District
of Washington to ask the Court to determine whether the Agreement
authorized class arbitration. That same day, NCR commenced the
suit.

On January 28, 2016, NCR sent an email to the AAA and to Mr. Goh's
counsel asking the AAA to suspend administration of the
arbitration so that the District Court could resolve the class
arbitration issue. The AAA declined to suspend administration of
the arbitration, because Rule 1 of the AAA's Employment
Arbitration Rules does not allow for a stay of administration when
a party seeks judicial intervention more than 30 days after the
commencement of arbitration.

NCR filed a Motion for Temporary Restraining Order, asking the
District Court to enjoin Mr. Goh from further pursuing a ruling
from the arbitrator as to whether the Agreement authorizes class
arbitration. On February 4, 2016, the Court entered an Order
denying NCR's Motion for Temporary Restraining Order on the
grounds that NCR failed to show it was entitled to the relief
requested.

In his Cross-Motion for Summary Judgment, Mr. Goh argues the Court
should grant summary judgment in his favor because, among other
things, NCR has not preserved its objection to the arbitrator's
authority to determine the class arbitration issue. NCR argues it
did not waive its objection to the arbitrator's authority to
determine the class arbitration issue. NCR contends it only
accepted the proposal that a provisional arbitrator be appointed
to decide the class arbitration issue, because the AAA announced
that if the Parties could not agree on a course of action, they
would have to choose from arbitrators who were not class action
certified.

"NCR's conduct here demonstrates its agreement to allow the
provisional arbitrator to decide the class arbitration issue, and
it would be unreasonable and unjust to allow NCR to reverse course
given its prior conduct," the Judge said.

A copy of Judge Pechman's Order dated September 1, 2016 available
at https://is.gd/O6kthY from Leagle.com.

NCR Corporation is represented by C. Allen Garrett, Jr., Esq. --
Agarrett@kilpatricktownsend.com -- KILPATRICK TOWNSEND STOCKTON
LLP

NCR Corporation is represented by Cindy D. Hanson, Esq. -
cindy.hanson@troutmansanders.com -- Michael J. Breslin, Esq. --
Mbreslin@kilpatricktownsend.com -- Rachel Saimons, Esq. --
RSaimons@kilpatricktownsend.com -- and Rob Roy Smith, Esq. --
RRSmith@kilpatricktownsend.com -- KILPATRICK TOWNSEND & STOCKTON
LLP

Chris Goh is represented by Anna P. Prakash, Esq. --
aprakash@nka.com -- and Eleanor Frisch, Esq. -- efrisch@nka.com --
Nicholas Kaster, Esq. -- kaster@nka.com - NICHOLS KASTERE, LLP --
Beth E. Terrell, Esq. -- bterrell@tmdwlaw.com -- TERRELL MARSHALL
LAW GROUP PLLC


NEVADA CHECKER: Court Dismisses "Noble" Complaint
-------------------------------------------------
District Judge Robert C. Jones of the United States District Court
for the District of Nevada granted Defendants' motion to dismiss
the case captioned, BRENT NOBLE et al., Plaintiffs, v. NEVADA
CHECKER CAB CORP. et al., Defendants, Case No. 2:15-CV-02322-RCJ-
VCF (D. Nev.).

Plaintiffs allege six Defendant taxi companies have violated the
Fair and Accurate Transactions Act (FACTA), 15 U.S.C. Sec.
1681c(g) "by printing more than the last 5 digits of the card
number on receipts provided to credit card and debit card
cardholders transacting business with Defendants." Plaintiffs sued
Defendants naming as a class all consumers receiving such receipts
within the two-year period preceding the filing of the Complaint,
listing six subclasses according to the six Defendants.

Defendants moved to dismiss for failure to state a claim. The
Court dismissed the First Amended Complaint with leave to amend,
because Plaintiffs had not alleged the way in which Defendants had
violated Sec. 1681c(g), but had merely recited the statute. The
Second Amended Complaint (SAC) includes a relevant factual
allegation that Defendants printed the first number plus the last
four numbers of Plaintiffs' credit card numbers on receipts.

In the motion, Defendants again moved to dismiss for failure to
state a claim. Defendants argue that printing the first number
plus the last four numbers is not a violation of Sec. 1681c(g)(1)
because the first number of a card is simply a code identifying
the card company -- information that it is lawful to print on
receipts in word form -- and is therefore not the kind of private
financial information FACTA was intended to protect.

In his Order dated August 19, 2016 available at
https://is.gd/mQkAPH from Leagle.com, Judge Jones ruled that
Plaintiffs have no Article III standing to pursue their claims
under FACTA and that, even assuming standing under Spokeo, Inc. v.
Robins, 136 S.Ct. 1540, 1549-50 (2016), there was no FACTA
violation because Defendants' interpretation of the statute was
not unreasonable under the standards of the court's interpretation
of Sec. 1681n(a) in Safeco Ins. Co. of Am. v. Burr, 551 U.S. 47,
69 (2007).

Amanda Fowler, et al. are represented by Chant Yedalian, Esq. --
chant@chant.mobi -- CHANT & COMPANY; and Kenneth M. Roberts, Esq.
-- kroberts@schiffhardin.com -- DEMPSEY, ROBERTS & SMITH, LTD.

Nevada Checker Cab Corporation, et al. are represented by John
George Papianou, Esq. -- jpapianou@mmwr.com -- MONTGOMER MCCRACKEN
WALKER & RHOADS LLP; and Robert R. McCoy, Esq. --
rmccoy@kcnvlaw.com  -- and Joni A. Jamison, Esq. --
jjamison@kcnvlaw.com -- KAEMPFER CROWELL

Western Cab Company is represented by Joni A. Jamison, Esq. --
jjamison@kcnvlaw.com -- KAEMPFER CROWELL


NGL WAREHOUSE Faces "Aguilar" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
---------------------------------------------------------------
Elizabeth Aguilar, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated v. NGL Warehouse, LLC, Case No. 5:16-cv-01869 (C.D. Cal.,
August 31, 2016), is brought against the Defendants for failure to
pay overtime wages in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act.

NGL Warehouse, LLC operates a cargo & freight service company in
Bloomington, California.

Elizabeth Aguilar is a pro se plaintiff.


PATHWAY LEASING: Franklin Merrill Alleges Violation of FLSA
-----------------------------------------------------------
FRANKLIN MERRILL; LORA LEE; BRENT LEE; ANTHONY GLOVER; KEITH
HERRING; ANTHONY DENNIS; LARRY JURCAK; SAMI NASR; JENNIFER THOMAS;
and ROBERT THOMAS, all individuals, Plaintiffs, v.
PATHWAY LEASING LLC, a Colorado limited liability company; and
MATTHEW HARRIS, an individual, Defendants, Case 1:16-cv-02242 (D.
Col., September 6, 2016), was filed pursuant to the Fair Labor
Standards Act.

The suit alleges that Defendants Pathway Leasing LLC and Matthew
Harris billed themselves as a lessor of trucks for independent
contractors, when in fact, Defendants sought to employ truckers to
move goods in commerce without paying the cost of hiring and
retaining employees.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

     John R. Crone, Esq.
     ANDRUS WAGSTAFF PC
     7171 West Alaska Drive
     Lakewood, CO 80226
     Phone: (303) 376-6360
     E-mail: John.Crone@andruswagstaff.com


PMLRA PIZZA: Federal Circuit Appeal Lodged in "Reeves" Case
-----------------------------------------------------------
Tylor Reeves, Appellee v. PMLRA Pizza, Inc., Henry Askew,
Appellant, Case No. 16-2586 (Fed. Cir., August 31, 2016), is an
appeal from a lower court ruling in Case No. 1:16-cv-10474 (D.
Mass., March 7, 2016). Reeves brought suit against Defendant PMLRA
Pizza, Inc. and Henry Askew for unremitted service charge from
customers due the Plaintiff under the Massachusetts "Tips Act" and
"Minimum Wage Act."

Tylor Reeves, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, is represented by:

     Brant Casavant, Esq.
     Stephen S. Churchill, Esq.
     FAIR WORK P.C.
     192 South Street, Suite 450
     Boston, MA 02111
     Tel: (617) 231-6777
     Fax: (617) 488-2261
     Email: brant@fairworklaw.com
            steve@fairworklaw.com

Defendants are represented by:

     Eric R. LeBlanc, Esq.
     Todd J. Bennett, Esq.
     BENNETT & BELFORT, P.C.
     24 Thorndike Street, Suite 300
     Cambridge, MA 02141
     Tel: (617) 577-8800
     Fax: (617) 577-8811
     Email: tbennett@bennettandbelfort.com
            eleblanc@bennettandbelfort.com


REALTIME STAFFING: Doesn't Properly Pay Employees, Action Claims
----------------------------------------------------------------
Daysia Monique Dyson, Heather Elizabeth Moses, and Elvia Pacheco,
on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated v.
Realtime Staffing, LLC, Bocchi Laboratories Ohio, LLC, Bocchi
Laboratories, and Does 1 through 50, inclusive, Case No. BC632489
(Cal. Super. Ct., August 31, 2016), is brought against the
Defendants for failure to pay minimum and overtime wages in
violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act.

Real Time Staffing Services, Inc., doing business as Select
Staffing, offers staffing services. The company is based in Santa
Barbara, California.  Bocchi Laboratories Ohio, LLC and Bocchi
Laboratories operates a manufacturing company that specializes in
health, beauty and personal care products.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      David Yeremian, Esq.
      David Keledjian, Esq.
      DAVID YEREMIAN & ASSOCIATES, INC.
      535 N. Brand Blvd., Suite 705
      Glendale, CA 91203
      Telephone: (818) 230-8380
      Facsimile: (818) 230-0308
      E-mail: david@yeremianlaw.com
              davidk@yeremianlaw.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


REMX INC: Arbitration Agreement Enforceable, Cal. App. Says
-----------------------------------------------------------
Associate Justice Mark B. Simons of the California Court of
Appeals dismissed plaintiff Vanessa Young's appeal from the trial
court's order compelling arbitration of her individual claims,
dismissing her class claims, and bifurcating her representative
claim pursuant to the Labor Code Private Attorneys General Act of
2004 (PAGA).

The appellate case is captioned, VANESSA YOUNG, Plaintiff and
Appellant, v. REMX, INC., et al., Defendants and Respondents, Case
No. A143786 (Cal. App.).

Plaintiff's operative first amended complaint alleges that, after
her employment with defendants terminated, defendants failed to
timely pay her all of her final wages. The complaint asserts, on
behalf of plaintiff and a putative class, a cause of action for
this failure under Labor Code sections 201 through 203. The
complaint also asserts a representative PAGA claim seeking civil
penalties on behalf of plaintiff and other aggrieved employees.

Defendants filed a motion to compel individual arbitration,
dismiss plaintiff's class claims, and bifurcate and stay the PAGA
claim. In support of the motion, defendants submitted an
arbitration agreement signed by plaintiff. The arbitration
agreement provided any disputes "arising out of or relating to my
employment or the termination of my employment" will be submitted
to arbitration. Defendants conceded in their motion that under
Iskanian v. CLS Transportation Los Angeles, LLC (2014) 59 Cal.4th
348, the arbitration agreement cannot require plaintiff to waive
her representative PAGA claim, and therefore asked the court to
bifurcate and stay that claim.

Plaintiff opposed the motion, arguing (1) the arbitration
agreement only identifies a nonparty entity called RXOS, and
therefore does not extend to disputes with defendants; (2) the
agreement is unenforceable; and (3) the agreement is
unconscionable. The trial court granted defendants' motion. The
order compelled arbitration of plaintiff's individual claim,
dismissed the class claims, bifurcated the representative PAGA
claim, and stayed the PAGA claim pending the completion of
arbitration.

On appeal, Plaintiff argues the appealed-from order is nonetheless
directly appealable under the so-called "death knell" doctrine.
This doctrine "'provides that an order which allows a plaintiff to
pursue individual claims, but prevents the plaintiff from
maintaining the claims as a class action, . . . is immediately
appealable because it "effectively r[ings] the death knell for the
class claims."' Appealability under the death knell doctrine
requires 'an order that (1) amounts to a de facto final judgment
for absent plaintiffs, under circumstances where (2) the
persistence of viable but perhaps de minimis individual plaintiff
claims creates a risk no formal final judgment will ever be
entered.'"  In Franco v. Athens Disposal Co., Inc. (2009) 171
Cal.App.4th 1277, 1288, the Court of Appeal concluded that an
order upholding a class arbitration waiver and compelling
arbitration of individual claims constitutes the death knell of
the class litigation.

In his Order dated August 17, 2016 available at
https://is.gd/2pPQrE from Leagle.com, Judge Simons concluded that
plaintiff's appeal does not fall within the death knell doctrine
and that Plaintiff has also failed to explain why the arbitration
would be unduly time consuming. As writ relief is available only
in extraordinary circumstances, the fact that the arbitration will
take time is not sufficient.

The appeal is dismissed. Defendants are awarded their costs on
appeal.

Vanessa Young is represented by Shaun Setareh, Esq. --
shaun@setarehlaw.com -- Tuvia Korobkin, Esq. --
tkorobkin@haineslawgroup.com -- and Farrah Grant, Esq. --
farrah@setarehlaw.com -- SETAREH LAW GROUP

RemX, Inc., et al. are represented by Timothy L. Hix, Esq. --
thix@seyfarth.com -- Andrew M. McNaught, Esq. --
amcnaught@seyfarth.com -- Daniel C. Whang, Esq. --
dwhang@seyfarth.com -- and Tamara Fisher, Esq. --
tfisher@seyfarth.com -- SEYFARTH SHAW


RENNERT MIAMI: "Luckett" Suit to Recover Overtime Pay
-----------------------------------------------------
Kayla A. Luckett, and other similarly-situated individuals,
Plaintiff, v. Rennert Miami LLC, Defendant, Case No. 1:16-cv-23735
(S.D. Fla., August 31, 2016), seeks to recover overtime
compensation, liquidated damages, and the costs and reasonable
attorney's fees under the provisions of Fair Labor Standards Act.

Defendant operates as Rennert South Beach, a language school
offering English classes to foreign students. It sells packages
that include English classes, hotel accommodations, meals and full
recreational activities. Plaintiff worked as full time Program
Coordinator. Luckett is on call 24/7 but was not compensated for
hour in excess of 40 per week.

Defendant is represented by:

      Zandro E. Palma, Esq.
      ZANDRO E. PALMA, P.A.
      9100 S. Dixie Hwy, Suite 1500
      Miami, FL 33156
      Telephone: (305) 446-1500
      Facsimile: (305) 446-1502
      Email: zep@thepalmalawgroup.com


ROCKVILLE AUTO: Faces "Radfar" Suit Under FLSA, Md. Labor Laws
--------------------------------------------------------------
Farhad Radfar, 739 ElmCroft Blvd., Apt. G202, Rockville, MD 20850
Plaintiff, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated v.
ROCKVILLE AUTO GROUP, LLC, 17 Fedor Ave., Gaithersburg, MD 20877
and TUBA HAMEDI, 8420 Sego Lily Ct., Lorton, VA 22079 and ABDULLAH
RAZAQ, 8420 Sego Lily Ct., Lorton, VA 22079, Defendants, Case
8:16-cv-03082-GJH (D. Md., September 6, 2016), seeks to recover
unpaid wages, liquidated damages, reasonable attorney's fees and
costs under the Federal Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938, and the
Maryland Wage and Hour Law, Maryland Code Annotated, Labor and
Employment Article.

Plaintiff worked at the car dealership as an employee of the
Defendants.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Ali Herischi, Esq.
     HERISCHI & ASSOCIATES LLC
     7201 Wisconsin Ave., Suite 450
     Bethesda, MD 20814
     Phone: 301-363-4540
     Fax: 301-363-4538


SIGNET JEWELERS: Sued in N.Y. Over Misleading Financial Reports
---------------------------------------------------------------
Lyubomir Spasov, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. Signet Jewelers Limited, Mark Light, and
Michele Santana, Case No. 1:16-cv-06861 (S.D.N.Y., August 31,
2016), alleges that the Defendants made false and misleading
statements, as well as failed to disclose material adverse facts
about the Company's business, operations, and prospects.

Signet Jewelers Limited operates thousands of diamond jewelry
stores in North America, and some in the United Kingdom, through
well-known brand names such as "Kay," "Jared," "Zales," and
"Peoples Jewellers."

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Jeremy A. Lieberman, Esq.
      J. Alexander Hood II, Esq.
      Marc Gorrie, Esq.
      POMERANTZ LLP
      600 Third Avenue, 20th Floor
      New York, NY 10016
      Telephone: (212) 661-1100
      Facsimile: (212) 661-8665
      E-mail: jalieberman@pomlaw.com
              ahood@pomlaw.com
              mgorrie@pomlaw.com

         - and -

      Patrick V. Dahlstrom, Esq.
      POMERANTZ LLP
      10 South La Salle Street, Suite 3505
      Chicago, IL 60603
      Telephone: (312) 377-1181
      Facsimile: (312) 377-1184
      E-mail:  pdahlstrom@pomlaw.com

         - and -

      Peretz Bronstein, Esq.
      BRONSTEIN, GEWIRTZ & GROSSMAN, LLC
      60 East 42nd Street, Suite 4600
      New York, NY 10165
      Telephone: (212) 697-6484
      Facsimile (212) 697-7296
      E-mail:  peretz@bgandg.com


SKY VIEW: Meneses Suit Seeks Overtime Pay, Illegal Deductions
-------------------------------------------------------------
Mauro Perez Meneses and Efrain Aguilar Galicia, individually and
on behalf of others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. Sky View
General Contracting Inc. (d/b/a) Skyview Construction, Gerard
Tanella and Joe Tanella, Defendants, Case No. 1:16-cv-04879 (E.D.
N.Y., August 31, 2016), seeks unpaid overtime wages, liquidated
damages and damages for any improper deductions or credits taken
against wages under the Fair Labor Standards Act.

Defendants own, operate, and/or control a construction company
located at 1976 E. 24th Street, Brooklyn, New York 11229 where
Plaintiffs were employed as construction workers for brick and
sheet rock layering.

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Michael Faillace, Esq.
      MICHAEL FAILLACE & ASSOCIATES, P.C.
      60 East 42nd Street, Suite 2540
      New York, NY 10165
      Telephone: (212) 317-1200
      Facsimile: (212) 317-1620


SODEXO INC: Faces "Mejia" Lawsuit Under FLSA, Cal. Labor Laws
-------------------------------------------------------------
MARIA LUISA MEJIA, ELVIRA MUNGIA LOPEZ, MARIA BENAVIDEZ, and
MARTIN MONTER, individually and acting in the interest of other
current and former employees, Plaintiffs, vs. SODEXO, INC., a
Delaware corporation; SDH SERVICES WEST, LLC, a Delaware limited
liability company (and wholly owned and controlled subsidiary of
SODEXO, INC.), and DOES 1 through 20, inclusive, Defendants, Case
2:16-cv-02120-KJM-EFB (September 6, 2016), was filed under the
Fair Labor Standards Act and California state law, including the
California Labor Code, Industrial Welfare Commission Wage Orders,
and California's Unfair Competition Law, Business & Professions
Code.

SODEXO, INC., SDH SERVICES WEST, LLC, and Does 1 through 20,
inclusive, own and/or control various facilities providing
commercial laundering services.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

     Eric S. Trabucco, Esq.
     Stan S. Mallison, Esq.
     Hector R. Martinez, Esq.
     Marco A. Palau, Esq.
     Joseph D. Sutton, Esq.
     Eric S. Trabucco, Esq.
     MALLISON & MARTINEZ
     1939 Harrison Street, Suite 730
     Oakland, CA 94612-3547
     Phone: (510) 832-9999
     Fax: (510) 832-1101
     E-mail: StanM@TheMMLawFirm.com
             HectorM@TheMMLawFirm.com
             MPalau@TheMMLawFirm.com
             JSutton@TheMMLawFirm.com
             ETrabucco@TheMMLawFirm.com


SOUTHEASTERN CONFERENCE: "Richardson" Sues over Football Hazard
---------------------------------------------------------------
Jamie Richardson, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Southeastern Conference and the
National Collegiate Athletic Association, Defendants, Case No.
1:16-cv-2342 (S.D. Ind., August 31, 2016), seeks economic,
monetary, actual, consequential, compensatory, and punitive
damages, past, present and future medical expenses, other out of
pocket expenses, lost time and interest, lost future earnings,
litigation and attorney fees, prejudgment and post-judgment
interest, injunctive and/or declaratory relief and such other and
further relief resulting from negligence, fraudulent concealment,
breach of express contract, breach of implied contract, breach of
third-party express contract and unjust enrichment.

Plaintiff accuses the Defendants of failing to warn collegiate
players of the health hazards of playing football.

Southeastern Conference is a collegiate athletic conference with
its principal office located 2201 Richard Arrington Jr. Boulevard
North, Birmingham, Alabama 35203 and with member institutions in
eleven states.

NCAA is an unincorporated association with its principal office
located at 700 West Washington Street, Indianapolis, Indiana
46206.

Plaintiff is represented by:

     Jay Edelson, Esq.
     Benjamin H. Richman, Esq.
     EDELSON PC
     350 North LaSalle Street, 13th Floor
     Chicago, IL 60654
     Tel: 312.589.6370
     Fax: 312.589.6378
     Email: jedelson@edelson.com
            brichman@edelson.com

            - and -

     Rafey S. Balabanian, Esq.
     329 Bryant Street
     San Francisco, CA 94107
     Tel: 415.212.9300
     Fax: 415.373.9435
     Email: rbalabanian@edelson.com

            - and -

     Jeff Raizner, Esq.
     RAIZNER SLANIA LLP
     2402 Dunlavy Street
     Houston, TX 77006
     Tel: 844.456.4823
     Fax: 713.554.9098
     Email: jraizner@raiznerlaw.com

            - and -

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


STARBUCKS CORPORATION: "Crittenden" Suit Transferred to N.D. Cal.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit captioned Brittany Crittenden,
individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated v.
Starbucks Corporation, Case No. 3:16-cv-05049-EDL (N.D. Cal.,
August 31, 2016), was transferred from the Southern District of
New York to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of
California (San Francisco). The District Court Clerk assigned Case
No. 3:16-cv-05049-EDL to the proceeding.

Starbucks Corporation operates a coffee company and coffeehouse
chain throughout the United States.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Brittany Sloane Weiner, Esq.
      Murray Friedman, Esq.
      IMBESI LAW P.C.
      450 7th Avenue
      New York, NY 10123
      Telephone: (646) 380-9555
      Facsimile: (212) 658-9177
      E-mail: brittany@lawicm.com
              murray@lawicb.com

         - and -

      Seth Asher Nadler, Esq.
      EISENBERG & BAUM
      24 Union Square East, 4th Fl.
      New York, NY 10003
      Telephone: (212) 353-8700
      E-mail: Seth@lawicb.com

The Defendant is represented by:

      Mark Edward McGrath, Esq.
      SHEPPARD, MULLIN, RICHTER & HAMPTON, LLP
      30 Rockefeller Plaza, 24th Fl.
      New York, NY 10112
      Telephone: (212) 634-3056
      Facsimile: (212) 655-1756
      E-mail: mmcgrath@sheppardmullin.com


STATE STREET: Faces "Abreu" Lawsuit Alleging Violation of FCRA
--------------------------------------------------------------
ANDRES ABREU, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated Plaintiff, v. STATE STREET CORPORATION and
HMG AMERICA, LLC and HCL TECHNOLOGIES, LTD., and STERLING
INFOSYSTEMS, INC. Defendants, Case 1:16-cv-11790-LTS (D. Mass.,
September 2, 2016), alleges violation of the Fair Credit Reporting
Act.

Defendant State Street Corporation is a financial services
company.  Defendant HMG America, LLC is an IT consulting company.
Defendant HCL Technologies, Ltd., is an IT & software development.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Danielle M. Spang, Esq.
     LAW OFFICE OF DANIELLE SPANG
     P.O. Box 183
     Somerville, MA 02143
     Phone: (617) 612-5291
     Fax: (855) 220-3375
     E-mail: dspang@spanglawoffice.com

        - and -

     James A. Francis, Esq.
     John Soumilas, Esq.
     FRANCIS & MAILMAN, P.C.
     Land Title Building, 19th Floor
     100 South Broad Street
     Philadelphia, PA 19110
     Phone: 215.735.8600
     Fax: 215.940.8000
     E-mail: jfrancis@consumerlawfirm.com
             jsoumilas@consumerlawfirm.com


SUNTRUST BANKS: Court Grants Class Certification in ERISA Case
--------------------------------------------------------------
District Judge Richard W. Story of the United States District
Court for the Northern District of Georgia denied a motion by
plaintiffs Dennis Erwin, William B. Fisch, Chrys Trau, and Donna
Smothermon to strike or exclude the expert report of Lucy P.
Allen, granted Defendants' motion for partial summary judgment,
and granted plaintiffs' motion for class certification in the case
captioned, IN RE SUNTRUST BANKS, INC., ERISA LITIGATION, Civ. No.
1:08-CV-03384-RWS (N.D. Ga.).

At the behest of Erwin et al., the Court certified a class of "All
persons, other than Defendants and members of their immediate
families, who were participants in or beneficiaries of the
SunTrust Banks, Inc. 401(k) Savings Plan (the Plan) at any time
between May 15, 2007 and March 30, 2011, inclusive (the Class
Period) and whose accounts included investments in SunTrust common
stock (SunTrust Stock) during that time period", and Defendants'
motion for partial summary judgment.

The Court appointed Erwin, Fish, Trau, and Smothermon as class
representatives and the law firms of Kessler Topaz Meltzer &
Check, LLP, Stull, Stull & Brody and Squitieri & Fearon, LLP as
Co-lead Class Counsel and the law firm of Holzer & Holzer, LLC as
Liason Class Counsel.

The case was brought pursuant to Sections 409 and 502(a)(2) of the
Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (ERISA), 29 U.S.C.
Sections 1109 and 1132(a)(2). Plaintiffs are participants in the
SunTrust Banks, Inc. 401(k) Savings Plan (Plan) and bring the
action on behalf of themselves, the Plan, and similarly situated
Plan participants. The Plan is a defined contribution retirement
plan sponsored by SunTrust, with a primary purpose of allowing
participants to save for retirement. In their Amended Complaint,
Plaintiffs asserted that Defendants, who are fiduciaries of the
ERISA Plan, breached their fiduciary duty in administering the
Plan and the Plan's assets.

Pursuant to the requirements set forth in Fifth Third Bancorp v.
Dudenhoeffer, 134 S.Ct. 2459 (2014), Plaintiffs pled alternative
actions that the fiduciary could have taken consistent with
securities laws. Defendants filed an Expert Report [222] prepared
by Lucy P. Allen (Allen Report) which analyzes the validity of the
proposed alternatives.

In his Order dated August 17, 2016 available at
https://is.gd/7Ju00u from Leagle.com, Judge Story concluded that
the Allen Report is "helpful and illuminating as to the issues of
concern in the Motion for Class Certification." The Court resolved
that the certification is proper under (b)(1)(A) because it is
undoubtedly proper under (b)(1)(B) and there is no reason to
disagree with Movants' assertion that their chosen counsel will
adequately represent the Class.

William B. Fisch, et al. are  represented by Donna Siegel Moffa,
Esq. -- dmoffa@ktmc.com -- James A. Maro, Esq. -- jmaro@ktmc.com
-- Julie Siebert-Johnson, Esq. -- jsjohnson@ktmc.com -- Edward W.
Ciolko, Esq. -- eciolko@ktmc.com -- Joseph H. Meltzer, Esq. --
jmeltzer@ktmc.com -- and Mark K. Gyandoh, Esq. --
mgyandoh@ktmc.com -- KESSLER TOPAZ MELTZER & CHECK, LLP; Edwin J.
Mills, Esq. -- emills@ssbny.com -- Michael J. Klein, Esq. --
mklein@ssbny.com -- STULL STULL & BRODY; Jeffrey A. Berens, Esq. -
- DYER & BERENS, LLP -- Stephen J. Fearon, Jr., Esq. --
stephen@sfclasslaw.com -- SQUITIERI & FEARON, LLP; Alan J.
Statman, Esq. -- ajstatman@statmanharris.com -- STATMAN HARRIS &
EYRICH, LLC -- Marshall P. Dees, Esq. -- mdees@holzerlaw.com --
and Corey Daniel Holzer, Esq. -- cholzer@holzerlaw.com -- HOLZER &
HOLZER, LLC

SunTrust Banks, Inc., et al. are represented by David Tetrick,
Jr., Esq. -- dtetrick@kslaw.com -- Danielle Chattin, Esq. --
dchattin@kslaw.com -- Darren A. Shuler, Esq. -- dshuler@kslaw.com
-- Jennifer DeRelle Fease, Esq. -- jfease@kslaw.com -- and Michael
Benjamin Wakefield, Esq. -- mwakefield@kslaw.com -- KING &
SPALDING, LLP


SUPERIOR SCHOOLS: Faces "Rumsey" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT
------------------------------------------------------------
Blaine Rumsey, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated
v. Superior Schools Corporation and Steve Christopoulos, Case No.
8:16-cv-02535-VMC-JSS (M.D. Fla., August 31, 2016), is brought
against the Defendants for failure to pay overtime wages in
violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act.

The Defendants operate a school campus located at 2045 Palmetto
St, Clearwater, FL 33765.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Jay P. Lechner, Esq.
      Jason M. Melton, Esq.
      WHITTEL & MELTON, LLC
      One Progress Plaza
      200 Central Avenue, #400
      St. Petersburg, FL 33701
      Telephone: (727) 822-1111
      Facsimile: (727) 898-2001
      E-mail: Pleadings@theFLlawfirm.com
              lechnerj@theFLlawfirm.com
              shelley@theFLlawfirm.com


SUPER QUALITY: Faces "Canizalez" Suit Under FLSA, Col. Wage Laws
----------------------------------------------------------------
HELMER CANIZALEZ, KEVIN CANIZALEZ, and ISABEL FLORES, in their
individual capacities and on behalf of others similarly situated,
Plaintiffs, v. SUPER QUALITY CLEANERS LLC, and MOHAMMADREZA
AHMADIAN SR., an individual, MAHMOUD AHMADIAN, an individual,
Defendants, Case 1:16-cv-02246 (D. Col., September 6, 2016), seeks
to recover alleged unpaid or underpaid wages and other damages
under the provisions of the Fair Labor Standards Act, the Colorado
Wage Claim Act, and the Colorado Minimum Wage Act.

SUPER QUALITY CLEANERS LLC operates approximately ten dry cleaning
and laundering facilities, all located in Colorado.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Penn A. Dodson, Esq.
     Alexander L. Gastman, Esq.
     ANDERSON DODSON, P.C.
     11 Broadway, Suite 615
     New York, NY 10004
     Phone: (212) 961-7639
     Fax: (646) 998-8051
     E-mail: penn@andersondodson.com
             alex@andersondodson.com


T-N-T OF YORK: EEOC Files Suit Alleging Racial Discrimination
-------------------------------------------------------------
U.S. EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION, Plaintiff,
v. T-N-T OF YORK COUNTY, INC., and TM TRUCKING OF THE CAROLINAS,
LLC, Defendants, Case 0:16-cv-03029-TLW-KDW (D.S.C., September 6,
2016), alleges unlawful employment practices on the basis of race.
The case was filed pursuant to the Civil Rights Act of 1964.

T-N-T of York County Inc. is a licensed and bonded freight
shipping and trucking company running a freight hauling business
from Rock Hill, South Carolina.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     P. David Lopez, Esq.
     James L. Lee, Esq.
     Gwendolyn Young Reams, Esq.
     Lynette A. Barnes, Esq.
     Kara G. Haden, Esq.
     UNITED STATES EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION
     Charlotte District Office
     129 W. Trade Street, Suite 400
     Charlotte, NC 28202
     Phone: (704) 954-6472
     Fax: (704) 954-6412
     Email: Rachael.steenbergh@eeoc.gov


TJX COMPANIES: Must Defend Against Suit Over Deceptive Prices
-------------------------------------------------------------
District Judge Otis D. Wright, II of the United States District
Court for the Central District of California denied Defendants'
motion to dismiss in its entirety, the case captioned, STACI
CHESTER; DANIEL FRIEDMAN; ROBIN BERKOFF; and THERESA METOYER,
individually and o/b/o those similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v.
THE TJX COMPANIES, INC.; TJ MAXX OF CA, LLC; MARSHALLS OF CA, LLC;
HOMEGOODS, INC; and DOES 1-100, inclusive, Defendants, Case No.
5:15-CV-01437-ODW (DTB) (C.D. Cal.).

Plaintiffs Staci Chester and Daniel Friedman filed their original
Complaint on July 17, 2015. Chester, Friedman, and the Plaintiffs
in two related actions (Robin Berkoff and Theresa Metoyer), along
with Defendants, then stipulated to consolidate all three actions.
After the Court granted the consolidation, Plaintiffs filed their
Consolidated Complaint with this Court on September 3, 2015.

Plaintiffs, both individually and on behalf of those similarly
situated, bring suit against TJX Companies, Inc. and three off-
price retailers under its umbrella: TJ Maxx, Marshalls, and
HomeGoods (Defendants). Plaintiffs raise claims under the
California Business & Professions Code Sec. 17200,et seq. (Unfair
Competition Law, UCL), Sec. 17500, et seq. (False Advertising Law,
FAL), and California Civil Code Sec. 1750, et seq. (California
Consumer Legal Remedies Act, CLRA).

At issue is the mechanism by which Defendants advertise the price
of items at each TJX Companies store. The price tags Defendants
use list (1) the price the retailer is selling the item for; and
(2) a higher, comparative reference price accompanied by the
phrase, "Compare At." Some of Defendants' products also have a
second price tag noting a purported manufacturer's suggested
retail price, or "MSRP," for an item. The price tags are
materially identical across all TJX Companies stores.

Defendants moved to dismiss the Consolidated Complaint on October
19, 2015 based on two, separate overarching arguments that
Plaintiffs (1) lack standing to pursue their claims and (2) have
failed to state a claim.

In his Order dated August 18, 2016 available at
https://is.gd/8j3rNu from Leagle.com, Judge Wright, II found that
Plaintiffs have standing to raise claims for items purchased by
unnamed class members and that Plaintiffs have properly alleged
that the "Compare At" price can deceive a reasonable consumer into
assuming that the price is comparing the selling prices of like
items in like stores.

Staci Chester, et al are represented by Christopher J. Morosoff,
Esq. -- cjmorosoff@morosofflaw.com -- LAW OFFICES OF CHRISTOPHER J
MOROSOFF, Douglas Caiafa, Esq. -- dcaiafa@caiafalaw.com -- DOUGLAS
CAIAFA APLC

The TJX Companies, Inc., et al are represented by Anne Johnson
Palmer, Esq. -- Ann.Palmer@ropesgray.com -- and John P. Bueker,
Esq. -- John.Bueker@ropesgray.com -- ROPES AND GRAY LLP -- Jay T.
Ramsey, Esq. -- jramsey@sheppardmullin.com -- and P. Craig Cardon,
Esq. -- ccardon@sheppardmullin.com -- SHEPPARD MULLIN RICHIER &
HAMPTON LLP


TOWN OF PARRISH: Faces "Criswell" Suit Alleging Violation of FLSA
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Sharon Criswell, individually and on behalf of other similarly
situated persons, Plaintiff, v. Town of Parrish, Alabama,
Defendant, Case 6:16-cv-01451-LSC, was filed under the Fair Labor
Standards Act.

Town of Parrish, Alabama is a municipal corporation organized
under the laws of the State of Alabama.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Nicholas B. Sparks, Esq.
     NICHOLAS SPARKS INJURY LAW, LLC
     P.O. Box 729
     Jasper, AL 35502-0729
     Phone: (205) 387-8282
     Fax: (205) 387-8212
     E-mail: nicholassparkslaw@gmail.com


TRANSUNION: Illinois Judge Narrows Claims in Sgouros Suit
---------------------------------------------------------
District Judge James B. Zagel of the United States District Court
for the Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division, granted
in part Defendants' TransUnion Corp., Trans Union LLC, and
TransUnion Interactive, Inc.'s Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff's
Complaint pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) in the case
captioned, GARY W. SGOUROS, on behalf of himself and all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. TRANSUNION CORP.; TRANS UNION
LLC; and TRANSUNION INTERACTIVE, INC., Defendants, No. 14 C 1850
(N.D. Ill.).

Plaintiff Gary W. Sgouros (Sgouros) is a Missouri resident who, on
or about June 10, 2013, bought a TransUnion Consumer Credit Score
for $39.90. Sgouros has sued three separate entities. The first is
TransUnion Corp. (TU Corp.), a Delaware limited liability holding
company that is headquartered in Illinois and owns Trans Union
LLC. The second is Trans Union LLC, another Delaware limited
liability company headquartered in Illinois. The third is
TransUnion Interactive, Inc. (TUI), a Delaware corporation that is
headquartered in California.

Plaintiff claims that had he known that the score he purchased
from Defendants would not correspond to that obtained by the car
dealer, he would not have purchased the TransUnion Consumer Credit
Score. Sgouros asserts four distinct causes of action, alleging
that Defendants injured him in violation of the Fair Credit
Reporting Act (FCRA) and state consumer protection laws of both
Illinois and Missouri. Count I alleges either a willful or
negligent violation of the Fair Credit Reporting Act, 15 U.S.C.
Sec. 1681g(f)(7)(A). In Count II Plaintiff alleges a violation of
the FCRA, 15 U.S.C. Sec. 1681(e)(b). Count III alleges that
Defendants violated the Illinois Consumer Fraud and Deceptive
Business Practices Act (ICFA). Count IV alleges that Defendants
violated the Missouri Merchandising Practices Act (MMPA).

On July 7, 2014, Defendants moved to dismiss Plaintiff's Class
Action Complaint for failure to state a claim. Plaintiff responded
by filing an Amended Class Action Complaint. Defendants again move
for dismissal, claiming that the Amended Class Action Complaint
still fails to state a claim.

In his Memorandum Opinion and Order dated August 18, 2016
available at https://is.gd/lFXhdL from Leagle.com, Judge Zagel
granted the Motion as to Counts II because Sgouros would not have
a viable cause of action under Sec. 1681(e)(b) because he was the
only recipient of the TransUnion Consumer Credit Score, III
because it is unnecessary to address Defendants' secondary
argument that Plaintiff's allegations of an ICFA violation do not
satisfy Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 9(b) and IV because
Defendants failed to separately identify what each defendant did
to violate the MMPA.

The motion to dismiss is denied as to Count I finding that
Plaintiff has satisfied his pleading burden of asserting a
plausible claim that TU Corp. and Trans Union LLC are consumer
reporting agencies that "regularly engage in whole or in part in
the practice of assembling or evaluating consumer credit
information or other information on consumers for the purpose of
furnishing consumer reports to third parties" in conjunction with
TransUnion Interactive, Inc. (TUI).

Gary W. Sgouros is represented by Christopher B. Sanchez, Esq. --
csanchez@caffertclobes.com -- CAFFERTY CLOBES MERIWETHER &
SPRENGEL LLP -- Gabriel Hopkins, Esq. --
ghopkins@publicjustice.net -- and Leslie Andrea Bailey, Esq. --
lbailey@publicjustice.net -- PUBLIC JUSTICE P.C. -- Michael Robert
Reese, Esq. -- michael@reesellp.com -- REESE LLP

TransUnion Corp., et al. are represented by Michael C. O'Neil,
Esq. -- michael.oneil@reedsmith.com -- Dawn Michele Beery, Esq. --
dawn.beery@reedsmith.com -- and Timothy Robert Carwinski, Esq. --
timothy.carwinski@reedsmith.com -- REED SMITH LLP


TRANSWORLD SYSTEMS: Illegally Collects Debt, "Shrem" Suit Claims
----------------------------------------------------------------
Abraham Shrem, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated v. Transworld Systems, Inc., Case No. 1:16-cv-04880
(E.D.N.Y., August 31, 2016), seeks to stop the Defendant's unfair
and unconscionable means to collect a debt.

Transworld Systems, Inc. operates a debt collection firm
headquartered at 507 Prudential Road Horsham, PA.

TAbraham Shrem is a pro se plaintiff.


UNITED NATIONS: 2nd Cir. Affirms Dismissal of Suit Over Epidemic
----------------------------------------------------------------
Circuit Judge Jose A. Cabranes of the Court of Appeals, Second
Circuit affirmed a January 15, 2015 judgment of the United States
District Court for the Southern District of New York dismissing
plaintiffs' action against defendants the United Nations, the UN
Stabilization Mission in Haiti (MINUSTAH), UN Secretary-General
Ban Ki-moon (Ban), and former MINUSTAH Under-Secretary-General
Edmond Mulet (Mulet) for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.

The appellate case is captioned, DELAMA GEORGES, individually and
on behalf of the ESTATE OF DESILUS GEORGES and all others
similarly situated; ALIUS JOSEPH, individually and on behalf of
the ESTATE OF MARIE-CLAUDE LEFEUVE and all others similarly
situated; LISETTE PAUL, individually and on behalf of the ESTATE
OF FRITZNEL PAUL and all others similarly situated; FELICIA PAULE,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated; JEAN
RONY SILFORT, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. UNITED NATIONS; UNITED NATIONS
STABILIZATION MISSION IN HAITI; EDMOND MULET, former Under-
Secretary-General of the United Nations Stabilization Mission in
Haiti; BAN KI-MOON, Secretary-General of the United Nations,
Defendants-Appellees, Case No. 15-455-CV (2nd Cir.).

Plaintiffs are citizens of the United States or Haiti who claim
that they "have been or will be sickened, or have family members
who have died or will die, as a direct result of the cholera"
epidemic that has ravaged the Republic of Haiti since October
2010. In the putative class action, plaintiffs seek to hold
defendants responsible for their injuries, and to that end, assert
various causes of action sounding in tort and contract against
them.

Defendants did not enter an appearance before the District Court.
But on March 7, 2014, the executive branch of the United States
government (the Executive Branch) submitted a statement of
interest pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Sec. 517, in which it took the
position that defendants are "immune from legal process and suit"
pursuant to the UN Charter, June 26, 1945, 59 Stat. 1031; the
Convention on Privileges and Immunities of the United Nations (the
"CPIUN"); and the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations (the
VCDR),.

On January 9, 2015, the District Court dismissed plaintiffs'
action for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. With respect to
the UN and MINUSTAH, the District Court relied on Section 2 of the
CPIUN. The District Court concluded that, because Ban and Mulet
both held diplomatic positions at the time plaintiffs filed their
action, they were immune as well.

On appeal, plaintiffs raise three principal arguments. First, they
argue that the District Court erred in holding that the UN and
MINUSTAH are immune because the UN's fulfilment of its obligation
under Section 29 of the CPIUN to provide for appropriate dispute-
resolution mechanisms is a condition precedent to its Section 2
immunity. Second, they argue that the District Court's holding was
in error because the UN materially breached the CPIUN by failing
to fulfill its Section 29 obligation, such that it is no longer
entitled to the benefit of immunity under Section 2. Third, they
argue that the District Court's application of the CPIUN to
dismiss their action violated their constitutional right of access
to the federal courts.

In his Order dated August 18, 2016 available at
https://is.gd/r3XMAE from Leagle.com, Judge Cabranes held that the
UN's fulfillment of its Section 29 obligation is not a condition
precedent to its Section 2 immunity.

Delama Georges, et al are represented by Beatrice Lindstrom, Esq.
-- Beatrice@ijdh.com -- and -- Brian Concannon, Esq. --
brian@ijdh.org -- INSTITUTE FOR JUSTICE & DEMOCRACY

Georges et al. are also represented by:

      Ira Kurzban,  Esq.
      KURZBAN KURZBAN WEINGER TETZELI & PRATT P.A.
      2650 SW 27th Ave
      Miami, FL 33133
      Tel:(305)444-0060

            -- and --

      Jeffrey Brand, Esq.
      CENTER FOR LAW & GLOBAL JUSTICE
      San Francisco, CA 94117


UNITED STATES: Veterans' Suit v. Defense Dept. Dismissed
--------------------------------------------------------
District Judge Amit P. Mehta of the United States District Court
for the District of Columbia dismissed in its entirety Plaintiffs'
complaint in the case captioned, National Veterans Legal Services
Program, et al., Plaintiffs, v. United States Department of
Defense, et al., Defendants, Case Nos. PJM 14-1749, PJM 14-1751
(D.D.C.).

Four Plaintiffs -- two veterans services organizations and two
Army veterans Angelo Duran and Scott Fink -- filed the action to
challenge various practices of the Army Board for Corrections of
Military Records (ABCMR or the Board). They filed a three-count,
class-action Complaint. The First Claim for Relief alleges that
the ABCMR violated 5 U.S.C. Sec. 704 of the Administrative
Procedure Act (APA). The Second Claim for Relief alleges that the
ABCMR committed another violation of Section 704 of the APA by
failing to obtain the medical records needed for Plaintiffs Angelo
Duran and Scott Fink, and other similarly situated applicants, to
complete their applications for correction. The Third Claim for
Relief alleges that the ABCMR violated the APA yet again by
failing to publish two internal guidebooks titled "Screening Team
Analyst Resource" and a "Handbook for ABCMR Board Members."

Plaintiffs also challenged two other Board practices. They contend
that the ABCMR impermissibly requires applicants -- specifically
here, the two individual plaintiffs -- to acquire the medical
records needed to complete their applications. Plaintiffs argue
that the Board -- rather than the applicants -- bears that
responsibility, but has failed to fulfill it. Additionally,
Plaintiffs contend that the ABCMR has failed to make public two
internal guidance documents, known as the "Screening Team Analyst
Resource" and the "Handbook for ABCMR Board Members," which set
forth rules and policies concerning the approval and denial of
applications.

Defendants moved to dismiss the matter on two grounds. First, they
contend that all Plaintiffs lack standing under Federal Rule of
Civil Procedure 12(b)(1), and therefore, the court is without
subject matter jurisdiction to hear the matter.  Second, under
Rule 12(b)(6), Defendants argue that Plaintiffs have failed to
state a claim upon which relief can be granted.

In the Memorandum Opinion dated August 19, 2016 available at
https://is.gd/RVBd68 from Leagle.com, Judge Mehta concluded that
Duran and Fink's assertion that the ABCMR failed in its duty to
obtain their medical records does not state a claim for relief
under the APA and that Plaintiffs have failed to state a claim for
which relief can be granted.

National Veterans Legal Services Program, et al. are  represented
by Catherine L. Chapple, Esq. -- cchapple@mofo.com -- John A.
Trocki, III, Esq. -- jtrocki@mofo.com -- Stacey M. Sprenkel, Esq.
-- ssprenkel@mofo.com -- and Richard James Vacura,  Esq. --
rvacura@mofo.com -- MORRISON & FOERSTER LLP

United States Department of Defense, et al. are represented by:

      Kieran Gavin Gostin, Esq.
      U.S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
      950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
      Washington, DC 20530-0001
      Tel:(202)353-1555


UNITED STATES: 8th Cir. Revives Johnson Claims Against USDA
-----------------------------------------------------------
Circuit Judge Jane Kelly of the Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit,
affirmed in part, a district court's dismissal of Curtis Johnson's
statutory and constitutional claims against the Department of
Agriculture (USDA), the Secretary of Agriculture, and various
Department of Agriculture employees in the case captioned, Curtis
Johnson, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Department of Agriculture, Tom
Vilsack, Secretary (USDA); Gary Cochran; Hendra Woodfork; Shirley
Moore; Dotson Collins; James G. Culpepper; Dianna Shook; Linda
Newkirk; Dennis L. Stephens; Linda Baker; Thomas Brown; M. Terry
Johnson; John Doe; Jane Does, Defendants-Appellees, Civ. No. 15-
1796 (8th Cir.).

As alleged in his complaint, the plaintiff, Curtis Johnson, ran a
farm in Monroe and St. Francis Counties in Arkansas until 2000. In
2000, he and his former wife, Rubye Johnson, took out a loan,
secured by mortgages on their property, in the amount of
$142,185.47 from the USDA's Farm Service Agency (FSA). Because of
a drought in 2000, Johnson had to stop farming and began to miss
payments on his loans.

Starting in July 2001, the FSA began intercepting Johnson's income
tax refunds through administrative offsets. Over the next several
years, Johnson tried to settle his debts with the FSA -- offering
to pay $15,500 in August and September 2003 and November 2004,
$1,500 in February 2006, and $100 in December 2006 or January
2007.

In October 2009, Linda Newkirk, an FSA employee and a defendant in
this case, sent Johnson a letter denying his debt settlement
applications. Johnson then met with Dennis Stephens, another FSA
employee and defendant, in December 2009 to ask for
reconsideration, which was denied.

In January 2010, Johnson filed an appeal with the USDA's National
Appeals Division (NAD). After conducting a hearing, Thomas Brown,
an NAD Hearing Officer, upheld the FSA's denial of Johnson's
settlement applications. Johnson then requested a Director's
Review, and on August 2010, defendant M. Terry Johnson upheld the
FSA's decision.

The Office of the Assistant Secretary for Civil Rights (OASCR)
issued a 15-page final agency determination on February 29, 2012.
The determination began its analysis by saying that the claim was
"properly analyzed under [Equal Credit Opportunity Act]."

Johnson was apparently dissatisfied with OASCR's decision and
filed a lawsuit on December 21, 2012, against Secretary of
Agriculture Tom Vilsack and 11 USDA employees, each in their
individual and official capacities. Johnson's complaint claimed
that the defendants violated ECOA because they denied his debt
settlement offers on the basis of his race and in retaliation for
his being a member of the Pigford class-action litigation. He also
alleged that the defendants engaged in a conspiracy under 42
U.S.C. Sec. 1985(3) to interfere with his civil rights, and that
they violated his rights under the Fifth and Thirteenth
Amendments.

On March 16, 2015, the district court granted the defendants'
motion to dismiss all of Johnson's claims. Two of the defendants,
Dotson Collins and Dianna Shook, were dismissed because Johnson
had failed to timely serve them. The conspiracy claims were
dismissed on the grounds that no agreement among the defendants
had been alleged. Finally, and most significantly for purposes of
this appeal, the ECOA claims were dismissed on the grounds that
they were precluded by OASCR's administrative proceedings, and,
with respect to the USDA employee defendants, on the alternative
ground that Johnson had not adequately alleged that they were
"creditors" for ECOA purposes.

On appeal, Johnson does not challenge the dismissal of Tom Vilsack
in his individual and official capacities, or the dismissal of
Dotson Collins and Dianna Shook for failure of service. He also
does not challenge the dismissal of his Fifth Amendment claims
against the USDA employee defendants in their official capacities,
or the Thirteenth Amendment claims against all defendants. He
otherwise contends that the district court erred in dismissing his
claims.

In her Order dated August 18, 2016 available at
https://is.gd/0tovDl from Leagle.com, the Appeals Court agreed
with the district court that the complaint does not contain
sufficient allegations to state a plausible claim that Thomas
Brown and M. Terry Johnson, both of whom are employed with the
USDA's National Appeals Division, are creditors for ECOA purposes.
The Eighth Circuit affirmed the dismissal of the ECOA claims with
respect to Thomas Brown and M. Terry Johnson, and reversed the
dismissal of these claims with respect to the remaining
defendants.

The case is remanded to the district court for further proceedings
consistent with the opinion.

Curtis Johnson is represented by:

      Ronald Carl Wilson, Esq.
      310 Mid-Continent Plz, Ste 110
      West Memphis, AR 72301-1761
      Tel: (870) 735-2940

Department of Agriculture, et al. are represented by Richard M.
Pence, Jr., Esq. Jane W. Duke, Esq. -- jduke@mwlaw.com -- MITCHELL
WILLIAMS.

USDA et al. are also represented by:

      Richard M. Pence, Jr., Esq.
      U.S. Department of Justice
      950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
      Washington, DC 20530-0001
      Tel: (202)353-1555


VGC INC: Ala. Suit Alleges Failure to Pay Min. Wage Under FLSA
--------------------------------------------------------------
JANE DOE 1 and JANE DOE 2, on behalf of themselves and all others
similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. VGC, Incorporated, Defendant,
Case No. 2:16-cv-01455-JEO (N.D. Ala., September 2, 2016), was
filed on behalf of Plaintiffs and others similarly situated, who
are current and former dancers/entertainers at VGC, Incorporated
in Huntsville, Alabama, for alleged violation of the Fair Labor
Standards Act for failure to pay a minimum wage.

VGC is a night club stablished in 1988 and incorporated in
Alabama.


The Plaintiffs are represented by:

     Brian M. Clark, Esq.
     WIGGINS CHILDS PANTAZIS FISHER & GOLDFARB
     The Kress Building
     301 19th St. No.
     Birmingham, AL 35203
     Phone: (205) 314-0500
     Fax: (205) 254-1500
     E-mail: bclark@wigginschilds.com


VILLA SERENA: "Martin" Sues Over Retalliation, Unpaid OT, Wages
---------------------------------------------------------------
Carlos J. Martin, Plaintiff, v. Villa Serena II, Inc. and Roxana
Solano, individually, Defendants, Case No. 1:16-cv-23743 (S.D.
Fla., August 31, 2016), seeks to recover money damages for unpaid
wages, failure to pay overtime, minimum wage violations,
retaliatory damages, and any other relief under the Fair Labor
Standards Act.

Villa Serena is a Florida Assisted Living Facility licensed to
provide room, board and personal assistance to elder and
psychiatric patients/residents where Martin worked as live-in home
health aide and care-giver. Martin was allegedly terminated for
complaining about his pay and has yet to claim his wages.

Defendant is represented by:

      Zandro E. Palma, Esq.
      ZANDRO E. PALMA, P.A.
      9100 S. Dixie Hwy, Suite 1500
      Miami, FL 33156
      Telephone: (305) 446-1500
      Facsimile: (305) 446-1502
      Email: zep@thepalmalawgroup.com


VISIONWORKS OF AMERICA: Summary Judgment Bid Granted in Part
------------------------------------------------------------
District Judge James S. Gwin of the United States District Court
for the Northern District of Ohio granted in part Defendant's
motion for summary judgment in the case captioned, ELLIOTT
GRAISER, Plaintiff, v. VISIONWORKS OF AMERICA, INC., Defendant,
Case No. 1:15-CV-2306 (N.D. Ohio).

Plaintiff Graiser represents a putative class of customers who
purchased eyeglasses at Defendant Visionworks while they were
offering a "Buy One Get One Free" promotion. Plaintiff sues
Defendant Visionworks for violating Ohio's Consumer Sale Practice
Act. In particular, Plaintiff alleges that the Defendant's buy-
one-get-one-free eyeglasses deal violates Ohio's regulations on
use of the word "free." Plaintiff maintains that the buy-one-get-
one-free price is inflated, as evidenced by the 40% discount
offered when a customer buys only one pair.

On July 25, 2014, Defendant removed the case to federal court
under diversity jurisdiction. The Court remanded because Graiser
did not show future injury that could support his Article III
standing to seek an injunction. While back in state court,
Cuyahoga County Court of Common Pleas, Judge Barker ruled on the
Defendant's motion for judgment on the pleadings. Judge Barker
issued an opinion concluding that Plaintiff Graiser did not have
standing to seek an injunction, and that his class claims failed
as a matter of law. However, Judge Barker concluded that Defendant
Visionworks solicited Graiser into making a buy-one-get-one-free
purchase, meaning that there was a consumer transaction sufficient
to invoke Ohio's Consumer Sales Practices Act.

Judge Barker dismissed Plaintiff's other claims and gave Plaintiff
a chance to amend his complaint. In Count One of the Amended
Complaint, Plaintiff alleged an Ohio Consumer Sales Practices Act
violation based on Defendant's use of the word "free." In
particular, "the cost of the 'free' eyeglasses is passed on to the
consumer by Visionworks' raising of the regular price of
eyeglasses that must be purchased in order to receive the 'free'
eyeglasses." In Count Two, Plaintiff alleged negligent
misrepresentation under Ohio Law.

Defendant then filed a motion to dismiss the amended complaint. In
a two-sentence journal entry, Judge Barker granted Defendant's
motion as to Count Two, dismissing the negligent misrepresentation
claim. In the same journal entry, Judge Barker denied the motion
as to Count One. Defendant removed the case to federal court a
second time under Class Action Fairness Act jurisdiction. The
operative complaint alleges the single cause of action: violation
of Ohio's Consumer Protection Act based on Defendant's use of the
word "free."

In the motion, Defendant argues that the buy-one-get-one-free
price is the true price. Defendant says it charges vision
insurance customers the buy-one-get-one-free price and the higher
price charged customers with insurance should establish the true
price. Additionally, Defendants claim that Plaintiff Graiser
cannot show actual or statutory damages.

In his Opinion and Order dated August 17, 2016 available at
https://is.gd/zYaTlq from Leagle.com, Judge Gwin found that
because Graiser merely made the 40% off purchase, not the buy-one-
get-one-free purchase, he has not shown a viable theory of actual
damages and he cannot maintain a class claim. As an individual
plaintiff, Graiser may be able to prove statutory damages for
being solicited for a buy-one-get-one-free offer. But he may not
prove statutory damages on the 40% off purchase, because Defendant
had no prior notice that its 40% offer may violate Ohio law.

Elliott Graiser is represented by:

      Drew T. Legando, Esq.
      Jack Landskroner, Esq.
      Thomas C. Merriman, Esq.
      Edward S. Jerse, Esq.
      LANDSKRONER GRIECO MERRIMAN
      1360 W 9th St. #200
      Cleveland, OH 44113
      Tel:(216)522-9000

Visionworks of America, Inc. is represented by David H. Wallace,
Esq. -- dwallace@taftlaw.com -- Michael J. Zbiegien, Jr., Esq. --
mzbiegien@taftlaw.com -- and Ronald D. Holman, II, Esq. --
rholman@taftlaw.com -- TAFT STETTINIUS & HOLLISTER


VIVIFY SERVICES: Faces "Davis" Suit in Ill. Cir. Ct.
----------------------------------------------------
Adrianne Davis, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. Vivify Services, LLC, Michigan Avenue Real Estate
Group and Unknown Owners, Case No. 2016CH11520 (Ill. Cir. Ct.,
August 31, 2016), is brought against the Defendants for failure to
provide the Plaintiff and the class with a copy of a separate
summary describing the respective rights, obligations and remedies
of landlords and tenants with respect to security deposits that
was prepared by the Chicago commissioner of the department of
housing.

The Defendants operates a real estate development firm located in
Northbrook, Illinois.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Jeremy Smith, Esq.
      JS LAW
      29 E. Madison Street, Suite 1000
      Chicago, IL 60602
      Telephone: (312) 756-1330
      E-mail: jeffs@jsslawoffices.com


WALGREEN CO: 7th Reverses Approval of Settlement in Merger Case
---------------------------------------------------------------
Circuit Judge Richard Posner of the Court of Appeals, Seventh
Circuit reversed a trial court's approval of the settlement in the
case captioned, IN RE: WALGREEN CO. STOCKHOLDER LITIGATION (HAYS,
et al. v. WALGREEN CO., et al.) APPEAL OF: JOHN BERLAU, Objector,
Case No. 15-3799 (7th Cir.), and remanded the action to the
district court.

Judge Posner found that there is no indication that members of the
class have an interest in challenging the reorganization that has
created Walgreens Boots Alliance.  On remand, the district court
is directed to give serious consideration to either appointing new
class counsel or dismissing the suit since the class counsel has
failed to represent the class fairly and adequately, as required
by Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(g)(1)(B) and (g)(4).

In 2012 Walgreen Co. acquired a 45% equity stake in a Swiss
company named Alliance Boots GmbH, plus an option to acquire the
rest of Alliance's equity, beginning in February 2015, for a
mixture of cash and Walgreens stock. In 2014 the two companies
altered the deal to allow the option to be exercised earlier.
Walgreens announced its intent to purchase the remainder of
Alliance Boots and then engineer a reorganization whereby
Walgreens (having swallowed Alliance Boots) would become a wholly
owned subsidiary of a new Delaware corporation to be called
Walgreens Boots Alliance, Inc.

The suit sought additional disclosures to the shareholders,
disclosures alleged to be likely to affect the shareholder vote.
The settlement required Walgreens to issue several of the
disclosures to the shareholders -- that was the entire benefit of
the settlement to the class -- and released the company from
liability for the other disclosure-related claims made in the
suit. It also authorized class counsel to ask the district judge
to award them $370,000 in attorneys' fees, without opposition from
Walgreens.

The district judge approved the settlement, including a narrow
release of claims and the fee for the plaintiff's lawyers that the
company had agreed not to oppose. A shareholder named John Berlau
appealed.

In his Decision dated August 10, 2016 available at
https://is.gd/dN2P0P from Leagle.com, Judge Posner said the
district judge was handicapped by lack of guidance for judging the
significance of the disclosures to which the parties had agreed in
order to settle the class action at nominal cost to the defendant
(because class counsel's fees were small potatoes to the giant new
company and the disclosures irrelevant to the shareholders and
thus incapable of preventing the reorganization) and sweet fees
for class counsel, who devoted less than a month to the
litigation, a month's activity that produced no value.

The district judge was handicapped by lack of guidance for judging
the significance of the disclosures to which the parties had
agreed in order to settle the class action at nominal cost to the
defendant (because class counsel's fees were small potatoes to the
giant new company and the disclosures irrelevant to the
shareholders and thus incapable of preventing the reorganization)
and sweet fees for class counsel, who devoted less than a month to
the litigation, a month's activity that produced no value.

Judge Posner said the case, In re Trulia, Inc. Stockholder
Litigation, 129 A.3d 884, 894 (Del. Ch. 2016), adopted a clearer
standard for the approval of similar settlements, and is
applicable in the present case. In Trulia, the Delaware's Court of
Chancery adopted a clearer standard for the approval of disclosure
claims settlement holding that a the misrepresentation or omission
that the supplemental disclosures correct must be "plainly
material," and if immaterial their correction does nothing for the
shareholders.

Berlau is represented by:

      Theodore H. Frank, Esq.
      Melissa Ann Holyoak, Esq.
      COMPETITIVE ENTERPRISE INSTITUTE
      1310 l. Street NW, 7th Floor
      Washington, DC 20005
      Tel:(202)331-1010

Walgreen Co. et al. are represented by James W. Ducayet, Esq. --
jducayet@sidley.com -- Elizabeth Yvonne Austin, Esq. --
laustin@sidley.com -- Benjamin D. Klein, Esq. -- jklein@sidley.com
-- and Kristen R. Seeger, Esq. -- kseeger@sidley.com -- SIDLEY
AUSTIN


WASHINGTON SUBURBAN: Wins Summary Judgment in "Floyd" Suit
----------------------------------------------------------
District Judge Peter J. Messitte of the United States District
Court for the District of Maryland granted Defendants' motion for
summary judgment in the case captioned, AVA FLOYD, pro se,
Plaintiff, v. WASHINGTON SUBURBAN SANITARY COMMISSION, et al.,
Defendants, Case Nos. PJM 14-1749, PJM 14-1751 (D. Md.).

On May 1, 2014, Plaintiff Ava Floyd (Floyd) filed two separate
complaints (Complaint I and Complaint II) in the Circuit Court for
Prince George's County related to her employment at Washington
Suburban Sanitary Commission (WSSC) and Jerry N. Johnson (Johnson)
(Defendants) and her eventual termination.

In Complaint I, which she originally styled as a "Class Action
Complaint," Floyd brings claims against WSSC for Violation of
Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended (Count 1);
Unlawful Employment Practices (Count 2); and what she fashions as
"Race, Sex, and National Origin Based Employment Discrimination"
(Count 3). Specifically, Floyd alleges that WSSC did not comply
with its own Equal Employment Opportunity and Employee Right
Policies. She also alleges that the Interview Panel discriminated
against her in connection the Scoring Sheet used in its hiring
process. In Complaint II, Floyd brings claims of retaliation
against WSSC (Count 1) and wrongful termination (Count 2) against
both individual Defendants. These claims are based largely on the
same factual predicate present in Complaint I.

On July 21, 2015, the Court consolidated Floyd's lawsuits.  Since
Complaint I included not only purported class allegations but also
Floyd's individual claims, the Court allowed the individual claims
in Complaint I to proceed.

In the motion, Defendants contend that Plaintiffs' assertions fail
as a matter of law.

In his Memorandum Opinion dated August 19, 2016 available at
https://is.gd/UqkfwY from Leagle.com, Judge Messitte held that
Floyd has failed to rebut WSSC's legitimate reason for not
extending her interview, and she has failed to establish a dispute
of material fact and that her argument is misguided.

Washington Suburban Sanitary Commission (WSSC) and Jerry N.
Johnson are represented by Philip H. Lohrey, Jr., Esq. --
plohrey@aog.state.md.us -- OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL


XE SERVICES: Motions to Dismiss on Hold Pending Arbitration
-----------------------------------------------------------
In the case captioned, C.J. MERCADANTE, et al., Plaintiffs, v. XE
SERVICES, LLC, et al., Defendant, Case No. 11-1044 (CKK) (D.D.C.),
District Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly of the United States
District Court for the District of Columbia held in abeyance
Defendants' motion to dismiss while providing Plaintiffs one final
opportunity to perfect their arbitration demands and to proceed to
arbitration before the American Arbitration Association.

On January 15, 2015, the Court ordered the parties to "proceed to
arbitration in order for an arbitrator to determine, in the first
instance, whether the claims in the action are arbitrable."
Subsequently, after the parties' exchanged e-mails regarding
future proceedings, Plaintiffs filed a Motion for Reconsideration
or in the Alternative for Certification of Interlocutory Appeal,
regarding the Court's January 15, 2015, Order, which Defendants
opposed. The Court denied that motion in its entirety. The Court
explained that, if Plaintiffs continued to seek relief on the
claims they brought in the case, they were required to proceed to
arbitration as previously ordered by the Court.

On March 25, 2016, Plaintiffs submitted a Demand for Arbitration
to the American Arbitration Association (AAA), under its rules for
employment cases. The demand encompassed class claims, as well as
the individual claims of the four individual Plaintiffs in the
case. The AAA acknowledged receipt of Plaintiffs' demand,
including a payment of $200.

The AAA sent a letter to Plaintiffs stating that "to proceed with
administration, we request the $3,150 balance of the filing fee be
submitted at this time." The AAA sent additional follow-up
correspondence on June 10, 2016, by e-mail, indicating that no
payment had yet been made and on June 22, 2016 the AAA's
Employment Filing Team sent the parties a letter stating that the
filing deficiency has not been cured and administratively closed
the file without prejudice.

Defendants subsequently filed motion to dismiss for want of
prosecution. Defendants aver that Plaintiffs have not moved with
the speed that the Court would have expected in proceeding to
arbitration. It was not until March 25, 2016, that Plaintiffs
filed their demand for arbitration with the AAA, seven months
after the Court resolved Plaintiffs' motion for reconsideration
and fourteen months after the Court initially ordered arbitration
in the case.

In her Memorandum Opinion and Order dated August 19, 2016
available at https://is.gd/aUsN9b from Leagle.com, Judge Kollar-
Kotelly held in abeyance because Plaintiffs indicate that they are
seeking to have the individual claims reinstated in arbitration,
the Court will not yet dismiss this action for failure to
prosecute. Rather, the Court will provide Plaintiffs one final
opportunity to comply with the requirements of the AAA and to move
forward with the arbitration proceedings.

The Court directed Plaintiffs to move forward expeditiously to
seek reinstatement of their individual arbitration claims --
filing individual demands and paying filing fees as required by
the AAA and file a status report regarding arbitration of the
claims brought in the action by no later than October 19, 2016.


                            *********

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  * * *