CAR_Public/160920.mbx              C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

            Tuesday, September 20, 2016, Vol. 18, No. 188




                            Headlines


ACH FOOD: Judge Dismisses Class Action Over "All Natural" Label
ADCARE HEALTH: Says Cleveland Class Action Fully Settled and Paid
ADVERTISING SPECIALTY: Faces "Hope" Suit Under FLSA, Pa. Wage Act
AECOM: Faces "Graves" Suit Alleging Securities Law Violations
AECOM: Oct. 31 Class Action Lead Plaintiff Motion Deadline Set

AIRLINE RESTAURANT: "Benitez-Ramirez" Alleges Violation of FLSA
ALARM.COM HOLDINGS: Discovery Commenced in Class Action
ALJ REGIONAL: Settlement in "Brown" Has Preliminary Approval
ALJ REGIONAL: Factual Discovery Continues in "McNeil"
ALLERGAN PLC: Faces UHH Suit in Eastern Dist. of Pennsylvania

AMERICAN INTERCONTINENTAL: "Mauer" Suit Survives Bids to Dismiss
AMERICAN RENAL: Oct. 31 Class Action Lead Plaintiff Deadline Set
ANGELS IN YOUR HOME: "Hardgers-Powell" Alleges FLSA Violation
APPLE INC: Faces Class Action in Utah Over "Touch Disease" Issue
ATLANTIC COAST: "Crawford" Suit Consolidated in MDL 2492

ATLANTIC MANAGEMENT: Faces "Miller" Suit in Mass. Super. Ct.
AUDIOEYE INC: Agreement in Securities Litigation Pending
BANNER HEALTH: Faces "Reader" Suit in District of Arizona
BANNER LIFE: Faces Class Actions Over Insurance Price Increases
BISCO INC: Court Accepts $3,600 Deposit, Nixes Fulton Dental Suit

CALIFORNIA: "Marchetti" Suit Dismissed Without Leave to Amend
CAPITAL ONE: Faces "Green" Lawsuit Alleging Violation of FLSA
CARING HEART: Faces "Conteh" Lawsuit Under FLSA, Pa. Wage Act
CHADBOURNE & PARKE: 14 Female Partners Won't Join Class Action
CINEMARK: Judge Tosses Aurora Shooting Survivors' Class Action

CRYOGENIC TRANSPORTATION: "Hernandez" Suit Moved to C.D. Cal.
DALLAS CENTRAL: Trinity Square Sues Over Misappraisal
DALLAS CENTRAL: RMB Richardson Sues Over Misappraisal
DALLAS CENTRAL: Skyline Redevelopment Sues Over Misappraisal
DALLAS CENTRAL: South Tollway Sues Over Misappraisal

DALLAS CENTRAL: Trails Redevelopment Sues Over Misappraisal
DAVE & BUSTER'S: "Banks" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Wages
DOMINO'S PIZZA: Faces "Arledge" Suit Under FLSA, Ohio Wage Act
ENERVEST OPERATING: "Mojave" Suit Moved to N.D. of Oklahoma
ENTERPRISE HOLDINGS: E.D. Mo. Court Won't Hear "Fisher" Suit

EVOQUA WATER: "Massa" Suit Removed from Cty. Ct. to M.D. Fla.
EXPRESS RECOVERY: Faces "Moore" Suit in District of Utah
GREENWISE ORGANIC: Faces "Alvarez" Suit Under FLSA, Ill. Wage Act
HOME TEAM PEST: Garnica Filed Exhibit to Class Cert. Bid
HONDA MOTOR: Faces Class Action Over Failure to Fix CR-V Issues

IDENTIV INC: Amended Complaint Filed in "Rok" Suit
IGNITE RESTAURANT: "Ekryss" Suit Sent to Arbitration
INNERWORKINGS INC: Settlement in "Van Noppen" Case Still Pending
INTERNET TECHNOLOGY: Faces Daisy Inc. Suit in M.D. of Florida
IPAYMENT INC: Faces "Bickelmann" Suit Alleging Violation of TCPA

ITT EDUCATIONAL: "Blackwell" Suit Alleges Violation of WARN Act
ITT EDUCATIONAL: Faces "Artis" Suit Alleging WARN Act Violation
JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Faces "Joseph" Suit Over Sale of Baby Powder
KBK SERVICES: Court Grants Bid for Summary Judgment in "Ricard"
KELLY SERVICES: Faces "Holmes" Suit Alleging Violation of FLSA

KNIGHT INDUSTRIES: Dismissal of Products Liability Case Vacated
KOCH FOODS: Faces "Gross" Antitrust Lawsuit Over Broiler Sale
LIMBACH HOLDINGS: Defending "Garfield" Class Action
LINC ENERGY: Queensland Gov't May Face Liability for Class Action
LOWE'S COS: Faces "Foster" Lawsuit Under FLSA, N.C. Wage Law

LLOYDS TSB BANK: Can't Compel Plaintiffs to Present Trial Plan
M&T BANK: Faces "Allen" Suit Alleging Violation of ERISA
MARRONE BIO: Sept. 22 Final Fairness Hearing Scheduled
MERCER CANYONS: Yakima Farm Workers' Class Action Can Proceed
MIZUHO BANK: Appeal in Mt. Gox Customers' Class Action Tossed

NANTKWEST INC: Consolidated Complaint Filed in Securities Case
NANTKWEST INC: Defending Suit Related to Initial Public Offering
NAT'L COLLEGIATE: Ex-Cal Football Players File Concussion Suit
NAT'L COLLEGIATE: Faces 7 More Class Action Concussion Lawsuits
NOVATION COMPANIES: New Jersey Carpenters' Case Still Pending

NUUN & COMPANY: Plaintiffs Voluntarily Dismiss Class Action
OUTERWALL INC: WeissLaw LLP Files Class Action in Washington
OVC: Ex-Murray State Athlete Files Concussion Class Action
PAYMENT DATA: Parties in "McFarland" to Meet & Confer on Sept. 28
PEREGRINE FINANCIAL: Dismissal of Customers' Class Action Upheld

PLAYTEX PRODUCTS: "D'Aversa" Suit Transferred to E.D.N.Y.
POP WARNER: Faces Concussion Class Action in California
PROFESSIONAL DIVERSITY: Nov. 28 Final Settlement Hearing Set
PROFESSIONAL DIVERSITY: "Coleman" Class Action Dismissed
PROFESSIONAL DIVERSITY: "Vazquez" Class Action Dismissed

QUALITY BUILT: Gates at Williams-Brice Suit Goes to State Court
REGENCY PARTY: Faces "Deneus" Suit Alleging Violation of FLSA
RELENTLESS RECOVERY: Faces "Caringi" Suit Alleging FLSA Violation
RFS HOLDING: Discovery Ongoing in Blackrock Advisors Action
RHEEM MANUFACTURING: Court Narrows Claims in "Adelman" Suit

RIGHTSCORP INC: Nov. 14 Final Settlement Approval Hearing Set
ROBERT HALF: Attorney's Fee Award in Wage & Hour Suit Affirmed
SAM'S WEST: Court Dismisses SCUTPA Claim in "Fejzulai" Suit
SANDRIDGE ENERGY: Says Settlement Subject to Final Negotiations
SANDRIDGE ENERGY: Duane & Virginia Lanier Trust Case Pending

SANDRIDGE ENERGY: "Gernandt" Action Administratively Closed
SANDRIDGE ENERGY: Griggs and Marler Dismissed Lawsuit
SANDRIDGE ENERGY: Anadarko Basin Antitrust Suit Underway
SANDRIDGE ENERGY: Dismissed from "Koppitz" Lawsuit
SANDRIDGE ENERGY: Dismissed from "Mallory" Action

SHIPCOM WIRELESS: "Hendrix" Lawsuit Seeks OT Pay Under FLSA
SOCIAL SECURITY: Robson's U.S. Totalization Benefits Affirmed
SOLAR CITY: Faces "Daugherty" Labor Litigation in California
SPECTRA ENERGY: Faces "Boyd" Lawsuit Under FLSA, NY Labor Law
SUBARU OF AMERICA: Settles Class Suit Over Oil Consumption Issue

TATA CONSULTANCY: "Hall" Suit Seeks Moved to S.D. Cal.
TOYOTA MOTOR: Faces Class Action in California Over Airbag Recall
UBER TECHNOLOGIES: Urges Calif. Judge to Reject NLRB Subpoenas
UNITED SERVICES: Five Attorneys Face Sanctions in Class Action
UNITED STATES: Judge to Hear Suit Agaisnt DOL's Fiduciary Rule

VERIZON COMMUNICATIONS: Faces Suit Under FLSA, Penn. Labor Laws
VOLKSWAGEN AG: 200,000 Vehicle Owners Opt for Buyback Program
VOLKSWAGEN AG: ACCC to Launch Legal Action Over "Defeat Software"
VOLKSWAGEN AG: Vehicle Owner Questions Fairness of Settlement
WAKE FOREST: "Burkholder" Suit Transferred to N. Dist. of Ill.

WAL-MART STORES: Loses Bid to Block Wage Class Action Trial
WAL-MART STORES: Court Denies Sanctions Motions in "Cortina" Suit
WHEELER TRUCKING: Court Declines to Alter Remand Order
XEROX STATE: Faces "Kelly" Suit in California Superior Court

* NLRB, EY Want Supreme Court to Review Class Action Waivers
* Proposed CFPB Changes May Cost Financial Firms $100MM a Year
* Recent S.C. Court Rulings to Impact Securities Class Actions
* Spike in Securities Class Actions Won't Hit D&O Insurance Space


                            *********


ACH FOOD: Judge Dismisses Class Action Over "All Natural" Label
---------------------------------------------------------------
Douglas J. Behr, Esq., Arthur S. Garrett III, Esq., Robert S.
Niemann, Esq., Manesh K. Rath, Esq., and Christopher G. Van Gundy,
Esq., of Keller and Heckman LLP, in an article for Lexology,
report that demand letters under consumer protection statutes
should not be ignored and may, in limited instances, offer a way
to head off significant litigation.  For instance, in Demmler v.
ACH Food Companies, Inc., Case No. 15-13556 (D. Mass. Jun. 9,
2016), a federal judge dismissed the plaintiff's purported class
action after finding that the defendant had paid plaintiff more
than he could individually recover even though the check was never
cashed.

Demmler, individually and on behalf of a purported class, sued ACH
Food Companies, Inc. ("ACH") under Massachusetts law, alleging
that ACH's Weber BBQ sauces were deceptively labeled and
advertised as "All Natural" because they contained caramel color.
Demmler's action sought money damages but not an injunction,
presumably, because ACH had already stopped making "All Natural"
claims by the time Demmler initially contacted them.

Before filing suit, Demmler's attorney sent ACH a Demand for
Relief seeking, both individually and for the class, "actual
damages (of the greater of money spent on Product purchases or
statutory damages of $25), modification of the Products' labeling,
and reimbursement for costs and attorneys' fees."  In response,
ACH sent a $75 check, which notably had no conditions or
restrictions.  Instead, ACH only characterized the check as "the
extent of [ACH's] willingness to compromise in the circumstances."
Demmler's attorney rejected the check as inadequate because it
only provided relief to Demmler and did not provide relief for the
class.  After a further exchange of letters and after Demmler
filed suit, ACH sent Demmler a second, unconditional $75 check
that was certified and claimed that the suit was moot.  Demmler's
attorney again rejected the check.

ACH moved to dismiss the case as moot by arguing the $75 check
effectively provided more relief than the court could provide and
pointed out that the $75 represented three times the amount of
statutory damages available to Demmler or, alternatively, the cost
of 20 bottles of sauce.  After evaluating all factors, the court
determined that Demmler's personal claim was moot for the reasons
asserted by ACH.  Of particular importance to the Court was the
fact that ACH had made the check available without restrictions
and conditions, such that Demmler was not required to cash the
check, or even accept it, to have obtained all the relief
individually available to him. Thus, the court determined that
Demmler had no claim to judgment and therefore his action was
moot.  Further, the court found that Demmler's claim for a share
of the potential attorneys' fees as well as his unsupported claim
to sharing litigation expenses were insufficient to keep his claim
alive.  The court therefore granted ACH's Motion to Dismiss and
dismissed the case.

In granting ACH's Motion to Dismiss, the court also dismissed the
purported class action.  The court found that because Demmler's
claim was moot, there was no basis to proceed with the class
claim, especially as no motion to certify the class had been filed
prior to ACH's tendering of the check.  The Court observed that
there was no evidence that companies generally, or ACH in
particular, tendered such payments in an effort to moot any such
challenge to food labeling or advertising.

The Demmler case shows that creative responses to demand letters
may prevent further litigation.  However, ACH's success in this
case may be a result of the specific facts, including the fact
that ACH had already ceased making the challenged "All Natural"
claim before receiving the demand letter.


ADCARE HEALTH: Says Cleveland Class Action Fully Settled and Paid
-----------------------------------------------------------------
AdCare Health Systems, 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 as of June 30,
2016, the Amy Cleveland class action has been fully settled and
paid.

The Company was a defendant in a purported class action lawsuit
captioned Amy Cleveland et. al. v. APHR&R Nursing, LLC et al filed
on March 4, 2015 in the Circuit Court of Pulaski County, Arkansas,
16th Division, 6th Circuit (the "Cleveland Class Action").  On
December 16, 2015, the Company's insurance carrier reached a
settlement with each of the individual plaintiffs on behalf of the
Company and all other defendants by which separate payments are to
be made by the Company's carrier to the plaintiffs. The individual
settlements were contingent upon approval by the probate courts
having jurisdiction over the deceased plaintiffs' respective
estates, if applicable.

During the quarter ended March 30, 2016, all but two of the
individual settlement agreements were approved and the settlement
consideration paid to the plaintiffs. During the quarter ended
June 30, 2016, the remaining two settlement agreements were
approved and the settlement consideration paid to the plaintiffs.
As of June 30, 2016, the Cleveland Class Action has been fully
settled and paid.


ADVERTISING SPECIALTY: Faces "Hope" Suit Under FLSA, Pa. Wage Act
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Michelle Hope, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. Advertising Specialty Institute, Inc.,
Defendant, Case 2:16-cv-04823-CDJ (E.D. Pa., September 7, 2016),
alleges violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act, the
Pennsylvania Wage Payment and Collection Law, and the Family and
Medical Leave Act.

Advertising Specialty Institute, Inc. is a promotional product
membership organization.


AECOM: Faces "Graves" Suit Alleging Securities Law Violations
-------------------------------------------------------------
WILLIAM GRAVES, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly
Situated, Plaintiff, vs. AECOM, MICHAEL S. BURKE, W.
TROY RUDD, and STEPHEN M. KADENACY, Defendants, Case 2:16-cv-06605
(C.D. Cal., September 1, 2016), was filed on behalf of a purported
class consisting of all persons other than Defendants who
purchased or otherwise acquired common shares of AECOM between
February 11, 2015 and August 15, 2016, both dates inclusive.

AECOM together with its subsidiaries, engages in designing,
building, financing, and operating infrastructure assets
worldwide.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Jennifer Pafiti, Esq.
     POMERANTZ LLP
     468 North Camden Drive
     Beverly Hills, CA 90210
     Phone: (818) 532-6499
     E-mail: jpafiti@pomlaw.com

        - and -

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

        - and -

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


AECOM: Oct. 31 Class Action Lead Plaintiff Motion Deadline Set
--------------------------------------------------------------
Pomerantz LLP on Sept. 1 disclosed that a class action lawsuit has
been filed against AECOM ("AECOM" or the "Company") and certain of
its officers.   The class action, filed in United States District
Court, Central District of California, and docketed under 16-cv-
06605, is on behalf of a class consisting of all persons or
entities who purchased or otherwise acquired AECOM securities
between February 11, 2015 and August 15, 2016 both dates inclusive
(the "Class Period").  This class action seeks to recover damages
against Defendants for alleged violations of the federal
securities laws under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the
"Exchange Act").

If you are a shareholder who purchased AECOM securities during the
Class Period, you have until October 31, 2016 to ask the Court to
appoint you as Lead Plaintiff for the class.  A copy of the
Complaint can be obtained at www.pomerantzlaw.com
To discuss this action, contact Robert S. Willoughby at
rswilloughby@pomlaw.com or 888.476.6529 (or 888.4-POMLAW), toll
free, ext. 9980.  Those who inquire by e-mail are encouraged to
include their mailing address, telephone number, and number of
shares purchased.

AECOM together with its subsidiaries, engages in designing,
building, financing, and operating infrastructure assets
worldwide.  The Company operates through three segments: Design
and Consulting Services (DCS), Construction Services (CS), and
Management Services (MS).  The DCS segment provides planning,
consulting, architectural and engineering design, program
management, and construction management services for industrial,
commercial, institutional, and government clients, such as
transportation, facilities, environmental, and energy/power
markets.  The CS segment offers building construction and energy,
as well as infrastructure and industrial construction services.
The MS segment provides program and facilities management and
maintenance, training, logistics, consulting, technical
assistance, and systems integration and information technology
services primarily for agencies of the U.S. government and other
national governments.

On October 17, 2014, AECOM announced that the Company had
finalized its acquisition of URS Corp. ("URS" and the "URS
Acquisition").

The Complaint alleges that throughout the Class Period, Defendants
made materially false and misleading statements regarding the
Company's business, operational and compliance policies.
Specifically, Defendants made false and/or misleading statements
and/or failed to disclose that: (i) AECOM engaged in fraudulent
and deceptive business practices (ii) AECOM lacked effective
internal controls over financial reporting; (iii) AECOM overstated
the benefits of the URS Acquisition; (iv) AECOM overstated the
Company's free cash flow per share; and (v) as a result of the
foregoing, AECOM's public statements were materially false and
misleading at all relevant times.

On August 16, 2016, Spruce Point Capital Management published a
report on AECOM (the "Spruce Point Report"), stating that "after a
careful forensic financial and accounting analysis of AECOM's
recent financial results and condition, we believe that AECOM's
stock is worth approximately 33% - 45% less than its current
price."  Among other issues, the Spruce Point Report cited AECOM
management's "misaligned incentive structure," pursuant to which
the Company's "CEO's $18 million compensation in 2015 [was]
heavily tied to its aggressive interpretation of its Free Cash
Flow per share," and asserted that the Company had misrepresented
the costs and benefits of the URS Acquisition.

On this news, AECOM stock fell $1.65, or 4.7%, to close at $33.44
on August 16, 2016, damaging investors.

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


AIRLINE RESTAURANT: "Benitez-Ramirez" Alleges Violation of FLSA
---------------------------------------------------------------
Marco Benitez-Ramirez, Individually and on behalf of others
similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Chris Meskouris, Individually
and The Airline Restaurant Corp. d/b/a Jackson Hole, Case 1:16-cv-
04906 (September 1, 2016), seeks the recovery of unpaid wages and
related damages for unpaid minimum wage and overtime hours worked
under the Fair Labor Standards Act and the New York Labor Law.

Plaintiff worked as a dishwasher/delivery man for the Defendants.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Darren P.B. Rumack, Esq.
     THE KLEIN LAW GROUP P.C.
     11 Broadway, Suite 960
     New York, NY 10004
     Phone: 212-344-9022
     Fax: 212-344-0301


ALARM.COM HOLDINGS: Discovery Commenced in Class Action
-------------------------------------------------------
Alarm.com Holdings, 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 discovery has commenced
in the putative class action lawsuit in the U.S. District Court
for the Northern District of California.

The Company said, "On December 30, 2015, a putative class action
lawsuit was filed against us in the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of California, alleging violations of the
Telephone Consumer Protection Act, or TCPA. The complaint does not
allege that Alarm.com violated the TCPA, but instead seeks to hold
us responsible for the marketing activities of our service
providers under principles of agency and vicarious liability. The
complaint seeks monetary damages under the TCPA, injunctive
relief, and other relief, including attorney's fees. We answered
the complaint on February 26, 2016."

"On March 24, 2016, we filed a motion to transfer the matter to
the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of West Virginia
to be consolidated with 23 other similar and related pending TCPA
actions. That motion was denied on June 2, 2016. Discovery has
commenced, and the matter remains pending in the U.S. District
Court for the Northern District of California."


ALJ REGIONAL: Settlement in "Brown" Has Preliminary Approval
------------------------------------------------------------
ALJ Regional Holdings, 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 as of June 30,
2016, Faneuil is named as a defendant in a proposed class action
filed in the United States District Court for the Eastern District
of Virginia. The case, styled Brown, et al., v. Transurban USA,
Inc., et al., was filed on April 15, 2015.  The parties have
reached a tentative settlement and the Court has given preliminary
approval to the settlement.  The parties are in the process of
notifying potential class members of the proposed settlement and
receiving final approval of the settlement.  Faneuil's outside
counsel estimated that the maximum exposure was $90,000.  As such,
Faneuil accrued $90,000 during the nine months ended June 30,
2016.


ALJ REGIONAL: Factual Discovery Continues in "McNeil"
-----------------------------------------------------
ALJ Regional Holdings, 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 Faneuil is a
defendant in a proposed Fair Labor Standards Act collection action
case filed in the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia.  The case, styled McNeil v. Faneuil, Inc.
remains pending before the Court.  The Court granted conditional
certification for a class of employees who worked in Faneuil's
Virginia facilities; however, the parties conducted discovery
regarding the proper scope of a potential class and the Plaintiffs
have moved for Conditional Nationwide Class Certification.  The
motion has been briefed and the parties are awaiting oral argument
and a decision on the matter.  The parties are also continuing
factual discovery related to liability and damages issues.


ALLERGAN PLC: Faces UHH Suit in Eastern Dist. of Pennsylvania
-------------------------------------------------------------
A lawsuit has been filed against Allergan PLC. The case is
captioned UNITE HERE HEALTH, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF ALL
OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED, the Plaintiff, v. ALLERGAN PLC,
ACTAVIS, PLC, IMPAX LABORATORIES, INC., LANNETT COMPANY, INC.,
MYLAN PHARMACEUTICALS, INC., PAR PHARMACEUTICAL COMPANIES, INC.,
and WEST-WARD PHARMACEUTICALS CORP., Case No. 2:16-cv-04818-CMR
(E.D. Penn., Sep. 7, 2016). The assigned Judge is Hon. Cynthia M.
Rufe.

Allergan, headquartered in Dublin, Ireland, is a global
pharmaceutical company.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Steven J. Greenfogel, Esq.
          LITE DEPALMA GREENBERG
          1835 Market St Suite 2700
          Philadelphia, PA 19103
          Telephone: (267) 519 8306
          E-mail: sgreenfogel@litedepalma.com


AMERICAN INTERCONTINENTAL: "Mauer" Suit Survives Bids to Dismiss
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case captioned AMY MAUER, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. AMERICAN INTERCONTINENTAL
UNIVERSITY, INC., AIU ONLINE, LLC, EVEREST UNIVERSITY, EVEREST
UNIVERSITY ONLINE, ZENITH EDUCATION GROUP, INC., ECMC GROUP, INC.,
and JOHN DOE CORPORATION, Defendants, No. 16 C 1473 (N.D. Ill.),
Judge Sara L. Ellis denied the motion to dismiss filed by the
defendants American Intercontinental University, Inc. and AIU
Online, LLC (collectively, "AIU"); and Everest University, Everest
University Online, Zenith Education Group, Inc., and ECMC Group,
Inc. (collectively, "Everest").

Amy Mauer brought a class action complaint against AIU, Everest,
and John Doe Corporation, asserting that the defendants violated
the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA) by calling her
cellular telephone using an automatic telephone dialing system
(ATDS) without her express consent.

AIU and Everest filed motions to dismiss, arguing that Mauer has
not adequately tied them to the call she received or adequately
alleged that the call she received came from an ATDS.

Judge Ellis denied their motions because, based on the facts
alleged in Mauer's amended class action complaint, she has
sufficiently pleaded a basis to hold AIU and Everest vicariously
liable and that John Doe utilized an ATDS while calling her
cellular phone.

A full-text copy of Judge Ellis' September 7, 2016 opinion and
order is available at https://is.gd/2Icudx from Leagle.com.

Amy Mauer, Plaintiff, represented by Brian D. Brooks --
bbrooks@ssrllp.com -- Smith Segura & Raphael, LLP, pro hac vice.

Amy Mauer, Plaintiff, represented by Brian Philip Murray --
bmurray@glancylaw.com -- Glancy Binkow & Goldberg LLP, pro hac
vice.

Amy Mauer, Plaintiff, represented by Norman Rifkind, Law Office of
Norman Rifkind.

American Intercontinental University, Inc., AIU Online, LLC,
Defendants, represented by Terance A. Gonsalves --
terance.gonsalves@kattenlaw.com -- Katten Muchin Rosenman LLP &
Carrie Melissa Stickel -- carrie.stickel@kattenlaw.com -- Katten
Muchin Rosenman Llp.

Everest University, Everest University Online, Zenith Education
Group, Inc., ECMC Group, Inc., Defendants, represented by David J.
Kaminski -- kaminski@cmtlaw.com -- Carlson & Messer Llp & Gordon
Kenneth Walton -- gkwalton@waltonlawgroupllc.com -- Walton Law
Group LLC.


AMERICAN RENAL: Oct. 31 Class Action Lead Plaintiff Deadline Set
----------------------------------------------------------------
Pomerantz LLP on Aug. 31 disclosed that a class action lawsuit has
been filed against American Renal Associates Holdings, Inc.
("American Renal" or the "Company") and certain of its officers.
The class action, filed in United States District Court, Southern
District of New York, and docketed under 16-cv-06841, is on behalf
of a class consisting of all persons or entities who purchased or
otherwise acquired American Renal securities: (1) pursuant and/or
traceable to American Renal's false and misleading Registration
Statement and Prospectus issued in connection with the Company's
initial public offering on or about April 21, 2016 (the "IPO" or
the "Offering"); and/or (2) on the open market between April 21,
2016 and August 18, 2016, both dates inclusive (the "Class
Period").  This class action seeks to recover damages against
Defendants for alleged violations of the federal securities laws
under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the "Exchange Act")
Securities Act of 1933 (the "Securities Act").

If you are a shareholder who purchased American Renal securities
during the Class Period, you have until October 31, 2016 to ask
the Court to appoint you as Lead Plaintiff for the class.  A copy
of the Complaint can be obtained at www.pomerantzlaw.com
To discuss this action, contact Robert S. Willoughby at
rswilloughby@pomlaw.com or 888.476.6529 (or 888.4-POMLAW), toll
free, ext. 9980.  Those who inquire by e-mail are encouraged to
include their mailing address, telephone number, and number of
shares purchased.

American Renal operates as a dialysis services provider in the
United States focused exclusively on joint venture partnerships
with physicians.  The Company, through its subsidiaries, owns and
operates kidney dialysis facilities for patients suffering from
chronic kidney failure or end stage renal disease ("ESRD").  As of
March 31, 2016, it owned and operated 194 dialysis clinics in 25
states and the District of Columbia.

On or about April 21, 2016, American Renal completed its IPO,
issuing 8.625 million shares of common stock and raising net
proceeds of approximately $189.75 million.

The Complaint alleges that throughout the Class Period, Defendants
made false and/or misleading statements, as well as failed to
disclose material adverse facts about the Company's business,
operations, and prospects.  Specifically, Defendants made false
and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (i)
American Renal was engaged in a fraudulent scheme to steer
patients away from qualified-for Medicare and Medicaid plans into
more expensive Affordable Care Act ("ACA") plans to obtain greater
reimbursement for the Company's dialysis services; (ii) the
foregoing scheme was in violation of federal and state laws; and
(iii) as a result of the foregoing, American Renal's public
statements were materially false and misleading at all relevant
times.

On July 1, 2016, three insurance companies filed a lawsuit against
American Renal and an affiliated entity in the United States
District Court for the Southern District of Florida, alleging that
American Renal was engaged in a "fraudulent and illegal scheme"
that involved persuading patients who qualified for Medicare or
Medicaid coverage to enroll in commercial healthcare plans and
then putting those patients in touch with an American Renal-
patronized charity that would pay the patients' insurance premiums
in full or in part.  As Medicaid and Medicare provide for only
predetermined reimbursement rates for dialysis services, the suit
alleges that American Renal would thus receive much larger
reimbursements from the ACA insurer as a commercial payor than it
would have from Medicare or Medicaid coverage.

On news of the lawsuit, American Renal's stock price fell $2.82
per share, or 9.88%, to close at $25.71 on July 5, 2016, the next
trading day.

On August 18, 2016, the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services
(the "Agency"), a federal agency within the U.S. Department of
Health and Human Services, announced that it had sent warning
letters to all dialysis centers that participate in the federal
Medicare program.  The Agency also stated that it is weighing
financial penalties on providers found to have directed people
eligible for Medicare into ACA plans instead -- as American Renal
is alleged to have done.

On this news, American Renal's share price fell $2.31, or 10.44%,
to close at $19.81 on August 19, 2016.

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


ANGELS IN YOUR HOME: "Hardgers-Powell" Alleges FLSA Violation
-------------------------------------------------------------
ROSE HARDGERS-POWELL and YOLANDA CLAY, on behalf of themselves and
all others similarly situated Plaintiffs vs. ANGELS IN YOUR HOME
LLC; ANGELS IN YOUR HOME; DAVID WEGMAN, individually and in his
role as owner of ANGELS IN YOUR HOME and/or ANGELS IN YOUR HOME
LLC; and ANDY WEGMAN, individually and in his role as owner of
ANGELS IN YOUR HOME and/or ANGELS IN YOUR HOME LLC, Defendants,
Case No. 6:16-cv-06612 (W.D.N.Y., September 7, 2016), was filed
under the Fair Labor Standards Act.

ANGELS IN YOUR HOME LLC -- http://www.angelsinyourhome.com-- is a
home care services agency.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

     Robert Mullin, Esq.
     FERR & MULLIN, P.C.
     7635 Main St. Fishers
     P.O. Box 440
     Fishers, NY 14453
     Phone: (585) 869-0210
     E-mail: rlmullin@FerrMullinLaw.com

        - and -

     Justin M. Cordello, Esq.
     CORDELLO LAW, PLLC
     693 East Avenue, Suite 220
     Rochester, NY 14607
     Phone: (585) 857-9684
     E-mail: justin@cordellolaw.com


APPLE INC: Faces Class Action in Utah Over "Touch Disease" Issue
----------------------------------------------------------------
Andrew Adams, writing for KSL.com, reports that a Utah law firm is
taking Apple to court with a class action lawsuit over the "touch
disease" phenomenon paralyzing iPhone 6 and iPhone 6 Plus devices.

Attorneys with Christensen, Young & Associates filed the suit in
federal court in Utah on Aug. 31, alleging Apple had a
"longstanding knowledge" of a design defect that led to the
problem, and has refused to repair and replace affected iPhones
without charge to the phones' owners.

"We are seeking damages and what we ultimately want is for Apple
to either make some sort of amends with (money) or provide new
phones to the clients," attorney Zane Christensen said.

The lawsuit currently includes seven named plaintiffs from Utah,
but Mr. Christensen said his legal team was seeking any others who
had experienced the same troubles and had interest in joining the
action.

Mr. Christensen said Apple pushes users to purchase a new iPhone 6
or iPhone 6 Plus that can suffer from the same defect, or the
company charges owners to install a new IC touch unit.

"It's putting a Band-Aid on top of a Band-Aid instead of fixing
the real problem," Mr. Christensen said.  "What they're doing is
just charging individuals a couple hundred dollars for these
service calls basically to give them another ticking time bomb."

Mr. Christensen said sensor chips correlated to the phone's touch
movements were not properly secured to the logic board during
production.

Midvale-based iQue Repair manager Rob McElaney said symptoms of
the issue can include white or gray flickering lines on the
screen, along with the touch screen losing functionality.

Mr. McElaney said his store alone has been receiving as many as 10
calls per week about touch disease troubles, which happen to be
one of the few problems his technicians cannot resolve and have to
refer back to Apple.

"Sometimes you can hard reset your phone and that will temporarily
alleviate the problem, but over time it's just going to get you
stuck," he said.  "Not every 6 Plus that we touch has this issue,
but -- increasingly so -- it's becoming a real problem."

The Utah-based class action appears to be the second lawsuit of
its kind filed against Apple, with the other going before a
federal court in California.

Attempts to reach Apple for comment on Aug. 31 did not immediately
result in a response.


ATLANTIC COAST: "Crawford" Suit Consolidated in MDL 2492
--------------------------------------------------------
A lawsuit styled William Crawford, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. Atlantic Coast
Conference and National Collegiate Athletic Association, Case No.
1:16-cv-01813, was transferred from the U.S. District Court for
the Southern District of Indiana, to the U.S. District Court for
the Northern District of Illinois - (Chicago). The Northern
District assigned Case No. 1:16-cv-08583 to the proceeding.

The Crawford case is being consolidated with MDL 2492 in re:
National Collegiate Athletic Association Student-Athlete
Concussion Injury Litigation. The MDL was created by Order of the
United States Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation on
December 18, 2013. The actions before the Panel seek medical
monitoring for putative classes of former student athletes at
NCAA-member schools who allege they suffered concussions.
Plaintiffs allege that the NCAA concealed information about the
risks of the long-term effects of concussion injuries. Opponents
to centralization argue, inter alia, that (1) the putative classes
and claims alleged in these actions do not sufficiently overlap;
and (2) given the small number of actions pending, alternatives to
centralization are preferable. In its December 18, 2013 Order, the
MDL Panel found that the actions in this MDL involve common
questions of fact, and that centralization in the Northern
District of Illinois will serve the convenience of the parties and
witnesses and promote the just and efficient conduct of the
litigation. These actions share factual questions relating to
allegations against the NCAA stemming from injuries sustained
while playing sports at NCAA-member institutions, including
damages resulting from the permanent long-term effects of
concussions. Presiding Judges in the MDL is Hon. John Z. Lee,
United States District Judge. The lead case is 1:13-cv-09116.

The Atlantic Coast Conference (ACC) is a collegiate athletic
conference in the United States of America in which its 15 member
universities compete in the National Collegiate Athletic
Association (NCAA)'s Division I, with its football teams competing
in the Football Bowl Subdivision (FBS), the highest levels for
athletic competition in US-based collegiate sports.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

The Atlantic Coast Conference is represented by:

          Michael A. Grill, Esq.
          HOLLAND AND KNIGHT, LLP
          131 South Dearborn, 30th Floor
          Chicago, IL 60603
          Telephone: (312) 578 6644
          E-mail: michael.grill@hklaw.com

The National Collegiate Athletic Association appears pro se.


ATLANTIC MANAGEMENT: Faces "Miller" Suit in Mass. Super. Ct.
------------------------------------------------------------
A lawsuit has been filed against Atlantic Management Group, LLC.
The case is titled Steven Miller, Individually and on Behalf of
All Others Similarly Situated, the Plaintiff, v. Atlantic
Management Group, LLC and Keith B. Cullen, Case No. 1684CV02798
(Mass. Super. Ct., Sep. 7, 2016).

Atlantic Management Group is a professional construction
management and general contracting firm based in Southern New
England. AMG specializes in the planning and construction of
restaurant, retail and commercial facilities, throughout the East
Coast.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Preston W. Leonard
          Leonard Law Office, P.C.
          63 Atlantic Avenue, 3rd Floor
          Boston, MA 02110
          Phone: (617) 329-1295
          E-mail: pleonard@theleonardlawoffice.com


AUDIOEYE INC: Agreement in Securities Litigation Pending
--------------------------------------------------------
AudioEye, 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 agreement in
principle to settle the consolidated securities class action
lawsuit pending in the United States District Court for the
District of Arizona, titled In re AudioEye, Inc. Sec. Litig.,
remains pending.

In April 2015, two shareholder class action lawsuits were filed
against us and our former officer Nathaniel Bradley and former
officer Edward O'Donnell in the U.S. District Court for the
District of Arizona. The plaintiffs allege various causes of
action against the defendants arising from our announcement that
our previously issued financial results for the first three
quarters of 2014 and the guidance for the fourth quarter of 2014
and the full year of 2014 could no longer be relied upon.  The
complaints seek, among other relief, compensatory damages and
plaintiff's counsel's fees and experts' fees. The Court has
appointed a lead plaintiff and lead counsel.

"We have responded to the complaints and also filed a motion to
dismiss. We believe that the lawsuits have no merit and intend to
mount a vigorous defense. Given the current stage of the
proceedings in this case, our management currently cannot assess
the probability of losses, or reasonably estimate the range of
losses, related to these matters. As of December 31, 2015, we have
paid the deductible pursuant to the D&O insurance policy, in the
amount of $100,000 regarding this matter," the Company said.

On July 25, 2016, the Company reached an agreement in principle to
settle the consolidated securities class action lawsuit pending in
the United States District Court for the District of Arizona,
titled In re AudioEye, Inc. Sec. Litig. The consolidated case was
brought against the Company and two former Officers following the
restatement of the 2015 quarterly financial statements of the
Company. The agreement was reached in connection with a voluntary
mediation led by Bob Meyer, a mediator with JAMS in Los Angeles.

The settlement agreement is subject to definitive documentation,
shareholder notice, and court approval. The terms of the agreement
include a settlement payment to the class of $1,525,000 from the
Company's insurer, with no admission of liability by any party.


BANNER HEALTH: Faces "Reader" Suit in District of Arizona
---------------------------------------------------------
A lawsuit has been filed against Banner Health. The case is
entitled Jane Reader, on behalf of herself and all others
similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. Banner Health, the
Defendant, Case No. 2:16-cv-02994-ROS (D. Ariz., Sep. 7, 2016).
The assigned Senior Judge is Roslyn O Silver.

Banner Health provides services in women's health, men's health
and disease treatment to Western and Midwestern states.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          David M Berger, Esq.
          Eric H Gibbs, Esq.
          GERARD GIBBS LLP
          505 14th St., Ste. 1110
          Oakland, CA 94612
          Telephone: (510) 350 9700
          Facsimile: (510) 350 9701
          E-mail: ehg@classlawgroup.com

               - and -

          Robert A Mosier, Esq.
          SANDERS PHILLIPS GROSSMAN LLC
          2860 Michelle Dr., Ste. 220
          Irvine, CA 92606
          Telephone: (877) 480 9142
          Facsimile: (213) 477 2120
          E-mail: rmosier@thesandersfirm.com


BANNER LIFE: Faces Class Actions Over Insurance Price Increases
---------------------------------------------------------------
Leslie Scism, writing for The Wall Street Journal, reports that
Americans are starting to fight back against a wave of insurance-
price increases on decades-old life policies.

Over the past year, several major insurers have notified tens of
thousands of people of higher costs to keep their policies in
force, with increases ranging from midsingle-digit percentages to
more than 200%, according to financial advisers.  To justify the
increases, they blamed the impact on their investments from the
Federal Reserve's decision to keep interest rates lower for
longer.

At least a half-dozen lawsuits have been filed in federal courts
against insurers including Aegon NV's Transamerica unit and Legal
& General Group PLC's Banner Life.

In many of the suits, which seek class-action status and damages,
the plaintiffs contend insurance firms are hiding behind little-
used contract provisions to rummage up cash for shareholder
dividends.  They also argue that increased lifespans have offset
the negative impact on profits of lower bond yields.

The insurers counter that these cost increases are permitted under
provisions that allow them to charge up to a maximum amount, based
on expectations of future policy performance.  The insurers claim
those expectations have plummeted with the Fed keeping short-term
interest rates at near zero for nearly eight consecutive years.

Fed Chairwoman Janet Yellen signaled that the central bank could
possibly start to raise rates, but many analysts don't see rates
increasing meaningfully enough soon to change the situation for
insurers.

"Companies are under a lot of pressure to boost returns in this
low-interest-rate environment, and this is one lever they have,"
said Scott Robinson, an associate managing director at Moody's
Investors Service.  "Companies have to weigh the right they may
have versus what impact it might have on their reputation in the
marketplace with the various parties."

Among upset policyholders is Raymond Foos, an 87-year-old retired
manufacturing chief executive who purchased an $11 million policy
in 2003 to benefit his children.  This spring, Transamerica
informed him of an increase that he said will cost him nearly
$300,000 a year, on top of the $2.25 million he paid as a lump sum
to buy the policy and which he thought would cover costs through
his and his wife's death.

Mr. Foos, who said he is exploring legal action, regrets not
asking enough questions about risks when he bought the policy.

He said Transamerica should "bite the bullet."  Drawing from his
years of running a business, he said, "when you have a sale that
you lose money on, you don't go to the customer and say, 'Give me
some more money.' You generally figure out how to live with your
problem and go on . . . You tighten your belt."

Speaking generally, a Transamerica spokesman said the insurer's
increases leave costs "at or below the maximum rates allowable" by
contract.

Life insurers have been among the companies hardest hit by the
Fed's policies, which have been mirrored by many central banks
around the world.  These firms earn much of their profit by
investing customers' premiums in bonds until claims come due.
Shares of big U.S. life insurers have dropped 5.4% since the start
of 2008 through Aug.31, according to the S&P Composite 1500 Life &
Health Insurance Index, compared with a 48% gain for the S&P 500.

At issue are "universal life" policies.  In short, the policies
combine a death benefit with a tax-advantaged savings account that
has a minimum interest rate.  Such policies accounted for more
than a quarter of all individual life-insurance sales in some
years past.  Millions of Americans own them.

Insurers' problem is that many older policies guarantee annual
interest rates of 4% to 5%.  In the mid-1980s, when universal life
policies surged in popularity, the average investment portfolio
yield for life insurers was nearly 10%, according to ratings firm
A.M. Best Co.

Today, that yield is just under 5%, thanks to a general decline in
rates over the decades, followed by the more recent sharp leg
down.

In selling universal life, insurers typically aim to earn 1 to 2
percentage points more on the premiums they invest than they pay
out in interest to policyholders, said Deloitte Consulting LLP
principal Matthew Clark.  Most insurers aren't earning this spread
today, and "with continued low rates some could face a situation
where they are paying out more to policyholders than their
investments earn," he said.

The lawsuits argue the policies are profitable enough even with
shrunken investment yields.  They also contend the insurance
industry is raising rates to force consumers to cancel policies,
thus reducing insurers' future payouts.

Of the triple-digit-percentage increases, W. Daniel "Dee" Miles, a
lawyer suing Banner, said "there is no way they could have missed
the mark that bad."

In court filings, Banner asserts that plaintiffs' lawyers are
using "entirely unrelated legal controversies . . . to muddy the
waters in a relatively straightforward case."

Also at issue in the lawsuits is "mortality" experience.  In
setting initial policy charges, actuaries make assumptions about
the life expectancy of people who will buy the policies.  The
lawsuits maintain that the insurers have profited from rising life
expectancies across the U.S. population, and that is among reasons
they said cost increases shouldn't be allowed.

In general, if an insurer ends up with customers who live longer
than its actuaries anticipated, it can earn bigger profits because
it collects more years of premium than anticipated before having
to pay death benefits.

Between the investment shortfalls and better-than-expected life
expectancies, "the policies are still profitable" on an industry
wide basis, said McKinsey & Co. senior partner Giambattista
Taglioni.  But experience varies across companies. "Some blocks of
business are already underwater, and some others have reduced
profitability but are still profitable."

At least two cost-increase cases involving universal life were
settled out of court in recent years, said James S. Bainbridge, an
attorney who follows litigation for the Association for Advanced
Life Underwriting, a lobbying group for insurance professionals.


BISCO INC: Court Accepts $3,600 Deposit, Nixes Fulton Dental Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
District Judge Edmond E. Chang of the United States District Court
for the Northern District of Illinois granted Defendant's motion
to deposit funds in the case captioned, FULTON DENTAL, LLC,
Plaintiff, v. BISCO, INC., Defendant, Case No. 15 C 11038 (N.D.
Ill.).

Fulton Dental, LLC filed a class action complaint, alleging that
Bisco, Inc. sent it unsolicited fax advertisements in violation of
the Telephone Consumer Protection Act. Fulton Dental seeks
statutory, injunctive, and declaratory relief for both itself and
for members of the proposed class.

Fulton Dental seeks to represent two classes: an "unsolicited
advertisement class" of plaintiffs who received unsolicited faxes
from December 8, 2011 (four years before the complaint was filed)
to the date of class certification, and an "opt out notice class"
of all plaintiffs who received, during the same time period,
unsolicited faxes that did not contain an opt-out notice.

Bisco made a settlement offer of $3,005 plus costs, which Fulton
Dental rejected on January 24. The next day, Bisco moved to
deposit $3,600 with the District Court under Federal Rule of Civil
Procedure 67.  Bisco's position is that this amount exceeds what
Fulton Dental could ever hope to recover in this action, because
it assumes maximum liability: $3,005 for two willful violations of
the TCPA -- one for sending an unwanted junk fax, and one for
failing to include an opt-out notice and $595 to cover costs.

Bisco also asks the Court to enter judgment in Fulton Dental's
favor for $3,005, to enjoin Bisco from further activity that
violates the TCPA, and to direct Futon to file a bill of costs. In
its brief, Bisco argued that the deposit, if allowed, would moot
the entire case.

In his Memorandum Opinion and Order dated September 2, 2016
available at https://is.gd/xulcr2 from Leagle.com, Judge Chang
held that Rule 67 permits the deposit because the deposit fits
within the plain language of the rule, which allows deposits of
"all or part of the money or thing" if "any part of the relief
sought is a money judgment or the disposition of a sum of money."
As a result of the deposit, Fulton Dental's individual and class
claims will be moot, and the entire case will be dismissed under
Rule 12(b)(1).

Bisco was directed to deposit the funds by September 7, 2016.

Fulton Dental, LLC is represented by Alexander Holmes Burke, Esq.
-- ABurke@BurkeLawLLC.com -- BURKE LAW OFFICES, LLC

Fulton Dental, LLC is represented by:

      Anthony Paronich, Esq.
      BRODERICK & PARONICH, P.C.
      99 High Street, Suite 304
      Boston, MA 02110
      Tel: (800) 331-5763

           -- and --

      Daniel J. Marovitch, Esq.
      BURKE LAW OFFICES, LLC
      333 N. Michigan Ave #1126
      Chicago, IL 60601
      Tel:(312)704-8080

            -- and --

      Matthew Mccue, Esq.
      LAW OFFICE OF MATTHEW MCCUE
      1 South Ave,
      Natick, MA 01760
      Tel:(508)655-1415

Bisco, Inc. is represented by Jeffrey J. Halldin, Esq. --
jhalldin@harrisonheld.com -- andJohn M. Heaphy, Esq. --
jheaphy@harrisonheld.com -- HARRISON & HELD


CALIFORNIA: "Marchetti" Suit Dismissed Without Leave to Amend
-------------------------------------------------------------
Judge William H. Orrick dismissed the Kathleen Marchetti's first
amended complaint in the case captioned KATHLEEN MARCHETTI,
Plaintiff, v. SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA, et al., Defendants,
Case No. 15-cv-05523-WHO (N.D. Cal.).

Marchetti brought a putative class action against the Department
of Motor Vehicles (DMV), the Superior Court of California for the
City and County of San Francisco and the Office of the Clerk of
the Superior Court (together the "Superior Court"), the California
Judicial Council, Tim Guinasso (a court clerk), Jeannette Santos
(Guinasso's supervisor), and AllianceOne Debt Collections (an
entity that collects fines for the Superior Court), alleging a
violation of her constitutional right to due process and seeking
relief under 42 U.S.C. section 1983 and California Civil Code
section 52.1.  Marchetti's complaint stemmed from the suspension
of her driver's license and her payment of an approximately $595
fine after she failed to appear in traffic court by the date
indicated on her citation for her vehicle's outdated registration.

Judge Orrick previously granted the defendants' motions to dismiss
with leave to amend on June 9, 2016 for the following reasons:

     -- Marchetti's claims do not appear to be cognizable in
        federal court.

     -- If what Marchetti seeks is to set aside her failure to
        appear in Superior Court, she is barred from doing so by
        the Rooker-Feldman doctrine.

     -- If Marchetti's complaint is read as encompassing a
        broader challenge to the entire process she has been
        afforded, she has failed to state a claim for a proper
        due process violation.

     -- The state-affiliated defendants are protected under
        either the Eleventh Amendment or judicial immunity.

     -- Because Marchetti has not established a violation of
        either her constitutional or statutory rights, her
        California Civil Code section 52.1 claim and her claims
        for declaratory and injunctive relief also fail.

On June 29, 2016, Marchetti filed her First Amended Complaint
(FAC) alleging the same violations, facts and claims as in the
initial complaint and adding Jean Shiomoto (director of the DMV)
as a defendant.

Judge Orrick found that Marchetti was not able to resolve the
deficiencies in her complaint in her amended complaint, and did
not identify any additional facts that could be added to an
amended complaint.  Thus, the judge again granted the defendants'
motion to dismiss, this time, without leave to amend.

A full-text copy of Judge Orrick's September 7, 2016 order is
available at https://is.gd/pMrFMw  from Leagle.com.

Kathleen Marchetti, Plaintiff, represented by Lawrence Dale
Murray, Murray & Associates.

Superior Court of California, Clerk of the Superior Court of
California, The California Judicial Council, Tim Lnu, Clerk of the
Superior Court, Jeannette Lnu, Clerk of the Superior Court,
Defendants, represented by Christopher Sean Patterson --
sean.patterson@sedgwicklaw.com -- Sedgwick LLP & Michael Louis Fox
-- michael.fox@sedgwicklaw.com -- Sedgwick LLP.

Alliance One, Defendant, represented by Pamela Madeliene Ferguson
-- pamela.ferguson@lewisbrisbois.com -- Lewis Brisbois Bisgaard &
Smith LLP & Mark Francis Ram, Lewis Brisbois Bisgaard and Smith
LLP.

State of California, Jean Shiomoto, Defendants, represented by
Raymond W. Hamilton, Attorney General's Office of CA.


CAPITAL ONE: Faces "Green" Lawsuit Alleging Violation of FLSA
-------------------------------------------------------------
GINA GREEN, on behalf of herself and other similarly situated
employees, Plaintiff, v. CAPITAL ONE FINANCIAL CORPORATION, a
Domestic Corporation, and DIXON HUGHES GOODMAN, LLP, a North
Carolina Limited Liability Partnership, Defendants, Case No. 1:16-
cv-00785-UNA (D. Del., September 7, 2016), was brought under the
Fair Labor Standards Act.

CAPITAL ONE FINANCIAL CORPORATION is one of the nation's largest
full-service providers of consumer and commercial banking, wealth
management, mortgage and insurance products and services.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Michael L. Sensor, Esq.
     TYBOUT, REDFEARN & PELL
     750 Shipyard Drive, Suite 400
     Wilmington, DE 19801
     Phone: (302) 658-6901
     Fax: (302) 658-4018
     E-mail: msensor@trplaw.com

        - and -

     C. Ryan Morgan, Esq.
     Carlos V. Leach, Esq.
     MORGAN & MORGAN, P.A.
     20 N. Orange Ave., 14th Floor
     P.O. Box 4979
     Orlando, FL 32802-4979
     Phone: (407) 420-1414
     Fax: (407) 245-3401
     Email: RMorgan@forthepeople.com
            CLeach@forthepeople.com

        - and -

     Andrew. R. Frisch, Esq.
     MORGAN & MORGAN, P.A.
     600 N. Pine Island Road, Suite 400
     Plantation, FL 33324
     Phone: (954) WORKERS
     Fax: (954) 327-3013
     E-mail: AFrisch@forthepeople.com


CARING HEART: Faces "Conteh" Lawsuit Under FLSA, Pa. Wage Act
-------------------------------------------------------------
Salfu Conteh, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, 421 Timber Lake Road, Upper Darby, PA 19082, Plaintiff
v. Caring Heart Rehabilitation and Nursing Center, Inc., 6445
Germantown Avenue, Philadelphia, PA 19119, Case No. 2:16-cv-04822-
MSG (E.D. Pa., September 7, 2016), was filed under the Fair Labor
Standards Act, the Pennsylvania Minimum Wage Act and the
Pennsylvania Wage Payment and Collection Law.


CHADBOURNE & PARKE: 14 Female Partners Won't Join Class Action
--------------------------------------------------------------
Vivia Chen, writing for The Careerist, reports that the gender
discrimination suit against Chadbourne & Parke is getting hotter.
Now it looks like the other female partners at the firm are
ganging up on Kerrie Campbell, the woman who's suing the firm.  I
hate to say it, but it's beginning to look like a Big Law episode
of "Mean Girls."

Last month, Chadbourne partner Campbell filed a $100 million class
action suit against the firm, alleging that female lawyers are
compensated less than their male colleagues, even when women
generate more business, and that the firm retaliates against women
who raise the issue.  In response, the firm disputed
Ms. Campbell's claims, issuing a statement that her complaint was
"riddled with falsehoods."

So far, pretty standard public relations stuff from a company or
firm in this kind of case.

Now the latest salvo: As first reported on Sept. 12 by The Wall
Street Journal, 14 of the firm's 16 female partners sent a letter
to Ms. Campbell's lawyer, David Sanford, with this message: Bug
off.

Essentially, the 14 signers say they want nothing to do with the
class action. (Ms. Campbell is one of the two lawyers who didn't
sign; the other partner is traveling on a charitable trip in the
"developing world," according to a source close to the firm.)  But
the letter is more than a "Thanks-but-no-thanks" message.  It
seems to convey the idea that the female partners at Chadbourne
are doing fine and need no help.

In fact, it turns the tables on Ms. Campbell by suggesting that
it's her lawyer who's the chauvinist.  The first paragraph of the
letter states:

"Your complaint claims that it must speak for us because we are
too afraid to speak for ourselves.  That is not how we see
ourselves and certainly not how any of us believes our clients and
colleagues perceive us."

The women write that they were not contacted by Mr. Sanford before
they were swept into the class -- a tactic they claim "is no less
patronizing and patriarchal than what you accuse our male
colleagues of having done."  The letter then goes on to say that
Mr. Sanford's complaint "makes a group of very accomplished,
assertive and intelligent professional women look like they are
victims unable to hold their own with their male colleagues."

I don't know the protocol for contacting potential class members,
but it seems strange that Ms. Campbell's lawyer would be called
"patronizing and patriarchal" for taking a plaintiff with claims
like hers.

Though the letter is addressed to Mr. Sanford, it's hard to read
it as anything but a rebuke of Campbell's claims.  It reminds me
of the long list of women who quickly rose to Roger Ailes' defense
when he was accused of sexual harassment and retaliation by
Gretchen Carlson.  Funny thing, though, when the evidence started
to mount against Mr. Ailes, some of his defenders went quiet, and
one very vocal supporter (Greta Van Susteren) later accused Fox of
failing to control Mr. Ailes.

If the aim of the letter is to make Ms. Campbell's claims less
credible, I'm not sure it's doing the trick.  Though it's possible
that the 14 signers feel they have been treated fairly by the
firm, it's also possible that peer pressure led some to sign the
letter.

The letter didn't begin with a single person, says the source
that's close to Chadbourne.  It was started in a small group,
according to the source, then leaked to The Wall Street Journal.

Meanwhile, Mr. Sanford says, "I've been contacted by a number of
Chadbourne partners and associates."  Current ones? "I cannot
speak about the particulars of people who contacted us,"
Mr. Sanford tells me.

Everyone is being coy.  You just know this will get juicier.


CINEMARK: Judge Tosses Aurora Shooting Survivors' Class Action
--------------------------------------------------------------
Jennifer Deutschmann, writing for Inquisitr, reports that four
survivors of the Aurora, Colorado, shooting were ordered to pay
Cinemark $700,000 in legal fees after their class-action lawsuit
was dismissed by a federal judge.

As reported by NY Daily News, the survivors believe the theater is
partially responsible for the massacre.  As stated in the lawsuit,
Cinemark's security team failed to prevent James Holmes from
leaving the theater through an emergency exit and returning with a
cache of deadly weapons.

However, U.S. District Judge R. Brooke Jackson disagreed.  A
federal judge formally dismissed the class-action lawsuit and
ordered four survivors of the Aurora, Colorado, shooting to pay
Cinemark $700,000 to cover the cost of their defense.

On July 19, 2012, an estimated 400 people, including 24-year-old
James Eagan Holmes, entered the Aurora's Century 16 multiplex
theater for the midnight premiere of the highly-anticipated Batman
sequel "The Dark Knight Rises."

Approximately 20 minutes into the film, Mr. Holmes left the
Cinemark theater through an emergency exit, propping the door open
behind him.  He then changed into riot gear, retrieved a cache of
deadly weapons, and re-entered the theater.

Because members of the audience dressed up for the premiere,
Mr. Holmes' riot gear was initially mistaken for an elaborate
costume.  When he activated two gas canisters, some audience
members thought it was part of the special effects.

Unfortunately, it was soon clear that Mr. Holmes meant to harm as
many people as possible.  In addition to deploying the poisonous
gas, he began opening fire.  As reported by ABC 7, nearly 70
people were injured and 12 others were killed in the Aurora,
Colorado, shooting.

Less than an hour after the movie began, Mr. Holmes was identified
as the sole suspect in the Cinemark theater massacre and was taken
into custody without further incident.  Authorities confirmed he
had numerous weapons in his possession, including a.223 caliber
Smith & Wesson assault rifle, a Remington 12 gauge shotgun, and
a.40 Glock handgun.

According to reports, Mr. Holmes openly confessed to planning and
carrying out the Aurora, Colorado, shooting.

Mr. Holmes was subsequently charged with numerous criminal counts,
including first-degree murder and attempted first-degree murder.
On July 16, 2015, he was convicted of one count of possessing
illegal explosives, 140 counts of attempted murder, and 24 counts
of first-degree murder.

Although he was facing the death penalty, jurors were unable to
reach a unanimous decision.  As a result, the convicted killer was
sentenced to 12 life sentences without the possibility of parole.

Forty-one survivors of the Aurora, Colorado, shooting eventually
joined to file a class-action lawsuit against Cinemark.  However,
as the case progressed, it was clear that proving the theater was
responsible for the massacre would be nearly impossible.  Although
37 of the plaintiffs ultimately walked away from the case, four of
the survivors refused to back down.

Los Angeles Times reports the Judge eventually ruled against the
plaintiffs and dismissed the lawsuit against Cinemark.  However,
the company already spent more than $700,000 on their defense.
Therefore, they asked the judge to order the four remaining
plaintiffs to cover their legal fees.

According to reports, the federal judge did, in fact, order the
four remaining plaintiffs to pay Cinemark's legal fees.  The
Aurora, Colorado, shooting survivors are now collectively
responsible for more than $700,000.

Although he was initially housed in the Colorado State
Penitentiary in Canon City, Mr. Holmes was transferred to another
facility after he was physically assaulted by another inmate.  As
reported by ABC News, officials have confirmed he was moved out of
Colorado.  However, they have not disclosed the inmate's current
location.

The Aurora, Colorado, shooting victims said they are disappointed
with the judge's decision in their class-action lawsuit.  However,
they hope the case encouraged Cinemark and other movie theater
owners to increase security measures to prevent a similar tragedy
in the future.


CRYOGENIC TRANSPORTATION: "Hernandez" Suit Moved to C.D. Cal.
-------------------------------------------------------------
A lawsuit styled John Hernandez, individually, on a representative
basis, and on behalf of other similarly situated, the Plaintiff,
v. Cryogenic Transportation, LLC, and DOES 1-10, inclusive, the
Defendant, Case No. CIVDS1612524, was removed from the San
Bernardino Superior Court, to the U.S. District Court for the
Central District of California (Eastern Division - Riverside). The
Central District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 5:16-cv-01898 to
the proceeding.

Cryogenic Transportation is a leader in Kenan Advantage Group's
Merchant Gas Subsidiaries when it comes to transporting industrial
gases.

The Plaintiff appears pro se.


DALLAS CENTRAL: Trinity Square Sues Over Misappraisal
-----------------------------------------------------
TRINITY SQUARE, LTD., the Plaintiff, v. DALLAS CENTRAL APPRAISAL
DISTRICT, the Defendant, Case No. DC-16-11139 (Dal. Cty. Ct., Sep.
5, 2016), asks the Court to fix the appraised value of the
Plaintiff's property in accordance with the law.

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

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

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

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Michael A. Lang, Esq.
          Heather H. Long, Esq.
          LANG LAW OFFICE, P.C.
          P.O. Box 261330
          Plano, TX 75026
          Telephone: (972) 731 6758
          Facsimile: (469) 854 3336


DALLAS CENTRAL: RMB Richardson Sues Over Misappraisal
-----------------------------------------------------
RMB RICHARDSON COMMERCE CENTRE, LTD., the Plaintiff, v. DALLAS
CENTRAL APPRAISAL DISTRICT, the Defendant, Case No. DC-16-11146
(Dal. Cty. Ct., Sep. 5, 2016), asks the Court to fix the appraised
value of the Plaintiff's property in accordance with the law.

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

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

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

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Michael A. Lang, Esq.
          Heather H. Long, Esq.
          LANG LAW OFFICE, P.C.
          P.O. Box 261330
          Plano, TX 75026
          Telephone: (972) 731 6758
          Facsimile: (469) 854 3336


DALLAS CENTRAL: Skyline Redevelopment Sues Over Misappraisal
------------------------------------------------------------
SKYLINE REDEVELOPMENT, LLC, the Plaintiff, v. DALLAS CENTRAL
APPRAISAL DISTRICT, the Defendant, Case No. DC-16-11154 (Dal. Cty.
Ct., Sep. 5, 2016), asks the Court to fix the appraised value of
the Plaintiff's property in accordance with the law.

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

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

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

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Michael A. Lang, Esq.
          Heather H. Long, Esq.
          LANG LAW OFFICE, P.C.
          P.O. Box 261330
          Plano, TX 75026
          Telephone: (972) 731 6758
          Facsimile: (469) 854 3336


DALLAS CENTRAL: South Tollway Sues Over Misappraisal
----------------------------------------------------
SOUTH TOLLWAY 3920, LP, the Plaintiff, v. DALLAS CENTRAL APPRAISAL
DISTRICT, the Defendant, Case No. DC-16-11135 (Dal. Cty. Ct., Sep.
5, 2016), asks the Court to fix the appraised value of the
Plaintiff's property in accordance with the law.

The Property owner filed its protest because the District (i)
assigned an excessive value to the Property for tax year 2016,
(ii) failed to apply generally accepted appraisal methods'
and techniques by the Code, (iii) appraised the Property unequally
because the appraisal ratio of the Property exceeds by at least
ten percent the median level of appraisal of a reasonable and
representative sample of other properties in the appraisal
district; and (iv) appraised the Property unequally because the
appraisal ratio of the Property exceeds by at least ten percent
the median level of appraisal of a sample of properties in the
appraisal district consisting of a reasonable number of other
properties similarly situated to, or, of the same general kind or
character as, the Property.

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

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


DALLAS CENTRAL: Trails Redevelopment Sues Over Misappraisal
-----------------------------------------------------------
TRAILS REDEVELOPMENT, LP, the Plaintiff, v. DALLAS CENTRAL
APPRAISAL DISTRICT, the Defendant, Case No. DC-16-11161 (Dal. Cty.
Ct., Sep. 5, 2016), asks the Court to fix the appraised value of
the Plaintiff's property in accordance with the law.

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

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

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

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Michael A. Lang, Esq.
          Heather H. Long, Esq.
          LANG LAW OFFICE, P.C.
          P.O. Box 261330
          Plano, TX 75026
          Telephone: (972) 731 6758
          Facsimile: (469) 854 3336


DAVE & BUSTER'S: "Banks" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Wages
-----------------------------------------------------------
MAKENNA BANKS, both in her individual capacity and, in addition,
as a collective action on behalf of others similarly situated,
Plaintiff, vs. DAVE & BUSTER'S ENTERTAINMENT, INC., a Delaware
corporation; DAVE & BUSTER'S HOLDINGS, INC., a Delaware
corporation; DAVE & BUSTER'S, INC., a Missouri corporation; and
DAVE & BUSTER'S OF OREGON, INC., an Oregon corporation,
Defendants, Case 3:16-cv-01754-YY (D. Ore., September 1, 2016),
seeks to recover unpaid minimum wages and overtime and liquidated
damages under the Fair Labor Standards Act.

DAVE & BUSTER'S ENTERTAINMENT, INC. --
http://ir.daveandbusters.com/-- owns and operates entertainment
and dining venues for adults and families in North America.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Jon M. Egan, Esq.
     JON M. EGAN, PC
     547 Fifth Street
     Lake Oswego, OR 97034-3009
     Phone: (503) 697-3427
     Fax: (866) 311-5629
     E-mail: Jegan@eganlegalteam.com


DOMINO'S PIZZA: Faces "Arledge" Suit Under FLSA, Ohio Wage Act
--------------------------------------------------------------
Kyle Arledge, On behalf of himself and those similarly situated,
Plaintiff, v. Domino's Pizza, Inc., Domino's Pizza, LLC, Domino's
Pizza Franchising, LLC, TJK-ELS, Inc., TJK-ELS West End, Inc.,
Christopher T. Koehler, and Edward T. Schlater, Jr. Jury Demand
Endorsed Hereon, Defendants, Case No. 3:16-cv-00386-WHR (S.D.
Ohio, September 8, 2016), seeks appropriate monetary, declaratory,
and equitable relief based on Defendants' alleged willful failure
to compensate Plaintiff and similarly-situated individuals with
minimum and overtime wages as required by the Fair Labor Standards
Act, the Ohio Minimum Fair Wage Standards Act, and the Ohio
Constitution.

Domino's Pizza, Inc. operates a pizza delivery chain in the United
States.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Andrew Biller, Esq.
     Eric Kmetz, Esq.
     MARKOVITS, STOCK & DEMARCO, LLC
     Easton Town Center
     4200 Regent Street, Suite 200
     Columbus, OH 43219
     Phone: (614) 604-8759
     Fax: (614) 583-8107
     E-mail: abiller@msdlegal.com
             ekmetz@msdlegal.com

        - and -

     Andrew Kimble, Esq.
     KIMBLE LAW, LLC
     1675 Old Henderson Road
     Columbus, OH 43220
     Phone: (614) 983-0361
     Fax: (614) 448-9408
     E-mail: andrew@kimblelawoffice.com


ENERVEST OPERATING: "Mojave" Suit Moved to N.D. of Oklahoma
-----------------------------------------------------------
A lawsuit captioned Mojave Oil & Gas, L.L.C., on behalf of itself
and a class of similarly situated persons, the Plaintiff, v.
Enervest Operating, L.L.C., Enervest Energy Institutional Fund
XIII-A, L.P., Enervest Energy Institutional Fund XIII-WIB, L.P.,
and Enervest Energy Institutional Fund XIII-WIC, L.P., the
Defendant, Case No. CJ-16-02844, was removed from the Tulsa Cty.
Dist. Ct., to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of
Oklahoma (Tulsa). The Northern District Court Clerk assigned Case
No. 4:16-cv-00582-JHP-FHM to the proceeding. The assigned Judge is
Hon. James H Payne.

Enervest Operating is an oil and gas company.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Joseph C Woltz, Esq.
          Robert Neil Lawrence, Esq.
          Terry Joe Barker, Esq.
          PEZOLD BARKER & WOLTZ
          2431 E 61ST ST STE 200
          TULSA, OK 74136-1242
          Telephone: (918) 584 0506
          Facsimile: (918) 584 0720
          E-mail: jwoltz@pbwtulsa.com
                  Rlawrence@pbwtulsa.com
                  tbarker@pbwtulsa.com

The Defendants ARE represented by:

          Mark D Christiansen, Esq.
          MCAFEE & TAFT
          211 N Robinson 10th Fl
          Oklahoma City, OK 73102
          Telephone: (405) 552 2235
          Facsimile: (405) 228 7435
          E-mail: mark.christiansen@mcafeetaft.com

               - and -

          Mary Quinn-Cooper, Esq.
          Michael Franklin Smith, Esq.
          MCAFEE & TAFT (TULSA)
          Two W Second St Ste 1100
          Tulsa, OK 74103
          Telephone: (918) 587 0000
          Facsimile: (918) 599 9317
          E-mail: maryquinn.cooper@mcafeetaft.com
                  michael.smith@mcafeetaft.com


ENTERPRISE HOLDINGS: E.D. Mo. Court Won't Hear "Fisher" Suit
------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Audrey G. Fleissig granted the defendants' motion for
judgment on the pleadings in the case captioned KEANA FISHER,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated,
Plaintiff, v. ENTERPRISE HOLDINGS, INC., et al., Defendants, Case
No. 4:15CV00372 AGF (E.D. Mo.).

The putative class action brought by Keana Fisher under the Fair
Credit Reporting Act (FCRA) claims that the defendants, Enterprise
Holdings, Inc., and a related entity, violated the FCRA through
its process of obtaining consumer reports regarding prospective
employees.

The defendants filed a motion for judgment on the pleadings,
arguing that Fisher does not have standing because she failed to
plead facts demonstrating that she has suffered a particularized
and concrete injury.

In support of their motion for judgment on the pleadings,
Defendants rely on the recent decision by the Supreme Court,
Spokeo, Inc. v. Robins, 136 S.Ct. 1540 (2016) ("Spokeo"), for the
proposition that Plaintiff has not pleaded a "concrete injury,"
and therefore, has no standing to bring this case.

Plaintiff responds that violations of her rights to privacy and to
receiving information in the manner prescribed by the FCRA are
"concrete" injuries under Spokeo.

Plaintiff refers the Court to a recent decision by the Eleventh
Circuit applying Spokeo to a claim under the Fair Debt Collection
Practices Act ("FDCPA"), Church v. Accretive Health, Inc., No. 15-
15708, 2016 WL 3611543 (11th Cir. July 6, 2016). In Church, the
Eleventh Circuit held that a plaintiff who sued a debt collector
for failure to include statutorily-required disclosures in a
collection letter (such as that the debt collector is attempting
to collect a debt and that any information obtained will be used
for that purpose) had standing to bring her claims, because
failing to receive information which she was statutorily entitled
to receive was a concrete injury "that Congress has elevated to
the status of a legally cognizable injury through the FDCPA." The
Eleventh Circuit reasoned that the plaintiff did not allege a
"bare procedural violation," but rather that "Congress provided
[Plaintiff] with a substantive right to receive certain
disclosures and [Plaintiff] has alleged that [Defendant] violated
that substantive right. Id. *4 n.2; see also Lane v. Bayview Loan
Servicing, LLC, No. 15 C 10446, 2016 WL 3671467, at *3-4 (N.D.
Ill. July 11, 2016) ("The information-access cases cited by Spokeo
suggest that, in this case, [Plaintiff] has alleged a sufficiently
concrete injury because he alleges that [Defendant] denied him the
right to information due to him under the FDCPA.")

Church is distinguishable from the present case, not only because
it involves a different statute, but because the nature of the
statutory violation is different. In Church, the plaintiff alleged
that she did not receive certain information she was entitled to
receive, whereas in Fisher, all Plaintiff alleges is that the
format and conspicuousness of a disclosure did not comply with the
statute at issue. The Court believes that under these
circumstances, the statutory violation alleged by Plaintiff does
not establish her standing to bring this action.

Another post-Spokeo case relied upon by Plaintiff, Hawkins v.
S2Verify, No. C 15-03502 WHA, 2016 WL 3999458 (N.D. Cal. July 26,
2016), is also unavailing. In that case, the plaintiff alleged
that the defendant consumer reporting agency violated the FCRA by
listing in a consumer report about him that was "sent . . . into
the world" his prior convictions that were older than seven years,
something the FCRA prohibits. The district court held that the
plaintiff had satisfied the concreteness requirement for standing
as the defendant had disclosed records of convictions "that
Congress has protected from disclosure, thereby intruding upon the
plaintiff's privacy interest."

The situation in Fisher is quite different, the Court said. For
similar reasons, the other cases cited by Plaintiff are of no
avail to her.

Judge Fleissig found that Fisher has failed to plead facts
demonstrating that she has suffered any injury in fact.
Therefore, the judge concluded that Fisher lacks standing to bring
her federal claims.  Judge Fleissig also declined to exercise
supplemental jurisdiction over Fisher's state law claim.
Plaintiff's state claim is dismissed without prejudice.

A full-text copy of Judge Fleissig's September 7, 2016 memorandum
and order is available at https://is.gd/RWoq03 from Leagle.com.

Keana Fisher, individually, and on behalf of of All Others
Similarly Situated,, Plaintiff, represented by J. Christopher
Wehrle, WEHRLE LAW LLC.

Keana Fisher, individually, and on behalf of of All Others
Similarly Situated,, Plaintiff, represented by Marc L. Godino --
mgodino@glancylaw.com -- GLANCY AND PRONGAY LLP & Mark S.
Greenstone -- mgreenston@glancylaw.com -- GLANCY AND PRONGAY LLP.

Enterprise Holdings, Inc., a Missouri Corporation, Enterprise
Rent-A-Car Company of Los Angeles, LLC, Defendants, represented by
Daniel M. O'Keefe -- dmokeefe@bryancave.com -- BRYAN CAVE LLP &
Amanda E. Colvin -- amanda.colvin@bryancave.com -- BRYAN CAVE LLP.


EVOQUA WATER: "Massa" Suit Removed from Cty. Ct. to M.D. Fla.
-------------------------------------------------------------
A lawsuit titled Montana Massa, on behalf of himself and all
others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. Evoqua Water
Technologies, LLC, the Defendant, Case No. 2016-004973-CI, was
removed from the Pinellas County Ct. to the U.S. District Court
for the Middle District of Florida (Tampa). The Middle District
Court Clerk assigned Case No. 8:16-cv-02585-SDM-AAS to the
proceeding. The assigned judge is Steven D. Merryday.

Evoqua Water designs, develops, and manufactures water and
wastewater treatment products/systems.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          John Allen Yanchunis, Sr., Esq.
          Rachel Soffin, Esq.
          MORGAN & MORGAN, PA
          201 N Franklin St Fl 7
          Tampa, FL 33602-5157
          Telephone: (813) 223 5505
          Facsimile: (813) 223 5402
          E-mail: jyanchunis@forthepeople.com
                  rsoffin@forthepeople.com

               - and -

The Defendant is represented by:

          Anthony J. Hall, Esq.
          Kimberly J. Doud, Esq.
          LITTLER MENDELSON, PC
          111 North Magnolia Ave., Suite 1250
          Orlando, FL 32801-2366
          Telephone: (407) 393 2900
          Facsimile: (407) 393 2929
          E-mail: ajhall@littler.com
                  kdoud@littler.com


EXPRESS RECOVERY: Faces "Moore" Suit in District of Utah
---------------------------------------------------------
A lawsuit has been filed against Express Recovery Services. The
case is captioned Mitchell Moore and Antonia Moore, individually
and on behalf of all others similarly situated, the Plaintiffs, v.
Express Recovery Services, the Defendant, Case No. 1:16-cv-00126-
EJF (D. Utah, Sep. 7, 2016). The assigned Magistrate Judge is Hon.
Evelyn J. Furse.

Express Recovery Services is a collection agency.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Theron D. Morrison, Esq.
          290 25th St
          Ogden, UT 84401
          Telephone: (801) 392-9324
          E-mail: therondmorrison@gmail.com


GREENWISE ORGANIC: Faces "Alvarez" Suit Under FLSA, Ill. Wage Act
-----------------------------------------------------------------
GERARDO ALVAREZ, on behalf of himself, and all other similarly
situated plaintiffs known and unknown, Plaintiff v. GREENWISE
ORGANIC LAWN CARE LLC AND MARC EDWARD WISE individually,
Defendants, Case: 1:16-cv-08598 (N.D. Ill., September 1, 2016),
was filed under under the Fair Labor Standards Act, the Portal-to-
Portal Act, the Illinois Minimum Wage Law, and the Illinois Wage
Payment and Collection Act.

Defendant, GREENWISE ORGANIC LAWN CARE LLC provides landscaping,
gardening, snowplowing, and maintenance services.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     John W. Billhorn, Esq.
     BILLHORN LAW FIRM
     53 W. Jackson Blvd. Suite 840
     Chicago, IL 60604
     Phone: (312) 853-1450

        - and -

     Meghan A. VanLeuwen, Esq.
     FARMWORKER AND LANDSCAPER ADVOCACY PROJECT
     33 N. LaSalle Street, Suite 900
     Chicago, IL 60602
     Phone: (312) 784-3541


HOME TEAM PEST: Garnica Filed Exhibit to Class Cert. Bid
--------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit captioned Jose Luis Garnica and Cora Potter,
individuals; on behalf of themselves and a class of similarly
situated consumers, the Plaintiffs, v. Home Team Pest Defense,
Inc., et al., the Defendants, Case No. 3:14-cv-05243-VC (N.D.
Cal.), the Plaintiffs advised the Court that the Plaintiffs'
motion for class certification and appointment of class counsel
contained an incomplete exhibit, and filed a full and complete
exhibit.

A copy of the Notice of Errata is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=Y7bTRjm4

A hearing on the Class Certification Motion is set for Nov. 17 at
10:00 a.m.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          R. Rex Parris, Esq.
          Alexander R. Wheeler, Esq.
          Patricia K. Oliver, Esq.
          R. REX PARRIS LAW FIRM
          43364 10th Street West
          Lancaster, CA 93534
          Telephone: (661) 949 2595
          Facsimile: (661) 949 7524
          E-mail: rrparris@rrexparris.com
                  awheeler@rrexparris.com
                  poliver@rrexparris.com

               - and -

          Don Howarth, Esq.
          Suzelle M. Smith, Esq.
          Elizabeth Skorcz Anthony, Esq.
          HOWARTH & SMITH
          523 West Sixth Street, Suite 728
          Los Angeles, CA, 90014
          Telephone: (213) 955 9400
          Facsimile: (213) 622 0791
          E-mail: dhowarth@howarth-smith.com
                  ssmith@howarth-smith.com
                  eanthony@howarth-smith.com

               - and -

          David S. Casey, Jr., Esq.
          Gayle M. Blatt, Esq.
          Jeremy Robinson, Esq.
          CASEY GERRY SCHENK FRANCAVILLA
          BLATT & PENFIELD, LLP
          110 Laurel Street
          San Diego, CA 92101
          Telephone: (619) 238 1811
          Facsimile: (619) 544 9232
          E-mail: dcasey@cglaw.com
                  gmb@cglaw.com
                  jrobinson@cglaw.com


HONDA MOTOR: Faces Class Action Over Failure to Fix CR-V Issues
---------------------------------------------------------------
Jonathan Bilyk, writing for Cook County Record, reports that a
Wisconsin couple have brought a federal class action against
Honda, alleging the automaker should be made to pay for selling
CR-V automobiles it knew would intermittently reek of gasoline
inside the passenger cabin, and for doing nothing to fix the
problem, even after receiving potentially thousands of complaints
from owners of the compact sport utility vehicle.

On Aug. 31, plaintiffs Bruce and Leean Beehler, of Fox Point,
Wis., filed suit in Chicago federal court, alleging the company
had violated federal law in not honoring the customers' requests
to fix the problem under the terms of the warranty they received
with the auto when they purchased it.

According to the complaint, the Beehler's purchased their new
Honda CR-V in January 2016.  Within days, the complaint said, the
passenger cabin "smelled like an open pool of gasoline" and the
smell persisted no matter how they drove the vehicle.

Over the next few weeks, the smell would come and go, the
complaint said, ultimately prompting them to take the vehicle in
to a Milwaukee-area Honda dealership in March for service to
remedy the problem.

At the dealership, an employee allegedly told the Beehlers that
Honda "was aware of the odor problem from similar complaints by
other customers who had purchased or leased the 2016 CR-V and did
not have a solution."

The Beehlers alleged they returned to the dealership to seek
service for the problem five more times from April-August, and
each time received no assistance from Honda to fix the problem.
Most recently, Honda allegedly instructed them to try purchasing
their fuel from "a top tier gas station."  When they received the
list of such "top tier" brands, the Beehlers said they represented
the brands from which they had purchased the fuel consistently.

The Beehlers alleged Honda repeatedly acknowledged it was aware of
the problem, yet did nothing to remedy the presence of the fumes,
which, whether it may arise from fuel or other sources within the
vehicle, represents dangers to human health.

"Honda claims the 2016 CR-V 'feels like home' and invites
customers to 'sit back and enjoy the ride,'" the lawsuit said.
"The 2016 Honda CR-V does not feel like home because it reeks of
gasoline.  Plaintiffs and Class members cannot sit back and enjoy
the ride when they are enveloped with harmful fumes."

The plaintiffs said they believe the lawsuit should be certified
as a class action, which could include thousands of others from
throughout the U.S.

They have requested unspecified damages, including money to
compensate them for "out-of-pocket expenses and costs they have
incurred in attempting to rectify the horrible, noxious, odor in
their vehicles," plus attorney fees.

"Such expenses and losses will continue as Plaintiffs and Class
members must take time off from work and, pay for rental cars or
other transportation arrangements, child care, and the myriad
expenses involved in going through the recall process," the
lawsuit said.

The plaintiffs are represented in the action by attorneys Daniel
J. Voelker and Alexander N. Loftus, of the Voelker Litigation
Group, of Chicago.


IDENTIV INC: Amended Complaint Filed in "Rok" Suit
--------------------------------------------------
Identiv, 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 a California court has
granted the lead plaintiff to file an amended complaint.  An
amended complaint was filed on Sept. 12.

The Company said, "On December 16, 2015, we and certain of our
present and former officers and directors were named as defendants
in a putative class action lawsuit filed in the United States
District Court for the Northern District of California, entitled
Rok v. Identiv, Inc., et al., Case No. 15-cv-05775, alleging
violations of Section 10(b) of the Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule
10b-5 promulgated thereunder and Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act
of 1934. On May 3, 2016, the court-appointed lead plaintiff Thomas
Cunningham in the Rok lawsuit filed an amended complaint and a
notice of dismissal without prejudice of all current or former
officers and directors other than Jason Hart and Brian Nelson."

"On June 6, 2016, each of us, Jason Hart, and Brian Nelson filed a
motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim upon which relief
can be granted in the Rok lawsuit; on August 5, 2016, the court
granted those motions with leave for the lead plaintiff to file an
amended complaint."


IGNITE RESTAURANT: "Ekryss" Suit Sent to Arbitration
----------------------------------------------------
In the case captioned JHARED EKRYSS, et al., Plaintiffs, v. IGNITE
RESTAURANT GROUP, INC., et al., Defendants, No. 15-CV-6742 CJS
(W.D.N.Y.), Judge Charles J. Siragusa granted the defendants'
motion to dismiss the complaint and compel arbitration.

On December 11, 2015, the plaintiffs commenced the action,
asserting "tip credit" claims under the federal Fair Labor
Standards Act (FLSA) and the minimum-wage statutes of New York,
Missouri, Florida, Pennsylvania, Colorado, Michigan and Virginia.
The plaintiffs sought to recover alleged unpaid wages from
December 11, 2012, onward.

On March 24, 2016, the defendants filed a motion to dismiss the
complaint and compel arbitration, contending that the Dispute
Resolution Program cited in their employment guidelines
constitutes a binding agreement between the parties under Texas
law, and that the plaintiffs' claims fall under the purview of the
Dispute Resolution Program, requiring that this action be
dismissed.

The plaintiffs maintained that the defendants' motion must be
denied because under the law of Texas, the Dispute Resolution
Program is not a binding agreement because it is "illusory."

Judge Siragusa found that the Dispute Resolution Program is "a
contract that exists independently of the employee handbook," and
that Macaroni Grill did not reserve the right to amend or abolish
the arbitration agreement, retroactively or otherwise.
Consequently, the judge concluded that the Dispute Resolution
Program is not illusory, and constitutes an enforceable
arbitration agreement.

A full-text copy of Judge Siragusa's September 7, 2016 decision
and order is available at https://is.gd/xCnFtY from Leagle.com.

Plaintiffs are represented by Jared Kimball Cook, Esq., and
Jessica Lynne Lukasiewicz, Esq. --
jlukasiewicz@theemploymentattorneys.com -- Thomas & Solomon LLP.

Ignite Restaurant Group, Inc., Raymond A. Blanchette, III,
Romano's Macaroni Grill, Inc, Kevin Cottingim, Rodney Morris, John
Gilbert, Mac Parent, LLC, Redrock Partners, LLC, Dean Riesen,
Defendants, represented by Eric R. Magnus --
magnuse@jacksonlewis.com -- Jackson Lewis, P.C., pro hac vice,
Justin R. Barnes -- barnesjr@jacksonlewis.com -- Jackson Lewis,
P.C., pro hac vice, Stephanie L. Goutos --
stephanie.goutos@jacksonlewis.com -- Jackson Lewis LLP & William
J. Anthony -- william.anthony@jacksonlewis.com -- Jackson Lewis
LLP.


INNERWORKINGS INC: Settlement in "Van Noppen" Case Still Pending
----------------------------------------------------------------
Innerworkings, 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 parties in the
case, Van Noppen v. InnerWorkings et al., have reached an
agreement in principle to settle the litigation.  The settlement
remains subject to court approval.

In February 2014, shortly following the Company's announcement of
its intention to revise certain historical financial statements,
an individual filed a putative securities class action complaint
in the United States District Court for the Northern District of
Illinois entitled Van Noppen v. InnerWorkings et al. The
complaint, as amended in July 2014, alleges that the Company and
certain executive officers violated federal securities laws by
making materially false or misleading statements or omissions, and
by engaging in a scheme to defraud purchasers of securities,
relating to the Company's financial results and prospects. The
purported misstatements and scheme relate to the Company's inside
sales initiative and the Productions Graphics business based in
France. The complaint seeks unspecified damages, interest,
attorneys' fees and other costs. The Company and individual
defendants dispute the claims.

On September 29, 2014, the Company and individual defendants filed
a motion to dismiss the complaint for failure to state a claim. On
September 30, 2015, the Court granted in part and denied in part
the motion to dismiss, resulting in the dismissal with prejudice
of all claims relating to the inside sales initiative.

On March 18, 2016, the parties reached an agreement in principle
to settle the litigation. The settlement, which remains subject to
final Court approval, provides for payment to the class of $6.0
million, including plaintiff's attorneys' fees, in exchange for a
full and final release, and includes a denial of liability or any
wrongdoing by the Company and the individual defendants. The
settlement payment will be fully paid by the Company's insurance
carrier.

No further updates were provided in the Company's report.


INTERNET TECHNOLOGY: Faces Daisy Inc. Suit in M.D. of Florida
-------------------------------------------------------------
A lawsuit has been filed against Internet Technology Architecture
and Development LLC. The case is entitled Daisy, Inc., a Florida
corporation individually and as the representative of a class of
similarly-situated persons, the Plaintiff, v. Internet Technology
Architecture and Development LLC and John Does 1-5, the Defendant,
Case No. 2:16-cv-00689-JES-MRM (M.D. Fla., Sep. 7, 2016). The
assigned Judge is Hon. John E. Steele.

Internet Technology is a software consulting company.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Ryan M. Kelly, Esq.
          ANDERSON & WANCA
          3701 Algonquin Rd, Suite 760
          Rolling Meadows, IL 60008
          Telephone: (847) 368 1500
          Facsimile: (847) 368 1501
          E-mail: rkelly@andersonwanca.com


IPAYMENT INC: Faces "Bickelmann" Suit Alleging Violation of TCPA
----------------------------------------------------------------
BELINDA BICKELMANN, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff, vs. IPAYMENT, INC., and DOES 1
through 10, inclusive, and each of them, Defendant, Case No. 2:16-
cv-06734 (C.D. Cal., September 7, 2016), alleges violations of the
Telephone Consumer Protection Act.

IPAYMENT, INC. is a company in the business of providing payment
processing services to businesses.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


ITT EDUCATIONAL: "Blackwell" Suit Alleges Violation of WARN Act
---------------------------------------------------------------
RUBY BLACKWELL, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF ALL OTHERS SIMILARLY
SITUATED, Plaintiff, v. ITT EDUCATIONAL SERVICES, INC., and DOE
DEFENDANTS 1-10, Defendants, Case No. 3:16-cv-03249-SEM-TSH (C.D.
Ill., September 7, 2016), is a putative class action under the
Worker Adjustment and Retraining Notification Act.

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

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Brandon M. Wise, Esq.
     Paul A. Lesko, Esq.
     PEIFFER ROSCA WOLF ABDULLAH CARR & KANE, APLC
     818 Lafayette Ave., Floor 2
     St. Louis, MO 63104
     Phone: 314-833-4825
            314-833-4826
     Email: bwise@prwlegal.com
            plesko@prwlegal.com


ITT EDUCATIONAL: Faces "Artis" Suit Alleging WARN Act Violation
---------------------------------------------------------------
DENNIS ARTIS, DONNA A. LINDSAY and PATRICIA MARSHALL, on their own
behalf and on behalf of all other persons similarly situated,
Plaintiffs, v. ITT EDUCATIONAL SERVICES, INC., Defendant, Case No.
1:16-cv-00790-UNA (D. Del., September 7, 2016), seeks recovery for
damages in the amount equivalent to 60 days' pay and ERISA
benefits by reason of Defendant's violation of the Plaintiffs'
rights under the Worker Adjustment and Retraining Notification
Act.

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

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

     KLEHR HARRISON HARVEY BRANZBURG LLP
     Sally E. Veghte, Esq.
     919 Market Street, Suite 1000
     Wilmington, DE 19801
     Phone: (302) 552-5503
     Fax: (302) 426-9193
     E-mail: sveghte@klehr.com

        - and -

     Charles A. Ercole, Esq.
     KLEHR HARRISON HARVEY BRANZBURG LLP
     1835 Market Street, Suite 1400
     Philadelphia, PA 19103
     Phone: (215) 569-2700
     Fax: (215) 568-6603
     E-mail: cercole@klehr.com


JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Faces "Joseph" Suit Over Sale of Baby Powder
---------------------------------------------------------------
SHINTELLE JOSEPH, Plaintiff, v. JOHNSON & JOHNSON, and JOHNSON &
JOHNSON CONSUMER COMPANIES, INC., Defendants, Case No. 3:16-cv-
00590-JJB-RLB (M.D. La., September 7, 2016), raises claims arising
from the direct and proximate result of Defendants' and/or their
corporate predecessors' negligent, willful, and wrongful conduct
in connection with the design, development, manufacture, testing,
packaging, promoting, marketing, distribution, labeling, and/or
sale of the products known as J&J Baby Powder and Shower to
Shower.

JOHNSON & JOHNSON -- http://www.jnj.com/-- is a three-sector
health care company based out of New Jersey.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     James R. Dugan, II, Esq.
     Douglas R. Plymale, Esq.
     Lanson Bordelon, Esq.
     David Scalia, Esq.
     THE DUGAN LAW FIRM, APLC
     One Canal Place
     365 Canal Street, Suite 1000
     New Orleans, LA 70130
     Phone: (504) 648-0180
     Fax: (504) 648-0181


KBK SERVICES: Court Grants Bid for Summary Judgment in "Ricard"
---------------------------------------------------------------
Judge James D. Peterson decertified the Fair Labor Standards Act
(FLSA) collective action and the Fed. R. Civ. P. 23 class in the
case captioned ANDREW RICARD and TIM MACKAY, Plaintiffs, v. KBK
SERVICES, INC., Defendant, No. 15-cv-299-jdp (W.D. Wis.).  The
judge also granted KBK Services, Inc.'s motion for summary
judgment and denied the plaintiffs'.

Andrew Ricard and Tim Mackay worked in construction for KBK.  They
sued KBK for underpayment of wages on behalf of a class, alleging
violations of the FLSA and Wisconsin law.

Both the FLSA collective action and the class action were
previously certified, but KBK moved the court to reconsider those
certifications.

On reconsideration, Judge Peterson decertified the FLSA collective
action because the named plaintiffs are the only two members of
that action.  The judge also decertified the Rule 23 class because
the plaintiffs are not adequate representatives of the class.

Both sides also moved for summary judgment on the merits.  Judge
Peterson granted KBK's motion for summary judgment and denied the
plaintiffs'.  The judge held that the plaintiffs' travel to the
KBK job sites is ordinary home-to-work travel and not compensable.

A full-text copy of Judge Peterson's September 7, 2016 opinion and
order is available at https://is.gd/0dXlgb from Leagle.com.

Andrew Ricard, Tim Mackay, United Association Local 434,
Plaintiffs, represented by Yingtao Ho, Previant, Goldberg, Uelmen,
Gratz, Miller & Brueggeman, S.C..

KBK Services, Inc., Defendant, represented by Brittany L. Lopez
Naleid -- bnaleid@reinhartlaw.com -- Reinhart Boerner Van Deuren
s.c., John H. Zawadsky -- jzawadsky@reinhartlaw.com -- Reinhart
Boerner Van Deuren, SC & Robert S. Driscoll --
rdriscoll@reinhartlaw.com --  Reinhart Boerner Van Deuren s.c.


KELLY SERVICES: Faces "Holmes" Suit Alleging Violation of FLSA
--------------------------------------------------------------
TRACIE HOLMES, individually, and on behalf of others similarly
situated, Plaintiffs, vs. KELLY SERVICES USA, LLC, a Michigan
limited liability company, and KELLY SERVICES, INC., a Delaware
corporation, Defendants, 2:16-cv-13164-PDB-DRG (E.D. Mich.,
September 1, 2016), alleges willful violations of the Fair Labor
Standards Act.

Defendants Kelly Services, Inc. and its subsidiaries, offer a
comprehensive array of outsourcing and consulting services as well
as staffing on a temporary, temporary-to-hire, and direct-hire
basis.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Jason J. Thompson, Esq.
     Kevin J. Stoops, Esq.
     Jesse L. Young, Esq.
     SOMMERS SCHWARTZ, P.C.
     One Towne Square, Suite 1700
     Southfield, MI 48076
     Phone: 248-355-0300
     E-mail: jthompson@sommerspc.com
             kstoops@sommerspc.com
             jyoung@sommerspc.com

        - and -

     Timothy J. Becker, Esq.
     Jacob R. Rusch, Esq.
     JOHNSON BECKER, PLLC
     444 Cedar Street, Suite 1800
     St. Paul, MN 55101
     Phone: (612) 436-1800
     E-mail: tbecker@johnsonbecker.com
             jrusch@johnsonbecker.com


KNIGHT INDUSTRIES: Dismissal of Products Liability Case Vacated
---------------------------------------------------------------
P.J. D'Annunzio, writing for The Legal Intelligencer, reports that
a Harley-Davidson worker whose leg was crushed by a lift table
will have a second chance to prove that the table was defectively
designed, thanks to the Pennsylvania Supreme Court's products
liability ruling in Tincher v. Omega Flex.

Harold DeJesus' case against lift table manufacturer Knight
Industries & Associates was originally dismissed, based on strict
liability design-defect standards in the Restatement (Third) of
Torts.  Mr. DeJesus claimed the lift table was defective because
it didn't have warning lights or alarms.

But while his appeal was pending, the high court in Pennsylvania
came down with its seminal ruling in Tincher.  The U.S. Court of
Appeals for the Third Circuit vacated the dismissal, given the new
test for determining whether a product is defective.

Now, in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of
Pennsylvania, Judge Gerald J. Pappert has denied Knight's request
to again toss the case.  Knight argued that Tincher didn't change
the fact that Mr. DeJesus lacked evidence in his defect claim
under either test, while Mr. DeJesus argued that the question was
best resolved by a jury.

Judge Pappert wrote in his opinion that Mr. DeJesus' case still
had issues of fact to sort out, especially when his claims were
viewed under Tincher's risk utility test -- a mechanism that
determines if a product is defective based on whether the
probability and seriousness of harm it could cause outweighs the
precautions taken.

"There are sufficient issues of fact as to whether the probability
and seriousness of the harm caused by the lift table outweighed
the burden and cost of installing visual or audio alarms," Judge
Pappert said.

He added, "On these facts, reasonable minds can disagree over
whether the added safety that these audio and visual alarms
provide warrants shifting the extra cost of installation onto
Knight.  Whether the cost of these safety features is reasonable
in light of the reduced risk is accordingly an issue best left to
the jury."

Judge Pappert also said the facts could support a claim that the
table falling on Mr. DeJesus' leg was the proximate cause of his
injuries.

"There are sufficient facts on this record to suggest that the
product defect--the absence of audio and visual warnings on the
lift table--proximately caused Mr. DeJesus's injuries.  To defeat
causation, Knight would have to demonstrate that the accident was
solely attributable to a supervening cause," Judge Pappert said.

Mr. DeJesus' attorney, Peter Patton, did not return a call for
comment.  Knight's attorney, Anthony Sherr, did not return a call
seeking comment.


KOCH FOODS: Faces "Gross" Antitrust Lawsuit Over Broiler Sale
-------------------------------------------------------------
John Gross and Company, 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-08737
(N.D. Ill., September 7, 2016), was filed on behalf of itself
individually and on behalf of a purported class consisting 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.

The Plaintiff brings this action for treble damages under the
antitrust laws of the United States against Defendants, and
demands a trial by jury.

Koch Foods, Inc. -- http://www.kochfoods.com/-- is one of the
largest poultry processors in the U.S.

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 -

     Michael J. Freed, Esq.
     Steven A. Kanner, Esq.
     FREED KANNER LONDON & MILLEN LLC
     2201 Waukegan Road, Suite 130
     Bannockburn, IL 60015
     Phone: (224) 632-4500
     Fax: (224) 632-4519
     E-mail: mfreed@fklmlaw.com
             skanner@fklmlaw.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 -

     Allan Steyer, Esq.
     D. Scott Macrae, Esq.
     Jill Manning, Esq.
     STEYER LOWENTHAL BOODROOKAS ALVAREZ & SMITH LLP
     One California Street, 3rd Floor
     San Francisco, CA 94111
     Phone: (415) 743-2808
     Fax: (415) 421-2234
     E-mail: asteyer@steyerlaw.com
             smacrae@steyerlaw.com
             jmanning@steyerlaw.com

        - and -

     Kevin B. Love, Esq.
     Michael E. Criden, Esq.
     CRIDEN & LOVE, P.A.
     7301 S.W. 57th Court, Suite 515
     South Miami, FL 33143
     Phone: (305) 357-9000
     Fax: (305) 357-9050
     E-mail: klove@cridenlove.com
             mcriden@cridenlove.com

        - and -

     E. Powell Miller, Esq.
     Sharon S. Almonrode, Esq.
     Devon P. Allard, Esq.
     THE MILLER LAW FIRM, P.C.
     950 W. University Dr., Suite 300
     Rochester, MI 48307
     Phone: (248) 841-2200
     Fax: (248) 652-2852
     E-mail: epm@millerlawpc.com
             ssa@millerlawpc.com
             dpa@millerlawpc.com

        - and -

     Whitney Street, Esq.
     BLOCK & LEVITON LLP
     610 16th Street, Suite 214
     Oakland, CA 94612
     Phone: (415) 968-1852
     Fax: (617) 507-6020
     E-mail: wstreet@blockesq.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


LIMBACH HOLDINGS: Defending "Garfield" Class Action
---------------------------------------------------
Limbach Holdings, Inc. (f/k/a 1347 Capital Corp.) 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 continues to defend against the case by Robert
Garfield.

On May 10, 2016, Robert Garfield, on behalf of himself and all
other similarly situated public holders of Company's common stock,
filed a Verified Class Action and Derivative Complaint (the
"Complaint") against the Company, Gordon G. Pratt, Hassan R.
Baqar, Larry G. Swets, Jr., John T. Fitzgerald, Joshua Horowitz,
Leo Christopher Saenger III, and Thomas D. Sargent (the
"Defendants") in the Circuit Court of Du Page County, Illinois. In
his Complaint, Mr. Garfield alleges that (1) the Defendants'
efforts to consummate the Business Combination are "ultra vires"
acts in violation of the Company's amended and restated
certificate of incorporation (the "Charter") because the Charter
required Company to liquidate if it had not entered into a letter
of intent or definitive agreement to consummate an initial
business combination by January 21, 2016, and the letter of intent
with Limbach was not entered into until January 29, 2016, (2) the
Defendants breached their fiduciary duties to the shareholders in
negotiating and approving the merger because, among other things,
they had conflicts of interest resulting from their ownership of
insider shares, and (3) the Defendants filed a proxy statement
that was incomplete and misleading because, among other things,
the proxy statement does not disclose certain conflicts of
interest and the violation of Company's Charter. The Complaint
therefore seeks (a) a determination that the action is a proper
class action and that Mr. Garfield is a proper class
representative; (b) a determination that the action is a proper
derivative action; (c) a declaration that the Company's directors
breached their fiduciary duties; (d) a declaration that the merger
agreement is void because it is ultra vires; (e) injunctive relief
enjoining the merger and, if consummated, rescinding the merger;
(f) compensatory and/or rescissory damages; and (g) an award of
costs and attorney's fees.

The Defendants intend to vigorously defend this lawsuit and
believe that the Complaint is without merit because, among other
things, the Company entered into a letter of intent prior to
January 21, 2016 with a potential target for a business
combination (other than Limbach) which the Company was unable to
consummate, thereby extending its deadline for completing a
business combination to July 21, 2016, the Defendants did not
breach their fiduciary duties, and the proxy statement is not
incomplete and misleading.


LINC ENERGY: Queensland Gov't May Face Liability for Class Action
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Isobel Roe, writing for ABC News, reports that the Queensland
Government could be liable for a $150 million class action by
farmers after an underground coal gasification (UCG) project
allegedly caused serious environmental damage.

Farmer Pamela Bender leads the class action of about 50
landholders, in an area spanning 90,000 hectares.

Linc Energy allegedly damaged farmland near its UCG trial at
Hopeland on Queensland's Darling Downs.

The company was committed to stand trial on five environmental
charges but had since been placed in liquidation.

The Supreme Court on Aug. 31 ordered Linc Energy's liquidators to
hand over its insurance policy documents to Ms Bender's lawyers so
it could be determined whether the class action was viable.

Solicitor Tom Marland said it was "more than likely" Linc Energy's
insurance policy would not cover the claim.

"If we're unable to find any fruit in relation to the insurance
policies, we'll just endeavor to continue our action against the
State Government," he said.

"We haven't formally notified the State Government, but they're
certainly aware of it."

He said the State Government was equally, if not more, liable for
the alleged damage.

"I am a taxpayer so I'm very concerned about it," he said.

"But I'm also concerned about the probity of the State Government
granting licenses and not requiring that the conditions be
complied and met with.

"I don't think there'd be too many taxpayers who would deny the
people of Hopeland for the hardship they've been forced to
endure."

A report commissioned by the Queensland Government found Linc had
caused "widespread" and in some areas "irreversible" damage to
arable farmland.

Ms. Bender's husband, George, took his life last year after
fighting the gas industry about mining projects on and around his
property.

At the time, the Bender family said George had died "from a broken
heart" after fighting with some companies over coal seam gas
mining on his property.

Their property Valencia is inside a 320-kilometre excavation
caution zone set up around the Linc trial site in 2015.

Ms. Bender and her daughter Helen Bender remain outspoken
objectors to the coal seam gas and UCG industry.

Helen Bender said the Supreme Court decision to grant her mother
the insurance policy was a step towards commencing the group
action.

"This is the farm we've had since 1940 and you can't just walk
away," she said.

"There's too much Bender blood, sweat and tears in this property."

The Queensland Government banned UCG activity earlier this year.


LOWE'S COS: Faces "Foster" Lawsuit Under FLSA, N.C. Wage Law
------------------------------------------------------------
MICHAEL FOSTER and RONALD BOUCHARD, individually and for all
others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. LOWE'S COMPANIES, INC.,
and NILOY INC. d/b/a DCT SYSTEMS, Defendants, Case No. 5:16-cv-
00161-RLV-DCK (W.D.N.C., September 8, 2016), was filed pursuant to
the Fair Labor Standards Act, and the North Carolina Wage and Hour
Act.

LOWE'S COMPANIES, INC. is a national hardware chain.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

     Gilda A. Hernandez, Esq.
     THE LAW OFFICES OF GILDA A. HERNANDEZ, PLLC
     1020 Southhill Drive, Ste. 130
     Cary, NC 27513
     Phone: (919) 741-8693
     Fax: (919) 869-1853
     E-mail: ghernandez@gildahernandezlaw.com

        - and -

     Ryan F. Stephan, Esq.
     James B. Zouras, Esq.
     Catherine Mitchell, Esq.
     STEPHAN ZOURAS, LLP
     205 N. Michigan Avenue, Suite 2560
     Chicago, IL 60601
     Phone: 312-233-1550
     Fax: 312-233-1560
     Web site: http://www.stephanzouras.com


LLOYDS TSB BANK: Can't Compel Plaintiffs to Present Trial Plan
--------------------------------------------------------------
District Judge Alan C. Kay of the United States District Court for
the District of Hawaii denied Defendant's motion to compel
plaintiffs to present a trial plan in the case captioned, BRADLEY
WILLCOX, FRANK DOMINICK, and MICHELE SHERIE DOMINICK, Plaintiffs,
v. LLOYDS TSB BANK, PLC and DOES 1-15, Defendants, Civ. No. 13-
00508 ACK-RLP (D. Haw.).

The case involves the issuance by Lloyds TSB Bank PLC of certain
dual currency loans, also referred to as International Mortgage
System (IMS) loans. On March 27, 2015, Plaintiffs filed the
operative Third Amended Complaint (TAC). The TAC names Frank
Dominick, Michele Sherie Dominick, and Bradley Willcox as class
representatives and brings claims against Lloyds for Breach of
Contract (Count I) and Breach of an Implied Term Limiting Lloyds'
Discretion to Change the Interest Rate (Count II).

On July 15, 2015, Plaintiffs filed a Motion for Class
Certification pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23.
After briefing and oral argument from the parties, Magistrate
Judge Puglisi issued his Findings and Recommendation to Grant in
Part and Deny in Part Plaintiffs' Motion for Class Certification
(F&R) on November 12, 2015.

On January 8, 2016, the Court issued an Order adopting in part,
rejecting in part, and modifying in part the Findings and
Recommendations to grant in part and deny in part Plaintiffs'
motion for class certification.  The Court adopted the F&R over
Lloyds' objections, except as to the class definition, which the
Court modified to include only plaintiffs of United States and
Canadian citizenship.

On July 13, 2016, Lloyds filed the instant motion asking the Court
to issue an order requiring Plaintiffs to present a trial plan
illustrating the expected course of proceedings at trial and
showing that the requirements for maintaining this case as a class
action under Rule 23 are met. Plaintiffs filed a Memorandum in
Opposition to Lloyds' Motion on July 29, 2016 and Lloyds filed a
Reply in support of its Motion on August 5, 2016.

In his Order dated August 15, 2016 available at
https://is.gd/jIl5zJ  from Leagle.com, Judge Kay declined to
require Plaintiffs to provide further information in a trial plan
regarding the Dominicks' role in the class or at trial because the
witness disclosures Plaintiffs will be required to make pursuant
to the Court's scheduling oder will already contain a summary of
the substance of the Dominicks' testimony, and Plaintiffs' trial
brief will address any "foreseeable procedural and evidentiary
issues," including any irregularities that may arise as a result
of Lloyds' "unique defenses" against the Dominicks.

Frank Dominick, et al. are represented by Gary Lombardo, Esq. --
glombardo@steptoe.com -- Morgan Hector, Esq. --
mhector@steptoe.com -- Stephen A. Fennell, Esq. --
sfennell@steptoe.com -- Steven J. Barber, Esq. --
sbarber@steptoe.com -- STEPTOE & JOHNSON LLP; Paul Alston, Esq. --
PAlston@ahfi.com -- Glenn T. Melchinger, Esq. --
GMelchinger@ahfi.com --  ALSTON HUNT FLOYD & ING

Lloyds TSB Bank, PLC is represented by Christian K. Adams, Esq. --
CADAMS@CARLSMITH.COM -- CARLSMITH BALL LLP HONOLULU; Martha S.
Sullivan, Esq. -- martha.sullivan@squirepb.com -- Rebecca W.
Haverstick, Esq. -- rebecca.haverstick@squirepb.com -- Sean L.
McGrane, Esq. -- sean.mcgrane@squirepb.com -- SQUIRE PATTON BOGGS
(US) LLP


M&T BANK: Faces "Allen" Suit Alleging Violation of ERISA
--------------------------------------------------------
Jacqueline Allen, individually and on behalf of herself and all
others similarly situated, Plaintiff, vs. M&T Bank Corporation,
Manufacturers and Traders Trust Company, M&T Bank Employee Benefit
Plans Committee, Wilmington Trust Investment Advisors, Wilmington
Funds Management Corporation, Wilmington Trust Corporation, Robert
G. Wilmers, Michael P. Pinto, Mark J. Czarnecki, and John Does 1-
40, Defendants, Case 1:16-cv-00704 (W.D.N.Y., September 1, 2016),
was brought pursuant to the Employee Retirement Income Security
Act of 1974.

Defendant M&T is a bank holding company incorporated under the
laws of New York in 1969. Headquartered in Buffalo, New York, M&T
has two principal banking subsidiaries, M&T Bank and Wilmington
Trust, National Association.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Lucinda Lapoff, Esq.
     TREVETT CRISTO
     2 State Street, Suite 1000
     Rochester, NY 14614
     Phone: (585) 454-2181
     Fax: (585) 454-4026
     Email: clapoff@trevettcristo.com

        - and -

     Edward W. Ciolko, Esq.
     Donna Siegel Moffa, Esq.
     Mark K. Gyandoh, Esq.
     Julie Siebert-Johnson, Esq.
     KESSLER TOPAZ MELTZER & CHECK, LLP
     280 King of Prussia Road
     Radnor, PA 19087
     Phone: (610) 667-7706
     Fax: (610) 667-7056
     Email: eciolko@ktmc.com
            dmoffa@ktmc.com
            mgyandoh@ktmc.com
            jsjohnson@ktmc.com


MARRONE BIO: Sept. 22 Final Fairness Hearing Scheduled
------------------------------------------------------
Marrone Bio Innovations, 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 a final
fairness hearing is scheduled on September 22, 2016.

On September 5, 2014, September 8, 2014, September 11, 2014,
September 15, 2014 and November 3, 2014, the Company, along with
certain of its current and former officers and directors and
others were named as defendants in putative securities class
action lawsuits filed in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern
District of California.

On February 13, 2015, these actions were consolidated as Special
Situations Fund III QP, L.P. et al v. Marrone Bio Innovations,
Inc. et al, Case No 2:14-cv-02571-MCE-KJN. On September 2, 2015,
an initial consolidated complaint was filed on behalf of (i) all
persons who purchased or otherwise acquired the Company's publicly
traded common stock directly in or traceable to the Company's
August 1, 2013 initial public offering; (ii) all persons who
purchased or otherwise acquired the Company's publicly traded
common stock directly in the Company's June 6, 2014 secondary
offering; and (iii) all persons who purchased or otherwise
acquired the Company's publicly traded common stock on the open
market between March 7, 2014 and September 2, 2014 (the "Class
Action").

In addition to the Company, the initial consolidated complaint
names certain of the Company's current and former officers and
directors and the Company's independent registered public
accounting firm as defendants. The initial consolidated complaint
alleges violations of the Securities Act of 1933, the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 ("Exchange Act") and SEC Rule 10b-5, arising
out of the issuance of allegedly false and misleading statements
about the Company's business and prospects, including its
financial statements, product revenues and system of internal
controls. Plaintiffs contend that such statements caused the
Company's stock price to be artificially inflated. The action
includes claims for damages, fees and expenses, including an award
of attorneys' and experts' fees to the putative class.

An amended consolidated complaint was filed on January 11, 2016.
On February 4, 2016, the Court approved a stipulation between the
parties deferring action pending the outcome of a mediation
proceeding, and ordered the parties to provide a status update on
May 4, 2016. On March 15, 2016, plaintiffs moved to amend their
consolidated complaint to, among other things, assert claims on
behalf of all persons who purchased or otherwise acquired MBII
securities on the open market between August 1, 2013 and November
10, 2015.

On May 4, 2016, plaintiffs, the Company, and certain director and
officer defendants jointly submitted a report to the Court noting
in part that on April 4, 2016, they had participated in a
mediation proceeding and are currently negotiating the terms of a
formal stipulation of settlement.

On May 25, 2016, the parties executed a final stipulation of
settlement. The stipulation provides for dismissal of the action
as to the Company and the officer and director defendants, and a
payment by the Company's insurers of $12.0 million to an escrow
account, to be distributed upon order of the court. That same day,
lead plaintiff's counsel filed an unopposed motion for preliminary
approval of the settlement.

On May 27, 2016, the Court approved Plaintiffs' motion to amend
their consolidated complaint. On June 1, 2016, Plaintiffs filed
their amended consolidated complaint. At the Court's request, on
June 10, 2016, the settling parties revised the stipulation and
papers in support of preliminary approval to reflect the amended
consolidated complaint, and on June 16, 2016, refiled for
preliminary approval of the settlement.

On July 8, 2016, the Court granted preliminary approval of the
class action settlement. The settlement is subject to notice to
the class and further court approval at a final fairness hearing
scheduled on September 22, 2016.

The Company currently anticipates that it will not incur a loss in
connection with settlement of this matter in light of applicable
insurance coverage. However, there can be no assurance that the
Court will finally approve the settlement. In the event the Court
does not grant final approval, the settlement as reflected in the
stipulation of settlement may be terminated.


MERCER CANYONS: Yakima Farm Workers' Class Action Can Proceed
-------------------------------------------------------------
Mai Hoang, writing for Yakima Herald, reports that a lawsuit
claiming grower Mercer Canyons failed to disclose information to
more than 600 Yakima Valley farm workers will move forward under a
ruling by the U.S. Court of Appeals' Ninth Circuit.

The decision, released on Aug. 31, affirms an earlier ruling by
U.S. District Court Judge Stanley A. Bastian, who said the lawsuit
filed by Bacilio Ruiz and Jose Amador can proceed as a class
action.

Messrs. Ruiz and Amador filed suit in 2014, alleging Mercer
Canyons misled local farm workers by not disclosing information
about available higher-paying vineyard jobs under the H-2A
temporary agricultural worker program and that those domestic
workers who were hired were underpaid.

When Mercer Canyons, which grows row crops and wine grapes,
acquired permission from the federal government to hire foreign
workers under the H-2A program, it agreed to advertise the
positions to domestic workers and provide the same wage of $12 an
hour.

The farm workers, represented by Columbia Legal Services and
Schroeter Goldmark & Bender of Seattle, said the class of more
than 600 farm workers includes domestic workers who obtained jobs
and were paid below that rate.  Also included are potential
domestic workers who were not made aware of available jobs by
Mercer Canyons.

Judge Bastian, in certifying class-action status, agreed with the
farm workers' claims, but the final decision was to be made in a
jury trial.  The trial was to start last year but was delayed when
Mercer Canyons appealed Judge Bastian's decision.

Mercer Canyons appealed the decision on several grounds, including
that several members of the class might not have been adversely
affected because they would have not been hired or they may have
not been seeking other non-vineyard positions at the time.

The appeals court, in affirming the earlier federal court
decision, disagreed.

Eric D. Miller -- EMiller@perkinscoie.com -- of Perkins Coie in
Seattle, who argued on behalf of Mercer Canyons in the appeals
case, could not be immediately reached for comment.  Although
Judge Bastian agreed with the farm workers' claims, the case still
needs to go to trial, said Joe Morrison, an attorney with Columbia
Legal Services.

"Although the judge has made some rulings on what he sees the
evidence to be at this point, ultimately it's up to a jury to make
that decision," he said.


MIZUHO BANK: Appeal in Mt. Gox Customers' Class Action Tossed
-------------------------------------------------------------
NewsBTC reports that Mizuho Bank recently found itself in a legal
trouble after its association with defunct Bitcoin exchange
Mt. Gox was recognized by a US court.  The bank's name surfaced in
the notorious Bitcoin theft case when some of its victims claimed
that their withdrawal requests was denied by the Japanese bank.

The Mt. Gox victims, on the grounds of denial of rightful requests
by Mizuho, later filed a class action lawsuit against the bank.
According to the lawsuit, Mizuho Bank intentionally wreaked Mt.
Gox customers' right to withdraw funds in the time of the
notorious hack.  It therefore makes the bank equally responsible
for aggravating customers' losses.

In its defense, Mizuho had claimed that the US Court doesn't have
jurisdiction over the case as the exchange in question was based
out of Japan, and so is Mizuho Financial Group, the bank's parent
company.  The presiding US District Judge Gary Feinerman has
rejected the bank's appeal, allowing the class action lawsuit to
proceed.

The bank is also reported to have mentioned that Mt Gox customers
can't be considered as its customers.  In response, the Judge in
the court order rules that there was a transactional relationship
between Mizuho and Mt Gox customers as they were allowed to send
direct wire transfers to the bank account.  He also states that
the bank, due to its actions, will be facing charges related to
unjust enrichment and fraudulent concealment resulting in losses
to the public.

It is believed that Mizuho Bank had full knowledge about the
trouble brewing in Mt Gox.  But still, it continued to receive
funds from customers, profiting from transaction fees associated
with the deposits while limiting withdrawals.

The Mt Gox fiasco, resulting from gross mismanagement and multiple
hacking attempts resulted in a loss of over 650,000 bitcoins.
Recently, the Japanese authorities along with Payward group,
Kraken's parent company conducted a thorough investigation into
the Mt Gox.  A complete report is yet to be released.
Kraken was also part of the process to distribute recovered
bitcoin among the customers who were affected by the closure of
Mt. Gox.

As the lawsuit is given a go-ahead, Mizuho Bank is expected to
invoke Japanese laws in the latest stages of the proceedings.


NANTKWEST INC: Consolidated Complaint Filed in Securities Case
--------------------------------------------------------------
NantKwest, 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 in March 2016, a
securities class action complaint captioned Sudunagunta v.
NantKwest, Inc., et al., No. 16-cv-01947 was filed in federal
district court for the Central District of California related to
the Company's restatement of certain interim financial statements
for the periods ending June 30, 2015 and September 30, 2015.

In May 2016 a similar complaint was filed, captioned Forsythe v.
NantKwest, Inc., et al., No. 16-cv-03438; those two cases
subsequently were consolidated and a consolidated complaint was
filed on August 4, 2016.

The consolidated complaint names as defendants the Company,
certain of its current and former officers and directors, and
various investment banks which served as underwriters for the
Company's initial public offering.  The consolidated complaint
alleges violations of Sections 11 and 15 of the Securities Act of
1933 and Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act
of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder. The complaints seek
unspecified damages, costs and attorneys' fees, and
equitable/injunctive or other relief on behalf of putative classes
of persons who purchased or acquired the Company's securities
during various time periods from July 28, 2015 through March 11,
2016.

Management intends to vigorously defend these proceedings. "At
this time, we cannot predict how the Court will rule on the merits
of the claims and/or the scope of the potential loss in the event
of an adverse outcome. Should we ultimately be found liable, our
liability could have a material adverse effect on our results of
operations for the period or periods in which it is incurred," the
Company said.


NANTKWEST INC: Defending Suit Related to Initial Public Offering
----------------------------------------------------------------
NantKwest, 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 continues
to defend against lawsuits related to the Company's July 28, 2015
initial public offering.

In May 2016, the first of several complaints was filed in
California Superior Court, Los Angeles County also related to the
Company's restatement of certain interim financial statements.
Those complaints are captioned Wagner v. NantKwest, Inc., et al.,
No. BC621292, Frye v. NantKwest, Inc., et al., No. BC621665, Hare
v. NantKwest, Inc., No. BC621836, and Wiencek v. NantKwest, Inc.
et al., No. BC623233.

The complaints allege violations of the Securities Act of 1933
based on alleged misrepresentations or omissions in the Company's
initial public offering registration statement.  The complaints
name as defendants the Company, certain of its current and former
officers and directors, various investment banks which served as
underwriters for the Company's initial public offering, and two
venture funds.  The complaints seek unspecified damages, costs and
attorneys' fees, and recession or other relief on behalf of
putative classes of persons who purchased common stock in and/or
traceable to the Company's July 28, 2015 initial public offering.
Management intends to vigorously defend these proceedings.

"At this time, we cannot predict how the Court will rule on the
merits of the claims and/or the scope of the potential loss in the
event of an adverse outcome. Should we ultimately be found liable,
the liability could have a material adverse effect on our results
of operations for the period or periods in which it is incurred,"
the Company said.


NAT'L COLLEGIATE: Ex-Cal Football Players File Concussion Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Hooman Yazdanian, writing for The Daily Californian, reports that
a former Cal football player filed a class action lawsuit against
the NCAA and the Pac-12 conference on Sept. 1 for an alleged
"reckless disregard for the health and safety" of generations of
Cal student-athletes suffering from concussion-related injuries.

The lawsuit alleges that the NCAA and Pac-12 "breached their
duties" to student-athletes by not informing them about the
dangers of concussions and historically failing to implement
reasonable concussion protocols for decades until 2010.

"Since the inception of the Berkeley's football program, through
at least 2010, there were no adequate concussion management
protocols or policies of any kind in place at Berkeley to address
and treat concussions sustained by student-athletes during
practices or in games," the lawsuit alleges.

Neville Hawkins, who played for the Cal football team from 1970 to
1971, is one of the plaintiffs in the suit.  The allegations come
as part of a wave of new filings related to concussion injuries in
federal courts around the country.  Even before this influx of
lawsuits, Edelson PC -- the prosecuting law firm -- had filed 15
similar lawsuits starting in May, bringing the total number filed
by the firm regarding this issue to 24.  These cases are all in
the process of being consolidated to be overseen by a single judge
in a federal court in Chicago.

Campus spokesperson Dan Mogulof said the campus could not comment
on the lawsuit. In addition, Pac-12's Vice President of
Communications Dave Hirsch also said the conference had no comment
on the lawsuit.

There could be dozens more lawsuits filed against the NCAA and its
member conferences, according to Chris Dore, an attorney for
Edelson PC.  Additionally, schools can also be sued as defendants
when they are private colleges.

The lawsuit's main allegation is that the Pac-12 and the NCAA hid
from the public and from their players what the lawsuit alleges is
"an epidemic that was slowly killing their athletes."

"As a direct result of Defendants' actions (or lack thereof),
Plaintiff and a Class of former players . . . now suffer from
neurological and cognitive damage, including symptoms of traumatic
encephalopathy," the lawsuit alleges.

Mr. Hawkins, who suffered multiple concussions as a player for
Cal, suffers from early onset dementia.

Mr. Dore stressed that the prosecution will look to work with the
defendants to reach a settlement and avoid going to trial.

"We're hopeful that the NCAA and the conferences and the schools
are interested in helping these individuals sooner," Mr. Dore
said. "If this stretches out for years, it's years of time that
they are not getting the help and resources that they need."

In addition to compensation, Mr. Dore said, the prosecution will
also be looking to ensure that positive concussion policy changes
made since 2010 continue, expand and have the requisite amount of
oversight.

"The policies that have come into play starting around 2010 are a
significant step forward," Mr. Dore said.  "Those are a big
benefit to student-athletes.  We would want to ensure that those
are the best policies that can be, and likewise, we want to ensure
mechanisms to see that they are being enforced."


NAT'L COLLEGIATE: Faces 7 More Class Action Concussion Lawsuits
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Associated Press reports that the latest round of class-action
concussion lawsuits against the NCAA and major college football
conferences were filed by former college football players from
Florida State, Miami, Florida, Mississippi State, Kentucky,
Louisville and Murray State.

The lawsuits were filed in federal courts on Aug. 31 by
Chicago-based attorney Jay Edelson.  The seven lawsuits increase
the total number to 22 filed since May.

The players are seeking damages for injuries they claim are the
result of mishandled concussions they suffered while playing
college football.

In most cases the lawsuits name the NCAA and the conferences in
which the schools competed.  State laws protect most schools from
being sued. The University of Miami, a private school, is named in
the lawsuit filed by former defensive back Ryan Hill, who played
for the Hurricanes from 2006-2010.


NOVATION COMPANIES: New Jersey Carpenters' Case Still Pending
-------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit by the New Jersey Carpenters' Health Fund
remains pending, Novation Companies, 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.

On May 21, 2008, a purported class action case was filed in the
Supreme Court of the State of New York, New York County, by the
New Jersey Carpenters' Health Fund, on behalf of itself and all
others similarly situated. Defendants in the case included
NovaStar Mortgage Funding Corporation ("NMFC"), a wholly-owned
subsidiary of the Company, and its individual directors, several
securitization trusts sponsored by the Company ("affiliated
defendants") and several unaffiliated investment banks and credit
rating agencies. The case was removed to the United States
District Court for the Southern District of New York.

On June 16, 2009, the plaintiff filed an amended complaint. The
plaintiff seeks monetary damages, alleging that the defendants
violated sections 11, 12 and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933, as
amended, by making allegedly false statements regarding mortgage
loans that served as collateral for securities purchased by the
plaintiff and the purported class members.

On August 31, 2009, the Company filed a motion to dismiss the
plaintiff's claims, which the court granted on March 31, 2011,
with leave to amend. The plaintiff filed a second amended
complaint on May 16, 2011, and the Company again filed a motion to
dismiss.

On March 29, 2012, the court dismissed the plaintiff's second
amended complaint with prejudice and without leave to replead. The
plaintiff filed an appeal. On March 1, 2013, the appellate court
reversed the judgment of the lower court, which had dismissed the
case. Also, the appellate court vacated the judgment of the lower
court which had held that the plaintiff lacked standing, even as a
class representative, to sue on behalf of investors in securities
in which plaintiff had not invested, and the appellate court
remanded the case back to the lower court for further proceedings.

On April 23, 2013 the plaintiff filed its memorandum with the
lower court seeking a reconsideration of the earlier dismissal of
plaintiff's claims as to five offerings in which plaintiff was not
invested, and on February 5, 2015 the lower court granted
plaintiff's motion for reconsideration and vacated its earlier
dismissal.

No further updates were provided in the Company's SEC report.

Given the stage of the litigation, the Company cannot provide an
estimate of the range of any loss. The Company believes that the
affiliated defendants have meritorious defenses to the case and
expects them to defend the case vigorously.


NUUN & COMPANY: Plaintiffs Voluntarily Dismiss Class Action
-----------------------------------------------------------
Robert Lawson, writing for Legal Newsline, reports that a lawsuit
filed by a New Yorker against a drink tablet manufacturer didn't
last long.

The class action lawsuit was filed by consumer Jutamat Riedel and
alleged that Nuun & Company LLC was engaging in false advertising
because of the way it packaged its products for sale to the public
for consumption.  It was filed in late July, but was voluntarily
dismissed on Aug. 22.

The suit was originally filed in U.S. District Court for the
Eastern District of New York and it alleged unfair, deceptive and
fraudulent business practices on the part of the company for the
way it packaged its goods, allegedly tricking consumers into
thinking more product was contained in the package than actually
was.

The complaint alleged that the product used a non-functional
slack-fill item that made it appear that there was more of the
product in the package.  The plaintiffs asserted that the company
knowingly deceived consumers using this as a tactic to sell goods.

The plaintiffs were represented by C.K. Lee and Anne Seelig of Lee
Litigation Group PLLC in New York.

Nuun & Company is based in Seattle and manufactures a drink tablet
product that contains electrolytes for energy.  It is marketed to
the public as a sports drink.  It was alleged that the non-
transparent containers have room for 13 tablets but only holds 10
of them per container, with the rest of the space occupied by some
sort of spring piece.

Slack fill is a term used to describe empty space inside a
container or package that does not serve a practical purpose or
function for consumers of that product.  Suits like this one
allege that the empty space violates both state and national laws
in consumer protection.

The assertion in this complaint was that these sport drink tablets
came packaged in containers in a way that made it so consumers
could not physically see the space the tablets occupied in those
containers.


OUTERWALL INC: WeissLaw LLP Files Class Action in Washington
------------------------------------------------------------
WeissLaw LLP on Sept. 1 disclosed that a class action was
commenced in the United States District Court for the Western
District of Washington at Seattle on behalf of shareholders of
Outerwall Inc. ("Outerwall") seeking to pursue remedies under the
Securities and Exchange Act of 1934 (the "Exchange Act") in
connection with the proposed acquisition of Outerwall by
affiliates of Apollo Global Management, LLC ("Apollo").

On July 25, 2016, Outerwall and Apollo announced that they had
entered into a definitive agreement pursuant to which an affiliate
of Apollo commenced a tender offer to purchase all of the
outstanding shares of Outerwall common stock for $52.00 in cash
for each share of Outerwall common stock ("Proposed Transaction").
The complaint seeks injunctive relief on behalf of the named
plaintiff and all Outerwall shareholders.  The plaintiff is
represented by WeissLaw, which has expertise in prosecuting
investor class actions and extensive experience in actions
involving financial fraud.

The complaint alleges that in an attempt to secure shareholder
approval for the merger, the defendants filed a materially false
and/or misleading Recommendation Statement with the SEC in
violation of the Exchange Act.  The omitted and/or misrepresented
information is believed to be material to Outerwall shareholders'
ability to make an informed decision whether to approve the
Proposed Transaction.

If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no
later than sixty days from September 1, 2016.  If you wish to
discuss this action or have any questions concerning this notice
or your rights or interests, please contact plaintiff's counsel,
Joshua M. Rubin of WeissLaw at 888.593.4771, or by e-mail at
stockinfo@weisslawllp.com

Any member of the putative class may move the Court to serve as
lead plaintiff through counsel of their choice, or may choose to
do nothing and remain an absent class member.

WeissLaw LLP -- http://www.weisslawllp.com-- has litigated
hundreds of stockholder class and derivative actions for
violations of corporate and fiduciary duties.


OVC: Ex-Murray State Athlete Files Concussion Class Action
----------------------------------------------------------
Mark McFarland, writing for TheNews.org, reports that
James Harrison, also known as Clay Harrison, a former football
player at Murray State from 2000-05 has filed a class action law
suit against the OVC and the NCAA.

Christopher Dore, partner at Edelson PC law firm in Chicago said,
Mr. Harrison suffered multiple concussions during his playing days
at Murray State, including being knocked unconscious. He has
suffered multiple head traumas and continues to live with
blackouts and painful headaches, Dore told The News.

Mr. Dore said there have been 25 other cases filed as of Sept. 1
and expects there to more cases filed through their law firm in
the coming weeks.  Mr. Harrison joins University of Louisville
former player Willie Johnson and University of Kentucky former
player Demoreo Ford.

Murray State is not named in the law suit because it is protected
by law, but Mr. Dore said it will still be involved in the suit.

In the last two years; there have been many other suits that have
been filed.  Mr. Dore told The News Edelson PC has helped players
receive personal injury claims instead of just receiving medical
monitoring in the last two years.

Mr. Dore said it could take two or more years for cases like this
to get resolved.  The cases are being filed in the Illinois
northern district federal court.


PAYMENT DATA: Parties in "McFarland" to Meet & Confer on Sept. 28
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, McFarland v. Long et al., 2:16-cv-00930 (D. Nev.),
Magistrate Judge Peggy A. Leen directed the parties to meet and/or
confer as required by Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(f) not later than
September 28, 2016. Discovery due by Jan. 23, 2017.  Motions are
due by Feb. 21, 2017.  A Proposed Joint Pretrial Order is due by
March 23, 2017.

Payment Data Systems, Inc. is a nominal defendant in the case.

Payment Data Systems, 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 on June 26, 2015,
Michael McFarland, derivatively on behalf the Company, and
individually on behalf of himself and all other similarly situated
shareholders of the Company, filed a class-action lawsuit in
United States District Court, District of Nevada. The suit alleges
breach of fiduciary duties and unjust enrichment by the Company's
Board of Directors and certain executive officers and directors in
connection with excessive and unfair compensation paid or awarded
during fiscal years 2013 and 2014. The lawsuit seeks disgorgement
of excessive compensation as well as damages in an unspecified
amount.

As of March 17, 2016 the Court signed an order dismissing the
claims against Peter Kirby and Michael Long, but did not rule as
to the other defendants.

On March 22, 2016 the Company filed an unopposed motion for final
judgment as to everyone else and confirmed again with the
Plaintiff that they do not oppose dismissal of the whole case. On
April 5, 2016, the case was dismissed without prejudice.

On April 26, 2016, Michael McFarland, derivatively on behalf the
Company, re- filed the same class-action lawsuit in United States
District Court, District of Nevada.


PEREGRINE FINANCIAL: Dismissal of Customers' Class Action Upheld
----------------------------------------------------------------
Peregrine Financial Group was a registered Future Commission
Merchant (FCM) and a registered Forex Dealer Member of the
National Futures Association.  FCMs are similar to stock
brokerages but instead of dealing in stocks they deal primarily in
financial instruments known as futures contracts. In 2012, it was
discovered that over a twenty-year period Peregrine's CEO, Russel
L. Wasendorf, had embezzled nearly $200 million from Peregrine's
segregated customer future accounts. In July 2012, as a result of
the defalcation, Peregrine filed for bankruptcy. Ira Bodenstein
was appointed as Peregrine's trustee.

In September 2012, Bodenstein filed a motion seeking authority
under section 766(h) of the Bankruptcy Code to make interim
distributions of customer property to Peregrine customers who had
traded in commodity contracts. Bodenstein excluded Peregrine's
retail forex and OTC metal customers from the partial
distribution, however, on the ground that forex and OTC metal
accounts did not qualify as commodity contracts.

The customers objected and filed an adversary complaint against
Bodenstein arguing that their forex and OTC metal transactions
with Peregrine qualified as commodity contracts under section 761
and that the funds in those accounts should have been included in
the interim distribution. They argued that although their
transactions were not futures contracts -- which are expressly
included within the definition of commodity contracts -- they were
close enough to futures contracts to fall within 11 U.S.C. section
761(4)(F)(i), which includes as commodity contracts transactions
that are "similar to" the other types of transactions specifically
defined section 761(4).  In the alternative, the customers also
argued that their funds had been held in a resulting trust by
Peregrine and, thus, should be distributed apart from the
bankruptcy estate. Because title to their funds was never
transferred to Peregrine, the customers argued, they should have
their funds paid in full immediately.

On summary judgment, the court rejected the customers' contention
that their forex and OTC metal transactions shared enough features
with futures contracts to fall within the "similar to" provision
of Section 761 and therefore dismissed the related counts of the
customers' complaint. In re Peregrine Fin. Group, Inc., 510 B.R.
at 205. After a bench trial on the remaining counts, the court
went on to find that the customers had failed to meet their burden
of proof with respect to their argument that the funds had been
held in a resulting trust and concluded that once the customers
transferred their funds to Peregrine they no longer retained title
to those funds.

After the first adversary proceeding was terminated, a second
group of customers filed the FOREX Class Action adversary
proceeding against Bodenstein, alleging breach of fiduciary duty,
fraud, unjust enrichment, and conversion; they also sought the
imposition of a constructive trust. After filing their class
action complaint, the customers filed a motion to withdraw the
proceeding from the bankruptcy court to the district court,
arguing that they had a right to a jury trial on their claims and
that their claims against the trustee were non-core under 28
U.S.C. Sec. 157(b). That motion was mooted, however, on May 13,
2015, when the Bankruptcy Court dismissed the class action
complaint as untimely. Bodenstein's motion for sanctions in that
case, however, survives the dismissal of the motion to withdraw
the reference.

That dismissal forms the basis of an appeal, 15 C 04260, in which
the customers argue that the court should have construed their
class action claims as amended proofs of claim that relate back,
under Fed.R.Civ.P. Rule 15(c), to their timely filed initial
proofs of claim.

In their consolidated appeals, appellants presented these issues
for review:

     a. Did the bankruptcy court err in finding that Peregrine's
forex and spot metal customers were not placed in a resulting
trust?

     b. Did the bankruptcy court err in finding that 11 U.S.C.
Sec. 761(4)(F)(i) (the similar contracts clause) does not extend
to forex and metals contracts because such contracts are not
similar to futures contracts?

     c. Did the bankruptcy court err in dismissing the customers'
class action complaint as untimely because they brought it after
the bar date for filing a proof of claim?

     d. Did the Bankruptcy Court err in refusing to consider the
class action complaint as an amendment of customers' proofs of
claim which related back to the date those claims were filed?

In his Memorandum Opinion and Order, dated August 15, 2016
available at https://is.gd/OibCBF from Leagle.com, District Judge
John J. Tharp, Jr. of the United States District Court for the
Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division, held that the
bankruptcy court did not abuse its discretion in declining to
allow the customers to amend their proofs of claim under Rule 15.
The customers alleged virtually no facts in their initial proofs
of claim against Peregrine, other than the amount of money owed,
which precludes their subsequent tort claims against CEO Wasendorf
from relating back to the timely proofs of claim.

Judge Tharp, Jr. affirmed the bankruptcy court's ruling that
retail foreign exchange (forex) and OTC metal contracts were not
commodity contracts within the meaning of 11 U.S.C. Sec. 761(4)
and that funds were not held in a resulting trust by Peregrine and
were properly included in the bankruptcy estate.

The Court, however, denied Defendant's motion for sanctions.
Judge Tharp, Jr. found that the customers' claims exist outside
the bankruptcy context and it was not unreasonable for the
customers to argue that they are "non-core" within the meaning of
section 157. Hence, notwithstanding their merits, none of the
customers' arguments with respect to their motion are
sanctionable.

The case is captioned, Secure Leverage Group, Inc., Treasure
Island Coins, Inc., David G. Beyerleing, Richard W. Medley,
Michael Krall, James Landrum, Jr., Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. Ira
Bodenstein, Defendant-Appellee; v. U.S. Commodity Futures Trading
Commission, Intervenor. Robert Miller, Fargo 500 LLC, Gainesville
Coins, Inc., Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. Ira Bodenstein, Defendant-
Appellee. Robert Miller, Fargo 500 LLC, Gainesville Coins, Inc.,
Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. Ira Bodenstein, Defendant-Appellee, Case
Nos. 14 CV 05024, 15 CV 04260, 15 CV 00344 (N.D. Ill.).

Robert Miller, Fargo 500 LLC and Gainesville Coins, Inc. are
represented by Michael C. Moody, Esq. -- moodym@gtlaw.com --
O'rourke, & Moody

Ira Bodenstein, Appellee is represented by Carrie E. Davenport,
Esq. -- cdavenport@shawfishman.com -- Robert M. Fishman, Esq. --
rfishman@shawfishman.com -- Terence G. Banich, Esq. --
tbanich@shawfishman.com -- Shaw Fishman Glantz & Towbin LLC


PLAYTEX PRODUCTS: "D'Aversa" Suit Transferred to E.D.N.Y.
---------------------------------------------------------
A lawsuit styled Dyan D'Aversa, on behalf of herself and all
others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. Playtex Products,
LLC, formerly known as Playtex Products, Inc., Edgewell Personal
Care Company, and Sun Pharmaceutical, LLC, the Defendant, Case No.
1:16-cv-03813, was transferred from the U.S. District Court for
the District of New Jersey, to the U.S. District Court for the
Eastern District of New York (Brooklyn). The Eastern District
Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:16-cv-04977-WFK-ST to the
proceeding. The assigned Judge is William F. Kuntz, II, Esq.

Playtex manufactures and sells personal care products for babies,
toddlers, teens, and adults.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Stephen Patrick Denittis, Esq.
          DENITTIS OSEFCHEN, PC
          5 Greentree Centre
          525 Route 73 North, Suite 410
          Marlton, NJ 08053
          Telephone: (856) 797 9951
          Facsimile: (856) 797 9978
          E-mail: sdenittis@denittislaw.com

The Defendant is represented by:

          Kegan Andrew Brown, Esq.
          LATHAM & WATKINS
          One Newark Center, 16th Floor
          Newark, NJ 07101
          Telephone: (973) 639 1234
          Facsimile: (973) 639 7298
          E-mail: kegan.brown@lw.com


POP WARNER: Faces Concussion Class Action in California
-------------------------------------------------------
Ken Belsons, writing for The New York Times, reports that a class-
action lawsuit has been filed against Pop Warner, the nation's
largest youth football league, claiming that the organization
knowingly put players in danger by ignoring the risks of head
trauma.  The suit is the biggest sign yet that youth football
programs are the next front in the legal battle over concussions.

Unlike other cases that have centered only on football leagues,
the complaint also accuses USA Football, the youth football arm of
the N.F.L., and the group that creates football helmet safety
standards, of failing to protect young players from the dangers of
brain trauma and the long-term consequences of repeated head hits,
and ignoring medical research that underscores the dangers of
playing football.

Taken together, the class-action complaint, which was filed in
federal court in California by the mothers of two deceased former
football players, is the broadest challenge yet to youth football.
It comes as the N.F.L. continues to rack up huge legal bills to
combat similar claims. The N.C.A.A. and colleges have been swept
into the legal maelstrom as well.

The complaint against Pop Warner could spell trouble for smaller
leagues that may come under increasing legal scrutiny.  These
leagues would have to pay more to defend themselves against
lawsuits at the same time some of them are having to pay higher
insurance premiums.  Under scrutiny from wary parents, youth
football leagues are introducing more training of coaches and
players, another cost.

Pop Warner, which has seen a decline in participation in recent
years, has already had to fend off a variety of lawsuits brought
by the families of players who were significantly injured or died.

In March, Pop Warner settled a lawsuit with a family whose son
played in the league and later committed suicide and was found to
have a degenerative brain disease linked to repeated hits to the
head. In January, Pop Warner settled a separate case in California
brought by the mother of Donnovan Hill, a player in Los Angeles
who was paralyzed.

The latest case against Pop Warner was brought by Kimberly Archie
and Jo Cornell, whose sons played football as youngsters and were
found after they died to have chronic traumatic encephalopathy, a
neurological condition linked to repeated head hits.

They are represented by Thomas Girardi and Robert Finnerty, who
represent some of the former N.F.L. players who sued the league
for knowingly hiding from them the dangers of repeated hits to the
head.  The N.F.L. has agreed to pay hundreds of millions of
dollars to settle that case.

The case filed on Sept. 1 accuses Pop Warner of failing to monitor
games, practices, rules, equipment and medical care "to minimize
the long-term risks associated with brain injuries including
repetitive sub-concussive hits"; failing to accurately diagnose
brain injuries; and failing to approve the best equipment
available.  Pop Warner and the other defendants "acted with
callous indifference" and players who participated in Pop Warner
dating back nearly two decades are entitled to an unspecified
amount of damages, according to the complaint.

Jon Butler, the executive director of Pop Warner, said his
organization had not seen the complaint.

The complaint has also taken aim at USA Football for promoting
safety programs that are of questionable value and for issuing
flawed research to back up its claims that the programs are
effective in reducing the risk of concussions.  In particular, USA
Football, which has received tens of millions of dollars in
funding from the N.F.L., has misrepresented the benefits of its
Heads Up Football program that trains coaches on how to teach
so-called safe tackling techniques.

An investigation by The New York Times found that USA Football
relied on flawed research to bolster its claims that Heads Up
Football helped reduce the risk of concussions.

Steve Alic, a spokesman for USA Football, did not immediately
respond to a request for comment.

The suit also accuses the National Operating Committee on
Standards Athletic Equipment, or Nocsae, of certifying helmets
that were not designed to properly protect younger players, and
overstated their safety benefits.  According to the complaint,
Nocsae has no youth-specific helmet safety standard, yet falsely
maintained that helmets used by players in Pop Warner were safe.

Mike Oliver, the executive director of Nocsae, said that he had
not seen the complaint but that his organization had never stated
that any helmet was safe.  All helmets approved by his group
include permanent warning labels that alert players that "no
helmet can prevent all head or any neck injuries a player might
receive while participating in football."


PROFESSIONAL DIVERSITY: Nov. 28 Final Settlement Hearing Set
------------------------------------------------------------
Professional Diversity Network, 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 Court
will hold a hearing to consider final approval of the settlement
in a class action lawsuit on November 28, 2016.

The Company and its wholly-owned subsidiary, NAPW, Inc., are
parties to litigation captioned Gauri Ramnath, et al. v.
Professional Diversity Network, Inc., et al., No. BC604153 (Los
Angeles Superior Ct.), a putative class action alleging violations
of various California Labor Code (wage & hour) sections. The
plaintiffs seek unspecified damages. The complaint was filed in
December 2015 and the Company answered.

On April 28, 2016, the parties entered into a mutual settlement
agreement and release, on behalf of all putative class
participants, in the amount of $500,000. Such amount is recorded
in accrued expenses in the accompanying condensed consolidated
balance sheet as of June 30, 2016. The parties' agreement and its
amount are subject to Court and state agency approval.  The
Company has been notified that the Court will hold a hearing to
consider final approval on November 28, 2016.

The Company anticipates that, if the global settlement is
approved, it will have to fund the settlement in late Fourth
Quarter of 2016 or early First Quarter of 2017.


PROFESSIONAL DIVERSITY: "Coleman" Class Action Dismissed
--------------------------------------------------------
Professional Diversity Network, 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 and its wholly-owned subsidiary, Noble Voice, LLC, were
parties to litigation captioned as Coleman v. Noble Voice, LLC, et
al., Case No. 15-CV-6791 (N.D. Ill.), a putative class action,
pursuant to which a consumer alleged that Noble Voice violated the
Telephone Consumer Protection Act ("TCPA") by contacting him in
relation to a job for which he applied online. The complaint
sought unspecified damages and injunctive relief. The lawsuit was
filed in August 2015 and the Company timely filed its answer. This
case was settled for a confidential but nominal amount during the
Second Quarter of 2016 and the action has been dismissed.


PROFESSIONAL DIVERSITY: "Vazquez" Class Action Dismissed
--------------------------------------------------------
Professional Diversity Network, 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 was party to litigation captioned as Norma Vazquez v.
Professional Diversity Network, Inc., Case No. 16-CV-13-WCO
(N.D.Ga.), a putative class action, pursuant to which a consumer
alleged that the Company violated the TCPA by sending her a text
message inviting her to attend a career fair. The complaint sought
unspecified damages and injunctive relief. The lawsuit was filed
in January 2016 and the Company timely filed its answer. This case
was settled for a confidential but nominal amount during the
Second Quarter of 2016 and the action has been dismissed.


QUALITY BUILT: Gates at Williams-Brice Suit Goes to State Court
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the case captioned The Gates at Williams-Brice Condominium
Association and Katherine Swinson, individually, and on behalf of
all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. Quality Built, LLC,
and Coast to Coast Engineering Services, Inc. d/b/a/Criterium
Engineers, Defendants, C.A. No. 3:16-cv-02022-CMC (D.S.C.), Judge
Cameron McGowan Currie granted the motion filed by the plaintiffs
to remand, but denied the plaintiffs' request for an award of
attorneys' fees.

The plaintiffs sought recovery for the defendants' alleged failure
to ensure quality control in the construction of a 158 unit
condominium complex.  The matter was originally filed in state
court in December 2013.  The complaint named a single defendant,
Quality Built, LLC, which entity was served in January 2014.  The
original complaint did not specifically allege an amount in
controversy, though it did allege widespread damage resulting from
water penetration and "spalling" in the condominium complex and
sought punitive damages under one cause of action.  The plaintiffs
later moved to amend the complaint to add Coast to Coast
Engineering Services, Inc. d/b/a Criterium Engineers ("Criterium")
as a defendant and assert a successor liability theory against
Quality Built.

Criterium filed a Notice of Removal on June 17, 2016, less than 30
days after it was first served.  The notice of removal relied on
diversity as the basis for subject matter jurisdiction.

The plaintiffs argued removal was improper for a variety of
procedural reasons including (1) the "consent" to removal filed by
Quality Built is defective because it includes a reservation of a
right to move for remand, (2) Quality Built's purported consent is
untimely because it was filed more than 30 days after Criterium
was served with the complaint, and (3) removal is time-barred by
18 U.S.C. section 1446's one-year limitation on removal of
diversity actions.

Judge Currie found the removal procedurally defective both because
Quality Built's consent was qualified and because the consent was
untimely.  In reaching these conclusions, the judge has considered
the plaintiffs' argument that uncertainty should be resolved in
favor of remand.  Accordingly, Judge Currie granted the
plaintiffs' motion to remand.

Because it impacts the decision to deny fees, Judge Currie also
addressed the plaintiffs' argument that Section 1446(c)(1) bars
removal of the action.  The argument rests on the premise Section
1446(c)(1)'s one-year limitation on removal applies to all actions
removed on the basis of diversity.  The judge, however, found that
Criterium's arguments for a contrary interpretation are, at the
least, reasonable.  Thus, Judge Currie found Criterium did not act
unreasonably in removing the action and, therefore, denied the
plaintiffs' request for an award of fees and costs.

A full-text copy of Judge Currie's September 7, 2016 opinion and
order is available at https://is.gd/Sh6oQ5 from Leagle.com.

The Gates at Williams-Brice Condominium Association, Katharine
Swinson, Plaintiffs, represented by Justin O'Toole Lucey --
jlucey@lucey-law.com -- Justin O'Toole Lucey Law Firm, Stephanie
D. Drawdy -- sdrawdy@lucey-law.com -- Justin O'Toole Lucey Law
Firm.

Quality Built, LLC, Defendant, represented by Alan Ross Belcher,
Jr. -- abelcher@hallboothsmith.com -- Alan Belcher Law Offices &
Elizabeth F. Wieters -- efreeman@hallboothsmith.com -- Hall Booth
Smith.

Coast to Coast Engineering Services, Inc., Defendant, represented
by H. Freeman Belser -- freeman@belserpa.com -- Belser and Belser,
Michael J. Polk -- mike@belserpa.com -- Belser and Belser &
Timothy Bryant -- tbryant@preti.com -- Preti Flaherty, pro hac
vice.


REGENCY PARTY: Faces "Deneus" Suit Alleging Violation of FLSA
-------------------------------------------------------------
GUYVENER DENEUS, on his own behalf and others similarly situated,
Plaintiff, v. REGENCY PARTY RENTALS & SUPPLIES, INC., a Florida
Profit Corporations, and NICK IVANCEVIC, an individual,
Defendants, Case No. 9:16-cv-81552-KAM (S.D. Fla., September 7,
2016), seeks overtime compensation and other relief under the Fair
Labor Standards Act.

REGENCY PARTY RENTALS & SUPPLIES, INC. provides its services to
individuals, homeowners, corporations, local business owners,
hotels, caterers, country clubs, charitable organizations, wedding
consultants and event planners.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Maguene D. Cadet, Esq.,
     LAW OFFICE OF DIEUDONNE CADET, P.A.
     2500 Quantum Lakes Drive, Suite 203
     Boynton Beach, FL 33426
     Phone: 561-853-2212
     Fax: 561-853-2213
     Email: Maguene@DieudonneLaw.com


RELENTLESS RECOVERY: Faces "Caringi" Suit Alleging FLSA Violation
-----------------------------------------------------------------
ANTHONY CARINGI 34091 Gail Drive North Ridgeville, Ohio 44039
And MELISSA ANN RICKER 420 W. Main St. Cairo, Ohio 45820, on
behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated,
Plaintiffs, vs. RELENTLESS RECOVERY, INC. c/o Statutory Agent Amy
Osterling 1898 Scranton Road Cleveland, Ohio 44113, Defendant,
Case No. 1:16-cv-02236-CAB (N.D. Ohio, September 7, 2016), alleges
violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act.

RELENTLESS RECOVERY, INC. is an Ohio company that provides
repossession services throughout the State of Ohio and surrounding
states.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Chastity L. Christy, Esq.
     Anthony J. Lazzaro, Esq.
     Lori M. Griffin, Esq.
     THE LAZZARO LAW FIRM, LLC
     920 Rockefeller Building
     614 W. Superior Avenue
     Cleveland, OH 44113
     Phone: 216-696-5000
     Fax: 216-696-7005
     E-mail: chastity@lazzarolawfirm.com
             anthony@lazzarolawfirm.com
             lori@lazzarolawfirm.com


RFS HOLDING: Discovery Ongoing in Blackrock Advisors Action
-----------------------------------------------------------
RFS Holding, L.L.C. said in its Form 10-D Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on August 15, 2016, for the
monthly distribution period from June 22, 2016 to July 21, 2016,
that Deutsche Bank Trust Company Americas, not in its individual
capacity but solely as indenture trustee, has provided the
following information to RFS Holding, L.L.C. for inclusion in this
Form 10-D.

On June 18, 2014, a group of investors, including funds managed by
Blackrock Advisors, LLC, PIMCO-Advisors, L.P., and others, filed a
derivative action against Deutsche Bank National Trust Company
("DBNTC") and Deutsche Bank Trust Company Americas ("DBTCA") in
New York State Supreme Court purportedly on behalf of and for the
benefit of 544 private-label residential mortgage backed
securities ("RMBS") trusts asserting claims for alleged violations
of the U.S. Trust Indenture Act of 1939 ("TIA"), breach of
contract, breach of fiduciary duty and negligence based on DBNTC
and DBTCA's alleged failure to perform their duties as trustees
for the trusts. Plaintiffs subsequently dismissed their state
court complaint and filed a derivative and class action complaint
in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York
on behalf of and for the benefit of 564 private-label RMBS trusts,
which substantially overlapped with the trusts at issue in the
state court action. The complaint alleges that the trusts at issue
have suffered total realized collateral losses of U.S. $89.4
billion, but the complaint does not include a demand for money
damages in a sum certain.

DBNTC and DBTCA filed a motion to dismiss, and on January 19,
2016, the court partially granted the motion on procedural
grounds: as to the 500 trusts that are governed by Pooling and
Servicing Agreements, the court declined to exercise jurisdiction.
The court did not rule on substantive defenses asserted in the
motion to dismiss.

On March 22, 2016, plaintiffs filed an amended complaint in
federal court. In the amended complaint, plaintiffs assert claims
in connection with 62 trusts governed by Indenture Agreements. The
amended complaint alleges that the trusts at issue have suffered
total realized collateral losses of U.S. $9.8 billion, but the
complaint does not include a demand for money damages in a sum
certain. DBNTC and DBTCA will have an opportunity to file new
defensive motions with respect to the amended complaint. Discovery
is ongoing.

On March 25, 2016, the BlackRock plaintiffs filed a state court
action against DBTCA in the Superior Court of California, Orange
County with respect to 513 trusts.  On May 18, 2016, plaintiffs
filed an amended complaint with respect to 465 trusts, and
included DBNTC as an additional defendant.  The amended complaint
asserts three causes of action:  breach of contract; breach of
fiduciary duty; and breach of the duty to avoid conflicts of
interest.  Plaintiffs purport to bring the action on behalf of
themselves and all other current owners of certificates in the 465
trusts.  The amended complaint alleges that the trusts at issue
have suffered total realized collateral losses of U.S. $75.7
billion, but does not include a demand for money damages in a sum
certain.  The complaint has not yet been served.  Discovery has
not yet commenced.


RHEEM MANUFACTURING: Court Narrows Claims in "Adelman" Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------
In the case captioned Craig Adelman, et al., Plaintiffs, v. Rheem
Manufacturing Company, Defendant, No. 2:15-cv-00190 JWS (D.
Ariz.), Judge John W. Sedwick granted in part and denied, in part,
Rheem Manufacturing Company's motion to dismiss certain counts of
the Second Amended Complaint (SAC) filed by the plaintiffs, Craig
Adelman, Jason McGee, Ronald Plucinski, Kenneth Holdeman, and Paul
Sklar.

The case is a putative class action brought by consumers of
allegedly defective air conditioners, air handlers, and heat pumps
manufactured by Rheem.  The plaintiffs alleged that the copper
evaporator and condenser coils in these products are defective
because they leak refrigerant. The SAC contains the following
seven causes of action: (1) declaratory relief; (2) breach of
Rheem's express warranties; (3) violation of the Magnuson-Moss
Warranty Act (MMWA); (4) unjust enrichment; (5) breach of Rheem's
express warranties under Arizona law; (6) violation of the Florida
Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act (FDUTPA); and (7)
violation of Louisiana's Redhibition Law.  Rheem's present motion
attacks Counts 1, 4, 6, and 7.

On Count One, Rheem argued that the plaintiffs' declaratory relief
cause of action merely duplicates other claims alleged in the SAC.
The plaintiffs pointed out that the existence of another remedy
does not preclude an action for declaratory relief.  Judge
Sedwick, however, held that declaratory relief should be denied in
this case because it will neither serve a useful purpose in
clarifying and settling the legal relations in issue nor terminate
the proceedings and afford relief from the uncertainty and
controversy faced by the parties.

On Count Four, Judge Sedwick found that Rheem's challenge to the
SAC's unjust enrichment claim recycled an unsuccessful argument
that it had already raised.  Thus, the judge again rejected this
argument.

On Count Six, Rheem argued that the plaintiffs' FDUTPA claim
should be dismissed because it fails to satisfy Fed. R. Civ. Proc.
9(b)'s heightened pleading requirements.  The plaintiffs argued
that Rule 9(b) does not apply to FDUTPA claims.  Alternatively,
the plaintiffs argued that even if Rule 9(b) applies, their FDUTPA
cause of action is stated with sufficient particularity.  Judge
Sedwick found that the plaintiffs have pleaded with particularity
Rheem's unfair or deceptive conduct and state of mind.

In Count Seven, Sklar alleged a redhibition cause of action under
Louisiana law.  Rheem challenged this cause of action on two
grounds: (1) the alleged defect cannot be redhibitory because it
was apparent to Sklar; and (2) even if the defect is redhibitory,
Sklar did not allege that Rheem was given an opportunity to repair
the alleged defect and failed to do so.  Judge Sedwick held that
both arguments fail because Rheem has not shown that it is a
matter of common knowledge that copper coils are prone to
premature corrosion, and because as the manufacturer, Rheem is
presumed to be a bad faith seller, and Sklar is not required to
prove that he gave Rheem a chance to correct the defect before
litigation.

A full-text copy of Judge Sedwick's September 7, 2016 order and
opinion is available at https://is.gd/yVbX6e from Leagle.com.

Craig Adelman, Plaintiff, represented by Adam Arthur Edwards --
adam@gregcolemanlaw.com --  Greg Coleman Law PC, Barry Lance
Entrekin, Entrekin Law Firm, Gregory F. Coleman --
greg@gregcolemanlaw.com -- Greg Coleman Law PC, Jonathan Shub --
jshub@kohnswift.com -- Kohn Swift & Graf PC, Lisa Anne White --
lisa@gregcolemanlaw.com -- Greg Coleman Law PC, Russell D. Paul --
rpaul@bm.net -- Berger & Montague PC, Shanon Jude Carson --
scarson@bm.net -- Berger & Montague PC & Mark E. Silvey, Greg
Coleman Law PC.

Jason McGee, Kenneth Holdeman, Paul Sklar, Ronald Plucinski,
Plaintiffs, represented by Adam Arthur Edwards, Greg Coleman Law
PC, Barry Lance Entrekin, Entrekin Law Firm, Gregory F. Coleman,
Greg Coleman Law PC, Jonathan Shub, Kohn Swift & Graf PC, Lisa
Anne White, Greg Coleman Law PC, Russell D. Paul, Berger &
Montague PC, Shanon Jude Carson, Berger & Montague PC.

Rheem Manufacturing Company, Defendant, represented by Adam
Michael Foslid -- foslida@gtlaw.com -- Greenberg Traurig LLP,
David Andrew Coulson -- coulson@gtlaw.com -- Greenberg Traurig
LLP, Pamela M. Overton -- overtonp@gtlaw.com -- Greenberg Traurig
LLP & Eva M. Spahn -- spahn@gtlaw.com -- Greenberg Traurig LLP.


RIGHTSCORP INC: Nov. 14 Final Settlement Approval Hearing Set
-------------------------------------------------------------
Alarm.com Holdings, 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 a hearing regarding
final approval of the settlement in a class action lawsuit is set
for November 14, 2016.

John Blaha v. Rightscorp, Inc, C.D. Cal. (Original Complaint Filed
November 21, 2014; First Amended Complaint Filed March 9, 2015),
seeks relief for alleged violations of the Telephone Consumer
Protection Act (47 U.S.C. Sec. 227). The action is brought on
behalf of the individual named plaintiff as well as on behalf of a
putative nationwide classes.

Progress of Matter to Date: This matter was previously captioned
with Karen J. Reif and Isaac Nesmith as lead plaintiffs. On March
9, 2015, plaintiff filed a First Amended Complaint replacing the
lead plaintiffs, dropping their second and third causes of action
for Violations of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (15
U.S.C. Sec. 1692, et seq.) and Violations of the Rosenthal Fair
Debt Collection Practices Act (Cal. Civ. Code Sec. 1788 et seq.)
(and dropping associated putative class claims), and naming BMG
Rights Management (US) LLC and Warner Bros. Entertainment Inc. as
additional defendants.

The First Amended Complaint also contained a cause of action for
Abuse of Process. In response to the Abuse of Process claim,
defendants brought a special motion to strike the claim under
California's anti-SLAPP statute. Defendants' anti-SLAPP motion was
granted on May 8, 2015. Pursuant to the Court's May 8, 2015 Order,
the Abuse of Process claim (and associated putative class claim)
was stricken from the case and plaintiff was ordered to pay
defendants' attorney's fees incurred in bringing the anti-SLAPP
motion.

Following the dismissal of Plaintiff's Abuse of Process claim, the
parties agreed to mediate the dispute and reached a settlement in
principal. On June 24, 2016, the Court issued an order granting
plaintiff's motion for preliminary approval of class action
settlement. On August 1, 2016, notice was sent to the class. A
hearing regarding final approval of the settlement is set for
November 14, 2016. The Company has recorded a reserve for the
estimated settlement of $200,000 related to this, which is net of
expected insurance proceeds of $250,000.


ROBERT HALF: Attorney's Fee Award in Wage & Hour Suit Affirmed
--------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Kathryn Werdegar of the California Supreme Court affirmed a
Court of Appeals judgment in the case captioned, MARK LAFFITTE et
al., Plaintiffs and Respondents, v. ROBERT HALF INTERNATIONAL
INC., et al., Defendants and Respondents; DAVID BRENNAN, Plaintiff
and Appellant, Civil No. S222996 (Cal.)

Three related wage and hour class action lawsuits were filed
against Robert Half International Inc., a staffing firm, and
related companies in Los Angeles County Superior Court. In
September 2012, the parties jointly moved for an order
conditionally certifying a settlement class and preliminarily
approving a settlement. The trial court granted the motion and
preliminarily approved the settlement. With the court's
permission, the proposed settlement was amended in November 2012.

Under the settlement agreement as amended, Robert Half would pay a
gross settlement amount of $19 million. It was agreed class
counsel would request attorney fees of not more than $6,333,333.33
to be paid from the settlement amount. Robert Half would not
oppose a fee request up to that amount, and if a smaller amount
was approved by the court the remainder would be retained in the
settlement amount for distribution to claimants, rather than
reverting to Robert Half. The settlement agreement further
provided that any unclaimed portion of the net settlement amount
would be reallocated to qualified claimants rather than returned
to Robert Half or given to any third party.

While tentatively approving the settlement and fee request, the
trial court asked counsel for additional information and
discussion on certain points. On April 10, 2013, the trial court
overruled class member David Brennan's objections and gave the
settlement and attorney fee request its final approval.

On appeal, the objecting class member contends the trial court's
award of an attorney fee calculated as a percentage of the
settlement amount violates a holding of this court in Serrano v.
Priest (1977) 20 Cal.3d 25 (Serrano III), to the effect that every
fee award must be calculated on the basis of time spent by the
attorney or attorneys on the case.

In her Order dated August 11, 2016 available at
https://is.gd/MuzDpD from Leagle.com, Judge Werdegar held that the
trial court did not abuse its discretion in using the percentage
of fund method. The Court hold further that trial courts have
discretion to conduct a lodestar cross-check on a percentage fee
and that they also retain the discretion to forgo a lodestar
cross-check and use other means to evaluate the reasonableness of
a requested percentage fee.

Mark Laffitte, et al. are represented by Kevin T. Barnes, Esq. --
Barnes@Kbarnes.com -- and Gregg Lander, Esq. -- Lander@kbarnes.com
-- LAW OFFICES OF KEVIN T. BARNES -- Joseph Antonelli, Esq. --
jantonelli@antonellilaw.com -- and Janelle Carney, Esq. --
jcarney@antonellilaw.com -- LAW OFFICES OF JOSEPH ANTONELLI

Robert Half International, Inc. et al. are Judith M. Kline, Esq.
-- judykline@paulhastings.com -- and M. Kirby C. Wilcox, Esq. --
kirbywilcox@paulhastings.com -- PAUL HASTINGS LLP


SAM'S WEST: Court Dismisses SCUTPA Claim in "Fejzulai" Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------
In the case captioned Myriam Fejzulai, et al. Plaintiffs, v. Sam's
West, Inc., et al. Defendants, Civil Action No. 6:14-3601-BHH
(D.S.C.), Judge Bruce Howe Hendricks granted the defendant's
motion to dismiss class claims for alleged violation of the South
Carolina Unfair Trade Practices Act (SCUTPA).

The plaintiffs filed the putative class action on September 10,
2014, alleging a breach of contract claim founded on certain terms
and conditions of the Sam's Club Membership Agreement.
Specifically, the plaintiffs alleged that the defendants have, on
diverse occasions, breached the "200% Freshness Guarantee" found
in the Membership Agreement by failing to refund 200% of the
purchase price of any returned item subject to the Guarantee (or
alternatively refund 100% of the purchase price and replace the
item, as provided in the Guarantee).

The plaintiffs' cause of action for violation of SCUTPA sought to
represent a South Carolina subclass.  The defendants, however,
sought dismissal of the SCUTPA claim to the extent it is asserted
on behalf of a putative subclass.

Judge Hendricks agreed with the defendants that SCUTPA claims may
not be brought by a private party in a representative capacity and
thus, dismissed the SCUTPA claim to the extent it is brought in a
representative capacity.

A full-text copy of Judge Hendricks's September 7, 2016 opinion
and order is available at https://is.gd/AdIGzR from Leagle.com.

Myriam Fejzulai, Plaintiff, represented by William D. Herlong,
Herlong Law Firm.

Myriam Fejzulai, Monica Moore, Plaintiffs, represented by
Christopher James Moore -- cmoore@rpwb.com -- Richardson Patrick
Westbrook and Brickman, Dennis Charles Dukes, II --
cdukes@rpwb.com -- Richardson Patrick Westbrook and Brickman,
Terry Edward Richardson, Jr. -- trichardson@rpwb.com -- Richardson
Patrick Westbrook and Brickman, Thomas Christopher Tuck --
ctuck@rpwb.com -- Richardson Patrick Westbrook and Brickman &
William D. Herlong, Herlong Law Firm.

Sam's West Inc, Sam's East Inc, Wal-Mart Stores Inc, Defendants,
represented by Donna Ojetta Tillis --
donna.tillis@nelsonmullins.com -- Nelson Mullins Riley and
Scarborough, Benjamin Rush Smith, III --
rush.smith@nelsonmullins.com -- Nelson Mullins Riley and
Scarborough, Robert J. Herrington -- herrington@gtlaw.com --
Greenberg Traurig, pro hac vice & Sarah B. Nielsen --
sarah.nielsen@nelsonmullins.com -- Nelson Mullins Riley and
Scarborough.


SANDRIDGE ENERGY: Says Settlement Subject to Final Negotiations
---------------------------------------------------------------
SandRidge Energy, 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 proposed settlement
agreement in the case, In re SandRidge Energy, Inc. Securities
Litigation, is subject to final negotiations between the parties
and court approval.

On December 5, 2012, James Glitz and Rodger A. Thornberry, on
behalf of themselves and all other similarly situated
stockholders, filed a putative class action complaint in the U.S.
District Court for the Western District of Oklahoma against the
Company and certain current and former executive officers of the
Company.

On January 4, 2013, Louis Carbone, on behalf of himself and all
other similarly situated stockholders, filed a substantially
similar putative class action complaint in the same court and
against the same defendants. On March 6, 2013, the court
consolidated these two actions under the caption "In re SandRidge
Energy, Inc. Securities Litigation" (the "Securities Litigation")
and appointed a lead plaintiff and lead counsel.

On July 23, 2013, plaintiffs filed a consolidated amended
complaint, which asserts a variety of federal securities claims
against the Company and certain of its current and former officers
and directors, among other defendants, on behalf of a putative
class of (a) purchasers of SandRidge common stock during the
period from February 24, 2011 to November 8, 2012, (b) purchasers
of common units of the Mississippian Trust I in or traceable to
its initial public offering on or about April 12, 2011, and (c)
purchasers of common units of the Mississippian Trust II in or
traceable to its initial public offering on or about April 23,
2012. The claims are based on allegations that the Company,
certain of its current and former officers and directors, and the
Mississippian Trusts, among other defendants, are responsible for
making false and misleading statements, and omitting material
information, concerning a variety of subjects, including oil and
natural gas reserves, the Company's capital expenditures, and
certain transactions entered into by companies allegedly
affiliated with the Company's former CEO Tom Ward.

On May 11, 2015, the court dismissed without prejudice plaintiffs'
claims against the Mississippian Trust I and the Mississippian
Trust II (together, the "Mississippian Trusts") and the
underwriter defendants. On August 27, 2015, the court dismissed
without prejudice plaintiffs' claims against the Company and the
individual current and former officers and directors, and granted
plaintiffs leave to file a second amended consolidated complaint.

On October 23, 2015, plaintiffs filed their Second Consolidated
Amended Complaint in which plaintiffs assert federal securities
claims against the Company and certain of its current and former
officers and directors on behalf of a putative class of purchasers
of SandRidge common stock during the period between February 24,
2011, and November 8, 2012. The claims are based on allegations
that the Company and certain of its current and former officers
and directors are responsible for making false and misleading
statements, and omitting material information, concerning a
variety of subjects, including oil and gas reserves, the Company's
capital expenditures, and certain transactions entered into by
companies allegedly affiliated with the Company's former CEO Tom
Ward. Each of the Mississippian Trusts has requested that the
Company indemnify it for any losses it may incur in connection
with the Securities Litigation.

On July 15, 2013, James Hart and 15 other named plaintiffs filed
an Amended Complaint in the United States District Court for the
District of Kansas (the "Kansas District Court") in an action
undertaken individually and on behalf of others similarly situated
against SandRidge Energy, Inc., SandRidge Operating Company,
SandRidge Exploration and Production, LLC, SandRidge Midstream,
Inc., and Lariat Services, Inc. In their Amended Complaint,
plaintiffs allege that the defendants failed to properly calculate
overtime pay for the plaintiffs and for other similarly situated
current and former employees. The plaintiffs further allege that
the defendants required the plaintiffs and other similarly
situated current and former employees to engage in work-related
activities without pay. The plaintiffs assert claims against the
defendants for (i) violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act,
(ii) violations of the Kansas Wage Payment Act, (iii) breach of
contract, and (iv) fraud, and seek to recover unpaid wages and
overtime pay, liquidated damages, statutory penalties, economic
damages, compensatory and punitive damages, attorneys' fees and
costs, and both pre- and post-judgment interest.

On October 3, 2013, the plaintiffs filed a Motion for Conditional
Collective Action Certification and for Judicial Notice to the
Class and a Motion to Toll the Statute of Limitations. On October
11, 2013, the defendants filed a Motion to Dismiss and a Motion to
Transfer Venue to the United States District Court for the Western
District of Oklahoma (the "Oklahoma District Court"). On February
25, 2014, the Kansas District Court granted the defendants' Motion
to Transfer Venue to the Oklahoma District Court.

On April 2, 2014, the Oklahoma District Court granted the
defendants' Motion to Dismiss and granted plaintiffs leave to file
an amended complaint by April 16, 2014, which they did on such
date. On July 1, 2014, the Oklahoma District Court granted
plaintiffs' Motion for Conditional Collective Action Certification
and for Judicial Notice to the Class, and denied plaintiffs'
Motion to Toll the Statute of Limitations.

On May 27, 2015, the parties reached an agreement in principle to
settle this lawsuit. Pursuant to such agreement, the Company will
establish a settlement fund from which to pay participating
plaintiffs' claims as well as plaintiffs' attorneys' fees. The
proposed settlement agreement is subject to final negotiations
between the parties and court approval. During the year ended
December 31, 2015, the Company established a $5.1 million reserve
for this lawsuit.


SANDRIDGE ENERGY: Duane & Virginia Lanier Trust Case Pending
------------------------------------------------------------
SandRidge Energy, 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 continues
to defend against the case by the Duane & Virginia Lanier Trust.

On June 9, 2015, the Duane & Virginia Lanier Trust, individually
and on behalf of all others similarly situated, filed a putative
class action complaint in the U.S. District Court for the Western
District of Oklahoma against the Company and certain of its
current and former officers and directors, among other defendants,
on behalf of a putative class of (a) purchasers of common units of
the Mississippian Trust I pursuant or traceable to its initial
public offering on or about April 7, 2011, and/or at other times
during the time period between April 7, 2011, and November 8, 2012
(the "Class Period"), and (b) purchasers of common units of the
Mississippian Trust II pursuant or traceable to its initial public
offering on or about April 17, 2012, and/or at other times during
the Class Period. The claims are based on allegations that the
Company, certain of its current and former officers and directors,
and the Mississippian Trusts, among other defendants, are
responsible for making false and misleading statements, and
omitting material information, concerning a variety of subjects,
including oil and natural gas reserves and the Company's capital
expenditures.

The Company and the other defendants intend to defend this lawsuit
vigorously. Each of the Mississippian Trusts has requested that
the Company indemnify it for any losses it may incur in connection
with this lawsuit.


SANDRIDGE ENERGY: "Gernandt" Action Administratively Closed
-----------------------------------------------------------
Gernandt v. Sandridge Energy Inc et al., Case No. 5:15-cv-00834
(W.D. Okla.), was administratively terminated pursuant to a June
7, 2016, Order, without prejudice to the rights of the parties to
reopen for entry of any stipulation or order within 30 days after
the termination of SandRidge's bankruptcy proceeding.  The
Honorable Timothy D. DeGiusti signed the Administrative Closing
Order.  Judge DeGiusti also signed an order staying the case in
its entirety pending resolution of SandRidge's bankruptcy.

SandRidge Energy, 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 on July 30, 2015,
Barton Gernandt, Jr., individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, filed a putative class action complaint in the
U.S. District Court for the Western District of Oklahoma against
the Company and certain of its current and former officers and
directors, among other defendants, on behalf of a putative class
comprised of all persons, except the named defendants and their
immediate family members, who were participants in, or
beneficiaries of, the SandRidge Energy, Inc. 401(k) Plan (the
"401(k) Plan") at any time between August 2, 2012, and the
present, and whose 401(k) Plan accounts included investments in
SandRidge common stock. The plaintiff purports to bring the action
both derivatively on the 401(k) Plan's behalf pursuant to ERISA
Sections 409 and 502, and as a class action pursuant to Rule 23 of
the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. The plaintiff's claims are
based on allegations that the defendants breached their fiduciary
duties owed to the 401(k) Plan and to the 401(k) Plan participants
by allowing the investment of the 401(k) Plan's assets in
SandRidge common stock when it was otherwise allegedly imprudent
to do so based on the financial condition of the Company and the
fact the Company's common stock was artificially inflated because,
among other things, the Company materially overstated the amount
of oil being produced and the ratio of oil to natural gas in one
of its core holdings.

On August 19, 2015, Christina A. Cummings, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated, filed a putative class
action complaint in the U.S. District Court for the Western
District of Oklahoma against the Company and certain of its
current and former officers, among other defendants, on behalf of
a putative class comprised of all participants for whose
individual accounts the Plan held shares of the Company's common
stock from November 8, 2012, to the present, inclusive. The
plaintiff purports to bring the action both derivatively on the
401(k) Plan's behalf pursuant to ERISA Sections 409 and 502, and
as a class action pursuant to Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of
Civil Procedure. The plaintiff's claims are based on allegations
that the defendants breached their fiduciary duties owed to the
401(k) Plan and to the 401(k) Plan participants by allowing the
investment of the 401(k) Plan's assets in the Company's common
stock when it was otherwise allegedly imprudent to do so based on
the financial condition of the Company. On September 10, 2015, the
Court consolidated this lawsuit with the Gernandt action.

On September 14, 2015, Richard A. McWilliams, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated, filed a putative class
action complaint in the U.S. District Court for the Western
District of Oklahoma against the Company and certain of its
current and former officers and directors, among other defendants,
on behalf of a putative class comprised of all persons, except the
named defendants and their immediate family members, who were
participants in, or beneficiaries of, the 401(k) Plan at any time
between August 2, 2012, and the present, and whose 401(k) Plan
accounts included investments in SandRidge common stock. The
plaintiff purports to bring the action both derivatively on the
401(k) Plan's behalf pursuant to ERISA Sections 409 and 502, and
as a class action pursuant to Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of
Civil Procedure. The plaintiff's claims are based on allegations
that the defendants breached their fiduciary duties owed to the
401(k) Plan and to the 401(k) Plan participants by allowing the
investment of the 401 (k) Plan's assets in the Company's common
stock when it was otherwise allegedly imprudent to do so based on
the financial condition of the Company and the fact the Company's
common stock was artificially inflated because, among other
things, the Company materially overstated the amount of oil being
produced and the ratio of oil to natural gas in one of its core
holdings. On September 24, 2015, the Court consolidated this
lawsuit with the Gernandt action.

On November 24, 2015, the plaintiffs filed a Consolidated Class
Action Complaint in the consolidated Gernandt action. The Company
intends to defend this consolidated lawsuit vigorously.


SANDRIDGE ENERGY: Griggs and Marler Dismissed Lawsuit
-----------------------------------------------------
SandRidge Energy, 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 Lisa Griggs and April
Marler voluntarily dismissed their lawsuit without prejudice.

On November 18, 2015, Mickey Peck, on behalf of himself and others
similarly situated, filed a First Amended Collective Action
Complaint in the United States District Court for the Western
District of Oklahoma against SandRidge Energy, Inc., and SandRidge
Operating Company for violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act.
Plaintiff alleges that the Company improperly classified certain
of its consultants as independent contractors rather than as
employees and, therefore, improperly paid such consultants a day
rate without paying any overtime compensation.

On January 14, 2016, the Court entered an Order conditionally
certifying the class and providing for notice.

On January 12, 2016, Lisa Griggs and April Marler, on behalf of
themselves and all other similarly situated, filed a putative
class action petition in the District Court of Logan County,
Oklahoma, against SandRidge Exploration and Production, LLC, and
certain other oil and gas exploration companies. In their
petition, plaintiffs assert various tort claims based upon
purported damage and loss resulting from earthquakes allegedly
caused by the defendants' operations of wastewater disposal wells.
Plaintiffs seek to certify a class of "all residents of Oklahoma
owning real property from 2011 through the time the Class is
certified."

On February 16, 2016, the defendants filed a Notice of Removal of
the lawsuit to the Oklahoma District Court. On April 8, 2016, the
plaintiffs filed a Motion to Remand the action back to the
District Court of Logan County, Oklahoma. On June 30, 2016, the
Oklahoma District Court denied the plaintiffs' Motion to Remand.
On July 21, 2016, the plaintiffs voluntarily dismissed this
lawsuit without prejudice.


SANDRIDGE ENERGY: Anadarko Basin Antitrust Suit Underway
--------------------------------------------------------
SandRidge Energy, 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 case, In re
Anadarko Basin Oil and Gas Lease Antitrust Litigation, remains
pending.

On March 3, 2016, Brian Thieme, on behalf of himself and all
others similarly situated, filed a putative class action complaint
in the United States District Court for the Western District of
Oklahoma against SandRidge Energy, Inc. and the Company's former
CEO, Tom L. Ward, among other defendants. Plaintiff alleges that,
commencing on or around December 27, 2007, and continuing until at
least March 31, 2012, the defendants conspired to rig bids and
depress the market for the purchases of oil and natural gas
leasehold interests and properties containing producing oil and
natural gas wells located in certain areas of Oklahoma, Texas,
Colorado and Kansas, in violation of Sections 1 and 3 of the
Sherman Antitrust Act. Plaintiff seeks to certify two separate and
distinct classes of members.

On March 10, 2016, Don Beadles, in Trust for the Alva Synagogue
Church, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated,
filed a putative class action complaint in the United States
District Court for the Western District of Oklahoma against
SandRidge Energy, Inc. and the Company's former CEO, Tom L. Ward,
among other defendants. Plaintiff alleges that since as early as
December 2007, and continuing until at least as late as March 2012
(the "Relevant Class Period"), the defendants conspired to rig
bids and otherwise depress the amounts they paid to property
owners for the acquisition of oil and gas leasehold interests and
producing properties located in certain areas of Oklahoma, Texas,
Colorado and Kansas, in violation of Sections 1 and 3 of the
Sherman Antitrust Act. Plaintiff seeks to certify a class of
"[a]ll persons and entities that, during the Relevant Class
Period, provided or sold to one of more of the Defendants (a) oil
and gas leasehold interests on their property and/or (b) the
producing properties, in exchange for lease payments, including
but not limited to lease bonuses."

On March 24, 2016, Janet L. Lowry, on behalf of herself and all
others similarly situated, filed a putative class action complaint
in the United States District Court for the Western District of
Oklahoma against SandRidge Energy, Inc. and the Company's former
CEO, Tom L. Ward, among other defendants. Plaintiff alleges that,
commencing on or around December 27, 2007, and continuing until at
least March 31, 2012, the defendants conspired to rig bids and
depress the price of royalty and bonus payments exchanged for
purchases of oil and natural gas leasehold interests and interests
in properties containing producing oil and natural gas wells
located in certain areas of Oklahoma, Texas, Colorado and Kansas,
in violation of Section 1 of the Sherman Antitrust Act. Plaintiff
seeks to certify two separate and distinct classes of members.

On April 15, 2016, the United States District Court for the
Western District of Oklahoma consolidated the Thieme, Beadles, and
Lowry cases under the caption "In re Anadarko Basin Oil and Gas
Lease Antitrust Litigation," together with nine additional
subsequently filed cases, as well as with any other cases pending
in the court, alleging similar violations under the Sherman
Antitrust Act and the Oklahoma Antitrust Reform Act.


SANDRIDGE ENERGY: Dismissed from "Koppitz" Lawsuit
--------------------------------------------------
SandRidge Energy, 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 Harold Koppitz has
voluntarily dismissed the Company from a class action lawsuit
without prejudice.

On March 29, 2016, Harold Koppitz, on behalf of himself and all
others similarly situated, filed a putative class action petition
in the District Court of Woods County, Oklahoma, against SandRidge
Energy, Inc. and the Company's former CEO, Tom L. Ward, among
other defendants. Plaintiff alleges that, commencing on or around
February 1, 2007, and continuing until at least March 31, 2012,
the defendants conspired to rig bids and depress the market for
purchases of oil and natural gas leasehold interests located
within the State of Oklahoma in violation of the Oklahoma
Antitrust Reform Act. Plaintiff seeks to certify two separate and
distinct classes of members. On August 3, 2016, the plaintiff
voluntarily dismissed the Company from this lawsuit without
prejudice.

On April 26, 2016, the defendants filed a Notice of Removal of the
lawsuit to the United States District Court for the Western
District of Oklahoma. On that same date, plaintiff voluntarily
dismissed his petition.

On April 29, 2016, plaintiff filed a new petition in the District
Court of Woods County, Oklahoma, against SandRidge Energy, Inc.
and the Company's former CEO, Tom L. Ward, among other defendants,
in which plaintiff makes allegations substantially similar to the
allegations contained in his original petition.


SANDRIDGE ENERGY: Dismissed from "Mallory" Action
-------------------------------------------------
SandRidge Energy, 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 Wesley and Towanda
Mallory have voluntarily dismissed without prejudice the Company
as a defendant in their class action lawsuit.

On April 13, 2016, Wesley and Towanda Mallory, on behalf of
themselves and all others similarly situated, filed a putative
class action petition in the District Court of Stephens County,
Oklahoma, against SandRidge Energy, Inc. and the Company's former
CEO, Tom L. Ward, among other defendants.

Plaintiffs allege that, commencing on or around December 27, 2007,
and continuing until at least April 1, 2013 (the "Class Period"),
the defendants conspired to rig bids and depress prices for oil
and natural gas leasehold and working interests and producing
properties within the State of Oklahoma in violation of the
Oklahoma Antitrust Reform Act.

Plaintiffs seek to certify a class of "[a]ll Oklahoma citizens and
entities that, during the relevant Class Period, provided or sold
to one of more of the Defendants (a) oil and gas leasehold
interests on their property and/or (b) the producing properties or
interests relating to land located in the Anadarko Basin Region,
in exchange for lease payments, including but not limited to lease
bonuses." On May 26, 2016, the plaintiffs voluntarily dismissed
without prejudice the Company as a defendant in this action.

No further updates were provided in the Company's SEC report.


SHIPCOM WIRELESS: "Hendrix" Lawsuit Seeks OT Pay Under FLSA
-----------------------------------------------------------
Felicia Hendrix, Cynthia Brown, Omar Mohammad, Carum Rogers, John
Eberle, Doug Shipe, Brian Quinn, and Michelle Yarborough, on
behalf of themselves and others similarly situated, Plaintiffs,
vs. Shipcom Wireless, Inc., Defendant, Case 4:16-cv-02714 (S.D.
Tex., September 7, 2016), seeks to recover unpaid overtime wages
under the Fair Labor Standards Act.

Shipcom Wireless, Inc. -- http://www.shipcomwireless.com/--
develops integrated supply chain execution software solutions that
focus on radio frequency identification (RFID) and enterprise
mobility markets in the United States and internationally.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

     Daryl J. Sinkule, Esq.
     Mark G. Lazarz, Esq.
     SHELLIST LAZARZ SLOBIN LLP
     11 Greenway Plaza, Suite 1515
     Houston, TX 77046
     Phone: (713) 621-2277
     Fax: (713) 621-0993
     E-mail: mlazarz@eeoc.net
             dsinkule@eeoc.net


SOCIAL SECURITY: Robson's U.S. Totalization Benefits Affirmed
-------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Nathanael M. Cousins affirmed the determination made by the
administrative law judge (ALJ) of Richard Robson's benefits in the
case captioned RICHARD H. ROBSON, Plaintiff, v. CAROLYN W. COLVIN,
Defendant, Case No. 15-cv-03652 NC (N.D. Cal.).

Robson has social security retirement credits in the United States
and in Canada.  On December 6, 2011, the Social Security
Administration (SSA) granted Robson's application for U.S.
Totalization benefits beginning on October 1, 2011, awarding him
monthly benefits.  Robson requested a review of the SSA's
calculation of his benefits, arguing that he was entitled to a
higher monthly payment.  After denial by the agency, Robson
requested a hearing in front of an administrative law judge (ALJ).
After a hearing, the ALJ found that Robson's benefits were
correctly calculated.  Robson appealed and the appellate panel
denied his appeal.

On August 10, 2015, Robson appealed the Commissioner's decision to
the district court, proceeding pro se.  On April 29, 2016, Robson
filed a motion to strike the defendant's answer, estop defendant,
make the case a class action, and for summary judgment.  The court
denied this motion, finding that it failed to refer to the
administrative record and was outside the scope of the court's
administrative review authority.  The court gave Robson an
opportunity renew his motion for summary judgment based on the
administrative record.  Instead, Robson filed a motion for
reconsideration (also titled a motion for summary judgment) and a
motion for sanctions.

Judge Cousins found that Robson presented no new law or facts to
support his motion for reconsideration, so the court did not
reconsider the rulings it already made.  The judge also found that
the ALJ's decision is supported by substantial evidence and there
is no error of law.

A full-text copy of Judge Cousins' September 7, 2016 order is
available at https://is.gd/4JLqjK from Leagle.com.

Carolyn W. Colvin, Defendant, represented by Patrick William
Snyder, Social Security Administration & Sara Winslow, United
States Attorney's Office.


SOLAR CITY: Faces "Daugherty" Labor Litigation in California
------------------------------------------------------------
BREANA DAUGHERTY, on behalf of herself, all others similarly
situated, and the general public, Plaintiff, vs. SOLAR CITY
CORPORATION, a Delaware Corporation; and DOES 1-50, inclusive,
Defendants, Case No. 3:16-cv-05155-JCS (N.D. Cal., September 7,
2016), is a complaint for failure to provide meal periods, failure
to provide rest periods, failure to pay hourly wages, failure to
provide accurate written wage statements, failure to timely pay
all final wages, and unfair competition, among others.

SolarCity Corporation designs, manufactures, installs, monitors,
maintains, leases, and sells solar energy systems to government,
residential, and commercial customers in the United States.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Shaun Setareh, Esq.
     Thomas Segal, Esq.
     SETAREH LAW GROUP
     9454 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 907
     Beverly Hills, CA 90212
     Phone: (31 0) 888-7771
     Fax: (31 0) 888-01 09
     E-mail: thomas@setarehlaw.com
             shaun@setarehlaw.com


SPECTRA ENERGY: Faces "Boyd" Lawsuit Under FLSA, NY Labor Law
-------------------------------------------------------------
Jeff Boyd on Behalf of Himself and on Behalf of All Others
Similarly Situated, Plaintiff, v. Spectra Energy Operating
Company, LLC, Defendant, Case 7:16-cv-06902 (S.D.N.Y., September
1, 2016), was filed under the Fair Labor Standards Act and the New
York Labor Law.

Defendant provides pipeline inspection services across the
country.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

        - and -

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


SUBARU OF AMERICA: Settles Class Suit Over Oil Consumption Issue
----------------------------------------------------------------
Jim Walsh, writing for Courier-Post, reports that Subaru of
America could put new engines in vehicles under an agreement to
resolve a class-action lawsuit against the Cherry Hill firm.

A federal judge gave final approval on Aug. 31 to settlement of
the suit, which contends some Subaru vehicles were subject to
excessive oil consumption.

The suit, filed in July 2014, also alleged Subaru was
"unresponsive" to customer complaints and set "an unreasonably
high threshold" for oil-consumption testing, according to a ruling
by U.S. District Judge Jerome Simandle in Camden.

The agreement covers vehicles built between 2011 and 2015 for the
Forester, Impreza, Crosstrek, Legacy and Outback models.  More
than 665,000 people owned or leased vehicles in those categories,
according to the suit.

Under the settlement, Subaru denies wrongdoing.  The company
asserts its vehicles were "properly designed, manufactured,
distributed, advertised, warranted and sold."

The firm also contends "more than 98 percent of the settlement
class vehicles have not experienced, and will not experience, any
oil consumption concerns," according to Judge Simandle's decision.

"We believe that by this settlement, Subaru has affirmed its
reputation for standing behind its products and taking care of its
customers," company spokesman Michael McHale said on Sept. 1.

According to the ruling, Subaru has agreed to install a
"redesigned" engine, worth about $4,000, "and other
countermeasures" in some vehicles found to have oil-burning
issues.

"One would expect the oil defect rate to become negligible and the
prospect of a second (engine) replacement to be very small," Judge
Simandle said.

The settlement also offers free oil-consumption testing and
reimbursement for past expenses, including "certain repairs and
replacements of engine components," the ruling said.  It extends
warranty protection for problems related to excessive oil
consumption.

The settlement, which does not have an overall price tag, "is
secured by Subaru's financial strength," Judge Simandle added.

He noted the carmaker must file quarterly reports on claims made
by its customers.

Judge Simandle, who gave preliminary approval in January, said the
settlement was "fair, reasonable and adequate."

He said the response from Subaru owners "has been strongly
positive," with only 34 people -- "a trace amount" -- filing
formal objections.  The judge noted 2,328 people had opted out of
the settlement, but said that represented just 0.35 percent of the
overall group.

He rejected arguments that the settlement did not address a
possible loss in value for affected Subarus, saying the vehicles
could command a higher price with a new engine.

The settlement also calls for Subaru to pay up to $1.5 million to
attorneys who sued the auto company.  It provides $3,500 for each
of nine people who were named as plaintiffs.


TATA CONSULTANCY: "Hall" Suit Seeks Moved to S.D. Cal.
------------------------------------------------------
A lawsuit titled Joshua Hall, an individual, on behalf of himself
and on behalf of all persons similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v.
Tata Consultancy Services Limited, a Corporation and Does 1-50,
Inclusive, the Defendant, Case No. 37-02016-00016447-CU-OE-CTL,
was removed from the Superior Court of California, County of San
Diego, to the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of
California (San Diego). The Southern District Court Clerk assigned
Case No. 3:16-cv-02272-CAB-MDD to the proceeding. The assigned
Judge is Hon. Cathy Ann Bencivengo.

Tata Consultancy is an Indian multinational information technology
service, consulting and business solutions company.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Norman B Blumenthal, Esq.
          BLUMENTHAL, NORDREHAUG & BHOWMIK
          2255 Calle Clara
          La Jolla, CA 92037
          Telephone: (858) 551 1223
          Facsimile: (858) 551 1232
          E-mail: norm@bamlawlj.com

               - and -

          Adam Ryan Rosenthal, Esq.
          SHEPPARD MULLIN
          RICHTER & HAMPTON LLP
          12275 El Camino Real, Suite 200
          San Diego, CA 92130
          Telephone: (858) 720 8900
          Facsimile: (858) 509 3691
          E-mail: arosenthal@sheppardmullin.com


TOYOTA MOTOR: Faces Class Action in California Over Airbag Recall
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Wadi Reformado, writing for Northern California Record, reports
that a Marina del Rey Lexus owner has filed a class-action lawsuit
against Toyota over its handling of an airbag recall.

Carole B. Black filed a complaint on behalf of all others
similarly situated on Aug. 24 in the U.S. District Court for the
Central District of California, Western Division against Toyota
Motor Sales U.S.A. Inc.; Toyota Motor Engineering & Manufacturing
North America Inc.; and Sullivan Luxury Cars LLC, doing business
as Lexus Santa Monica, alleging violation of the Magnuson-Moss
Warranty Act, California False Advertising Law, California Unfair
Competition Law and other counts.

According to the complaint, the plaintiff alleges that in July,
she received a notice regarding a recall due to a defective Takata
airbag in her vehicle.  The plaintiff alleges she contacted Toyota
about replacing the airbag, but was told the company does not have
a current plan to replace them or parts. Once the parts are
available, the suit states, those affected by the recall will be
placed in a queue for repairs.

The plaintiff holds Toyota Motor Sales U.S.A. Inc.; Toyota Motor
Engineering & Manufacturing North America Inc.; and Sullivan
Luxury Cars LLC responsible because the defendants allegedly
failed to provide proper remedy to the defective airbag that is
present on their vehicles.

The plaintiff requests a trial by jury and seeks award of
compensatory, exemplary, punitive and statutory damages;
disgorgement of all allegedly ill-gotten profits; all legal fees
and interest; and any other relief as the court deems just.  She
is represented by Shannon A. Lang of Shannon A. Lang PLLC in
Houston.

U.S. District Court for the Central District of California,
Western Division Case number 2:16-cv-06343-CBM-AGR


UBER TECHNOLOGIES: Urges Calif. Judge to Reject NLRB Subpoenas
--------------------------------------------------------------
Rebekah Mintzer, writing for Law.com, reports that Uber
Technologies Inc. is urging a California judge to reject National
Labor Relations Board subpoenas that seek nationwide information
about the ride-sharing company's relationships with its drivers.
Uber, represented by Littler Mendelson, on Sept. 12 said the labor
board's subpoenas, rooted in claims from two drivers in
California, are "nationwide, overly broad and burdensome."

The NLRB subpoenas are part of an inquiry from the board into
whether Uber drivers are statutory employees and thus protected by
federal labor law.  The agency says it cannot make that threshold
determination based on information about only two drivers.

Uber's lawyers pointed to court rulings over the past six years in
which federal judges have questioned the merits of the Equal
Employment Opportunity Commission's nationwide discovery rooted in
specific circumstances.

"The [NLRB] ignores the fact that courts consistently decline to
enforce agency subpoenas seeking nationwide information on the
basis of individual charges," Littler Mendelson's Robert Hulteng -
- rhulteng@littler.com -- said in a court filing in the U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of California.

Mr. Hulteng wasn't immediately reached for comment on Sept. 13.
The NLRB declined to comment.

NLRB lawyers challenge Uber's assertion that courts have refused
to enforce regulatory agencies' nationwide subpoenas.  Courts have
upheld those subpoenas "when the matters under investigation are
nationwide in scope," NLRB lawyers Carmen Leon and Christy Kwon
said in the Sept. 12 court papers, filed jointly with Uber.

The NLRB pointed to a case in which a North Carolina judge ruled
in August in favor of NLRB subpoenas that sought information from
Raleigh Restaurant Concepts Inc., doing business as The Men's Club
of Raleigh.  The subpoena dispute was related to a case in which
an exotic dancer alleged that The Men's Club misclassified
performers as independent contractors.

The Men's Club, represented by a team from Jackson Lewis, refused
to disclose copies of rules and handbooks that apply to the
company's entertainers.

U.S. District Judge James Dever III of the Eastern District of
North Carolina found the NLRB's request "reasonably" related to
the board's investigation of alleged labor violations.  The Men's
Club on Sept. 9 took the dispute to the U.S. Court of Appeals for
the Fourth Circuit.

Regulators, in seeking national information, cited Uber's
estimation of having 700,000 drivers across the country.
"Because [Uber] operates nationwide, the threshold issue became
nationwide, resulting in the subpoenas seeking nationwide
information," NLRB lawyers said in the Sept. 12 court filing.
"Thus, the scope of the subpoenas is not overbroad or irrelevant
but is driven by the scope of Uber's own business model."

The subpoena dispute is unfolding as a recent Ninth Circuit ruling
places a major challenge to Uber's class action waivers in front
of an arbitrator, not a federal judge.  The appeals court ruled on
Sept. 7 that drivers suing the company could be bound by
arbitration agreements.

The ruling was a big victory for Uber, which has faced with a
barrage of suits over employment issues like driver classification
and background checks in recent years.


UNITED SERVICES: Five Attorneys Face Sanctions in Class Action
--------------------------------------------------------------
Dawn Geske, writing for Legal Newsline, reports that while
initially calling out 16 lawyers for possible sanctions on both
sides of a class action settlement, a federal judge has ordered
five of those attorneys to be sanctioned.

The five lawyers that were reprimanded are D. Matt Keil, John C
Goodson, Jason Earnest Roselius, Martin Weber Jr. and Richard E.
Norman.  Chief Judge P.K. Holmes III for the U.S. District Court
of the Western District of Arkansas handed down the sanctions
after the attorneys allegedly violated Rule 11 by dismissing a
class action case from his federal court and refiling it in a
state court for a more favorable settlement outcome.

On Aug. 3, an order was issued confirming that the sanctions
against the attorneys were necessary.  The attorneys under
scrutiny argued that they had never been sanctioned before and
that dismissal was commonplace in class action suits.

The attorneys also claimed that the federal court failed to have
the correct authority to review the settlement, since no class was
approved at the time that the case was dismissed from the federal
court.

The court proceeded with the sanctions against the attorneys,
issuing only reprimands to them and not taking more serious
actions.

"I am not surprised," D. Matthew Allen -- mallen@carltonfields.com
-- shareholder at Carlton Fields, told Legal Newsline.  "This area
of the law is not as black and white as the court implied in its
order.

"The court even recognized in its orders that the practice of
voluntarily dismissing a case in federal court to effectuate a
settlement in state court is a common practice in some parts of
the country, including Arkansas.  I think that is why the
sanctions were not more onerous or extensive."

The attorneys who were reprimanded were found to have violated
Rule 11 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.  The class action
case against USAA Insurance Co. involved insurance claims that had
allegedly excessive depreciation costs figured into them.

The case spent several months in federal court, but after it was
dismissed, a settlement was filed the next day in a state court.
Judge Holmes felt the two sides had wasted his court's time.

A total of $1,850,000 in fees and expenses were issued to the
plaintiffs attorneys in the case in a quick pay provision with a
total settlement of $3,445,598.  While the attorneys were paid out
immediately, only a total of 650 claims were filed, while a
settlement of this size should have affected in the range of
15,000 individuals, which Judge Holmes said was caused by moving
to a state court.

Judge Holmes said the attorneys abused the judicial system and
were gaming the system to give themselves a better payout.

While reprimands were a light sanction for the attorneys, they may
serve as a deterrent to other class action lawyers that shop court
venues for the most favorable settlement award.

"It may well do so," Mr. Allen said.  "The court's orders have
received wide publication in the class action bar, and they may
well have an impact on the use of this practice.  Certainly,
litigants will need to take these orders into account in
attempting something similar in the future."


UNITED STATES: Judge to Hear Suit Agaisnt DOL's Fiduciary Rule
--------------------------------------------------------------
Nick Thornton, writing for Benefits Pro, reports that the U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of Texas, which is
scheduled to hear a consolidated lawsuit against the Department of
Labor's fiduciary rule on November 17, 2016, will consider two
amici briefs supportive of the rule.

As first reported in Think Advisor, BenefitsPro's sister
publication, six other submitted briefs were rejected by Judge
Barbara Lynn.

The brief submitted by the Financial Planning Coalition, a
consortium of three associations representing more than 80,000
financial planning professionals that are required to operate
under a fiduciary standard, makes several arguments that strike at
the core of the allegations raised by plaintiffs in the
consolidated suit, which include the Securities Industry Financial
Markets Association, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, and the Insured
Retirement Institute.

And a brief filed by American Association for Justice, formerly
known as the American Trial Lawyers Association, which lobbies on
behalf of plaintiffs' bar interests, defends the class-action
provision Labor crafted in the rule's Best Interest Contract
Exemption.

Coalition argues rule won't harm small investors

Throughout the rule-making process, opponents of the DOL argued
that requiring all advisors to IRAs and 401(k) plans with less
than $50 million in assets to serve as fiduciaries would have the
unintended consequence of limiting small investors' access to
investment advice.

And since its finalization, opponents have argued the rule will
have the effect of banning commission-based compensation on
investment products, which are considered prohibited transactions
under the rule's BIC exemption.

The Financial Planning Coalition argues both those arguments are
not based in fact.

In order to comply with the BIC exemption, a preponderance of
commission-based brokerage accounts are expected to move to a fee-
based form of compensation.

Plaintiffs suing the DOL argue that will disincentivize brokers
from servicing lower-value accounts.

But the Coalition argues that "thousands" of its members offer
fiduciary-level advice to "everyday" Americans requiring no, or
very low minimum assets under management.


VERIZON COMMUNICATIONS: Faces Suit Under FLSA, Penn. Labor Laws
---------------------------------------------------------------
ROBERT DONOGHUE, ROBERT KICKLIGHTER, THOMAS ADAMS, TERRI BARRETT
and MARK DAIELLO, for Themselves and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. VERIZON COMMUNICATIONS, INC., TESINC LLC,
EVANS SPLICING, LLC and PS SPLICING, LLC, Defendants, Case 2:16-
cv-04742-MAK (E.D. Pa., September 1, 2016), was filed under the
Fair Labor Standards Act, the Pennsylvania Minimum Wage Act, the
Pennsylvania Wage Payment and Collection Law, and the New Jersey
Wage and Hour Law.

The Defendant entities are inter-related and commonly-controlled
businesses that, among other things, construct, install and
service cable television, telephone, and internet services across
the country, including the states of Pennsylvania and New Jersey.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

     David J. Cohen, Esq.
     STEPHAN ZOURAS, LLP
     604 Spruce Street
     Philadelphia, PA 19106
     Phone: 215-873-4836
     Fax: 312-233-1560

        - and -

     Ryan F. Stephan, Esq.
     Andrew Ficzko, Esq.
     STEPHAN ZOURAS, LLP
     205 N. Michigan Avenue, Suite 2560
     Chicago, IL 60601
     Phone: 312-233-1550
     Fax: 312-233-1560


VOLKSWAGEN AG: 200,000 Vehicle Owners Opt for Buyback Program
-------------------------------------------------------------
Marc Stern, writing for Torque News, reports that more than
200,000 VW owners have opted for the Dieselgate buyback program,
surprising some legal authorities with the speed with which it
happened, about a month or a little more.

Although it is the more expensive option, Volkswagen may be happy
that more than 200,000 consumers affected by the Dieselgate
scandal are opting for the cash buyback and not a fix.  The reason
is that the automaker may avoid further penalties as each vehicle
the carmaker buys back is one more off the road.  VW must get 85
percent of the emissions-cheating cars off the road to prevent
more penalties.

The settlement VW worked out with consumers and regulators to
settle the class-action suit calls for:

   -- A cash buyback of affected vehicles
   -- Or, $5,100
   -- Or, a free fix, if one should be approved and become
      available
   -- 44 Percent Opt In, So Far

Nearly 44 percent of the 482,000 U.S. drivers affected by the
emissions-cheating settlement are going for the gold and not the
fix, said the lead attorney in the class-action suit.
Elizabeth Crabaser indicated the numbers could change if a fix
were to become available.  Indeed, the automaker has reason to be
concerned if a fix is approved because the numbers could change
radically.

A Canadian VW diesel owner recently told Torque News that he was
quite happy with his Jetta TDI.  Indeed, if a fix were available,
he would opt for it to keep his diesel on the road.  He is
satisfied with the performance of his VW that he plans to trade
for another because he expects there will be "good deals
available."  His comments are representative of the views of many
owners of the vehicles involved in the Dieselgate buyback program.

At the moment, Volkswagen is in the clear as its fixes have been
rejected by the California Air Resources Board (CARB) and the
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).  There is still no fix
available for the 2.0-liter, four-cylinder diesel engine, although
there has been some indication that there could be a fix for
85,000 3.0-liter V-6 diesel powerplants that have been used in
luxury VW, Porsche and Audi vehicles by October. (In Europe, the
automaker has received permission to begin fixing up to 8.5
million of the 11 million 2.0-liter-engine-equipped vehicles
caught up in Dieselgate.)

Interestingly, the speed with which 210,000 consumers have
registered for the buyback has surprised legal experts.
Deborah Hensler, who teaches law at Stanford, with an emphasis on
multi-district and international class-action suits, seemed
surprised when she told an interviewer: "Wow.  This is a huge
number in a relatively short period of time (a bit over a month).
But, on the other hand, it would be shocking if a huge fraction of
class members were to opt out when it has not been made
inordinately difficult for class members to register."

Volkswagen has set aside about $10 billion to buy back vehicles
equipped with 2.0-liter, four-cylinder engines, the majority of
powerplants involved in the VW-inspired scam where cheatware
(software used to cheat) was installed in millions of vehicles to
make it appear as if those vehicles met the U.S. standard for NOx
emissions, even as they were still pumping out pollutants.


VOLKSWAGEN AG: ACCC to Launch Legal Action Over "Defeat Software"
-----------------------------------------------------------------
David McCowen, writing for Drive, reports that Australia's
consumer watchdog has launched an assault on Volkswagen and its
local distributors, claiming the carmaker broke local laws and
lied to customers about its products.

The ACCC will pursue action against Volkswagen's German
headquarters and its Australian operation in Federal Court.  It
alleges that between 2011 and 2015, the manufacturer engaged in
misleading conduct "by installing and not disclosing the existence
and operation of 'defeat' software" to reduce vehicle emissions.

The body says Volkswagen falsely claimed its vehicles complied
with regulatory requirements "when, because of the defeat
software, this was not the case", and that it sold vehicles as
being environmentally friendly "when this was not the case under
normal driving conditions".

For its part, Volkswagen Australia says it is reviewing the ACCC's
claims, and that the court action does not provide "any practical
benefit to consumers because software solutions for cars affected
by the voluntary recall are expected soon".

The company's managing director, Michael Bartsch, says "the best
outcome for customers whose vehicle is affected is to have the
voluntary recall service updates installed".

ACCC chair Rod Sims takes a different view, saying the carmaker
"engaged in multiple breaches of the Australian consumer law".

"Consumers rightly expect that their vehicle's emissions would
operate as advertised during their day-to-day use and we allege
that this was not the case with more than 57,000 vehicles sold in
Australia by Volkswagen over a five-year period," Mr. Sims says.

"These allegations involve extraordinary conduct of a serious and
deliberate nature by a global corporation and its Australian
subsidiary misleading consumers and the Australian public.  We
expect higher standards of behavior from all companies that supply
to Australian consumers."

Volkswagen is currently defending class action lawsuits in Federal
Court, where representatives for the brand maintain "there is no
defeat device" in local models.

That is despite the company issuing a media release in October
2015 saying it received "notification from the head office of the
Volkswagen Group that certain diesel vehicles sold in Australia
were fitted with software that can affect their emissions during a
dynometer test".

Mr. Bartsch told reporters at a meeting in August many people
misunderstood differences in emissions requirements between
Australia and other countries.

"The situations in Australia and the US, or EU counties and the US
are very, very different," he said at the time.

"Under Australian law we don't believe there is anything in our
car which is illegal.

"We have not broken any laws.

"We do not believe that our cars have or will ever have broken
environmental standards in Australia."


VOLKSWAGEN AG: Vehicle Owner Questions Fairness of Settlement
-------------------------------------------------------------
Suzelle Smith -- ssmith@howarth-smith.com -- of Howarth & Smith
and Virginia counsel, James Feinman, filed a Motion on behalf of
Virginia VW owner, Ronald Fleshman, Jr., seeking leave of Court to
take the depositions of those individuals designated as the
representatives of Virginia in consumers in the Class Action
lawsuit against Volkswagen, In Re: Volkswagen "Clean Diesel"
Marketing, Sales Practices, And Products Liability Litigation
action filed in federal court in San Francisco (Case No. 3:15-MD-
02672-CRB).  While the $10 billion class action settlement on
behalf of Volkswagen purchasers is being touted as fair and
reasonable by the lawyers and government officials who brokered
the deal with Volkswagen, the new filing by counsel for
Mr. Fleshman on behalf of himself and other similarly situated
Virginians, points out that given Volkswagen's admitted fraud on
the public and intentional violation of U.S. law, the settlement
lets VW completely off the hook with a huge discount.

In testimony given to Congress, when asked if Volkswagen installed
defeat device software "for the express purpose of defeating
emissions controls," Michael Horn, the CEO of Volkswagen admitted
that they were "installed for this purpose, yes, for this
purpose."  In cases of intentional fraud in the sale of motor
vehicles, Virginia law allows a consumer to return the car to
Volkswagen for a full refund of the purchase price, in addition to
recovery of attorneys' fees and punitive damages to punish
Volkswagen for its deliberate misconduct.  However, the proposed
class action settlement only requires Volkswagen to buyback these
vehicles for a portion of the purchase price and has no punitive
component, which calls into question the quality of representation
that Virginia owners are receiving in this Class Action.  Mr.
Fleshman seeks to question the Virginians who are purporting to
speak for and protect the rights of other Virginians like himself,
who were not allowed to negotiate with Volkswagen on the
settlement.  Suzelle Smith, counsel for Mr. Fleshman, stated: "If
the Virginia Class Representatives do not understand the terms of
the settlement and how it compares to full compensation and
penalties available under the law, then they cannot by definition
protect the rights of other Virginians. This is what we have a
right to find out by asking them under oath."

The proposed settlement also violates the Clean Air Act as it
purports to allow owners of these "dirty diesels" to continue
driving their polluting cars in violation of various State
Implementation Plans that have been approved by the EPA.  Pursuant
to the Clean Air Act, thirteen states, including Virginia, have
passed regulations making it illegal to drive cars that lack
proper emission controls, such as these "dirty diesel"
Volkswagens.

Volkswagen's business plan to sell the illegal cars counted on the
U.S. judicial system, government and private lawyers, not holding
VW accountable fully under the available laws.  For example, in
filings made in lawsuits in Braunschweig, Germany, Volkswagen
documents stated "the theoretical possibility that sanctions might
be imposed due to a potential violation of U.S. environmental
protection provisions seemed at the time to pose only a moderate
cost risk."

With liability and fraud admitted, counsel for Mr. Fleshman argue
that Volkswagen should be required to return the purchase price of
all the illegal vehicles, plus attorneys' fees, plus an amount to
deter Volkswagen and others from any such conduct in the future.
Further, all the illegal vehicles should be removed from the road
immediately by VW.  "There has never been a case in the United
States where a major company has admitted that its business plans
for marketing a product involved intentional illegal conduct and
fraud.  This case is unique and saying that it is the biggest
settlement in history is not the right measure. If the government
and the Court let VW off with this settlement, that unscrupulous
business plan will have worked, and VW will profit by its
conduct," said Suzelle Smith of Howarth & Smith. Ms. Smith asked:
"What message does such a deal send to other manufacturers
evaluating whether US laws have teeth? And do the Class
Representatives actually understand that this is what they are
consenting to for all other Virginia VW owners?"

Lead Counsel who brokered the settlement deal for the class of
consumers have asked for an undisclosed amount of attorneys' fees,
at a minimum in excess of $340 million and potentially many times
more.  The hearing on Mr. Fleshman's motion to take these
depositions is set for September 30, 2016, in Courtroom 6 of the
Honorable Charles R. Beyer, located in the United States District
Court for the Northern District of California, 450 Golden Gate
Avenue, San Francisco, California 94102. Objections to the
settlement will be argued on October 18, 2016, before the
Honorable Charles Breyer.  Mr. Fleshman's Motion for Leave of
Court to Depose Virginia Class Representatives can be found on the
court's PACER system at https://www.pacer.gov/


WAKE FOREST: "Burkholder" Suit Transferred to N. Dist. of Ill.
--------------------------------------------------------------
The case captioned CHRISTOPHER BURKHOLDER, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. WAKE FOREST
UNIVERSITY, ATLANTIC COAST CONFERENCE, and THE NATIONAL COLLEGIATE
ATHLETIC ASSOCIATION, Defendants, Case No.: 1:16-CV-1812 (S.D.
Ind., July 7, 2016), was transferred to the United States District
Court for the Northern District of Illinois. The suit seeks to
obtain redress for all persons allegedly injured by Defendants'
reckless disregard for the health and safety of generations of
Wake Forest student athletes.

Defendant Wake Forest University is a private university located
at 1834 Wake Forest Road, Winston-Salem, North Carolina 27109.
Defendant ACC is a collegiate athletic conference with its
principal office located at 4512 Weybridge Lane, Greensboro, North
Carolina 27407.  Defendant NCAA is an unincorporated association
with its principal office located at 700 West Washington Street,
Indianapolis, Indiana 46206.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     William Winingham, Esq.
     WILSON KEHOE WININGHAM LLC
     2859 North Meridian Street
     Indianapolis, IN 46208
     Phone: 317.920.6400
     Fax: 317.920.6405
     E-mail: winingham@wkw.com

        - and -

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

        - and -

     Rafey S. Balabanian, Esq.
     123 Townsend Street
     San Francisco, CA 94107
     Phone: 415.212.9300
     Fax: 415.373.9435
     E-mail: rbalabanian@edelson.com

        - and -

     Jeff Raizner, Esq.
     RAIZNER SLANIA LLP
     2402 Dunlavy Street
     Houston, TX 77006
     Phone: 713.554.9099
     Fax: 713.554.9098
     Phone: jraizner@raiznerlaw.com


WAL-MART STORES: Loses Bid to Block Wage Class Action Trial
-----------------------------------------------------------
Robert Iafolla, writing for Reuters, reports that a federal judge
has rebuffed Wal-Mart Stores Inc's attempts to derail a trial
scheduled to kick off in October to determine damages the retail
giant owes to a class of its truck drivers in California who were
not paid minimum wage.

U.S. District Judge Susan Illston in San Francisco on Aug. 30
rejected Wal-Mart's bid to decertify the class of drivers,
approving the plaintiffs' plan to use a combination of hard data
and representative sampling to prove damages.


WAL-MART STORES: Court Denies Sanctions Motions in "Cortina" Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
District Judge Cynthia Bashant of the United States District Court
for the Southern District of California denied motions to impose
sanctions and granted Plaintiff's motion for voluntary dismissal,
subject to certain conditions, of the case captioned, THAMAR
SANTISTEBAN CORTINA, on behalf of herself, all others similarly
situated, and the general public, Plaintiff, v. WAL-MART STORES,
INC., and LANG PHARMA NUTRITION, INC., Defendants, Case No. 13-CV-
02054-BAS-DHB (S.D. Cal.).

The case represents one battle in a multi-front litigation war
between Plaintiff's counsel and Defendant Lang Pharma Nutrition,
Inc. (Lang). Since late 2013, Plaintiff's counsel has brought four
separate class actions in federal court against Lang and various
retailers supplied by Lang, alleging generally that Lang's
coenzyme Q10 (CoQ10) dietary supplement is deceptively advertised
in violation of various California and federal consumer protection
statutes. At issue in the instant case are product claims that
Lang and Wal-Mart make on the packaging of Wal-Mart's "Equate"
brand CoQ10 supplement.

Plaintiff Thamar Santisteban Cortina brought the putative class
action on September 3, 2013, against Defendants Wal-Mart Stores,
Inc. and Lang Pharma Nutrition, Inc., alleging breach of warranty
and deceptive advertising in connection with Wal-Mart's sale of a
CoQ10 supplement supplied by Lang.

Pending before the Court are three motions:

     -- On October 23, 2015, Plaintiff Cortina filed a motion to
voluntarily dismiss the case pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil
Procedure 41(a)(2).

     -- On November 9, 2015, Lang filed an opposition to
Plaintiff's motion to dismiss and brought a motion seeking a
staggering $575,000 in sanctions against Plaintiff's counsel under
28 U.S.C. Sec. 1927 for unreasonably and vexatiously multiplying
the proceedings. Lang argues primarily that the updated Chapter
2040 introduction and absorption disclaimer means that Plaintiff's
counsel had no basis to continue litigating this case after the
new introduction became final.

     -- Plaintiff then responded with her own motion for sanctions
against Lang under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 11 arguing that
Lang's motion for sanctions is frivolous.

In her Order dated September 1, 2016 available at
https://is.gd/hUKan2 from Leagle.com, Judge Bashant found no basis
to impose sanctions against Plaintiff's counsel under 28 U.S.C.
Sec. 1927 and that Plaintiff's counsel had sufficient foundation
to continue litigating the case notwithstanding the USP absorption
disclaimer. As to Plaintiff's motion for sanction, the Court found
that Lang was not without factual foundation to argue that such
conduct was part of an attempt to unreasonably and vexatiously
prolong the proceedings.

The Court granted Plaintiff's motion to dismiss the case without
prejudice pursuant to Rule 41(a)(2), on two conditions: (1) that
Plaintiff agree to use the existing discovery from the case in an
anticipated state-court action, and (2) that Cortina sit for her
deposition. If Plaintiffs were not amenable to these conditions,
Plaintiffs must withdraw their motion by September 8, 2016.

If Plaintiffs are amenable to these conditions, the deposition of
Cortina must take place no later than September 22, 2016, and
Plaintiffs must stipulate to using existing discovery from this
case in the anticipated state-court action no later than September
22, 2016.

The parties will notify the Court regarding the completion of
Cortina's deposition no later than September 23, 2016.

Once Defendants have deposed Cortina and the parties have
stipulated to using existing discovery in future litigation of
this case, the Court will grant Plaintiff's motion to dismiss this
case without prejudice pursuant to Rule 41(a)(2).

Thamar Santisteban Cortina is represented by Melanie Rae
Persinger, Esq. -- melanie@jackfitzgeraldlaw.com -- and Jack
Fitzgerald, Esq. -- jack@jackfitzgeraldlaw.com -- THE LAW OFFICE
OF JACK FITZGERALD -- Ronald Marron, Esq. --
ron@consumersadvocates.com -- Alexis M. Wood, Esq. --
alexis@consumersadvocates.com -- and Beatrice Skye Resendes, Esq.
-- skye@consumersadvocates.com -- LAW OFFICES OF RONALD A. MARRON
APLC

Wal-Mart, Inc. is represented by David C. Allen, Esq. --
dallen@btlaw.com -- Kevin Dale Rising, Esq. --
kevin.rising@btlaw.com -- and Sarah Elizabeth Johnston, Esq. --
sjohnston@btlaw.com -- BARNES & THORNBURG LLP

Lang Pharma Nutrition, Inc. is represented by Sarah Elizabeth
Johnston, Esq. -- sjohnston@btlaw.com -- and David C. Allen, Esq.
-- dallen@btlaw.com -- BARNES & THORNBURG LLP


WHEELER TRUCKING: Court Declines to Alter Remand Order
------------------------------------------------------
District Judge Debra M. Brown of the United States District Court
for the Northern District of Mississippi denied Defendants' motion
for reconsideration in the case captioned, ANTHONY MARTEL
ROBINSON, Plaintiff, v. ZACKERY WHEELER, WHEELER SUPPORTIVE
SERVICES, INC., 1 WHEELER TRUCKING COMPANY, LLC, and JOHN DOES
1-10, Defendants, Civil No. 4:15-CV-104-DMB-JMV (N.D. Miss.)

On February 12, 2016, the Court granted Anthony Martel Robinson's
motion to remand, agreeing with Robinson that the notice of
removal filed by 1 Wheeler Trucking Company, LLC (1 Wheeler),
failed to satisfy the rule of unanimity.

On February 25, 2016, "1 Wheeler Trucking Company, LLC's motion
for reconsideration, or in the alternative, motion to vacate order
on remand and deny remand with prejudice" was filed, which seeks
reconsideration of the remand order pursuant to Rule 59(e) of the
Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.

In the motion, Wheeler advances three arguments in support of its
motion for reconsideration: (1) the unanimity rule does not apply
because Zackery Wheeler was not properly served with process; (2)
the basis for remand was improperly raised in the reply brief
supporting the motion to remand; and (3) the Court erred in
remanding without accepting evidentiary submissions.

In her Order dated August 16, 2016 available at
https://is.gd/CrXWWk from Leagle.com, Judge Brown held that 1
Wheeler has not pointed to an intervening change in the law or the
existence of new evidence not previously available.  1 Wheeler
also cannot legitimately claim that it was surprised or prejudiced
in any way by the Court's consideration of Robinson's argument.

Anthony Martel Robinson is represented by:

      William C. Bell, Esq.
      BELL LAW FIRM, PLLC
      406 S. Pear Orchard Rd
      Ridgeland, MS 39157
      Tel:(601)956-0360

Zackery Wheeler and Wheeler Supportive Services, Inc. are
represented by Roy A. Smith, Jr., Esq. --
art.spratlin@butlersnow.com -- DANIEL, COKER, HORTON & BELL

1 Wheeler Trucking Company, LLC is represented by Arthur D.
Spratlin, Jr., Esq. -- rsmith@danielcoker.com -- and Keishunna R.
Webster, Esq. -- keishunna.webster@butlersnow.com -- BUTLER SNOW
LLP


XEROX STATE: Faces "Kelly" Suit in California Superior Court
------------------------------------------------------------
A lawsuit has been filed against Xerox State and Local Solutions,
Inc.  The case is captioned KELLY, MICHELLE AN INDIVIDUAL, ON
BEHALF OF HERSELF AND THOSE SIMILARLY SITUATED, the Plaintiff, v.
XEROX STATE AND LOCAL SOLUTIONS, INC., DOES 1-100, and BAY AREA
TOLL AUTHORITY, GOLDEN GATE BRIDGE, HIGHWAY AND TRANSPORTATION
DISTRICT, the Defendants, Case No. CGC 16 554099 (Cal. Super. Ct.,
Sep. 7, 2016).

Xerox State provides administrative and healthcare services. The
company's services include solutions for human services such as
eligibility determination and case management, electronic payment
card services, customer care, and child support services;
solutions for transportation including, electronic toll
collection, parking management, weigh-in-motion, and credential
verification; and public safety and justice solutions.


* NLRB, EY Want Supreme Court to Review Class Action Waivers
------------------------------------------------------------
Rebekah Mintzer, writing for Corporate Counsel, reports that the
National Labor Relations Board and professional services firm EY,
formerly known as Ernst & Young, are the latest parties to ask the
U.S. Supreme Court to resolve a growing circuit split over whether
arbitration agreements containing class-action waivers are viable
under Section 7 of the National Labor Relations Act.

The Sept. 9 petition from the NLRB appealing a ruling from the
U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, and the Sept.
8 petition from EY appealing a ruling from the Ninth Circuit, come
on the heels of another recent cert petition on this controversial
legal topic that software company Epic Systems Corp. filed Sept. 2
to appeal a Seventh Circuit ruling.

The labor board, along with the Ninth and Seventh Circuits, have
rejected employment agreements that require employees' claims be
resolved individually and out of court.  In contrast, the Eighth,
Fifth and Second Circuits have upheld the validity of these
agreements.

The NLRB's attorneys argue in their petition in NLRB v. Murphy Oil
USA that class-action waivers' agreements violate Section 7's
guarantee of employees' rights to engage in protected concerted
activities, such as collective bargaining and working to improve
their terms and conditions of employment.

The attorneys wrote that Section 7 rights are a "core objective"
of the National Labor Relations Act.  They compared using
employment agreements to waive these core rights to making
employees sign a contract that allows them to be fired on the
basis of age, despite the Age Discrimination in Employment Act.

In EY's petition in Ernst & Young v. Morris, lawyers from Akin
Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld as well as Williams & Connolly argued
the opposite -- that without contrary word from Congress,
employers' rights to use class-action waivers are protected under
the Federal Arbitration Act, the law that establishes arbitration
rights in the U.S.

They wrote that the "NLRA's legislative history lacks any
indication of a congressional command precluding courts from
enforcing collective-action waivers according to their terms."


* Proposed CFPB Changes May Cost Financial Firms $100MM a Year
--------------------------------------------------------------
Bill Lehman, writing for The Payments Review, reports that the
Consumer Financial Protection Bureau's (CFPB) mission is "to make
consumer financial markets work for consumers, responsible
providers, and the economy as a whole."  But it now appears the
CFPB is expanding its mission to include more lucrative class
action lawsuits.

Most consumer banking agreements, including credit card and loan
agreements, currently have a mandatory arbitration clause which
specifically "bans consumers from seeking redress for potential
issues in a court of law."  In other words, consumers sign away
their rights to file a lawsuit against a bank or credit union. The
rationale behind this is that arbitration is a highly useful tool
in stopping frivolous and very expensive lawsuits which, by the
CFPB's own admission, typically result in no payments to consumers
but results in huge payouts by the banks, with the money
presumably going to the legal firms representing the class.

To place the "right to bring suit" back in the hands of consumers,
the CFPB proposes to prohibit language in agreements that bar
consumers from filing or participating in a class action.  Note
that it does not ban arbitration.  If accepted, the same proposal
provides some specific estimates on the resulting consequences of
this new ruling.  The CFPB's research shows that there will be at
least 6,042 more class actions filed against the 53,000 business
covered by this rule in the first five years, expected cost to
financial institutions more than $100 million a year in legal
fees.

What does this mean to credit unions?

Budget for Legal Fees: If the CFPB proposed ruling is approved,
credit unions will face attorney-driven class action suits,
increasing legal fees to defend themselves. Budgeting for the
inevitable frivolous lawsuits will be a necessary exercise each
year.

Insurance Expense: The CFPB estimates that new class action
lawsuits will result in $342 million a year in judgments against
financial institutions.  The Bureau also notes that providers may
attempt to manage the risks of increased class litigation exposure
by opting for more comprehensive insurance coverage. Credit unions
should inquire with commercial insurance agents regarding the
coverage provided by existing general liability insurance, and
consider riders that cover very large judgments against them.


* Recent S.C. Court Rulings to Impact Securities Class Actions
--------------------------------------------------------------
Alla Zayenchik, Esq., of Bernstein Litowitz Berger & Grossmann
LLP, in an article for Lexology, reports that the Court's rulings
continue to have a significant impact on securities cases and
class action litigation.

The Supreme Court's current roster has several cases of interest
to the institutional investor community.  These cases raise
important issues, ranging from defendants' attempts to end a class
action by buying off a representative plaintiff, to standards of
liability for insider trading, to the possibility that the long-
running Halliburton securities case may revisit the high court for
the third time and continue to define the counters of liability
under the general antifraud provision of the federal securities
laws.

Supreme Court to Hear an Important Insider Trading Case

Under the federal securities laws, it is forbidden to trade on the
basis of material nonpublic information known only to company
insiders.  In United States v. Newman, 773 F.3d 438 (2nd Cir.
2014), the Second Circuit severely hindered the government's
ability to prosecute insider trading cases when it held that in
order to secure a conviction, prosecutors must prove that the
receiving party knew that the insider shared material nonpublic
information and also knew that the insider divulged the
information to obtain a personal benefit in exchange for the tip.
The practical implications of Newman are troubling, effectively
destroying insider trading liability in all cases lacking a quid
pro quo.

The Supreme Court has agreed to hear an insider trading issue that
resulted in a split between the Ninth and Second Circuits. The
issue, which is of great practical consequence, is whether the
government must prove that an individual who disclosed inside
information did so in exchange for a personal benefit.

In welcome news to the Department of Justice, the Supreme Court
has agreed to hear Salman v. United States, an insider trading
case that resulted in a split between the Ninth and Second
Circuits. As in Newman, the issue at the heart of the Salman case
is whether the government must prove, in order to secure a
conviction, that an individual who disclosed inside information
did so in exchange for a personal benefit.  The defendant, Bassam
Salman, was indicted for securities fraud and conspiracy to commit
securities fraud arising from an insider-trading scheme involving
members of his extended family.  His brother-in-law Maher Kara, a
member of Citigroup's healthcare investment banking group, had
been providing information about upcoming mergers and acquisitions
involving Citigroup clients to his brother Mounir "Michael" Kara.

Mr. Salman became close to the Kara family as a result of Maher's
engagement to Salman's sister, and Michael shared with Mr. Salman
the inside information provided to him by Maher, encouraging
Salman to "mirror image" his trading activity.  Salman booked
trades through a brokerage account held by his wife's sister and
her husband Karim Bayyouk. Salman, who was aware that the insider
tips were coming from Maher, disclosed the information to Bayyouk
and shared in the profits of Bayyouk's trading.  As a result of
the insider trading, Salman and Bayyouk's account skyrocketed from
$396,000 to over $2 million.

Relying on Newman, Mr. Salman argued that prosecutors presented
insufficient evidence that Maher disclosed the confidential
information in exchange for a personal benefit or that Salman knew
of the benefit.  Mr. Salman made this argument despite Maher's own
testimony that he intended to "benefit" his brother and "fulfill"
his needs.  The Ninth Circuit rejected Salman's argument and
sustained his conviction, finding that "the disclosure was
intended as a gift of marketsensitive information," and that no
evidence of a personal benefit to Maher was necessary.  To hold
otherwise, the Ninth Circuit reasoned, would yield a perverse
result by allowing "a corporate insider or other person in
possession of confidential and proprietary information [to] be
free to disclose that information to her relatives, and they would
be free to trade on it, provided only that she asked for no
tangible compensation in return."

With the upcoming argument in the Salman case, the Supreme Court
is expected to provide clarity as to whether an intention to
benefit a family member, friend or acquaintance is sufficient to
establish insider trading liability.

An Unaccepted Offer of Settlement Does Not Moot Class Claims

The Supreme Court recently addressed a question of significant
practical import to class action litigation: whether a defendant's
settlement offer under Rule 68 of the Federal Rules of Civil
Procedure, providing complete relief to a representative or
"named" plaintiff -- but not to the rest of the plaintiff class --
can moot the entire class action lawsuit.

In Campbell-Ewald Co. v. Gomez, the class consisted of individuals
who received Navy recruiting text messages on their cell phones
despite having not opted-in to receive such messages as required
by the Telephone Consumer Protection Act ("TCPA"). The named
plaintiff, Jose Gomez, brought a class action lawsuit against the
advertising agency that was sending these unsolicited text
messages.  Mr. Gomez sought $500 in statutory damages for each
violation of the TCPA, along with treble damages, injunctive
relief, and an award of attorneys' fees.  Before the case was
certified as a class action, Campbell made a Rule 68 offer to
settle Mr. Gomez's individual claims.  Campbell did not, however,
make a similar offer to settle the claims of the rest of the
prospective class.  After Mr. Gomez refused Campbell's settlement
offer, Campbell moved to dismiss under Rule 68.

The district court denied Campbell's motion to dismiss, holding
that the company could not "make an end-run around a class action
simply by virtue of a facile procedural 'gotcha,' i.e., the
conveyance of a Rule 68 offer of judgment to 'pick off' the named
plaintiff prior to the filing of a class certification motion."
Gomez v. Campbell-Ewald Co., 805 F. Supp. 2d 923, 930 (C.D. Cal.
2011).  The Ninth Circuit affirmed the decision below and Campbell
then appealed to the Supreme Court.

In January 2016, the Supreme Court upheld the Ninth Circuit's
opinion.  Writing for the Court, Justice Ginsburg explained that
"an unaccepted settlement offer has no force.  Like other
unaccepted contract offers, it creates no lasting right or
obligation.  With the offer off the table, and the defendant's
continuing denial of liability, adversity between the parties
persists." Campbell, 136 S. Ct at 667.  The Supreme Court pointed
out that a ruling in defendant's favor would inappropriately
"place the defendant in the driver's seat" and found that an
unaccepted offer of settlement to the lead plaintiff cannot moot a
class claim.  Justice Thomas authored a concurring opinion in
which he agreed that an offer of complete relief does not moot a
claim, but based the conclusion on common law principles rather
than on Rule 68 or on contract law principles.

In January 2016, the Supreme Court ruled that "an unaccepted
(settlement) offer has no force" and cannot moot a class claim.

In contrast, Chief Justice Roberts issued a dissent suggesting
that the majority's decision was limited to its facts and that the
outcome might have been different had the defendant actually
deposited the funds with the district court.  Chief Justice
Robert's dissent invites defendants to test the limits of the
Court's ruling in Campbell by attempting to "pick off" named
plaintiffs via a payment that purports to provide "complete
relief" to the named plaintiff only. Indeed, this very scenario
was addressed by the Ninth Circuit in a case decided after
Campbell.  In Chen, et al. v. Allstate Ins. Co., 2016 WL 1425869,
at *11 (9th Cir. April 12, 2016), the Ninth Circuit found that a
putative class action was not moot where the defendant deposited
the settlement offer funds in an escrow account to be paid upon
entry of judgment in plaintiff's favor.  The Ninth Circuit
reasoned that even though the money had been deposited into an
escrow account, the plaintiff had not actually received the money
and the defendant had the ability to reclaim the money if no
judgment was entered.  It remains to be seen whether courts
outside the Ninth Circuit will adopt a similar view.

Halliburton II provided defendants with the opportunity to present
evidence challenging whether alleged mis-representations had an
impact on a stock's price.  Defendants argued that such evidence
should be considered at the class certification stage, but the
Court ruled that questions of materiality should be reserved for
the merits stage.  Defendants have appealed the issue and the
Fifth Circuit has agreed to hear it.

"Halliburton III" on the Horizon?

In November 2015, the Fifth Circuit agreed to hear the third
appeal of the long-running securities class action, Erica P. John
Fund, Inc. v. Halliburton Co. ("Halliburton").  Halliburton last
visited the Supreme Court in 2014 ("Halliburton II") when the
Court refused to overturn the presumption of class-wide reliance
established in Basic v. Levinson, 485 US 224 (1988).  In that
appeal, the Court upheld the "fraud on the market" theory, a
foundational principle of securities litigation, which holds that
investors are entitled to rely on the integrity of the price of
securities that trade on well-developed markets such as the New
York Stock Exchange.  However, the Court also afforded defendants
an opportunity to rebut the presumption of reliance through a
showing of direct or indirect evidence that an alleged
misrepresentation did not have an impact on the stock price.

Applying the Supreme Court's ruling in Halliburton II, the trial
court provided defendants with the opportunity to present evidence
of lack of price impact.  However, the judge determined that the
evidence offered by the defendants was inadmissible at the class
certification stage.  The defendants appealed, arguing that the
court should have considered the evidence at class certification
even though it went to the merits of the claim.  As many
commentators have noted, Halliburton II appears to be at odds with
the Court's previous ruling in the Amgen case that questions of
materiality -- including lack of price impact -- are not
appropriately addressed at the class certification stage and
should be reserved for the merits stage of the litigation process.

The Fifth Circuit agreed to hear the appeal in order to clarify
what types of evidence can be presented at the class certification
stage and what types of evidence must be reserved for later stages
of the litigation. This appeal gives rise to the possibility that
Halliburton will revisit the Supreme Court for a third time and
require the Court to reconcile its opinions in Halliburton II and
Amgen.  If the arguments advanced by the defendants are accepted,
it would increase the hurdles for investors to maintain securities
fraud cases as class actions.


* Spike in Securities Class Actions Won't Hit D&O Insurance Space
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Phil Gusman, writing for Property Casualty360, reports that while
regulators remain active and securities class action filings have
come roaring back, for Directors and Officers (D&O) Liability
insurance it's still a buyer's market.

With plenty of capacity, a willingness on the part of underwriters
to compete aggressively and brokers working hard to get good deals
in place for their clients, "It's definitely a great time to be a
buyer," says Chad Berberich, president of RLI Executive Products
Group.  "I would say the market is about as soft as it can get."

Speaking in particular to excess public D&O and excess Side A
coverage, he adds, "I've been doing this 20 years, and it's
probably as soft as I've ever seen it."

Rob Yellen, executive vice president, FINEX NA at Willis Towers
Watson, agrees that competition within the D&O marketplace is
particularly intense at the excess levels.  "On larger programs,
you can't hit [pricing] floors," he says.

Mr. Yellen says he sees no reason to believe the market will
become less competitive in the near future.  Mr. Berberich
explains why: "There's a reason capacity is coming into this
space.  It's been very good business over time, historically.  The
loss ratios have been pretty darn good, especially on Side A
business.

"And so, it's an attractive market," he adds, "until the losses
start coming."

Losses may be coming from a familiar place if securities class
action filing figures from 2016's first half carry through to the
end of the year: Cornerstone Research's Midyear Assessment shows
119 new federal class action securities filings for the first six
months of the year, 32 more than 2015's first half and 27% above
the 1997-2015 semiannual average of 94 filings.  In a July blog
post, Mr. Yellen wrote, "The data from the first half of 2016
suggests we can expect securities class actions to remain the
predominant driver of D&O claim severity."

"It's not a trend," Mr. Yellen stresses.  "It's too short of a
period to say it's a trend.  But it is concerning."

The claims picture

Although competition may be intensifying, some experts point out
that the race for D&O premiums isn't wholly new.  "Following the
financial crisis, we obviously saw new markets capitalizing on the
regulatory overhaul of the public marketplace," says
Ziad Kubursi, senior vice president, Management Liability and
Financial Institutions at CNA.  "A lot of markets jumped in and
put up some capacity."

Colin Daly, executive vice president of JLT Specialty USA, goes
back even further.  "We've been in a soft market for close to 10
years in some form or fashion," he says, noting that while some
industries within D&O saw hardening during the financial crisis,
many stayed competitive.  And it's just been downward since
then."How much further can it go, is the question," he adds, "and
I don't know the answer to that."

There is some good news for D&O carriers: Other types of legal
actions showed lessened activity through the first half of 2016.
Derivative shareholder lawsuits fell 34 percent year over year to
60, while merger objection suits dropped 17 percent year over year
to 87.

Even with increased securities class action activity,
Mr. Berberich says carriers on the Excess side have been somewhat
shielded. "If you look at the statistics," he says, "the number of
securities lawsuits has stayed high, and trending higher for 2016.
But the jumbo losses just don't seem to be happening like they
have in the past."

Cornerstone's report notes dollar losses from mega-filings were
notably smaller than historical averages, even while smaller class
actions continued to increase.

"It's been a favorable claim environment in the last few years.
Very few lawsuits get at those big Side A towers," says
Mr. Berberich.  "So folks who write a lot of Side A business are
reaping the benefits of low loss levels over the last few years."

On the primary side, the picture is a bit different.   Mr. Daly
makes a point similar to Mr. Berberich's, noting the new claims
landscape for D&O where there are fewer "big claims that will burn
down a tower," and instead more claims that are mostly captured in
the primary and first excess layers of D&O programs.

As a result, he says the primary market has not seen softening to
the degree Excess has.  "We do see pockets of decreases here and
there, but we also see pockets of increases," Daly says of the
primary market.

However, Michael Piccione, senior vice president of the Public D&O
Division at Allied World, says he is just now seeing pricing in
the primary space for existing accounts come under pressure. He
says the pressure is driven by "a slowdown in D&O new business
opportunities generated from IPOs, which are down 58 percent year-
to-date; the impact of quarterly rate reductions in the high
single digits on excess pricing; and aggressive targeting by new
entrants."

Figures cited by Sarah Downey, D&O product leader at Marsh, show
deterioration on the primary side -- not to the degree of declines
for excess layers.  She says Marsh clients are getting average
rate decreases of 4.5 percent on primary layers in Q2, and
decreases of 7.5 percent for total programs.  She adds Q2 2016
marked the seventh consecutive quarter in which Marsh clients saw
total program average rate decreases.

Mr. Piccione cautions some of the new carriers competing on price
in the primary market: "Adoption of an aggressive primary strategy
may backfire on some of the newer entrants . . . as many have not
established a well-diversified portfolio of Excess and Side A to
withstand the hits of writing primary.

"As such, insured buyers should be mindful of these risks when
dealing with new entrants and take caution," he adds.

Daly says buyers are wary of significantly aggressive carriers,
questioning whether they want those particular carriers on their
primary layer.

Bill Passannante, a shareholder at Anderson Kill (a law firm that
represents policyholders), says a D&O claim that might be ordinary
for an established carrier could "get handled oddly" by a new
entrant with a claim department unfamiliar with the complicated
nature of D&O risks.

Hardening competition, soft rates
New markets continue to show not only interest in D&O, but also a
willingness to compete hard for it.  "We've certainly seen
increased competition for the business, both from the long-term
players and from the new entrants that have come in the past few
years that are trying to write more business," says Shanda Davis,
D&O product manager for Travelers.

Daly says some new entrants will offer "significant decreases on
programs, and that can be in the primary, too."

Regarding new entrants' aggressiveness, Mr. Kubursi says it's
about cash-flow underwriting: "They're buying as much market share
as they can when they can, with very little focus on what that
means from a loss standpoint."  He notes that new entrants over
the years have run the gamut, from mega-companies to foreign
insurers looking to expand into the U.S.

Daly says longer-term carriers are "consistent on their pricing,"
although Mr. Berberich says veteran markets are responding to new
entrants by "flexing their muscles and being aggressive."

SEC investigations up
The intense competition and softening rate environment comes not
only as securities class action activity appears to be picking up
once again, but also as regulatory scrutiny of public companies
continues at an elevated level -- a continuation of the post-
financial-crisis zeal among regulators.

Edward Kirk, a partner at Clyde & Co., a law firm that represents
insurers, says the numbers of investigations and regulatory
actions are up. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC)
enforcement actions were up 7 percent in 2015, he says, to 807.
The length of the investigations was up to 21 months on average.

"I think it's probably safe to say if the length of investigations
increases like that, we'll probably see elevated costs and more
exposure for D&O insurers from SEC investigations," says Kirk.

Daly adds that Mary Jo White, chair of the SEC, is also targeting
smaller infractions and smaller companies.  In general, he says,
the SEC is "just much more active in chasing companies as well as
individuals."

The Department of Justice is getting into the act in a big way as
well.  Kirk and others point to the "Yates Memo," released In
September 2015, which calls for the DOJ to focus more on holding
corporate executives accountable rather than just the company
itself.

In the memo, Deputy Attorney General Sally Quillian Yates writes,
"One of the most effective ways to combat corporate misconduct is
by seeking accountability from the individuals who perpetrated the
wrongdoing.  Such accountability is important for several reasons:
it deters future illegal activity, it incentivizes changes in
corporate behavior, it ensures that the proper parties are held
responsible for their actions, and it promotes the public's
confidence in our justice system."

That increased regulatory scrutiny is not just impacting the
potential loss landscape, but coverage demands as well -- and in a
competitive D&O market, carriers are responding.

"Companies are interested in coverage for regulatory
investigations, and the market has responded with some carriers
offering an endorsement to the primary D&O policy to provide
coverage for an SEC investigation of a corporate entity when the
company has a related securities claim," Mr. Piccione says.

Mr. Kubursi says directors and officers now have a significant
fear of being exposed personally and financially, leading to more
demand for Side A coverage and for higher limits.  He notes that
CNA just came out with an enhanced form developed in part in
response to the Yates Memo.  The improved Side A policy provides
two reinstatements, so if limits are exhausted on a Side A policy,
he explains, they can be reinstated if there is another director
or officer named in the case not directly tied to the same action.

Davis says Travelers has recently launched a new public D&O policy
that provides affirmative coverage for certain nominal defendant
expenses and claimant attorney fees that are awarded in non-
monetary settlements in securities claims.  She says Travelers and
others also have solutions to give coverage for certain entity-
investigation expenses.

Even outside the U.S., the D&O market is seeing innovations. AIG
UK announced an addition to its D&O policies that will cover costs
not paid for by the company for legal challenges in the event of
permanent residency applications being rejected pre-Brexit, and
the subsequent challenges to repatriation orders post-Brexit.

In the private D&O market, George Schalick, vice president of the
Management & Professional Liability Division of Philadelphia
Insurance Cos., says opportunities are increasing.  It has
traditionally been a hard sell for D&O and EPLI, he notes, but
more buyers purchase the coverage every month now.

All told, the D&O market is a place where everyone seemingly wants
to play, but because of that, what makes the market attractive is,
to some degree, diluted.  As Mr. Kubursi notes, expense ratios are
up, commission expenses are up and cost of claims are up.

"All those increased costs on a very low pricing model, with much
higher severity and frequency on losses -- that's an imperfect
market," he adds.



                            *********

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  * * *