CAR_Public/160922.mbx              C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

           Thursday, September 22, 2016, Vol. 18, No. 190




                            Headlines


ARCHSTONE COMMUNITIES: 1st Cir. Affirms Counsel Fees Award
ASSET CAMPUS: Jang Appeals C.D. Cal. Ruling to Ninth Circuit
BAH CALIFORNIA: Fails to Give Meal Period, "Garcia" Suit Alleges
BANK OF AMERICA: "Tancredi" Sues Over Illegal Loan Charges
BG PROPERTY: "Worsham" Suit Seeks to Recover Minimum and OT Wages

BOFI HOLDING: Defending Against Golden and Hazan Cases
C-PAK SEA FOODS: "Hernandez" Suit Seeks Overtime, Missed Breaks
CAPITAL ELECTRIC: "Murcia" Suit Seeks Overtime Pay Under FLSA
CARDIOVASCULAR SYSTEMS: Response in Stockholder Case Due Aug. 29
CAREFIRST INC: Attias Appeals From D.C. Court Decision

CARGURUS INC: Must Defend Against "Serban" Class Suit
CETCO ENERGY: "Smith" Suit to Recover Overtime Pay
CHINA COMMERCIAL: Settlement of Securities Lawsuit Pending
COCA-COLA CO: Has Made Unsolicited Calls, "Yoshonis" Suit Claims
COLLECTO INC: Counsel Appeals Ruling in "Diaz" Suit to 9th Cir.

CYTRX CORPORATION: Defending "Dorce" Class Action
DAKOTA ACCESS: Faces Class Action Over Pipeline Construction
DALLAS CENTRAL: North Park Suit Seeks Re-appraisal
DALLAS CENTRAL: Brookwood Suit Alleges Misappraisal
DALLAS CENTRAL: Bijal Suit Seeks Property Re-appraisal

DALLAS CENTRAL: Berkely Sues Over High Land Appraisal
DALLAS CENTRAL: Ashton Uptown Suit Seeks Re-appraisal
DALLAS CENTRAL: St. James Hits High Property Appraisal
DALLAS CENTRAL: Markison Vista Suit Seeks Re-Evaluation
DALLAS CENTRAL: Mission Plaza Suit Seeks Re-evaluation

DALLAS CENTRAL: Monterra Suit Seeks Land Re-appraisal
DALLAS CENTRAL: Petal Street Sues Over High Appraisal
DALLAS CENTRAL: Brick Row Sues Over Excessive Appraisal
DALLAS CENTRAL: Intergerman Chimney Sues Over Excessive Appraisal
DALLAS CENTRAL: Oak Cliff Sues Over Excessive Appraisal

DALLAS CENTRAL: CPF Gateway Sues Over Excessive Appraisal
DALLAS CENTRAL: Intergerman Derby Sues Over Excessive Appraisal
DALLAS CENTRAL: Eagle Rock Sues Over Excessive Appraisal
DALLAS CENTRAL: Garland Al Sues Over Excessive Appraisal
DALLAS CENTRAL: WRH Hilton Sues Over Excessive Appraisal

DALLAS CENTRAL: Houtex (USA) Sues Over Excessive Appraisal
DALLAS CENTRAL: L&B Sues Over Excessive Appraisal
DALLAS CENTRAL: Burroughs Sues Over Excessive Appraisal
DALLAS CENTRAL: NKW Ltd. Sues Over Excessive Appraisal
DALLAS CENTRAL: First Industrial Alleges Overvaluation

DALLAS COWBOYS: Denial of Class Certification Upheld
DEVRY EDUCATION: Settlement Reached in Rayter-Herendeen Case
DEVRY EDUCATION: Pension Trust Fund Won't Oppose Lead Plaintiff
DEVRY EDUCATION: Robinson and Brown Case in Initial Stages
DITECH FINANCIAL: Sued in E.D. Penn. Over Mortgage Payments

DOLLAR GENERAL: Class Certification Motion in "Varela" Due Oct. 17
DOLLAR GENERAL: "Pleasant" Case Stays in San Bernardino Court
DOLLAR GENERAL: Settlement Reached in "Sullivan" Case
DOLLAR GENERAL: Defending Class Action by Farley and Rinaldi
DOLLAR GENERAL: Defending Class Action by Debinder in Florida

DOLLAR GENERAL: Responsive Pleading in Motor Oil Case Due Oct. 28
DUKE ENERGY: Ind. App. Reverses Dismissal of Bellwether Suit
EL GALLITO: Cal. App. Affirms Denial of Arbitration Motion
EPIC HEALTH: Sued in N.J. Super. Ct. Over Discrimination
FIAT CHRYSLER: Faces New Jeep Rollover Suits

FIRST NBC: Parties Await Decision on Lead Plaintiff Motions
GENERAL MOTORS: Faulty Ignition Switch Victims Put Up Billboard
HARRAH'S ENTERTAINMENT: Ruling Upheld, Atty Fees Issues Remanded
HARRIS COUNTY: Arel Alleges Property Overvaluation
HARRIS COUNTY: 21875 Katy Freeway Alleges Overvaluation

HARRIS COUNTY: DCT Hollister Alleges Overvaluation
HARRIS COUNTY: Arba Realty Sues Over Excessive Appraisal
HARRIS COUNTY: BG Holdco Sues Over Excessive Appraisal
HARRIS COUNTY: BOP Heritage Sues Over Excessive Appraisal
HARRIS COUNTY: David Wolff Sues Over Excessive Appraisal

HARRIS COUNTY: Forwoof Sues Over Excessive Appraisal
HARRIS COUNTY: FSP Eldridge Sues Over Excessive Appraisal
HARRIS COUNTY: KHOU-TV Inc. Sues Over Excessive Appraisal
HARRIS COUNTY: McKinney Sues Over Excessive Appraisal
HARRIS COUNTY: Millenium Tower Sues Over Excessive Appraisal

HARRIS COUNTY: WRH Normandy Sues Over Excessive Appraisal
HARRIS COUNTY: Oak Grove Sues Over Excessive Appraisal
HARRIS COUNTY: St. Gallen Group Alleges Overvaluation
HEWLETT PACKARD: Sued in Cal. Over Printer Feature Installation
HOME DEPOT: U.S. Banks' Suit Over Data Breach Pending

HOME DEPOT: Court Narrows Claims in "Coffen" Suit
IDI INSURANCE: Class Suit Over Women-Only Free-Tire Changes OK'd
IMAGE FIRST: Court Denies Motion to Dismiss "Campanelli" Suit
JOHNSON & JOHNSON'S: Faces Suit Over Talc Powder Cancer Link
JOY GLOBAL: "Tansey" Sues Over Komatsu Merger Deal

LANNETT CO: Antitrust and Consumer Protection Suits Pending
MCKESSON CORP: True Health Appeals N.D. Cal. Ruling to 9th Cir.
MICHAELS COMPANIES: Claims of 26 Former Class Members Pending
MICHAELS COMPANIES: FCRA Lawsuits Remain Pending
MICHAELS COMPANIES: Appeal in Data Breach Suit Underway

MURRAY GOULBURN: Dairy Farmers Pull Supplies, Mull Class Action
NANTKWEST INC: "Wiencek" Securities Case Removed to C.D. Cal.
NATERA INC: Appeals From N.D. Cal. Ruling in "Nguyen" Class Suit
NATERA INC: Seeks 9th Circuit Review of Decision in "Ellis" Suit
NATIONAL CARRIERS: Seeks Review of Decision in "Pack" Class Suit

NATIONSTAR MORTGAGE: Youngblood Appeals Ruling in "Wright" Suit
NBD INTERNATIONAL: Viking Suit Remanded to Indiana State Court
NEVADA CHECKER: Ninth Circuit Appeal Filed in "Noble" Class Suit
NIKOLAOS AMVROSIATOS: Castillo Seeks to Recover Minimum, OT Wages
NORTH CENTRAL: Abrams Suit Seeks unpaid wages, OT Under Labor Law

NUTRAMARKS INC: Court Narrows Claims in "Hammock" Suit
OTX LOGISTICS: "Calmet" Suit Seeks Overtime, Missed Breaks
PALATINE, IL: Collins Seeks Review of N.D. Ill. Order to 7th Cir.
PERFECTION PAINTING: "Sigala" Suit to Recover Overtime Pay
PHARMACARE US: 9th Circuit Appeal Filed in "Sandoval" Class Suit

PSC INDUSTRIAL: Gonzalez Suit Seeks Unpaid Wages Under Labor Code
PURE STORAGE: "Ramsay" Sues Over Share Price Drop
REGIS CORP: Suits in New York, New Jersey & Pennsylvania Ongoing
RIVER ROCKS: Class Cert. Bid Denied in "Payne" Minimum Wage Suit
RJ REYNOLDS: Obtains Favorable Ruling in Asbestos Case

SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS: Court Trims "Coleman-Anacleto" Suit
SEDGWICK CLAIMS: Sued Over Compensations Liens Misrepresentation
SELECTRUCKS OF AMERICA: Trans Pro Sues on Behalf of Truck Buyers
STATE FARM: Seeks 8th Circuit Review of Ruling in "Stuart" Suit
SUBWAY RESTAURANTS: "Warciak" Suit Alleges TCPA Breach

SYNCHRONY FINANCIAL: "Jones" Sues Over Illegal Collection Practice
TARGET CORPORATION: Securities Actions in Minnesota Consolidated
TARGET CORPORATION: ERISA Class Actions in Minn. Consolidated
TELENAV INC: Faces Nathan Gergetz Class Action in N.D. Cal.
TIVO INC: Plaintiffs Dismiss Delaware Class Action

TIVO INC: Plaintiffs Dismiss California Federal Actions
UBIQUITI NETWORKS: 9th Cir. Class Action Appeal Still Pending
UNITED STATES: Pieper Appeals D. Md. Ruling to Fourth Circuit
VERIZON COMMUNICATIONS: Faces Jad & Ryan Class Suit in New York
VERIZON COMMUNICATIONS: Court Denies Bids to Dismiss "Meza" Suit

VOLKSWAGEN AG: EU Aims to Coordinate Emissions Collective Suits
WASHINGTON, DC: Faces Class Action Over Lack of In-Home Care
WEST PUBLISHING: 9th Circuit Appeal Filed in "Stetson" Class Suit
WESTERN DIGITAL: Appeal in Antitrust Action Remains Pending
WESTERN DIGITAL: Dismissal of Securities Class Action Sought

WESTERN DIGITAL: Discovery Stayed Under After Pleading Stage

* New Law Firms Biggest Contributor to Class Action Risk in AU
* U.S. Law Firms Exploiting The Netherland's WCAM


                            *********


ARCHSTONE COMMUNITIES: 1st Cir. Affirms Counsel Fees Award
----------------------------------------------------------
The Hon. Mary M. Lisi, of the District of Rhode Island, sitting by
designation, wrote on behalf of a panel of the Court of Appeals,
First Circuit, a decision affirming a district court's ruling on
attorney's fees award in the case captioned, CHRISTOPHER HEIEN,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated; ANNA
NGUYEN, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated; ANNA MINIUTTI, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated; BENJAMIN SPILLER, individually and on behalf
of all others similarly situated; ANTONIA PEABODY, individually
and on behalf of all others similarly situated; ENDICOTT PEABODY,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated;
HUMOUD AL SABAH, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated; BRIAN EPSTEIN, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated; LAURA NESCI, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated; RON LEVY, individually
and on behalf of all others similarly situated; ANDREA MANGONE,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated;
NICOLAI JAKOBSEN, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiffs, Appellants, v. ARCHSTONE;
ARCHSTONE COMMUNITIES, LLC; ASN PARK ESSEX, LLC; ASN QUINCY, LLC;
ASN QUARRY HILLS, LLC; ASN NORTH POINT I, LLC; ARCHSTONE NORTH
POINT, LLC; ARCHSTONE CRONIN'S LANDING; ASN WATERTOWN, LLC; ASN
KENDALL SQUARE, LLC; ARCHSTONE AVENIR, LP; ASN BEAR HILL, LLC,
Defendants, Appellees, Case No. 15-2299 (1st Cir.).

The Plaintiffs are former and current tenants of residential
property in Massachusetts leased to them by Defendants Archstone
and several related entities. In their suit, the Plaintiffs
challenged certain "amenity use fees," which, they alleged, were
imposed by the Defendants in violation of the Massachusetts
Security Deposit Statute, Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 186, Section 15B,
and Chapter 93A of the Massachusetts Consumer Protection Act,
Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 93A, Section 1.

In the related case of Hermida v. Archstone et. al, C.A. No.
10-12083-WGY (D. Mass., U.S. District Judge William G. Young
presiding), other Archstone tenants had previously brought
identical claims against one of the Defendants' corporate
affiliates. The Hermida plaintiffs were represented by the same
law firms as in the instant case.

On November 29, 2011, the district court granted summary judgment
on liability in favor of the Hermidas, determining that the
amenity use fees charged by the Defendants violated the
Massachusetts Security Deposit Statute. The Hermida case was
settled and the district judge awarded attorneys' fees and costs
of $62,714.38, which was less than half of the lodestar amount
requested by counsel. In a detailed Memorandum and Order, the
district judge explained the reduction in fees for time spent by
counsel on travel, on performing clerical and administrative
tasks, and for the practice of block billing.

On May 17, 2012, after the question of liability had already been
decided in Hermida,the Plaintiffs filed a class action suit
against Archstone and eleven other related entities. In their
complaint, the Plaintiffs stated that "the principal common issues
with respect to the class are whether Archstone's charging of the
amenity fee violated the Security Deposit statute and chapter
93A." On August 23, 2012, the district court stayed the instant
class action, pending waiver or resolution of all appeals of the
judgment entered in Hermida.

On March 13, 2014, the Plaintiffs filed an unopposed motion in
which they requested, inter alia, preliminary approval of a
proposed settlement. The settlement agreement reflects that the
case was being settled simultaneously with Hermida and that "by
virtue of the settlement in Hermida there will be no appeals and
therefore there is no longer a reason to stay the Action." The
settlement fund was capped at $1,300,000 for payment of individual
claims and attorneys' fees and costs. The district court granted
the Plaintiffs' motion to approve the settlement on March 27,
2014.

On June 3, 2014, Plaintiffs' counsel filed a motion for attorneys'
fees and costs, in which they requested payment of $429,000. In
their motion, the Plaintiffs acknowledged that the case "by itself
did not involve intense litigation, given the imposition of the
stay," and they conceded that the case "only was filed because
Judge Young concluded that the Hermidas did not have standing to
assert claims against the defendants in the action." Counsel's
submissions in support of the fee motion included billing records
that showed lodestar attorneys' fees of $58,693. The Defendants
responded with an objection to the motion, suggesting that the
district court consider the effect of Hermida on the case, as well
as the significantly lower lodestar amount submitted by
Plaintiffs' counsel. On October 2, 2014, the district judge
entered an electronic order awarding, without further explanation
or analysis, attorneys' fees in the sum of $29,250.

On appeal, Plaintiffs assert that in considering the actual
benefit recovered for the class members, the district court
committed legal error under Boeing Co. v. Van Gemert. In the
alternative, the Plaintiffs contend that when viewed against other
cases in which attorney awards ranged between 20 and 30 percent of
the total common fund, it was abuse of discretion by the district
court to award to class counsel what amounts to 2.25 percent of
the common fund in the case.

On their part, the Defendants contend that the attorneys' fees
awarded in the case are tied to the lodestar award in Hermida, and
they suggest that the rationale for the reduced award in the
instant case is implied in the district judge's reasoning in
Hermida.

In the Order dated September 14, 2016 available at
https://is.gd/hrw4RB from Leagle.com, Judge Lisi concluded that
the district court did not abuse its discretion in fashioning the
fee award in consideration of the unique procedural history of the
case and its close connection to Hermida. In addition, the
district judge detailed in the fee memorandum and order in Hermida
his rationale for reducing attorneys' fees for block billing and
for time spent on travel and administrative tasks.

Christopher Heien, et al. are represented by Edward Foye, Esq. --
efoye@arrowoodpeters.com -- Michael Brier, Esq. --
zachary.briers@mto.com -- and Kevin Thomas Peters, Esq. --
kpeters@arrowoodpeters.com -- ARROWOOD PETERS LLP; Matthew J.
Fogelman, Esq. -- mjf@fogelmanlawfirm.com -- FOGELMAN & FOGELMAN
LLC; Joshua N. Garick, Esq. -- joshua@garicklaw.com -- LAW OFFICES
OF JOSHUA N. GARICK

Archstone, et al. are represented by Craig M. White, Esq. --
cwhite@bakerlaw.com -- BAKER & HOSTETLER LLP; Thomas H. Wintner,
Esq. -- TWintner@mintz.com -- MINTZ, LEVIN, COHN, FERRIS, GLOVSKY
AND POPEO, P.C.


ASSET CAMPUS: Jang Appeals C.D. Cal. Ruling to Ninth Circuit
------------------------------------------------------------
Andy Jang filed an appeal from a court ruling relating to the
lawsuit styled Andy Jang v. Asset Campus Housing, Inc., et al.,
Case No. 2:15-cv-01067-JAK-PLA, in the U.S. District Court for the
Central District of California, Los Angeles.

As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter on
September 8, 2016, the Hon. Judge John A. Kronstadt entered an
order:

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

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

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

The appellate case is captioned as Andy Jang v. Asset Campus
Housing, Inc., et al., Case No. 16-80123, in the United States
Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.

Plaintiff-Petitioner ANDY JANG, on behalf of himself and others
similarly situated, is represented by:

          Ron Bochner, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF RON BOCHNER
          3333 Bowers Ave.
          Santa Clara, CA 95054
          Telephone: (408) 200-9890
          E-mail: robolaw@justice.com

Defendants-Respondents ASSET CAMPUS HOUSING, INC., PROPERTY
SOLUTIONS INTERNATIONAL, INC., and ENTRATA, INC., are represented
by:

          Kevin K. Eng, Esq.
          Edward S. Zusman, Esq.
          MARKUN ZUSMAN FRENIERE & COMPTON LLP
          465 California St.
          San Francisco, CA 94104
          Telephone: (415) 438-4515
          E-mail: keng@mzclaw.com
                  ezusman@mzclaw.com

               - and -

          David S. Markun, Esq.
          MARKUN ZUSMAN & COMPTON, LLP
          17383 West Sunset Boulevard
          Pacific Palisades, CA 90272-4181
          Telephone: (310) 454-5900
          E-mail: dmarkun@mzclaw.com

               - and -

          Deepak Gupta, Esq.
          GUPTA WESSLER PLLC
          1735 20th Street, NW
          Washington, DC 20009
          Telephone: (202) 888-1741
          E-mail: deepak@guptabeck.com


BAH CALIFORNIA: Fails to Give Meal Period, "Garcia" Suit Alleges
----------------------------------------------------------------
GUILLERMO GARCIA on behalf of himself and others similarly
situated v. BAH CALIFORNIA, INC., a California corporation; and
DOES 1 to 100, Inclusive, Case No. BC633118 (Cal. Super. Ct., Los
Angeles Cty., September 7, 2016), is a wage and hour class action
lawsuit brought on behalf of current and former non-exempt
employees of the Defendants in California seeking, among other
things, wages for workdays the Defendants failed to provide
adequate meal and rest periods.

Bah California, Inc., is incorporated in California with
headquarters in Tennessee.  The Plaintiff is unaware of the true
names of the Doe Defendants.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Joseph Lavi, Esq.
          Jordan D. Bello, Esq.
          LAVI & EBRAHIMIAN, LLP
          8889 W. Olympic Blvd., Suite 200
          Beverly Hills, CA 90211
          Telephone: (310) 432-0000
          Facsimile: (310) 432-0000
          E-mail: jlavi@lelawfirm.com
                  jbello@lelawfirm.com

               - and -

          Sahag Majarian II, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF SAHAG MAJARIAN II
          18250 Ventura Boulevard
          Tarzana, CA 91356
          Telephone: (818) 609-0807
          Facsimile: (818) 609-0892
          E-mail: sahagii@aol.com


BANK OF AMERICA: "Tancredi" Sues Over Illegal Loan Charges
----------------------------------------------------------
Stephen W. Tancredi and Karen M. Tancredi, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. Bank of
America, N.A., Defendant, Case No. 1:16-cv-00494 (D.R.I.,
September 6, 2016), seeks all damages including, but not limited
to, compensatory damages and restitution, injunctive relief,
reasonable attorneys' fees and costs and such other relief
resulting from fraud, negligent misrepresentation and unjust
enrichment.

Defendant allegedly extorts money from borrowers by telling them
their loans will not be released unless they pay certain fees that
are not authorized by loan documents and that the Defendant has no
authority to charge or collect.

The Tancredis, as borrowers, signed a promissory note and a
mortgage in favor of American Mortgage Network, Inc. as lender and
Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems, Inc. as mortgagee in
order to finance their purchase of a house located at 161
Hillcrest Avenue, Providence. Defendant began servicing their loan
from June 9, 2003 to January of 2016. Tancredis decided to pay off
the balance of the loan and asked Defendant for the total amount
due.

Bank of America, N.A. is a national bank and a mortgage servicer
with its principal office located at 100 North Tryon Street,
Charlotte, North Carolina 28255.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Peter N. Wasylyk, Esq.
      LAW OFFICES OF PETER N. WASYLYK
      1307 Chalkstone Avenue
      Providence, RI 02908
      Tel: (401) 831-7730
      Fax: (401) 861-6064
      Email: pnwlaw@aol.com

             - and -

      Andrew S. Kierstead, Esq.
      LAW OFFICE OF ANDREW KIERSTEAD
      1001 SW 5th Avenue, Suite 1100
      Portland, OR 97204
      Tel: (508) 224.6246
      Fax: (508) 224.4356
      Email: ajkier@aol.com

             - and -

      Marc R. Stanley, Esq.
      Martin Woodward, Esq.
      STANLEY LAW GROUP
      6116 N. Central Expressway, Suite 1500
      Dallas, TX 75206
      Tel: (214) 443-4300
      Fax: (214) 443.0358
      Email: marcstanley@mac.com
             mwoodward@stanleylawgroup.com


BG PROPERTY: "Worsham" Suit Seeks to Recover Minimum and OT Wages
-----------------------------------------------------------------
ALEXANDRA JADE WORSHAM, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. B.G. PROPERTY MANAGEMENT, LLC, Case No.
4:16-cv-02712 (S.D. Tex., September 7, 2016), is brought to
recover from the Defendant minimum wages and unpaid overtime wages
pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938.

B.G. Property Management is a for profit corporation doing
business in the state of Texas.  B.G. is engaged in the business
of property management.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Kelly E. Cook, Esq.
          Brad T. Wyly, Esq.
          Michael J. Bins, Esq.
          WYLY & COOK, PLLC
          4101 Washington Ave.
          Houston, TX 77007
          Telephone: (713) 236-8330
          Facsimile: (713) 863-8502


BOFI HOLDING: Defending Against Golden and Hazan Cases
------------------------------------------------------
BofI Holding, Inc.  said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on August 25, 2016, for the
fiscal year ended June 30, 2016, that the Company is defending
against the Golden case and the Hazan case.

On October 15, 2015, the Company, its Chief Executive Officer and
its Chief Financial Officer were named defendants in a putative
class action lawsuit styled Golden v. BofI Holding, Inc., et al,
and brought in United States District Court for the Southern
District of California (the "Golden Case"). On November 3, 2015,
the Company, its Chief Executive Officer and its Chief Financial
Officer were named defendants in a second putative class action
lawsuit styled Hazan v. BofI Holding, Inc., et al, and also
brought in the United States District Court for the Southern
District of California (the "Hazan Case").

On February 1, 2016, the Golden Case and the Hazan Case were
consolidated as In re BofI Holding, Inc. Securities Litigation,
Case #: 3:15-cv-02324-GPC-KSC (the "Class Action"), and the
Houston Municipal Employees Pension System was appointed lead
plaintiff. The Class Action complaint was amended by a certain
Consolidated Amended Class Complaint filed on April 11, 2016. The
Class Action plaintiff seeks monetary damages and other relief on
behalf of a putative class that has not been certified by the
Court.

The complaints filed in the Golden Case and the Hazan Case both
allege that the defendants violated Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and Rule 10b-5 promulgated
thereunder, by failing to disclose the wrongful conduct that is
alleged in a complaint that was filed in a wrongful termination of
employment lawsuit (the "Employment Matter"), and that as a result
the Company's statements regarding its internal controls, as well
as portions of its financial statements, were false and
misleading. The Company and the other named defendants dispute the
allegations of wrongdoing advanced by the plaintiffs in the Class
Action and in the Employment Matter, as well as those plaintiffs'
statement of the underlying factual circumstances, and are
vigorously defending both cases.


C-PAK SEA FOODS: "Hernandez" Suit Seeks Overtime, Missed Breaks
---------------------------------------------------------------
Priciliano Hernandez, as individual and on behalf of all employees
similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. C-Pak Sea Foods, Inc. and Does
1-50, inclusive, Defendants, Case No. BC632582 (Cal. Super.,
September 1, 2016), seeks overtime pay, recovery of missed breaks,
last pay upon termination, damages, statutory and civil penalties,
attorney's fees, statutory interest, and costs of suit under
California Labor Law and the General Business and Professions
Code.

Defendant is a seafoods market located at 742E 61st St., Los
Angeles, CA where Plaintiff worked for 9 years.

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Kevin Mahoney, Esq.
      Katherine Odenbreit, Esq.
      Atoy Wilson, Esq.
      MAHONEY LAW GROUP, APC
      249 E. Ocean Boulevard, Suite 814
      Long Beach, CA 90802
      Telephone: (562) 590-5550
      Facsimile: (562) 590-8400
      Email: kodenbreit@mahoney-law.net
             kmahoney@mahoney-law.net
             awilson@mahoney-law.net


CAPITAL ELECTRIC: "Murcia" Suit Seeks Overtime Pay Under FLSA
-------------------------------------------------------------
OSCAR MURCIA, JULIO CESAR CHAVEZ, VICTOR GARCIA, RAFAEL GONZALEZ,
JOSE LUIS CARDONA, and FRANKLIN PUERTA c/o 509 N Jefferson St
Arlington, VA 22205, the Plaintiffs, v. OLGA GONZALEZ, 10040 Blake
Ln Oakton, VA 22124, and A CAPITAL ELECTRIC CONTRACTORS, INC.
d/b/a A Capital Electric 10040 Blake Ln Oakton, VA 22124, the
Defendants, Case No. 6782 (D.C. Super. Ct., Sep. 12, 2016), seeks
to recover overtime pay under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA)
and the D.C. Minimum Wage Act Revision Act.

The Defendants knowingly failed to compensate each Plaintiff at
the rate of time-and-one-half of his regular hourly rate for every
hour worked in excess of forty hours in any one workweek.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Matthew B. Kaplan, Esq.
          The Kaplan Law Firm
          509 N. Jefferson St.
          Arlington, VA 22205
          Telephone: (703) 665 9529
          Facsimile: (888) 958 1366
          E-mail: mbkaplan@thekaplanlawfirm.com


CARDIOVASCULAR SYSTEMS: Response in Stockholder Case Due Aug. 29
----------------------------------------------------------------
Cardiovascular Systems, Inc. et al., filed a motion seeking
dismissal of the lawsuit, Shoemaker v. Cardiovascular Systems,
Inc. et al., Case No. 0:16-cv-00568 (D. Minn.).  A hearing on the
motion is set for Dec. 2, 2016 11:00 a.m. in Courtroom 7C (STP)
before Judge Donovan W. Frank. (Stern, Robert).

Cardiovascular Systems, Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 25, 2016,
for the fiscal year ended June 30, 2016, that, "On February 12,
2016, a stockholder purporting to represent a class of persons who
purchased our securities between September 12, 2011 and January
21, 2016 filed a lawsuit against us and certain of our officers in
the United States District Court for the Central District of
California, Paradis v. Cardiovascular Systems, Inc., et al., 2:16-
cv-01011 (C.D. Cal.). The lawsuit alleges that we made materially
false and misleading statements and failed to disclose material
adverse facts about our business, operational and financial
performance, in violation of federal securities laws, relating to
(1) alleged kickbacks to health care providers, (2) alleged off-
label promotion of medical devices, and (3) alleged violations of
the Food and Drug Administration's laws and regulations in
connection with our medical devices."

"On March 4, 2016, a second stockholder filed a similar lawsuit
against us and certain of our officers in the United States
District Court for the District of Minnesota, Shoemaker v.
Cardiovascular Systems, Inc. et al., 0:16-cv-00568 (D. Minn.). The
plaintiffs seek unspecified monetary damages on behalf of the
alleged class, interest, and attorney's fees and costs of
litigation.

"On April 12, 2016, four motions for appointment as lead plaintiff
were filed in the Paradis action and three of the four proposed
plaintiffs also filed a motion for appointment as lead plaintiff
in the Shoemaker action.

"On April 26, 2016, the Paradis action was voluntarily dismissed
by plaintiffs in favor of the Shoemaker action. That same day, the
Shoemaker court entered an order appointing the City of Miami Fire
Fighters' & Police Officers' Retirement Trust and the County
Retirement Systems as Co-Lead Plaintiffs for representing the
putative class. On June 28, 2016, the Co-Lead Plaintiffs filed a
new complaint. Our response to this complaint [was] due on August
29, 2016.

"We believe that this lawsuit is without merit and we intend to
defend ourselves vigorously."

Cardiovascular Systems, Inc. et al. are represented by Leah C
Janus -- ljanus@fredlaw.com -- and David R Marshall --
dmarshall@fredlaw.com -- at Fredrikson & Byron, PA; and Robert M
Stern -- rstern@orrick.com -- and Michael C Tu -- mtu@orrick.com
-- Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe LLP


CAREFIRST INC: Attias Appeals From D.C. Court Decision
------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs Chantal Attias, Latanya Bailey, Richard Bailey, Lisa
Huber, Andreas Kotzur, Connie Tringler and Curt Tringler filed an
appeal from a court ruling in their lawsuit titled Chantal Attias,
et al. v. Carefirst, Inc., et al., Case No. 1:15-cv-00882-CRC, in
the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia.

As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter on August 18,
2016, the District Court dismissed the Case, which is brought
against health insurer CareFirst over a 2014 data breach.  A copy
of the Court's decision is available at http://goo.gl/HN8YdSfrom
Leagle.com.  The Court opined that affected policyholders lack
standing to sue without showing a substantial risk that the
hackers have or will misuse their data in a harmful manner.

The appellate case is captioned as Chantal Attias, et al. v.
CareFirst, Inc., et al., Case No. 16-7108, in the United States
Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit.

The briefing schedule in the Appellate Case is set as follows:

   -- Appellants' docketing statement, certificate as to parties,
      statement of issues, underlying decision, deferred appendix
      statement, notice of appearance, transcript status report
      and procedural motions are due on October 11, 2016;

   -- Appellants' dispositive motions are due on October 24,
      2016;

   -- Appellees' certificate as to parties is due on October 11,
      2016;

   -- Appellees' entry of appearance and procedural motions are
      due on October 11, 2016; and

   -- Appellees' dispositive motions are due on October 24, 2016.

Plaintiffs-Appellants Chantal Attias, Richard Bailey, Latanya
Bailey, Lisa Huber, Andreas Kotzur, Curt Tringler and Connie
Tringler, Individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, are represented by:

          Christopher T. Nace, Esq.
          PAULSON & NACE, PLLC
          1615 New Hampshire Avenue, NW, Third Floor
          Washington, DC 20036-2404
          Telephone: (202) 463-1999
          E-mail: ctnace@paulsonandnace.com

Defendants-Appellees Carefirst, Inc., doing business as Group
Hospitalization and Medical Services, Inc., doing business as
Carefirst of Maryland, Inc., doing business as Carefirst Bluecross
Blueshield, doing business as Carefirst Bluechoice; Group
Hospitalization and Medical Services, Inc., doing business as
Carefirst Bluecross Blueshield, doing business as Carefirst
Bluechoice; Carefirst Bluechoice, doing business as Carefirst
Bluecross Blueshield, doing business as Group Hospitalization and
Medical Services, Inc., doing business as Carefirst of Maryland,
Inc.; and Carefirst of Maryland, Inc., doing business as Carefirst
Bluecross Blueshield, doing business as Bluecross and Blueshield
of Maryland Inc., doing business as Carefirst Bluechoice, are
represented by:

          Matthew Gatewood, Esq.
          SUTHERLAND ASBILL & BRENNAN LLP
          700 6th Street, NW, Suite 700
          Washington, DC 20001-3980
          Telephone: (202) 383-0100
          E-mail: matt.gatewood@sutherland.com


CARGURUS INC: Must Defend Against "Serban" Class Suit
-----------------------------------------------------
District Judge Sara L. Ellis of the United States District Court
for the Northern District of Illinois denied CarGurus' motion to
dismiss and granted Plaintiff's motion to strike in the case
captioned, IARINA SERBAN, individually and on behalf of a class of
similarly situated individuals, Plaintiff, v. CARGURUS, INC., a
Delaware Corporation, Defendant, Civil Action No. 16 C 2531 (N.D.
Ill.).

Plaintiff Iarina Serban, on behalf of herself and all others
similarly situated, filed the class action lawsuit alleging that
Defendant CarGurus, Inc. (CarGurus) violated the Telephone
Consumer Protection Act (the TCPA), 47 U.S.C. Sec. 227 et seq., by
sending text messages to Serban and other putative class members
without their consent via an automatic telephone dialing system
(ATDS).

CarGurus or its agents operate the telephone number from which the
text message Serban received was sent. That number is known as a
short messaging service shortcode (SMS shortcode). The use of SMS
shortcodes allows CarGurus to transmit such generic text messages
to individual cell phone numbers en masse. According to a text
messaging service provider used by CarGurus to deliver the text
messages, CarGurus has used SMS shortcodes to transmit at least
hundreds of thousands of text messages similar to the one Serban
received on July 30, 2015 to other individuals.

CarGurus filed a motion to dismiss pursuant to Federal Rule of
Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), arguing that Serban has not plausibly
alleged that (1) CarGurus, as opposed to a user of its website,
sent the text message, and (2) that the text message was sent
using an ATDS.

In her Opinion and Order dated September 8, 2016 available at
https://is.gd/6ZyShA from Leagle.com, Judge Ellis found that
Serban has plausibly alleged that CarGurus used an ATDS to send
text messages to Serban.

CarGurus is given until September 30, 2016 to answer the First
Amended Class Action Complaint.

Iarina Serban is represented by:

      Paul T. Geske, Esq.
      MCGUIRE LAW, P.C.
      55 W. Wacker Drive, 9th Floor
      Chicago, Il 60601

Cargurus, Inc. is represented by Charles L. Solomont, Esq. --
carl.solomont@morganlewis.com -- Emma D. Hall, Esq. --
emma.hall@morganlewis.com -- and  Tinos Diamantatos, Esq. --
tinos.diamantatos@morganlewis.com -- MORGAN, LEWIS & BOCKIUS LLP


CETCO ENERGY: "Smith" Suit to Recover Overtime Pay
--------------------------------------------------
Ronald Smith, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. CETCO Energy Services Company, LLC,
Defendant, Case No. 4:16-cv-02668, (S.D. Tex., September 1, 2016),
seeks back wages, unpaid overtime, liquidated damages, reasonable
attorneys' fees and costs and all further relief permissible under
the Fair Labor Standards Act.

Smith worked in the oil fields of CETCO Energy Services Company,
LLC in its nitrogen division.

Cetco is an oilfield services company with locations throughout
the world. It provides coiled tubing, concrete slurry, eelreel,
nitrogen, oarfish, orca, petroleum products, pipeline, wastewater
treatment, water treatment, and well testing.

Plaintiff is represented by:

     Michael A. Josephson, Esq.
     Andrew Dunlap, Esq.
     Lindsay R. Itkin, Esq.
     FIBICH, LEEBRON, COPELAND BRIGGS & JOSEPHSON
     1150 Bissonnet
     Houston, TX 77005
     Tel: 713-751-0025
     Fax: 713-751-0030
     Email: mjosephson@fibichlaw.com
            adunlap@fibichlaw.com
            litkin@fibichlaw.com

            - and -

     Richard J. Burch
     BRUCKNER BURCH, P.L.L.C.
     8 Greenway Plaza, Suite 1500
     Houston, TX 77046
     Tel: 713-877-8788
     Fax: 713-877-8065
     Email: rburch@brucknerburch.com


CHINA COMMERCIAL: Settlement of Securities Lawsuit Pending
----------------------------------------------------------
China Commercial Credit, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 22, 2016,
for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2016, that a Stipulation
and Agreement of Settlement still awaits court approval.

On August 6, 2014, a purported shareholder Andrew Dennison filed a
putative class action complaint in the United States District
Court District of New Jersey (the "N.J. district court") relating
to a July 25, 2014 press release about the Company's progress in
recovering a significant portion of the $5.4 million the Company
paid in the first quarter of 2014 on behalf of loan guarantee
customers. The action, Andrew Dennison v. China Commercial Credit,
Inc., et al., Case No. 2:2014-cv-04956, alleges that the Company
and its current and former officers and directors Huichun Qin,
Long Yi, Jianming Yin, Jinggen Ling, Xiangdong Xiao, and John F.
Levy violated the federal securities laws by misrepresenting in
prior public filings certain material facts about the risks
associated with its loan guarantee business. On October 2, 2014,
purported shareholders Zhang Yun and Sanjiv Mehrotra (the "Yun
Group") asserted substantially similar claims against the same
defendants in a putative class action captioned Zhang Yun v. China
Commercial Credit, Inc., et al., Case No. 2:14-cv-06136 (D. N.J.).
Neither complaint states the amount of damages sought.

On or about October 6, 2014, Dennison, the Yun Group and another
purported shareholder, Jason Stark, filed motions to consolidate
the cases, be appointed as lead plaintiff and to have their
respective counsel appointed as lead counsel. On October 31, 2014,
the N.J. district court entered an order consolidating the cases
under the caption "In re China Commercial Credit Inc. Securities
Litigation" and appointing the Yun Group as lead plaintiff ("Class
Plaintiff") and the Yun Group's counsel as lead counsel.

On November 18, 2014, the Yun Group and the Company, which at that
point was the only defendant served, entered into a stipulation to
transfer of the case to the Southern District of New York. On
December 18, 2014, Mr. Levy, who had by then been served, joined
in the stipulation. On December 29, 2014, the N.J. district court
entered an order transferring the action. The transfer was
effected on January 22, 2015, and assigned docket number 1:15-cv-
00557-ALC (S.D.N.Y.) (the "Securities Class Action").

Under the schedule stipulated by the parties, the Yun Group was to
file an amended complaint within 60 days of the date that the
transfer was effected, and the defendants' date to answer or move
was within 60 days of that filing. On April 7, 2015, the Class
Plaintiff filed a Second Amended Class Action Complaint (the
"CAC"). The CAC also asserts securities law claims against
defendants Axiom Capital Management, Inc., Burnham Securities Inc.
and ViewTrade Securities, Inc. (collectively, the "Underwriter
Defendants"). The CAC alleges that the Company engaged in a
fraudulent scheme by engaging in undisclosed and improper lending
practices and made misleading representations regarding its
underwriting policies, the loan portfolio quality, the loan loss
allowance, compliance with U.S. GAAP and its internal control
systems.

In accordance with the Court's procedures, the Company and Mr.
Levy and the Underwriter Defendants requested a Pre-Motion
Conference in anticipation of filing a motion to dismiss the CAC,
which was held on June 25, 2015. At the conference, the Court
adjourned the date to answer or move in order to provide the Class
Plaintiff with time to serve certain overseas defendants. After
the conference, the Class Plaintiff voluntarily dismissed Jianming
Yin, Jinggen Ling and Xiangdong Xiao from the action, and Long Yi
agreed to waive service, which left Huichun Qin as the sole
remaining defendant to serve. The case remains stayed pending
service of Huichun Qin.

On  April 22, 2016, the Company entered into a Stipulation and
Agreement of Settlement (the "Stipulation") to settle the
Securities Class Action. The Stipulation resolves the claims
asserted against the Company and certain of its current and former
officers and directors in the Securities Class Action without any
admission or concession of wrongdoing or liability by the Company
or the other defendants. The Stipulation also provides, among
other things, a settlement payment by the Company of $225,000 in
cash and the issuance of 750,000 shares of its common stock (the
"Settlement Shares") to the class members. The terms of the
Stipulation are subject to approval by the Court following notice
to all class members.

The issuance of the Settlement Shares is expected to be exempt
from registration pursuant to Section 3(a)(10) of the Securities
Act of 1933, as amended. It is probable that the Stipulation will
be approved by the Court and take effect. The Company accrued
settlement cost aggregating US$ 690,000 during the six months
ended June 30, 2016.


COCA-COLA CO: Has Made Unsolicited Calls, "Yoshonis" Suit Claims
----------------------------------------------------------------
MICHAEL YOSHONIS, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. THE COCA-COLA COMPANY, a Delaware
corporation, Case No. 2:16-cv-13217-GCS-EAS (E.D. Mich., September
7, 2016), is brought to stop the Defendant's alleged practice of
making unsolicited autodialed and pre-recorded calls to the
cellular telephones of consumers nationwide and to obtain redress
for all persons injured by its conduct under the Telephone
Consumer Protection Act.

The Coca-Cola Company is a Delaware corporation with its
headquarters located at One Coca-Cola Plaza, in Atlanta, Georgia.

Coca-Cola is the world's largest beverage company.  Coca-Cola owns
and markets four of the world's top five nonalcoholic sparkling
beverage brands, and its products are sold in more than 200
countries.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Bradley J. Friedman, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF BRADLEY J. FRIEDMAN, ESQ.
          30300 Northwestern Hwy, Suite 106
          Farmington Hills, MI 48334
          Telephone: (248) 932-0100
          Facsimile: (248) 932-3512
          E-mail: bfriedmanesq@gmail.com

               - and -

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

               - and -

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


COLLECTO INC: Counsel Appeals Ruling in "Diaz" Suit to 9th Cir.
---------------------------------------------------------------
Petitioners Charles Messer, Esq., David J. Kaminski, Esq., Stephen
Watkins, Esq., filed an appeal from a court ruling in the lawsuit
entitled Walter Diaz, on behalf of himself and all others
similarly situated v. Collecto, Inc. d/b/a EOS CCA, Case No. 3:15-
cv-04833-CRB, filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of California, San Francisco, on October 20, 2015.

The appellate case is captioned as Charles Messer, et al. v. USDC-
CASF, Case No. 16-72976, in the United States Court of Appeals for
the Ninth Circuit.  The Respondent is the District Court.

As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the District
Court Case was brought against the Defendants for knowingly, and
willfully employing and causing to be employed certain recording
equipment in order to record telephone conversations with the
Plaintiff without the knowledge or consent of the Plaintiff, in
violation of California Penal Code, thereby invading the
Plaintiff's privacy.

Collecto, Inc. operates a debt collection services company in Los
Angeles California.  Messrs. Messer, Kaminski and Watkins
represent Collecto.

Petitioners Charles Messer, David J. Kaminski and Stephen Watkins
represented themselves:

          Charles Messer, Esq.
          David J. Kaminski, Esq.
          Stephen Watkins, Esq.
          CARLSON & MESSER LLP
          5959 West Century Boulevard
          Los Angeles, CA 90045
          Telephone: (310) 242-2200
          Facsimile: (310) 242-2222
          E-mail: messerc@cmtlaw.com
                  kaminskd@cmtlaw.com
                  watkinss@cmtlaw.com

The Plaintiff and Real Party in Interest WALTER DIAZ, on behalf of
himself and all others similarly situated, is represented by:

      Todd M. Friedman, Esq.
      Adrian R. Bacon, Esq.
      LAW OFFICES OF TODD M. FRIEDMAN, P.C.
      324 S. Beverly Dr., #725
      Beverly Hills, CA 90212
      Telephone: (877) 206-4741
      Facsimile: (866) 633-0228
      E-mail: tfriedman@attorneysforconsumers.com
              abacon@attorneysforconsumers.com


CYTRX CORPORATION: Defending "Dorce" Class Action
-------------------------------------------------
Cytrx Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on August 26, 2016, for the
quarterly period ended July 30, 2016, that a class action
complaint was filed on July 29, 2016, in the U.S. District Court
for the Central District of California, titled Greguy Dorce v.
CytRx Corp. et al., Case No. 2:16-cv-0566. The complaint is
substantially identical to the previously reported class action
complaint filed on July 25, 2016 in the same Court.

The Company said, "We have directors' and officers' liability
insurance which will be utilized in the defense of these matters,
subject to the retention amount under the insurance. The insurance
may not cover all of the future liabilities we may incur in
connection with the foregoing matters."


DAKOTA ACCESS: Faces Class Action Over Pipeline Construction
------------------------------------------------------------
Joey Aguirre, writing for The Des Moines Register, reports that
construction of the Dakota Access pipeline is facing resistance
from some local residents who believe it's a gamble with Iowa's
environment that could lead to the contamination of Iowa's water
supply.

More than 40 concerned citizens camped out to serve as watchdogs
and monitor the construction in Pilot Mound, along the Des Moines
River.

Sandy Kipper, a local land and homeowner, said using eminent
domain for a private, for-profit and out-of-state company isn't
right.

"Running crude oil down the entire watershed of an entire
continent is probably not a good idea," Mr. Kipper said.  "It's
just bizarre and doesn't make sense at all.  From our heart, we
just do not understand it.  People are saying, there has got to be
a better way.  We're all in this together and the big bucks and
corporations seem to be running what's going on."

Carolyn Raffensperger, executive director of the science and
environmental health network, which sponsors the coalition, said a
leak in the pipeline would threaten Des Moines.

"We already have polluted water in Des Moines," Ms. Raffensperger
said.  "The idea that we would have fossil fuels added to that is
a pretty appalling idea.  Who is standing for the land and the
water? Who is standing for the landowners and future generations?
We are."

Once completed, the $3.8 billion pipeline will transport over
500,000 barrels of oil each day from North Dakota's Bakken oil
fields to Patoka, Ill., and will travel through four states: Iowa,
Illinois, North Dakota and South Dakota.

The pipeline is proposed to go under several rivers in the Midwest
-- including the Des Moines River -- which provides drinking water
for Polk County and surrounding counties in central Iowa.

In Iowa, it will cross through 18 counties, stretch over 340 miles
and through 1,200 properties.  Among those, Boone County, where it
faces opposition from various organized groups such as the Bakken
Pipeline Resistance coalition.  This group consists of
organizations representing landowners and community members who
have one common goal: Stopping the construction of the Dakota
Access pipeline.

"This is the first crude oil pipeline this company has ever
built," Ms. Raffensperger said.

Despite being up against a sizable opponent, Ms. Raffensperger
said the coalition is hopeful that delays and lawsuits that could
weaken Dakota Access LLC's financial position, the two outstanding
permits aren't granted and the moral outcry about the injustice
keeps growing.

"That fourth ingredient, with all these things coming together,
means something very unexpected can happen," she said.  "There are
events happening across the state, so people are starting to
string out like beads on a necklace.  Here, because Boone County
has a resolution on record opposing this, we have the threat to
Des Moines drinking water and so many people turned out for the
protest."

Zachary Ide said his family owns land in Mahaska County that was
subject to eminent domain earlier this year.  His family is part
of a class action lawsuit against Dakota Access LLC, claiming
eminent domain was unlawfully applied to their land.

"Those well-paying jobs and low energy costs are going to mean
nothing when the water is poisoned and our land is soaked in oil,"
Mr. Ide said.

Mark Edwards, a Boone County resident who has worked for the Iowa
Department of Natural Resources for 30 years, explained if the
pipeline were to leak into the Des Moines river, 1 million gallons
of oil would be discharged into the river an hour.

"Visually there would be a leak before anyone would ever see it,"
Mr. Edwards said.  "So the absurdity of this is becoming quite
evident."

Mr. Edwards said he felt Dakota Access LLC was acting as a bully
to landowners.

"They are just running over everyone," Mr. Edwards said.  "That's
a bad precedent and it's taken away all faith in government."

In July, the U.S Army Corps of Engineers concluded that proposed
crossings of Iowa's waterways will comply with federal
environmental laws, which followed a decision by the Iowa
Utilities Board, who previously authorized Dakota Access to start
construction on the pipeline where necessary permissions had been
granted.


DALLAS CENTRAL: North Park Suit Seeks Re-appraisal
--------------------------------------------------
8750 NCE Dallas LLC v. Dallas Central Appraisal District,
Defendant, Case No. DC-16-11200, (Dal. Cty. Ct., September 6,
2016), seeks adjustment of appraised value, court costs and
reasonable attorney's fees and such other and further relief for
violation of the Texas Tax Code.

Plaintiff was and is the owner of certain real property and
improvements known as North Park Central located at 8750 NCE
Dallas County, Texas and alleges that the value placed on the
property by the District represents a value in excess of fair
market value for tax year 2016.

The Appraisal District is a political subdivision of the State of
Texas located at 2949 N. Stemmons Freeway, Dallas County, Texas
75247-6195.

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Daniel P. Donovan, Esq.
      Mazelle S. Krasoff, Esq.
      Jennifer C. Tobin, Esq.
      GEARY, PORTER & DONOVAN, P.C.
      16475 Dallas Pkwy., Suite 400
      Addison, TX 75001-6837
      Tel: (972) 931-9901
      Fax: (972) 931-9208 (fax)
      Email: ddonovan@gpd.com
             jtobin@gpd.com
             mkrasoff@gpd.com


DALLAS CENTRAL: Brookwood Suit Alleges Misappraisal
---------------------------------------------------
Brookwood Heritage Square LLC, v. Dallas Central Appraisal
District, Defendant, Case No. DC-16-11220, (Dal. Cty. Ct.,
September 6, 2016), seeks adjustment of appraised value, court
costs and reasonable attorney's fees and such other and further
relief for violation of the Texas Tax Code.

Plaintiff was and is the owner of certain real property and
improvements known as the Heritage Square I & II located at 4835
and 5001 LBJ Freeway in Dallas County, Texas and alleges that the
value placed on the property by the District represents a value in
excess of fair market value for tax year 2016.

The Appraisal District is a political subdivision of the State of
Texas located at 2949 N. Stemmons Freeway, Dallas County, Texas
75247-6195.

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Daniel P. Donovan, Esq.
      Kathleen F. Donovan, Esq.
      Jennifer C. Tobin, Esq.
      GEARY, PORTER & DONOVAN, P.C.
      16475 Dallas Pkwy., Suite 400
      Addison, TX 75001-6837
      Tel: (972) 931-9901
      Fax: (972) 931-9208 (fax)
      Email: ddonovan@gpd.com
             kdonovan@gpd.com
             jtobin@gpd.com


DALLAS CENTRAL: Bijal Suit Seeks Property Re-appraisal
------------------------------------------------------
Bijal Hospitality, LLC, v. Dallas Central Appraisal District,
Defendant, Case No. DC-16-11209, (Dal. Cty. Ct., September 6,
2016), seeks adjustment of appraised value, court costs and
reasonable attorney's fees and such other and further relief for
violation of the Texas Tax Code.

Plaintiff was and is the owner of certain real property and
improvements located at 2287 W Northwest Highway Dallas, TX 75220
and alleges that the value placed on the property by the District
represents a value in excess of fair market value for tax year
2016.

The Appraisal District is a political subdivision of the State of
Texas located at 2949 N. Stemmons Freeway, Dallas County, Texas
75247-6195.

Plaintiff is represented by:

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


DALLAS CENTRAL: Berkely Sues Over High Land Appraisal
-----------------------------------------------------
Berkely Industries Ltd., v. Dallas Central Appraisal District,
Defendant, Case No. DC-16-11163, (Dal. Cty. Ct., September 6,
2016), seeks adjustment of appraised value, court costs and
reasonable attorney's fees and such other and further relief for
violation of the Texas Tax Code.

Plaintiff was and is the owner of certain real property and
improvements known as the St. Moritz located at 5665 Arapaho Road
in Dallas County, Texas and alleges that the value placed on the
property by the District represents a value in excess of fair
market value for tax year 2016.

The Appraisal District is a political subdivision of the State of
Texas located at 2949 N. Stemmons Freeway, Dallas County, Texas
75247-6195.

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Daniel P. Donovan, Esq.
      Kathleen F. Donovan, Esq.
      GEARY, PORTER & DONOVAN, P.C.
      16475 Dallas Pkwy., Suite 400
      Addison, TX 75001-6837
      Tel: (972) 931-9901
      Fax: (972) 931-9208 (fax)
      Email: ddonovan@gpd.com
             kdonovan@gpd.com


DALLAS CENTRAL: Ashton Uptown Suit Seeks Re-appraisal
-----------------------------------------------------
Ashton Uptown LP, v. Dallas Central Appraisal District, Defendant,
Case No. DC-16-11167, (Dal. Cty. Ct., September 6, 2016), seeks
adjustment of appraised value, court costs and reasonable
attorney's fees and such other and further relief for violation of
the Texas Tax Code.

Plaintiff was and is the owner of certain real property and
improvements known as The Ashton located at 2215 Cedar Springs
Road in Dallas County, Texas and alleges that the value placed on
the property by the District represents a value in excess of fair
market value for tax year 2016.

The Appraisal District is a political subdivision of the State of
Texas located at 2949 N. Stemmons Freeway, Dallas County, Texas
75247-6195.

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Daniel P. Donovan, Esq.
      Kathleen F. Donovan, Esq.
      GEARY, PORTER & DONOVAN, P.C.
      16475 Dallas Pkwy., Suite 400
      Addison, TX 75001-6837
      Tel: (972) 931-9901
      Fax: (972) 931-9208 (fax)
      Email: ddonovan@gpd.com
             kdonovan@gpd.com


DALLAS CENTRAL: St. James Hits High Property Appraisal
------------------------------------------------------
St. James Redevelopment, Ltd. v. Dallas Central Appraisal
District, Defendant, Case No. 16-11151 (Dal. Cty. Ct., September
2, 2016), seeks monetary relief, attorney's fees and non-monetary
relief under the Texas Property Tax Code.

Dallas Central Appraisal District is a county agency of the State
of Texas located at 2949 N. Stemmons Freeway, Dallas, Dallas
County, Texas 75247-6195. It allegedly made an excessive valuation
of the Plaintiff's Dallas properties located at 3303 and 3211
Chapel Creek Drive.

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Michael A. Lang, Esq.
      Heather H. Lang, Esq.
      LANG LAW OFFICE, P.C.
      P.O. Box261330
      Plano, TX 75026
      Telephone: (972) 731-6758

      Facsimile: (469) 854-3336


DALLAS CENTRAL: Markison Vista Suit Seeks Re-Evaluation
-------------------------------------------------------
Markison Vista Joint Venture v. Dallas Central Appraisal District,
Defendant, Case No. 16-11143 (Dal. Cty. Ct., September 2, 2016),
seeks corrective revaluation, monetary relief, attorney's fees and
non-monetary relief under the Texas Property Tax Code.

Dallas Central Appraisal District is a county agency of the State
of Texas located at 2949 N. Stemmons Freeway, Dallas, Texas 75247-
6195. It allegedly made an excessive valuation of the Plaintiff's
Dallas property located at 10501 Markison Road.

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Michael A. Lang, Esq.
      Heather H. Lang, Esq.
      LANG LAW OFFICE, P.C.
      P.O. Box261330
      Plano, TX 75026
      Telephone: (972) 731-6758
      Facsimile: (469) 854-3336


DALLAS CENTRAL: Mission Plaza Suit Seeks Re-evaluation
------------------------------------------------------
Mission Plaza Joint Venture v. Dallas Central Appraisal District,
Defendant, Case No. 16-11142 (Dal. Cty. Ct., September 2, 2016),
seeks corrective revaluation, monetary relief, attorney's fees and
non-monetary relief under the Texas Property Tax Code.

Dallas Central Appraisal District is a county agency of the State
of Texas located at 2949 N. Stemmons Freeway, Dallas, Texas 75247-
6195. It allegedly made an excessive valuation of the Plaintiff's
property located at 1201 Richardson Drive, Richardson, Texas.

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Michael A. Lang, Esq.
      Heather H. Lang, Esq.
      LANG LAW OFFICE, P.C.
      P.O. Box261330
      Plano, TX 75026
      Telephone: (972) 731-6758
      Facsimile: (469) 854-3336


DALLAS CENTRAL: Monterra Suit Seeks Land Re-appraisal
-----------------------------------------------------
Monterra Redevelopment, LLC v. Dallas Central Appraisal District,
Defendant, Case No. 16-11148 (Dal. Cty. Ct., September 2, 2016),
seeks corrective revaluation, monetary relief, attorney's fees and
non-monetary relief under the Texas Property Tax Code.

Dallas Central Appraisal District is a county agency of the State
of Texas located at 2949 N. Stemmons Freeway, Dallas, Texas 75247-
6195. It allegedly made an excessive valuation of the Plaintiff's
Dallas property located at 7621 Ferguson Rd.

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Michael A. Lang, Esq.
      Heather H. Lang, Esq.
      LANG LAW OFFICE, P.C.
      P.O. Box261330
      Plano, TX 75026
      Telephone: (972) 731-6758
      Facsimile: (469) 854-3336


DALLAS CENTRAL: Petal Street Sues Over High Appraisal
-----------------------------------------------------
Petal Street Joint Venture v. Dallas Central Appraisal District,
Defendant, Case No. 16-11141 (Dal. Cty. Ct., September 2, 2016),
seeks corrective revaluation, monetary relief, attorney's fees and
non-monetary relief under the Texas Property Tax Code.

Dallas Central Appraisal District is a county agency of the State
of Texas located at 2949 N. Stemmons Freeway, Dallas, Texas 75247-
6195. It allegedly made an excessive valuation of the Plaintiff's
Dallas property located at 7621 Ferguson Rd.

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Michael A. Lang, Esq.
      Heather H. Lang, Esq.
      LANG LAW OFFICE, P.C.
      P.O. Box261330
      Plano, TX 75026
      Telephone: (972) 731-6758
      Facsimile: (469) 854-3336


DALLAS CENTRAL: Brick Row Sues Over Excessive Appraisal
-------------------------------------------------------
BRICK ROW APARTMENTS, LLC, and CENTENNIAL PARK RICHARDSON, LTD.,
the Plaintiffs, v. DALLAS CENTRAL APPRAISAL DISTRICT, the
Defendant, Case No. DC-16-11495 (Dal. Cty. Ct., Sep. 12, 2016),
asks the Court to fix the appraised value of the Plaintiff's
Property in accordance with the law.

In May 2016, Plaintiffs 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 Plaintiffs allege 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. Lang, Esq.
          LANG LAW OFFICE, P.C.
          P.O. Box 261330
          Plano, TX 75026
          Telephone: (972) 731 6758
          Facsimile: (469) 854 3336


DALLAS CENTRAL: Intergerman Chimney Sues Over Excessive Appraisal
-----------------------------------------------------------------
INTERGERMAN CHIMNEY LP (Chimney Hill), the Plaintiff, v. DALLAS
CENTRAL APPRAISAL DISTRICT, the Defendant, Case No. DC-16-11527
(Dal. Cty. Ct., Sep. 12, 2016), seeks monetary relief of $100,000
or less (attorneys' fees) and non-monetary relief (correction of
the appraisal roll as it pertains to Plaintiffs property).

In May 2016, Plaintiff learned that the Appraisal District had
made an appraisal of the 2016 market value of the Property for use
by the relevant Taxing Units in Dallas County, Texas in assessing
2016 ad valorem property taxes. The Appraisal District appraised
the value of the Property at $21,000,000, an amount in excess of
the appraised value required by law.

According to the complaint, the value placed on the Property
represents a value in excess of fair market value. The appraised
value is unfair and discriminatory, arrived at through the
adoption, application, use and enforcement of a fundamentally
erroneous and unlawful plan, method and formula of valuation and
assessment.

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

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


DALLAS CENTRAL: Oak Cliff Sues Over Excessive Appraisal
-------------------------------------------------------
OAK CLIFF TOWER LIMITED, the Plaintiff, v. DALLAS CENTRAL
APPRAISAL DISTRICT, the Defendant, Case No. DC-16-11486 (Dal. Cty.
Ct., Sep. 12, 2016), asks the Court to fix the appraised value of
the Plaintiff's Property in accordance with the law.

In May 2016, Plaintiffs 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 Plaintiffs allege 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. Lang, Esq.
          LANG LAW OFFICE, P.C.
          P.O. Box 261330
          Plano, TX 75026
          Telephone: (972) 731 6758
          Facsimile: (469) 854 3336


DALLAS CENTRAL: CPF Gateway Sues Over Excessive Appraisal
---------------------------------------------------------
CPF GATEWAY INDUSTRIAL II LLC (3801 Regency Crest Drive), the
Plaintiff, v. DALLAS CENTRAL APPRAISAL DISTRICT, the Defendant,
Case No. DC-16-11554 (Dal. Cty. Ct., Sep. 12, 2016), seeks
monetary relief of $100,000 or less (attorneys' fees) and non-
monetary relief (correction of the appraisal roll as it pertains
to Plaintiff's property).

In or around May 2016, Plaintiff learned that the Appraisal
District had made an appraisal the 2016 market value of the
Property for use by the relevant Taxing Units in Dallas County,
Texas in assessing 2016 ad valorem property taxes. The Appraisal
District appraised the value of the Property at an amount of
$10,059,260 in excess of the appraised value required by law.

The value placed on the Property represents a value in excess of
fair market value. The appraised value is unfair and
discriminatory, arrived at through the adoption, application, use
and enforcement of a fundamentally erroneous and unlawful plan,
method and formula of valuation and assessment.

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

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


DALLAS CENTRAL: Intergerman Derby Sues Over Excessive Appraisal
---------------------------------------------------------------
INTERGERMAN DERBY LIMITED PARTNERSHIP (Derby Park), the Plaintiff,
v. DALLAS CENTRAL APPRAISAL DISTRICT, the Defendant, Case No. DC-
16-11531 (Dal. Cty. Ct., Sep. 12, 2016), seeks monetary relief of
$100,000 or less (attorneys' fees) and non-monetary relief
(correction of the appraisal roll as it pertains to Plaintiff's
property).

In 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
assessing2016 ad valorem property taxes. The Appraisal District
appraised the value of the Property at $24,064,830 an amount in
excess of the appraised value required by law.

The value placed on the Property represents a value in excess of
fair market value. The appraised value is unfair and
discriminatory, arrived at through the adoption, application, use
and enforcement of a fundamentally erroneous and unlawful plan,
method and formula of valuation and assessment.

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

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


DALLAS CENTRAL: Eagle Rock Sues Over Excessive Appraisal
--------------------------------------------------------
EAGLE ROCK BLVD., LLC, the Plaintiff, v. DALLAS CENTRAL APPRAISAL
DISTRICT, the Defendant, Case No. DC-16-11488 (Dal. Cty. Ct., Sep.
12, 2016), asks the Court to fix the appraised value of the
Plaintiff's Property in accordance with the law.

In or 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. Lang, Esq.
          LANG LAW OFFICE, P.C.
          P.O. Box 261330
          Plano, TX 75026
          Telephone: (972) 731 6758
          Facsimile: (469) 854 3336


DALLAS CENTRAL: Garland Al Sues Over Excessive Appraisal
--------------------------------------------------------
GARLAND AL INVESTMENT, LLC, the Plaintiff, v. DALLAS CENTRAL
APPRAISAL DISTRICT, the Defendant, Case No. DC-16-11491 (Dal. Cty.
Ct., Sep. 12, 2016), asks the Court to fix the appraised value of
the Plaintiff's Property in accordance with the law.

In or 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. Lang, Esq.
          LANG LAW OFFICE, P.C.
          P.O. Box 261330
          Plano, TX 75026
          Telephone: (972) 731 6758
          Facsimile: (469) 854 3336


DALLAS CENTRAL: WRH Hilton Sues Over Excessive Appraisal
--------------------------------------------------------
WRH HILTON HEAD, LLLP (Hilton Head Apartments), the Plaintiff, v.
DALLAS CENTRAL APPRAISAL DISTRICT, the Defendant, Case No. DC-16-
11566 (Dal. Cty. Ct., Sep. 12, 2016), seeks monetary relief of
$100,000 or less (attorneys' fees) and non-monetary relief
(correction of the appraisal roll as it pertains to Plaintiff's
property).

In 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
assessing2016 ad valorem property taxes. The Appraisal District
appraised the value of the Properties at $19,190,000 an amount in
excess of the appraised value required by law.

The value placed on the Property represents a value in excess of
fair market value. The appraised value is unfair and
discriminatory, arrived at through the adoption, application, use
and enforcement of a fundamentally erroneous and unlawful plan,
method and formula of valuation and assessment.

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

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


DALLAS CENTRAL: Houtex (USA) Sues Over Excessive Appraisal
----------------------------------------------------------
HOUTEX (USA), INC, the Plaintiff, v. DALLAS CENTRAL APPRAISAL
DISTRICT, the Defendant, Case No. DC-16-11487 (Dal. Cty. Ct., Sep.
12, 2016), asks the Court to fix the appraised value of the
Plaintiff's Property in accordance with the law.

In or 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. Lang, Esq.
          LANG LAW OFFICE, P.C.
          P.O. Box 261330
          Plano, TX 75026
          Telephone: (972) 731 6758
          Facsimile: (469) 854 3336


DALLAS CENTRAL: L&B Sues Over Excessive Appraisal
-------------------------------------------------
L&B DEPP INWOOD VILLAGE, the Plaintiff, v. DALLAS CENTRAL
APPRAISAL DISTRICT, the Defendant, Case No. DC-16-11553 (Dal. Cty.
Ct., Sep. 12, 2016), asks the Court to fix the appraised value of
the Plaintiff's Property in accordance with the law.

In or 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. Lang, Esq.
          LANG LAW OFFICE, P.C.
          P.O. Box 261330
          Plano, TX 75026
          Telephone: (972) 731 6758
          Facsimile: (469) 854 3336


DALLAS CENTRAL: Burroughs Sues Over Excessive Appraisal
-------------------------------------------------------
MARK BURROUGHS and DIANA BURROUGHS, the Plaintiff, v. DALLAS
CENTRAL APPRAISAL DISTRICT, the Defendant, Case No. DC-16-11541
(Dal. Cty. Ct., Sep. 12, 2016), asks the Court to find that the
value of Plaintiffs' property as of January 1, 2016, was unequally
appraised and shall be adjusted on the appraisal rolls of Dallas
County, Texas.

According to the complaint, the Notice of Residential Appraisal
Value for Year 2016 was sent by Defendant to Plaintiffs during May
2016 and reappraised the recently-agreed appraisal value of
Plaintiffs' residence from $1,862,500.00 to $2,285,930.00.
Therefore, Defendant claims that in the five (5) months between
December 16, 2015'and Defendant's Notice of Appraised Value sent
in May 2016, the reasonable appraised value of Plaintiffs'
homestead increased from $1,862,500.00 to $2,285,930.00, a leap of
$423,430.00 No changes or improvements to Plaintiffs' property
have been made or alleged by Defendant to account for this
increase in value from the December 2015 Agreed Judgment
valuation.

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

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Gregor J. Sawko
          1172 Bent Oaks Drive
          Denton, TX 76210
          Telephone: (940) 382 4357
          Facsimile: (940) 591 0991
          E-mail: gsawko@dentonlawyer.com


DALLAS CENTRAL: NKW Ltd. Sues Over Excessive Appraisal
------------------------------------------------------
NKW, LTD., the Plaintiff, v. DALLAS CENTRAL APPRAISAL DISTRICT,
the Defendant, Case No. DC-16-11489 (Dal. Cty. Ct., Sep. 12,
2016), asks the Court to fix the appraised value of the
Plaintiff's Property in accordance with the law.

In or 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. Lang, Esq.
          LANG LAW OFFICE, P.C.
          P.O. Box 261330
          Plano, TX 75026
          Telephone: (972) 731 6758
          Facsimile: (469) 854 3336


DALLAS CENTRAL: First Industrial Alleges Overvaluation
------------------------------------------------------
First Industrial LP v. Dallas Central Appraisal District,
Defendant, Case No. 16-10989 (Dal. Cty. Ct., September 1, 2016),
seeks monetary relief of at most $100,000 in attorney's fees and
non-monetary relief under the Texas Property Tax Code.

Harris County Appraisal Review Board is a county agency of the
State of Texas. It allegedly made an excessive valuation of the
Plaintiff's property located at 5100 Mountain Creek Parkway and
8101 Camp Wisdom Road for tax purposes.

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Dallas A. Sessions, Esq.
      Daniel P. Donovan, Esq.
      Jennifer C. Tobin, Esq.
      Dallas A. Sessions, Esq.
      GEARY, PORTER & DONOVAN, P.C.
      One Bent Tree Tower
      16475 Dallas Pkwy., Suite 400
      Addison, TX 75001-6837
      Tel: (972) 931-9901
      Fax: (972) 931-9208
      Email: ddonovan@gpd.com
             jtobin@gpd.com
             dsessions@gpd.com


DALLAS COWBOYS: Denial of Class Certification Upheld
----------------------------------------------------
Circuit Judge Edith H. Jones of the Court of Appeals, Fifth
Circuit affirmed denial of class certification and a trial court's
elimination, by dismissal or summary judgment, of several claims
in the case captioned, BRUCE IBE; DEAN HOFFMAN; ROBERT FORTUNE;
JASON MCLEAR, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. JERRAL WAYNE JONES, also
known as Jerry Jones; BLUE & SILVER, INCORPORATED; DALLAS COWBOYS
FOOTBALL CLUB, LIMITED; JWJ CORPORATION; COWBOYS STADIUM, L.P.;
COWBOYS STADIUM GP, L.L.C.; NATIONAL FOOTBALL LEAGUE, Defendants-
Appellees KEN LAFFIN, Individually and On Behalf Of All Others
Similarly Situated; DAVID WANTA, Individually and On Behalf Of All
Others Similarly Situated; REBECCA BURGWIN, Individually and On
Behalf Of All Others Similarly Situated, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v.
NATIONAL FOOTBALL LEAGUE; COWBOYS STADIUM GP, L.L.C.; COWBOYS
STADIUM, L.P.; DALLAS COWBOYS FOOTBALL CLUB, LIMITED; JWJ
CORPORATION, Defendants-Appellees, Case No. 15-10242 (5th Cir.).

In preparation for the Super Bowl XLV game, the Committee and the
NFL entered into a stadium license agreement, which provided that
the Committee would bear the responsibility of installing
temporary seating to bring the minimum capacity up to 93,221. The
agreement provided that the temporary seats be of a suitable
standard commensurate with the quality and standards of the NFL
Super Bowl viewing experience, including appropriate sightlines
and access to concessions stands and restrooms. The agreement also
required that all temporary seating be installed and approved by
January 30, 2011. Cowboys Stadium contracted Seating Solutions to
install approximately 13,000 temporary seats for the game. The NFL
hired Populous, an architectural design firm, to review and
evaluate the installation plans. After Seating Solutions initially
submitted its temporary seating plans, Populous noted, inter alia,
several sightline issues. As a result, over 1,000 seats were
marked as having a "restricted view." Additional seats were
removed from the plans in early January during the quality control
process.

As a result, the work was still ongoing at noon on Super Bowl
Sunday. Ultimately, not all of the seats were ready. Approximately
400 ticketholders were left without seats, another 850 or so
ticketholders were relocated to seats in other parts of the
stadium, and roughly 2,000 ticketholders were delayed in reaching
their seats.

Two class action lawsuits were filed in the Northern District of
Texas against the NFL and the Cowboys franchise defendants (the
Cowboys). After consolidation, Appellants' complaint identified
three putative classes: (1) the "Displaced Class," consisting of
all ticketholders who were left without seats; (2) the
"Relocated/Delayed Class," consisting of all ticketholders who
were relocated to a different seat or were significantly delayed
in getting to their seats; and (3) the "Obstructed View Class"
consisting of all ticketholders who were assigned seats with
obstructed views of the field, the video board, and/or the
stadium, but whose tickets were not marked as a restricted view
seat. In their first amended complaint, Appellants raised claims
for breach of contract, fraudulent inducement, fraudulent
concealment, negligent misrepresentation by affirmative
misrepresentations, and negligent misrepresentation by
concealment, and negligence. In addition, three of the Appellants
alleged Deceptive Trade Practices Act (DTPA) violations by all
Appellees.

The NFL responded by moving to dismiss all the tort claims on the
basis of Texas's "economic loss rule," which bars recovery in tort
for economic losses resulting from a party's failure to perform
under a contract. The NFL also urged that the remaining claims for
fraudulent inducement were not pled with specificity under Fed. R.
Civ. P. 9(b). The Cowboys moved to dismiss all claims against them
because they had no contractual relationship with the Appellants.

The district court granted in part the NFL's motion to dismiss and
dismissed the Cowboys defendants. The court dismissed with
prejudice Appellants' claims of fraudulent concealment and
negligent misrepresentation against the NFL as barred by the
economic loss rule. The district court accordingly dismissed the
Displaced and Relocated ticketholders' fraudulent inducement
claims with prejudice. The court dismissed the Cowboys, who owed
no duty to Appellants because the Cowboys were not a party to the
contracts between Appellants and the NFL. Subsequently, the court
denied Appellants' motion for class certification. With respect to
the Displaced Class, the court found certification inappropriate
because Appellants failed to show that the proposed class
satisfied Fed. R. Civ. Pro. 23(a)'s numerosity requirement, and
because individual damages issues predominated over the common
legal issue of liability.

On appeal, Plaintiffs challenge nearly every dispositive decision
by the district court: (1) the dismissal of the Cowboys and fraud-
related claims; (2) summary judgment on obstructed-view claims;
and (3) the denial of class certification. Appellants also take
issue with denial of a jury instruction and the court's directed
verdict on punitive damages.

In her Order dated September 9, 2016 available at
https://is.gd/oAQpUQ from Leagle.com, Judge Jones found no error
in the district court's 12(b)(6), Rule 56, and directed verdict
rulings.

"We also hold that the district court did not abuse its discretion
in denying to give Appellants' proposed jury instruction. Finally,
in denying class certification, the district court carefully
applied the class certification principles to each class, and we
agree with its conclusions," the Appeals court said.

Dallas Cowboys Football Club, et al. are represented by Levi Glenn
McCathern, II, Esq. -- lmccathern@mccathernlaw.com -- MCCATHERN --
Richard Thaddeus Behrens, Esq. -- thad.behrens@haynesboone.com --
and -- George W. Bramblett, Jr., Esq. --
george.bramblett@haynesboone.com -- HAYNES AND BOONE LLP

Bruce Ibe, et al. are represented by Christopher Scott Ayres, Esq.
-- cayres@eagavenatti.com -- Ahmed Ibrahim, Esq. --
aibrahim@eaganavenatti.com -- and  Michael J. Avenatti, Esq. --
mavenatti@eaganavenatti.com -- EAGAN AVENATTI LLP


DEVRY EDUCATION: Settlement Reached in Rayter-Herendeen Case
------------------------------------------------------------
DeVry Education Group Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 25, 2016, for the
fiscal year ended July 30, 2016, that an agreement in principle
has been reached to settle the litigation by Alex Rayter and Ryan
Herendeen.

On January 29, 2016, a putative class action lawsuit was filed by
Alex Rayter and Ryan Herendeen, individually and on behalf of
others similarly situated, against DeVry Group and DeVry
University, Inc. in the United States District Court for the
Northern District of California claiming breaches of implied
contract and the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing,
violations of the California Unfair Trade Practices Act, the
California False Advertising Act and the California Consumer Legal
Remedies Act, and negligent misrepresentations.

An agreement in principle has been reached to settle the
litigation with the named plaintiffs as a means of resolving
disputed claims without the cost, disruption, uncertainty and
expense of further litigation. Pursuant to a confidential
settlement agreement that is being documented, the lawsuit will be
dismissed in its entirety.


DEVRY EDUCATION: Pension Trust Fund Won't Oppose Lead Plaintiff
---------------------------------------------------------------
DeVry Education Group Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 25, 2016, for the
fiscal year ended July 30, 2016, that the Pension Trust Fund for
Operation Engineers has filed a notice of its non-opposition to
the appointment of Utah Retirement System as lead plaintiff.

On May 13, 2016, a putative class action lawsuit was filed by the
Pension Trust Fund for Operation Engineers, individually and on
behalf of others similarly situated, against DeVry Group, Daniel
Hamburger, Richard M. Gunst, and Timothy J. Wiggins in the United
States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois. The
complaint was filed on behalf of a putative class of persons who
purchased DeVry Group common stock between February 4, 2011 and
January 27, 2016.

Citing the FTC lawsuit and ED's January 2016 Notice, the
plaintiffs claim that defendants made false or misleading
statements regarding DeVry University's graduate employment rate
and the earnings of DeVry University graduates relative to the
graduates of other universities and colleges. As a result of these
false or misleading statements about DeVry University graduate
outcomes, plaintiff alleges, defendants overstated DeVry Group's
growth, revenue and earnings potential and made false or
misleading statements about DeVry Group's business, operations and
prospects. Plaintiffs allege direct liability against all
defendants for violations of Sec.10(b) and Rule 10b-5 of the
Exchange Act and asserted liability against the individual
defendants pursuant to Sec. 20(a) of the Exchange Act. Plaintiff
seeks monetary damages, interest, attorneys' fees, costs and other
unspecified relief.

On July 13, 2016, the Utah Retirement System moved for appointment
as lead plaintiff and approval of its selection of counsel. On
July 26, 2016, the Pension Trust Fund for Operation Engineers
filed a notice of its non-opposition to the appointment of Utah
Retirement System as lead plaintiff.


DEVRY EDUCATION: Robinson and Brown Case in Initial Stages
----------------------------------------------------------
DeVry Education Group Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 25, 2016, for the
fiscal year ended July 30, 2016, that the cases by T'Lani Robinson
and Robby Brown are in their initial stages and no definitive
scheduling deadlines have yet been set.

On or about June 21, 2016, T'Lani Robinson and Robby Brown filed
an arbitration demand with the American Arbitration Association in
Chicago, seeking to represent a putative class of students who
received a DeVry University education from January 1, 2008 until
April 8, 2016. The Demand is predicated on the same core
allegations as the FTC case and asserts causes of action for
breach of contract, negligence, violation of the Illinois Uniform
Deceptive Trade Practices Act, conversion, and unjust enrichment.
The Demand seeks a declaratory judgment, unspecified damages, and
an injunction.

On July 21, 2016, DeVry Group filed a statement in the arbitration
objecting to the jurisdiction of an arbitrator to determine
whether the enrollment agreements allow for arbitration on a
class-wide basis. On the same day, DeVry Group filed a declaratory
judgment action in the United States District Court for the
Northern District of Illinois seeking (1) an order declaring that
the federal court -- not an arbitrator -- is to determine whether
the enrollment agreements allow for arbitration on a class-wide
basis, (2) an order declaring that the enrollment agreements do
not authorize arbitration on a class-wide basis, and (3) an order
preventing any arbitrator from purporting to conduct any class-
wide arbitration. These matters are in their initial stages and no
definitive scheduling deadlines have yet been set.


DITECH FINANCIAL: Sued in E.D. Penn. Over Mortgage Payments
-----------------------------------------------------------
RICHARD A. CRAGGS, MARY ANN CRAGGS, H/W FOR THEMSELVES AND ALL
OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED, 705 Julian Drive West Warwick, PA.
18974, the Plaintiff, v. DITECH FINANCIAL LLC, 3200 Park Center
Drive, Suite 150, Costa Mesa, CA 92626, the Defendants, Case No.
2:16-cv-04898-PBT (E.D. Penn., Sep. 12, 2016), seeks restitution
in full payments made to Defendant and its predecessors in
interest and/or any investor for whom Ditech may have been
servicing any account of the Plaintiffs, and for all of the prior
years the payment have been made.

The Plaintiff asserts that Defendant is and has been in violation
of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act. Furthermore, the
Defendant failed and refused to respond to Qualified Written
Request seeking clarification of Defendant's claim to the mortgage
payments.

Ditech is a mortgage servicer headquartered at Costa Mesa,
California.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Stuart A. Eisenberg, Esq.
          Carol B. McCullogh, Esq.
          MCCULLOUGH EISENBERG, LLC
          65 West Street Road, Suite A-105
          Warmister, PA 18974
          Telephone: (215) 957 6411
          Facsimile: (215) 957 9140


DOLLAR GENERAL: Class Certification Motion in "Varela" Due Oct. 17
------------------------------------------------------------------
Dollar General Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 25, 2016, for the
quarterly period ended July 29, 2016, that Plaintiffs' motion for
class certification in the case, Juan Varela v. Dolgen California,
is due to be filed on or before October 17, 2016.

On May 23, 2013, a lawsuit entitled Juan Varela v. Dolgen
California and Does 1 through 50 ("Varela") was filed in the
Superior Court of the State of California for the County of
Riverside.  In the original complaint, the Varela plaintiff
alleges that he and other "key carriers" were not provided with
meal and rest periods in violation of California law and seeks to
recover alleged unpaid wages, injunctive relief, consequential
damages, pre-judgment interest, statutory penalties and attorneys'
fees and costs and seeks to represent a putative class of
California "key carriers" as to these claims.  The Varela
plaintiff also asserts a claim for unfair business practices and
seeks to proceed under California's Private Attorney General Act
(the "PAGA").

On November 4, 2014, the Varela plaintiff filed an amended
complaint to add Victoria Lee Dinger Main as a named plaintiff and
to add putative class claims on behalf of "key carriers" for
alleged inaccurate wage statements and failure to provide
appropriate pay upon termination in violation of California law.

The Company filed answers to both the complaint and amended
complaint.  A court-ordered mediation held in November 2015 was
unsuccessful.

Plaintiffs' motion for class certification is due to be filed on
or before October 17, 2016.  The Company's response is due to be
filed on or before December 9, 2016.  Plaintiffs' reply brief is
due to be filed on January 20, 2017.


DOLLAR GENERAL: "Pleasant" Case Stays in San Bernardino Court
-------------------------------------------------------------
Dollar General Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 25, 2016, for the
quarterly period ended July 29, 2016, that a California court has
denied the Kendra Pleasant plaintiff's motion to transfer its case
to the Superior Court of the State of California for the County of
Riverside.

On January 15, 2015, a lawsuit entitled Kendra Pleasant v. Dollar
General Corporation, Dolgen California, LLC, and Does 1 through 50
("Pleasant") was filed in the Superior Court of the State of
California for the County of San Bernardino in which the plaintiff
seeks to proceed under the PAGA for various alleged violations of
California's Labor Code.  Specifically, the plaintiff alleges that
she and other similarly situated non-exempt California store-level
employees were not paid for all time worked, provided meal and
rest breaks, reimbursed for necessary work related expenses, and
provided with accurate wage statements and seeks to recover unpaid
wages, civil and statutory penalties, interest, attorneys' fees
and costs.

In March 2015 the Company asked the court to stay all proceedings
in the Pleasant matter pending issuance of a final judgment in the
Varela matter.  The court granted the Company's request and stayed
proceedings until resolution of the Varela matter.

Subsequently, the Pleasant plaintiff moved to transfer this matter
to the Superior Court of the State of California for the County of
Riverside where the Varela matter is pending, which the Company
opposed.  The court denied the Pleasant plaintiff's motion to
transfer.


DOLLAR GENERAL: Settlement Reached in "Sullivan" Case
-----------------------------------------------------
Dollar General Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 25, 2016, for the
quarterly period ended July 29, 2016, that the parties in the
case, Julie Sullivan v. Dolgen California, have reached a
preliminary agreement to resolve this matter for an amount not
material to the Company's consolidated financial statements.

On February 20, 2015, a lawsuit entitled Julie Sullivan v. Dolgen
California and Does 1 through 100 ("Sullivan") was filed in the
Superior Court of the State of California for the County of
Alameda in which the plaintiff alleges that she and other
similarly situated Dollar General Market store managers in the
State of California were improperly classified as exempt employees
and were not provided with meal and rest breaks and accurate wage
statements in violation of California law.  The Sullivan plaintiff
also alleges that she and other California store employees were
not provided with printed wage statements, purportedly in
violation of California law.  The plaintiff seeks to recover
unpaid wages, including overtime pay, civil and statutory
penalties, interest, injunctive relief, restitution, and
attorneys' fees and costs.

On April 8, 2015, the Company removed this matter to the United
States District Court for the Northern District of California and
filed its answer on the same date.  On April 29, 2015, the
Sullivan plaintiff amended her complaint to add a claim under the
PAGA.  The Company's response to the amended complaint was filed
on May 14, 2015.

The plaintiff's motion for class certification was filed in March
2016.  Plaintiff subsequently conceded that her exemption claim is
not amenable to class certification but continued to pursue her
individual misclassification claim and class certification of her
wage statement claim.

On June 14, 2016, the parties reached a preliminary agreement,
which must be submitted to and approved by the court, to resolve
this matter for an amount not material to the Company's
consolidated financial statements as a whole.  At this time,
although probable, it is not certain that the court will approve
the settlement.  If the court does not approve the settlement and
the case proceeds, it is not possible to predict whether Sullivan
ultimately will be permitted to proceed as a class action with
respect to the wage statement claim, and no assurances can be
given that the Company will be successful in its defense on the
merits or otherwise.


DOLLAR GENERAL: Defending Class Action by Farley and Rinaldi
------------------------------------------------------------
Dollar General Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 25, 2016, for the
quarterly period ended July 29, 2016, that a lawsuit entitled Eric
Farley and Dane Rinaldi v. Dolgen California, LLC ("Farley") was
filed on July 8, 2016, in the Superior Court of the State of
California for the County of San Joaquin.  The Farley plaintiffs
allege they and other similarly situated "key carriers" in
California were not provided with meal and rest periods, accurate
wage statements, and appropriate pay upon termination in violation
of California law. The Farley plaintiffs seek to recover alleged
unpaid wages, injunctive relief, consequential damages, pre-
judgment interest, statutory penalties and attorneys' fees and
costs.  The Farley plaintiffs have also asserted a claim for
unfair business practices and have indicated their intention to
seek penalties under the PAGA.


DOLLAR GENERAL: Defending Class Action by Debinder in Florida
-------------------------------------------------------------
Dollar General Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 25, 2016, for the
quarterly period ended July 29, 2016, that a lawsuit entitled
Matthew Debinder v. Dolgencorp, LLC ("Debinder") was filed on
August 2, 2016, in the Circuit Court of the Seventeenth Judicial
Circuit in and for Broward County, Florida.  The Debinder
plaintiff alleges on behalf of himself and a putative class of
"applicants" that certain of the Company's background check
procedures violate the Fair Credit Reporting Act ("FCRA").

The Company believes its background check procedures comply with
the FCRA and intends to vigorously defend the Debinder matter.
However, at this time, it is not possible to predict whether the
court ultimately will permit the Debinder matter to proceed as a
class under the FCRA or the size of any putative class.  Likewise,
at this time it is not possible to estimate the value of the
claims asserted, and no assurances can be given that the Company
will be successful in its defense of this action on the merits or
otherwise.  For these reasons, the Company is unable to estimate
the potential loss or range of loss in this matter; however, if
the Company is not successful in its defense efforts, its
resolution could have a material adverse effect on the Company's
consolidated financial statements as a whole.


DOLLAR GENERAL: Responsive Pleading in Motor Oil Case Due Oct. 28
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Dollar General Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 25, 2016, for the
quarterly period ended July 29, 2016, that the plaintiffs in the
Motor Oil MDL are required to file their consolidated amended
complaint by August 29, 2016, and the Company must file its
responsive pleading to such complaint by October 28, 2016.

In December 2015, the Company was notified of seven lawsuits in
which the plaintiffs allege violation of state consumer protection
laws relating to the labeling, marketing and sale of Dollar
General private-label motor oil.  Six of these lawsuits were filed
in various federal district courts of the United States: Bradford
Barfoot and Leonard Karpeichik v. Dolgencorp, LLC (filed in the
Southern District of Florida on December 18, 2015) ("Barfoot");
Milton M. Cooke, Jr. v. Dollar General Corporation (filed in the
Southern District of Texas on December 21, 2015) ("Cooke");
William Flinn v. Dolgencorp, LLC (filed in the District Court for
New Jersey on December 17, 2015) ("Flinn"); John J. McCormick, III
v. Dolgencorp, LLC (filed in the District Court of Maryland on
December 23, 2015) ("McCormick"); David Sanchez v. Dolgencorp, LLC
(filed in the Central District of California on December 17, 2015)
("Sanchez"); and Will Sisemore v. Dolgencorp, LLC (filed in the
Northern District of Oklahoma on December 21, 2015) ("Sisemore").

The seventh matter, Chuck Hill v. Dolgencorp, LLC ("Hill"), was
filed in Orleans County Superior Court in Vermont on December 22,
2015, and subsequently removed to the United States District Court
for the District of Vermont on February 8, 2016.

In February, March and May 2016, the Company was notified of
fourteen additional lawsuits alleging similar claims concerning
Dollar General private-label motor oil. All of these lawsuits were
filed in various federal district courts of the United States:
Allen Brown v. Dollar General Corporation and DG Retail, LLC
(filed in the District of Colorado on February 10, 2016)
("Brown"); Miriam Fruhling v. Dollar General Corporation and
Dolgencorp, LLC (filed in the Southern District of Ohio on
February 10, 2016) ("Fruhling"); John Foppe v. Dollar General
Corporation and Dolgencorp, LLC (filed in the Eastern District of
Kentucky on February 10, 2016) ("Foppe"); Kevin Gadson v.
Dolgencorp, LLC (filed in the Southern District of New York on
February 8, 2016) ("Gadson"); Bruce Gooel v. Dolgencorp, LLC
(filed in the Eastern District of Michigan on February 8, 2016)
("Gooel");  Janine Harvey v. Dollar General Corporation and
Dolgencorp, LLC (filed in the District Court for Nebraska on
February 10, 2016) ("Harvey"); Nicholas Meyer v. Dollar General
Corporation and DG Retail, LLC (filed in the District of Kansas on
February 9, 2016) ("Meyer"); Robert Oren v. Dollar General
Corporation and Dolgencorp, LLC (filed in the Western District of
Missouri on February 8, 2016) ("Oren"); Scott Sheehy v. Dollar
General Corporation and DG Retail, LLC (filed in the District
Court for Minnesota on February 9, 2016) ("Sheehy"); Gerardo Solis
v. Dollar General Corporation and DG Retail, LLC (filed in the
Northern District of Illinois on February 12, 2016) ("Solis");
Roberto Vega v. Dolgencorp, LLC (filed in the Central District of
California on February 8, 2016) ("Vega"); Matthew Wait v. Dollar
General Corporation and Dolgencorp, LLC (filed in the Western
District of Arkansas on February 16, 2016) ("Wait"); James
Taschner v. Dollar General Corporation and Dolgencorp, LLC (filed
in the Eastern District of Missouri on March 15, 2016)
("Taschner"); and Jason Wood and Roger Barrows v. Dollar General
Corporation and Dolgencorp, LLC (filed in the Northern District of
New York on May 9, 2016) ("Wood").

The plaintiffs in the Taschner, Vega and Sanchez matters seek to
proceed on a nationwide and statewide class basis, while the
plaintiffs in the other matters seek to proceed only on a
statewide class basis.  Each plaintiff seeks, for himself or
herself and the putative class he or she seeks to represent, some
or all of the following relief: compensatory damages, injunctive
relief prohibiting the sale of the products at issue and requiring
the dissemination of corrective advertising, certain statutory
damages (including treble damages), punitive damages and
attorneys' fees.

On February 1, 2016, the Sanchez plaintiff voluntarily dismissed
his complaint without prejudice.

On June 2, 2016, the United States Judicial Panel on Multidistrict
Litigation granted the Company's motion to centralize the Motor
Oil Lawsuits in a matter styled In re Dollar General Corp. Motor
Oil Litigation, Case MDL No. 2709, before the Western District of
Missouri ("Motor Oil MDL"). The plaintiffs in the Motor Oil MDL
are required to file their consolidated amended complaint by
August 29, 2016, and the Company must file its responsive pleading
to such complaint by October 28, 2016.

In July 2016, the Company was notified of an additional lawsuit,
Brandon Raab v. Dolgencorp, LLC and Dollar General Corporation
(filed in the Western District of North Carolina on July 15,
2016), alleging similar claims on a statewide class basis
concerning Dollar General private-label motor oil. This matter has
also been transferred to the Motor Oil MDL.

The Company believes that the labeling, marketing and sale of its
private-label motor oil complies with applicable federal and state
requirements and is not misleading.  The Company further believes
that these matters are not appropriate for class or similar
treatment.  The Company intends to vigorously defend these
actions; however, at this time, it is not possible to predict
whether any of these cases will be permitted to proceed as a class
or the size of any putative class.  Likewise, at this time, it is
not possible to estimate the value of the claims asserted, and no
assurances can be given that the Company will be successful in its
defense of these actions on the merits or otherwise.  For these
reasons, the Company is unable to estimate the potential loss or
range of loss in these matters; however if the Company is not
successful in its defense efforts, the resolution of any of these
actions could have a material adverse effect on the Company's
consolidated financial statements as a whole.


DUKE ENERGY: Ind. App. Reverses Dismissal of Bellwether Suit
------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Bailey Brown of the Indiana Court of Appeals reversed a
trial court's order granting a motion to dismiss in favor of Duke
Energy Indiana, Inc. (Duke) and remanded the case for further
proceedings in the case captioned, Bellwether Properties, LLC,
Appellant-Plaintiff, v. Duke Energy Indiana, LLC, Appellee-
Defendant, Case No. 53A04-1511-CT-1880 (Ind. App.).

On July 19, 1957, Duke's predecessor in interest, Public Services
Company of Indiana, obtained a perpetual Electric Pole Line
Easement (the Easement) on land now owned by Bellwether for the
installation of overhead electric lines. The Easement,
memorialized in an Electric Pole Line Easement which was attached
to Bellwether's complaint, states that the Easement is ten feet
wide, including five feet on either side of the utility lines, and
it provided the owner, currently Duke, with the right to
construct, operate, patrol, maintain, reconstruct and remove
electrical line, including necessary poles, wires, anchors, guys
and fixtures attached thereto, for the transmission of electrical
energy over, along, or across the following described real estate
situated in the County of Monroe, and State of Indiana.

In 1976, the Indiana Utility Regulatory Commission (the IURC)
promulgated 170 I.A.C. 4-1-26, adopting standards contained in the
1967 edition of the National Electrical Safety Code (NESC) to
govern the clearance needed around electrical lines. The IURC
adopted newer editions of the NESC in 1986, 1987, 1990, 1993, and
1998.  On November 1, 2002, the IURC amended 170 I.A.C. 4-1-26 to
provide that the 2002 edition of the NESC will govern practices
involving electrical lines.

Following the IURC's incorporation of the 2002 NESC, Bellwether
desired to expand a structure on its property and contacted Duke
about its plans. Duke indicated that Bellwether could not expand
according to the plan submitted because the plan would not provide
the horizontal strike clearance required by the 2002 NESC.

On June 30, 2015, Bellwether filed a Class Action Complaint and
Jury Trial Demand (the Complaint) noting that it was bringing its
claim pursuant to Ind. Trial Rule 23 individually and on behalf of
a class, which it defined, and alleging one count of inverse
condemnation. Bellwether specifically alleged that Duke took
property for a public purpose without proceeding with a
condemnation action under Ind. Code Section 32-24-1 et seq. and
without providing just compensation, noting that, "throughout the
State of Indiana, Duke has continued to maintain electrical
transmission lines that -- when considering the required
horizontal strike clearance -- violate the express limitations of
the easements in place."

On August 21, 2015, Duke filed a motion to dismiss, arguing that
Bellwether's complaint fell outside the six-year statute of
limitations for inverse condemnation actions. On October 15, 2015,
the trial court held a hearing on Duke's motion, and on October
29, 2015, it issued an order granting Duke's motion to dismiss
holding that Bellwether's inverse condemnation action is barred by
the six year statute of limitation contained in IC 34-11-2-7(3).

On appeal, Bellwether's argument is that the court "erred in
conflating two distinct legal concepts: knowledge of the law and
the accrual of a cause of action," asserting that although it is
charged with knowledge of the law, its claim had not accrued
because it did not have knowledge of certain technical facts
giving rise to the claim.

In his Order dated September 13, 2016 available at
https://is.gd/ffwXHv from Leagle.com, Judge Brown concluded that
the court erred when it ruled that the six-year statute of
limitations on Bellwether's Complaint had expired, finding that
the discovery rule's purpose "to limit the injustice that would
arise by requiring a plaintiff to bring his or her claim within
the limitation period during which, even with due diligence, he or
she could not be aware a cause of action exists."

The case is remanded for further proceedings.

Bellwether Properties, LLC is represented by William N. Riley,
Esq. -- wriley@rwp-law.com -- Joseph N. Williams, Esq. --
jwilliams@rwp-law.com -- James A. Piatt, Esq. -- jpiatt@rwp-
law.com -- and  Anne Medlin Lowe, Esq. -- alowe@rwp-law.com --
RILEY WILLIAMS & PIATT, LLC

Bellwether is also represented by:

      Lonnie D. Johnson, Esq.
      Pamela J. Hensler, Esq.
      Michael J. Potraffke, Esq.
      CLENDENING JOHNSON & BOHRER, P.C.
      409 W. Patterson Drive, Ste 205
      PO Box 428
      Bloomington, IN 47402-0428
      Tel: 812-332-1000

Duke Energy Indiana, LLC is represented by Thomas L. Davis, Esq. -
tdavis@fbtlaw.com -- Darren A. Craig, Esq. -- dcriag@fbtlaw.com --
and  Maggie L. Smith, Esq. -- msmith@fbtlaw.com -- FROST BROWN
TODD LLC


EL GALLITO: Cal. App. Affirms Denial of Arbitration Motion
----------------------------------------------------------
Associate Justice Jeffrey W. Johnson of the California Court of
Appeals affirmed a trial court's ruling denying Defendants' motion
to compel arbitration of the claims in the case captioned, ROLANDO
DIAZ et al., Plaintiffs and Respondents, v. EL GALLITO I, INC. et
al., Defendants and Appellants, Case No. B262900 (App. Cal.).

Rolando Diaz (Diaz), Andres Soriano (Soriano), and Nery Polanco
(Polanco) filed a class action complaint against El Gallito I,
Inc., El Gallito II, Inc., El Gallito III, Inc., Christian Arturo
Llamas Corona (Christian), Valeria Llamas (Llamas), and Claudia
Corona (Claudia) (collectively, Defendants) alleging, inter alia,
violations of California's wage and hour laws. El Gallito I, Inc.
and El Gallito II, Inc. (companies of which Christian and Llamas,
respectively, are president) engage in the catering and food
service business via more than a dozen mobile food trucks at
various locations in Los Angeles County. El Gallito III, Inc. (of
which Claudia is president) is a brick-and-mortar restaurant
located in Harbor City having no involvement in the food truck
business.

Plaintiffs seek damages, injunctive relief, and restitution. The
complaint alleged violation of California wage and hour laws
(claim 1), violation of California unfair competition laws (claim
2), "fraud and deceit" (claim 3), and "failure to pay statutorily
mandated wages--insufficient funds instrument" (claim 4).

Defendants brought a motion to compel arbitration of the claims
asserted by two of the three plaintiffs: Diaz and Soriano
(collectively, Plaintiffs). According to the initial set of
declarations that Defendants filed with their motion to compel
arbitration, Christian and Llamas both were "personally involved"
in the hiring process for Diaz and Soriano, conditioned the offer
of employment upon Diaz and Soriano signing the Agreements, and
provided them the opportunity to "ask questions about the hiring
process and the arbitration agreement."

Christian and Llamas submitted supplementary declarations stating
that they may have been "mistaken" in their previous declarations
in asserting that Plaintiffs signed the Agreements "at the time of
hire" rather than "during employment."

Finding that the parties had not formed an agreement to arbitrate,
the trial court denied the motion.

On appeal, Defendants contend that the trial court had erroneously
concluded that the FAA did not govern the putative arbitration
agreement at issue.

In the Opinion dated September 9, 2016 available at
https://is.gd/JWzt1R from Leagle.com, Judge Johnson held that the
trial court correctly denied Defendants' motion to compel
arbitration because the lack of mutual assent rendered the
putative contracts void for fraud in the execution and that the
parties to this appeal did not enter into an arbitration
agreement.

Rolando Diaz, et al. are represented by:

      Chad Biggins, Esq.
      LAW OFFICE OF CHAD BIGGINS
      3701 Wilshire Blvd Ste 410
      Los Angeles, CA 90010
      Tel: (213)387-3100

El Gallito, et al. are represented by Nancy L. Abrolat, Esq. --
Firm@AbrolatLaw.com -- and  Shahane A. Martirosyan, Esq. --
firm@abrolatlaw.com -- ABROLAT LAW


EPIC HEALTH: Sued in N.J. Super. Ct. Over Discrimination
--------------------------------------------------------
TRACY MAXWELL, the Plaintiff, v. EPIC HEALTH SERVICES INC., LOVING
CARE AGENCY, INC., and JOHN DOES 1-5 AND 6-10, the Defendants,
Case No. L-3308-16 (N.J. Super. Ct., Sep. 12, 2016), seeks
compensatory damages, punitive damages, interest, cost of suit,
attorneys' fees, enhanced attorneys' fees, and any other relief
the Court deems equitable and just from Defendants for retaliating
against the Plaintiff.

On June 2, 2015, the Plaintiff suffered workplace injuries to her
shoulder and back. As a result, Plaintiff was disabled within the
meaning of the Law Against Discrimination and suffered a serious
medical condition within the meaning of the Family Medical Leave
Act (FMLA).

Alternatively, the Plaintiff was perceived as disabled by
Defendants and/or Defendants held perceptions of or regarding
Plaintiffs disability and/or Plaintiffs utility as an employee as
a result of her injury.

The Plaintiff was out of work on June 3, 2015, in order to receive
medical treatment. Upon her return to work, the Plaintiff was
instructed to perform filing duties, which included the lifting of
very heavy boxes, which plaintiff was unable to perform.

Epic provides pediatric skilled nursing, pediatric therapy, and
behavioral health and autism services, as well as adult home
health care services.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


FIAT CHRYSLER: Faces New Jeep Rollover Suits
--------------------------------------------
Amanda Bronstad, writing for Law.com, reports that the defect
linked to the death of "Star Trek" actor Anton Yelchin has shifted
into a big headache for Chrysler, which was sued on
Sept. 14 by two drivers who were injured when their vehicles
rolled over them.

The new suits add to about a dozen class actions brought by car
owners with economic damages against FCA US LLP, a division of
Fiat Chrysler Automobiles N.V., which recalled more than 800,000
vehicles in April over its electronic gearshift.  The U.S.
Judicial Panel on Multi-district Litigation is set to hear
arguments on coordinating all the gearshift litigation on
Sept. 29 in Washington.

The new suits, filed in federal courts in New Hampshire and
Virginia, mirror at least four other cases filed by drivers who,
believing their gearshifts were in park, were injured while
attempting to stop their vehicles from rolling away.

"Where the serious injuries are happening is when people get in
the car and try to wrestle it to a stop," said Steve Berman,
managing partner of Seattle's Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro, who
filed the new suits along with Bailey & Glasser.  "It's an
instinctive reaction, but the weight of the vehicle and the power
it has when moving is a recipe for disaster."

"These lawsuits are moot as FCA US has already implemented the
remedy they seek," FCA spokesman Michael Palese said in an email.
"Moreover, the vehicles addressed in this action are among the
most valued and sought after vehicles on the road today.
Allegations that their resale value is somehow diminished by a
recall are completely unsubstantiated."

The lawsuits come a year after FCA paid a record $105 million in
fines to the U.S. National Highway Traffic Safety Administration
over delays of 23 other safety recalls.  Joseph Meltzer, a partner
at Kessler Topaz Meltzer Check in Radnor, Pennsylvania, who moved
to coordinate the gearshift cases last month, called Chrysler's
history "relevant" to the litigation.

In the New Hampshire case, Rebecca Peoples alleges that her
teenage daughter was getting her basketball gear bag from her
father's house when their 2014 Jeep Grand Cherokee rolled down the
driveway.  She managed to pull open the driver's door, but the
Jeep hit the neighbor's mailbox, the suit says. It rolled up
another driveway and back down, knocking her to the ground and
rolling over her legs.

Daneen Holcomb, the Virginia plaintiff, alleges she was putting
mail in the mailbox when her 2014 Jeep Grand Cherokee began to
roll. The open door pushed her to the ground, and the left front
wheel rolled over her feet, the complaint says.

In both cases, the women claim FCA failed to warn consumers about
the gearshift problem or provide a safety override function.

Last month, Berman's firm filed similar suits on behalf of drivers
in Colorado and Massachusetts, and Mr. Yelchin's parents,
represented by Gary Dordick of the Law Offices of Gary A. Dordick
in Beverly Hills, California, sued over his June 19 death, caused
when his 2015 Jeep Grand Cherokee pinned him against a fence.
Morgan & Meyers in Dearborn, Michigan, also brought a case for a
Michigan woman whose 2015 Jeep Grand Cherokee rolled over her.
Those cases are in state courts in California and Michigan.


FIRST NBC: Parties Await Decision on Lead Plaintiff Motions
-----------------------------------------------------------
First NBC Bank Holding Company said in its Form 10-K Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 25, 2016,
for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2015, that briefing on the
lead plaintiff motions was completed on July 19, 2016, and the
parties await a decision on these motions from the Court.

On May 5, 2016, a purported securities class action suit was
commenced in the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Louisiana, naming as defendants the Company, its
Chairman and Chief Executive Officer, and its Chief Financial
Officer. The lawsuit alleges violations of the Securities Exchange
Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 in connection with allegedly false and
misleading statements made by the Company related to its tax
credit accounting practices and exposure to the oil and gas
industry. The plaintiff seeks, among other things, damages for
purchasers of the Company's common stock between May 10, 2013 and
April 8, 2016.

A group of institutional investors and a pension fund have each
moved for appointment as lead plaintiff of the putative class.
Briefing on the lead plaintiff motions was completed on July 19,
2016, and the parties currently await a decision on these motions
from the Court.

The Company believes that it has meritorious defenses and intend
to defend this lawsuit vigorously. This lawsuit and any other
related lawsuits are subject to inherent uncertainties, and the
ultimate outcome of such litigation is necessarily unknown. The
Company is unable to make a reasonable estimate of the amount or
range of loss that could result from an unfavorable outcome in
such matters.


GENERAL MOTORS: Faulty Ignition Switch Victims Put Up Billboard
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Associated Press reports that a group associated with victims
of General Motors Co.'s faulty ignition switches is putting up a
billboard in Detroit aimed at reminding the company about its
promise to improve its safety record.

The billboard paid for by GM Recall Survivors was scheduled to go
up on Sept. 5 along Interstate 75 and reads: "Let's make sure they
never forget."  The billboard shows six people who died in
crashes.

In 2014, GM recalled 2.6 million cars worldwide to replace the
faulty switches and ordered a record 84 recalls.

Last year it announced it had settled 1,385 death and injury cases
for $275 million and a class-action shareholders' lawsuit for $300
million.

The company paid nearly $600 million to settle 399 claims made to
a fund it established, covering 124 deaths and 275 injuries.


HARRAH'S ENTERTAINMENT: Ruling Upheld, Atty Fees Issues Remanded
----------------------------------------------------------------
Judges Marianne Espinosa, Garry S. Rothstadt and Heidi Willis
Currier of the New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division
reversed, in part and affirmed, in part, a trial court's ruling in
the case captioned, DEBRA S. SMERLING, Plaintiff-Respondent/Cross-
Appellant, and MAGDA CLAUDE and SHEILA SMERLING, Plaintiffs, v.
HARRAH'S ENTERTAINMENT, INC., HARRAH'S OPERATING COMPANY, INC.,
d/b/a HARRAH'S ATLANTIC CITY, and HARRAH'S ATLANTIC CITY, INC.,
Defendants-Appellants/Cross-Respondents, Case No. A-4937-13T3
(N.J. Super. App. Div.).  The appeals court remanded the action
with respect to counsel fees.

Defendant made promotional offers. The promotional offer at issue
was a Birthday Cash offer that plaintiff Debra Smerling received
from defendant Harrah's Casino, titled "$15 BIRTHDAY CASH!" After
receiving the solicitation in the mail, plaintiff decided to
celebrate her birthday in Atlantic City and visited Harrah's
Casino on Saturday, August 9, 2003. When she attempted to claim
her "birthday cash" sometime between midnight and 12:30 a.m. on
Sunday, August 10, 2003, at the Total Rewards Center, the manager
on duty told her she could not claim the money until 6 a.m. on
August 10. Debra never redeemed her $15 coupon.

Plaintiff filed a three-count class action complaint against
defendant, alleging violations of the Consumer Fraud Act (CFA),
N.J.S.A. 56:8-1 to-20, and the Truth-in-Consumer Contract,
Warranty and Notice Act (TCCWNA or the Act), N.J.S.A. 56:12-14
to -18, and asserting a breach of contract claim. The complaint
also sought injunctive relief and declaratory judgment.

The motion judge dismissed the two counts that alleged statutory
causes of action pursuant to Rule 4:6-2(e), having determined that
the New Jersey Casino Control Commission had exclusive
jurisdiction over the conduct of licensed casinos which was
reversed and directed that the statutory claims be reinstated.
Plaintiff did not seek to reinstate the breach of contract claim,
which had been dismissed with prejudice.

By August 2010, the parties entered into a stipulation, settling
plaintiff's individual CFA claim for $750. She was granted an
incentive award of $2,000 for her efforts on behalf of the class.
The trial court also awarded counsel fees and expenses to class
counsel of $375,348.36, stating the award was made "pursuant to
the fee-shifting provisions of the  Consumer Fraud Act (CFA) and
the Truth-in-Consumer Contract, Waraanty and Notice Act (TCCWNA).

After the trial court stayed its judgment pending the Supreme
Court's resolution of Shelton v. Restaurant.com, Inc., Plaintiff
moved to modify the previous fee award to retroactively reflect
counsel's rates in effect at that time and for a supplemental
award of attorneys' fees and costs for work performed after the
last time entry in the June 2012 order. The trial court declined
to adjust the rates for work performed at a time when a lower rate
was in effect and granted the application for a supplemental
award. The final judgment was entered in June 2014 which included
a supplemental award of $48,491.25 in fees and costs from October
9, 2013 through June 2014.

On appeal, Harrah's argues that the TCCWNA does not apply because
plaintiff is not a "consumer" and the promotional offer is not a
"consumer contract" under the statute (Point IV). Harrah's also
argues that, to violate the TCCWNA, a consumer contract or notice
must contain a provision that violates state or federal law on its
face and that the Birthday Cash offer did not contain such a
provision (Point II); that no class member was an aggrieved
consumer under the Act (Point III); that the trial court erred in
entering an injunction, certification of the injunctive class and
declaratory judgment (Point V) and that the damages ordered were
disproportionate, violating its due process rights (Point VI).

In her cross-appeal, plaintiff argues the trial court erred in
failing to adjust the counsel fee award to reflect class counsel's
current rates at the time the stay was lifted and the final order
entered in this action.

In the Per Curiam dated September 9, 2016 available at
https://is.gd/eybrFl from Leagle.com, Judges Espinosa, Rothstadt
and Currier concluded that there is inadequate proof that the
vaguely described injunctive relief granted here was "necessary to
prevent a continuing, irreparable injury" and "no more extensive
than reasonably required to protect the interest of the party in
whose favor it is granted. However, a remand on the counsel fee
award is required in light of the court's decision, reversing the
orders granting: declaratory judgment and summary judgment to
plaintiff on her TCCWNA claim, the award of $100 civil penalty per
class member and injunctive and declaratory relief. Because there
was no viable TCCWNA claim, there is no basis for an award of
counsel fees related to that claim. On remand, the trial judge has
to determine what portion of the fees and costs relate to the CFA
claims and to eliminate any award relating to the TCCWNA claims.

Debra S. Smerling is Alan E. Kraus, Esq. --
ekrause@paloalto.whitecase.com -- LATHAM & WATKNS, LLP

Harrah's Entertainment, Inc., et al. are represented by Andrew R.
Wolf, Esq. -- awolf@wolflawfirm.net -- Henry P. Wolfe, Esq. --
hwolfe@wolflawfirm.net -- and  Matthew S. Oorbeek, Esq. --
moorbeek@wolflawfirm.com -- The Wolf Law Firm, LLC


HARRIS COUNTY: Arel Alleges Property Overvaluation
--------------------------------------------------
Arel Houston Oaks v. Harris County Appraisal District, Defendant,
Case No. 2016-59541 (Harris Cty. Ct., September 6, 2016), seeks
correction of appraisal toll, monetary relief, attorney's fees and
non-monetary relief under the Texas Property Tax Code.

Harris County Appraisal Review Board is a county agency of the
State of Texas. It allegedly made an excessive valuation of the
Plaintiff's property known as the Oaks of Timberwoods located at
1700 Seaspray Court, Harris County for tax purposes.

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Daniel P. Donovan, Esq.
      Kathleen F. Donovan, Esq.
      GEARY, PORTER & DONOVAN, P.C.
      16475 Dallas Pkwy., Suite 400
      Addison, TX 75001-6837
      Tel: (972) 931-9901
      Fax: (972) 931-9208 (fax)
      Email: ddonovan@gpd.com
             kdonovan@gpd.com


HARRIS COUNTY: 21875 Katy Freeway Alleges Overvaluation
-------------------------------------------------------
21875 Katy Freeway LLC v. Harris County Appraisal District,
Defendant, Case No. 2016-58957 (Harris Cty. Ct., September 1,
2016), seeks monetary relief of at most $100,000, attorney's fees
and non-monetary relief under the Texas Property Tax Code.

Harris County Appraisal Review Board is a county agency of the
State of Texas. It allegedly made an excessive valuation of the
Plaintiff's property located at Res. A, Block 1 Mason Park, 21875
Katy Freeway, Katy, TX for tax purposes.

Plaintiff is represented by:

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


HARRIS COUNTY: DCT Hollister Alleges Overvaluation
--------------------------------------------------
DCT Hollister Road LLC v. Harris County Appraisal District,
Defendant, Case No. 2016-58969 (Harris Cty. Ct., September 1,
2016), seeks monetary relief of at most $100,000, attorney's fees
and non-monetary relief under the Texas Property Tax Code.

Harris County Appraisal Review Board is a county agency of the
State of Texas. It allegedly made an excessive valuation of the
Plaintiff's property located at Res. A2, Northwest Crossing, Sec.
3  6400 Hollister St., Houston, TX for tax purposes.

Plaintiff is represented by:

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


HARRIS COUNTY: Arba Realty Sues Over Excessive Appraisal
--------------------------------------------------------
ABRA REALTY, INC., the Plaintiff, v. HARRIS COUNTY APPRAISAL
DISTRICT, the Defendant, Case No. 2016-60919 (Harris Cty. Ct.,
Sep. 12, 2016), asks the Court to fix the appraised value of the
Plaintiff's Property in accordance with the law.

According to the complaint, the District placed a January 1, 2016
assessed value on the Plaintiff's property. The assessed value
assigned by the District on Plaintiff's property is grossly in
excess of its actual fair market value.

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

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


HARRIS COUNTY: BG Holdco Sues Over Excessive Appraisal
------------------------------------------------------
BG HOLDCO, LLC (BG BROUP PLACE), the Plaintiff, v. HARRIS COUNTY
APPRAISAL DISTRICT, the Defendant, Case No. 2016-60963 (Harris
Cty. Ct., Sep. 12, 2016), asks the Court to fix the appraised
value of the Plaintiff's Property in accordance with the law.

In 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 Harris County, Texas in assessing
2016 ad valorem property taxes. The Appraisal District appraised
the value of the Property at $498,042,032 an amount in excess of
the appraised value required by law.

The Plaintiff alleges that the levying of a tax on the Property
based on a higher than fair market valuation is an unlawful levy,
creates an illegal lien on the Property and is a cloud Plaintiff's
title.

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

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


HARRIS COUNTY: BOP Heritage Sues Over Excessive Appraisal
---------------------------------------------------------
BOP HERITAGE LLC, the Plaintiff, A DELAWARE LIMITED LIABILITY
COMPANY, the Plaintiff, v. HARRIS COUNTY APPRAISAL DISTRICT, the
Defendant, Case No. 2016-61127 (Harris Cty. Ct., Sep. 12, 2016),
asks the Court to fix appraised values of the Plaintiff's
Properties as of January 1, 2016 at an amount not greater than the
actual market values of the fee simple estates of the Properties.

The January 1, 2016 values placed on the Properties by the
District and the Appraisal Review were in excess of the actual
market values of the simple estates in the Properties.

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

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Patrick W. Mizell, Esq.
          Glen Rosenbaum, Esq.
          Russell T. Gips, Esq.
          VINSON & ELKINS LLP
          1001 Fannin Street, Suite 2500
          Houston, TX 77002-6760
          Telephone: (713) 758 2932
          Facsimile: (713) 615 5912
          E-mail: pmizell@velaw.com
                  grosbaum@velaw.com
                  rgips@velaw.com


HARRIS COUNTY: David Wolff Sues Over Excessive Appraisal
--------------------------------------------------------
DAVID S. WOLFF, the Plaintiff, v. HARRIS COUNTY APPRAISAL
DISTRICT, the Defendant, Case No. 2016-61163 (Harris Cty. Ct.,
Sep. 12, 2016), asks the Court to fix the appraised value of
Plaintiff's Property as of January 1, 2016 at its fair market
value.

According to the complaint, the District placed a January 1, 2016
assessed value on the Plaintiff's property. The assessed value
assigned by the District on Plaintiff's property is grossly in
excess of its actual fair market value.

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

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


HARRIS COUNTY: Forwoof Sues Over Excessive Appraisal
----------------------------------------------------
FORWOOF PROPERTIES PTNR, the Plaintiff, v. HARRIS COUNTY APPRAISAL
DISTRICT, the Defendant, Case No. 2016-61246 (Harris Cty. Ct.,
Sep. 12, 2016), seeks monetary relief of $200,000-1,000,000
resulting from the Defendant's excessive 2016 appraised value of
Plaintiff's property at $10,326,740.

The Plaintiff alleges that the 2016 value of the Property
constitutes an unequal appraisal of the Property in that the
appraisal ratio of the Property exceeds, by at least 10%, the
median level of appraisal of a reasonable and representative
sample of other properties or a sample of other properties.

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

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Raymond Gray, Esq.
          Lorri Michel, Esq.
          Shane Rogers, Esq.
          Natalie A. Maloney, Esq.
          MICHELLE & GRAY, LLP
          812 W. 11th Street, Suite 301
          Austin, TX 78701
          Telephone: (512) 477 0200
          Facsimile: (512) 477 6636
          E-mail: raymond@michelgray.com
                  lorri@michelgray.com
                  shane@michelgray.com
                  natalie@michelgray.com


HARRIS COUNTY: FSP Eldridge Sues Over Excessive Appraisal
---------------------------------------------------------
FSP ELDRIDGE GREEN LIMITED PARTNERSHIP, the Plaintiff v. HARRIS
COUNTY APPRAISAL DISTRICT, the Defendant, Case No. 2016-61040
(Harris Cty. Ct., Sep. 12, 2016), asks the Court to fix the
appraised value of the Plaintiff's Property in accordance with the
law.

In 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 Harris County, Texas in assessing
2016 ad valorem property taxes. The Appraisal District appraised
the value of the Property at $63,193,501, an amount in excess of
the appraised value required by law.

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

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


HARRIS COUNTY: KHOU-TV Inc. Sues Over Excessive Appraisal
---------------------------------------------------------
KHOU-TV, INC. (1945 ALLEN PARKWAY), the Plaintiff, v. HARRIS
COUNTY APPRAISAL DISTRICT, the Defendant, Case No. 2016-61165
(Harris Cty. Ct., Sep. 12, 2016), asks the Court to fix the
appraised value of the Plaintiff's Property in accordance with the
law.

In 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 Harris County, Texas in assessing
2016 ad valorem property taxes. The Appraisal District appraised
the value of the Property at $11,041,253, an amount in excess of
the appraised value required by law.

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

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


HARRIS COUNTY: McKinney Sues Over Excessive Appraisal
-----------------------------------------------------
MCKINNEY PARTNERS, LTD, the Plaintiff, v. HARRIS COUNTY APPRAISAL
DISTRICT, the Defendant, Case No. 2016-60924 (Harris Cty. Ct.,
Sep. 12, 2016), seeks monetary relief of $100,000 or less
(attorneys' fees) and non-monetary relief (correction of the
appraisal roll as it pertains to Plaintiff's property).

According to the complaint, the District placed a January 1, 2016
assessed value on the Plaintiff's property. The assessed value
assigned by the District on Plaintiff's property is grossly in
excess of its actual fair market value.

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

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


HARRIS COUNTY: Millenium Tower Sues Over Excessive Appraisal
------------------------------------------------------------
(MILLENIUM TOWER) MILLENIUM TOWER-WINDFALL PARTNERS, LTD, the
Plaintiff, v. HARRIS COUNTY APPRAISAL DISTRICT, the Defendant,
Case No. 2016-60922 (Harris Cty. Ct., Sep. 12, 2016), seeks
monetary relief of $100,000 or less (attorneys' fees) and non-
monetary relief (correction of the appraisal roll as it pertains
to Plaintiffs property).

According to the complaint, the District placed a January 1, 2016
assessed value on the Plaintiff's property. The assessed value
assigned by the District on Plaintiff's property is grossly in
excess of its actual fair market value.

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

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


HARRIS COUNTY: WRH Normandy Sues Over Excessive Appraisal
---------------------------------------------------------
WRH NORMANDY WOODS, LLLP (Normandy Woods Apartments), the
Plaintiff, v. HARRIS COUNTY APPRAISAL DISTRICT, the Defendant,
Case No. 2016-61099 (Harris Cty. Ct., Sep. 12, 2016), seeks
monetary relief of $100,000 or less (attorneys' fees) and non-
monetary relief (correction of the appraisal roll as it pertains
to Plaintiffs property).

In May 2016, Plaintiff learned that the Appraisal District had
made an appraisal of the 2016 market value of the Property for use
by the relevant Taxing Units in Harris County, Texas in assessing
2016 ad valorem property taxes. The Appraisal District appraised
the value of the Property at $9,002,612, an amount in excess of
the appraised value required by law.

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

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


HARRIS COUNTY: Oak Grove Sues Over Excessive Appraisal
------------------------------------------------------
OAK GROVE INVESTORS, LP, the Plaintiff, v. HARRIS COUNTY APPRAISAL
DISTRICT, the Defendant, Case No. 2016-60920 (Harris Cty. Ct.,
Sep. 12, 2016), seeks monetary relief of $100,000 or less
(attorneys' fees) and non-monetary relief (correction of the
appraisal roll as it pertains to Plaintiffs property).

According to the complaint, the District placed a January 1, 2016
assessed value on the Plaintiff's property. The assessed value
assigned by the District on Plaintiff's property is grossly in
excess of its actual fair market value.

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

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


HARRIS COUNTY: St. Gallen Group Alleges Overvaluation
-----------------------------------------------------
St. Gallen Group, LC, Wade E. Hilty and Elizabeth Hilty, H4
Cypress, LP and H6 Wright, LP v. Harris County Appraisal District,
Defendant, Case No. 2016-58956 (Harris Cty. Ct., September 1,
2016), seeks monetary relief of at most $100,000 in attorney's
fees and non-monetary relief under the Texas Property Tax Code.

Harris County Appraisal Review Board is a county agency of the
State of Texas. It allegedly made an excessive valuation of the
Plaintiff's Texas properties, 3 in Cypress and 3 in Houston for
tax purposes.

Plaintiff is represented by:

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


HEWLETT PACKARD: Sued in Cal. Over Printer Feature Installation
---------------------------------------------------------------
ANTHONY FEHRENBACH, individually, and on behalf of other members
of the general public similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v.
HEWLETT PACKARD COMPANY, the Defendant, Case No. 3:16-cv-02297-
MMA-MDD (S.D. Cal., Sep. 12, 2016), seeks an injunction requiring
Defendant to cease advertising and selling the Class Products, and
an award of damages and restitution to the Class Members, together
with costs and reasonable attorneys' fees.

In purchasing the Class Products at the time of purchase of his
printer, Plaintiff relied upon Defendant's representations that
the printer would be "effortless" to install as a result of the
inclusion of the HP Smart Install feature.

However, not only were such representations clearly false because
the printers did not in fact include the HP Smart Install feature,
but the Plaintiff's difficulty and inability to install the
printer to his computer evidences that the printer was also not
"effortless" to install.

The Plaintiff would not have purchased the printer if he knew that
the statements made by Defendant were false. Had Defendant
properly marketed, advertised, and represented the Class Products
as failing to include the HP Smart Install feature, Plaintiff
would not have purchased the printer.

Hewlett-Packard Company was an American multinational information
technology company headquartered in Palo Alto, California.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


HOME DEPOT: U.S. Banks' Suit Over Data Breach Pending
-----------------------------------------------------
The Home Depot, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on August 22, 2016, for the
quarterly period ended July 31, 2016, that the U.S. financial
institution class actions related to the 2014 data breach remain
ongoing.

In the third quarter of fiscal 2014, the Company confirmed that
its payment data systems were breached, which potentially impacted
customers who used payment cards at self-checkout systems in the
Company's U.S. and Canadian stores (the "Data Breach").

In fiscal 2015, the four major payment card networks made claims
against the Company for costs that they assert they or their
issuing banks incurred in connection with the Data Breach. The
Company entered into settlement agreements with all four networks
in fiscal 2015.

In addition, a total of 57 putative class actions were filed in
the U.S. on behalf of customers and financial institutions and in
Canada on behalf of customers allegedly harmed by the Data Breach.
The U.S. class actions have been consolidated for pre-trial
proceedings in the United States District Court for the Northern
District of Georgia (the "District Court").

In the fourth quarter of fiscal 2015 and first quarter of fiscal
2016, the Company agreed in principle to settlement terms that
will resolve and dismiss the claims asserted in the U.S. and
Canadian customer class actions, respectively.

In August 2016, the respective courts approved the settlements.
The U.S. customer class action settlement remains subject to
potential appeal. The U.S. financial institution class actions
remain ongoing.


HOME DEPOT: Court Narrows Claims in "Coffen" Suit
-------------------------------------------------
District Judge Phyllis J. Hamilton of the United States District
Court for the Northern District of California partially granted
Defendant Home Depot U.S.A.'s motion to dismiss in the case
captioned, ELLEN COFFEN, Plaintiff, v. HOME DEPOT U.S.A. INC.,
Defendant, Case No. 16-CV-03302-PJH (N.D. Cal.).

Plaintiff Ellen Coffen purchased kitchen cabinets at a Home Depot
store. An unnamed sales associate "informed Ms. Coffen that she
could hire installers through Home Depot," and "stated that the
installers would visit her home to measure the space and ensure
that the cabinets will fit." Coffen paid $12,000 for the cabinets
and $3,050 for the installation. The installers came and measured,
but when the cabinets arrived at Coffen's home, they "did not fit
the space in her kitchen." Coffen returned the cabinets to Home
Depot, found suitable replacements, and scheduled a new
installation. No additional fees were charged for the second
installation, but Coffen still had to "pay the cost of the first
installation and the full cost of the cabinets."

As a result of Home Depot's actions, Coffen allegedly suffered
harm in the form of "months of delay." On May 13, 2016, Coffen
filed a putative class action complaint against Home Depot U.S.A.,
Inc. ("Home Depot") in Sonoma County Superior Court. Coffen seeks
to represent a nationwide class of "all persons who purchased a
fixture from Home Depot and also purchased measurement and
installation services during date range provided that the fixture
could not be installed." On June 15, 2016, Home Depot removed the
case to federal court on the basis of the Class Action Fairness
Act ("CAFA"), asserting that the putative class contained more
than 100 members and alleges damages over $5 million.

Based on these allegations, Coffen asserts ten causes of action,
all but one under California law: (1) Fraud and Deceit; (2)
Negligent Infliction of Emotional Distress; (3) Negligence; (4)
Breach of Contract; (5) Breach of the Implied Covenant of Good
Faith and Fair Dealing; (6) Breach of Express and Implied
Warranty; (7) Violation of California's False Advertising Law; (8)
Negligent Misrepresentation; (9) Violation of the U.S. Magnuson-
Moss Warranty Act; and (10) Violation of California's Unfair
Competition Law.

In the motion, Home Depot moves to dismiss all of Coffen's claims
for failure to state a claim under Federal Rules of Civil
Procedure 12(b)(6) and 9(b).

In her Order dated September 9, 2016 available at
https://is.gd/1UMs2K from Leagle.com, Judge Hamilton dismissed
with prejudice Count 1, 2, 3, 7, 8 and 10 claims with prejudice
holding that the allegations of fraud in the complaint do not meet
the Rule 9(b) standard because there is no reason that Home Depot
would have superior knowledge of the personal interaction between
Coffen and the unnamed sales associate, especially when plaintiff
has not even provided the relevant date and location and that
Plaintiff has not established that Home Depot owed any duty to her
beyond that based in the contract for cabinets and installation
services. As to Count 4, 5, 6 and 9, the court granted the motion
to dismiss but provided plaintiff with leave to amend the
contractual claims because the contract claims provide a possible
legal remedy for Coffen, but they are currently pled with
insufficient legal and factual detail.

Ellen Coffen is represented by Stephen Noel Ilg, Esq. --
silg@ilglegal.com -- HOFFMAN EMPLOYMENT LAWYERS

Home Depot U.S.A. Inc. is represented by Sidney Stewart Haskins,
II, Esq. -- shaskins@kslaw.com -- and  Edmund T. Wang, Esq. --
ewang@kslaw.com -- KING SPALDING LLP


IDI INSURANCE: Class Suit Over Women-Only Free-Tire Changes OK'd
----------------------------------------------------------------
Sharon Pulwer, writing for Haaretz, reports that a court approved
a class-action suit on Sept. 4 against IDI Insurance for offering
a free tire-changing service to women only.

Lod District Court Judge Ofer Grosskopf accepted the plaintiff's
claim that this practice is discriminatory, since women receive
the service free as part of their comprehensive car insurance
policies, while men have to pay an extra 80 shekels ($21) for it.
IDI runs two insurance programs: Direct Insurance and 9,000,000.
Customer Ronen Meirav decided to sue after contacting IDI about
the tire-changing service and being told that he would have to pay
for it, since he was a man.  He sent the company a letter of
complaint and received a response from IDI's legal adviser.

"The rationale behind the difference is a relevant difference
between the sexes that, in our view, justifies providing different
service, since in most cases, for a woman, the
tire-changing service is necessary due to physical difficulty in
doing the change herself," the response said.

In his decision to approve the suit as a class action, Judge
Grosskopf wrote, "A policy of discriminating between women and men
on the basis of offensive stereotypes is not a matter that we, as
a society, can dismiss as a trivial violation.  The company might
not have intended it, but the message that 'women have trouble
changing a tire by themselves and usually need a man's help'
reflects a chauvinist view that is based on offensive stereotypes.

A patronizing, arrogant attitude toward women by those who sell
products and provide services is an unacceptable way to run a
business, which the legislator sought to combat."

The class action approval means that anyone who sought to buy an
IDI policy and suffered "the subjective emotional harm of
humiliation and violated dignity" due to the company's
discriminatory approach, can now join the suit.

The court ordered IDI to pay the plaintiff 30,000 shekels in court
costs.


IMAGE FIRST: Court Denies Motion to Dismiss "Campanelli" Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
District Judge Phyllis J. Hamilton of the United States District
Court for the Northern District of California granted Defendant
Image First Uniform Rental Service, Inc.'s motion to dismiss for
lack of personal jurisdiction in the case captioned, KYLE L.
CAMPANELLI, Plaintiff, v. IMAGE FIRST UNIFORM RENTAL SERVICE,
INC., et al., Defendants, Case No. 15-CV-04456-PJH (N.D. Cal.).

The case is a putative class action based on the Fair Labor
Standards Act (FLSA) and various provisions of the California
Labor Code. Plaintiff Kyle Campanelli was formerly employed by an
ImageFIRST entity as a delivery person from March 2014 to March 3,
2015. First Amended Complaint. The complaint names three
ImageFIRST companies as defendants: (1) ImageFIRST Uniform Rental
Service, Inc. (IF Uniform); (2) ImageFIRST Healthcare Laundry
Specialists, Inc. (IF Healthcare); and (3) ImageFIRST of
California, LLC (IF California). Plaintiff's primary job duty was
to pick up soiled laundry from ImageFIRST customers and deliver it
to a warehouse/laundry center, and to pick up clean laundry from
the warehouse/laundry center and deliver it to ImageFIRST
customers. Campanelli alleges that he worked over forty hours a
week but was denied meal and rest periods, and was never paid
overtime compensation.

Campanelli seeks to represent all similarly situated delivery
persons of any ImageFIRST entity nationwide in a collective action
for failure to pay overtime wages under the FLSA, as well as a
Rule 23 class of similarly situated delivery persons who were
wrongly classified as exempt under California labor laws.

Based on its asserted lack of connection to California, IF Uniform
filed a motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction.
Campanelli opposed the motion, asserting two principal theories
for specific personal jurisdiction over IF Uniform: (1) based on
IF Uniform's own contacts with California; (2) based on IF Uniform
having "a Single Enterprise, Joint Employer, and/or Agency"
relationship with the other ImageFIRST entities. Campanelli does
not argue that IF Uniform is subject to general personal
jurisdiction in California.

In her Order dated September 12, 2016 available at
https://is.gd/k01Wfe from Leagle.com, Judge Hamilton concluded
that Campanelli has failed to meet his burden to show personal
jurisdiction over IF Uniform based on IF Uniform's contacts with
California. Campanelli has not established the first requirement
for specific jurisdiction because none of the evidence upon which
he relies are contacts that IF Uniform directed at California.
More importantly, Campanelli cannot meet the second requirement
for specific jurisdiction because none of the relevant provisions
of the Employment Agreement, the Website, or the Handbook, give
rise to the claims in the suit.

Case management conference is set on November 17, 2016, at 2:00
p.m.

Kyle L. Campanelli is represented by David C. Feola, Esq. --
David@Feolalaw.com -- HOBAN & FEOLA, LLC -- Brian J. Malloy, Esq.
-- bjm@brandilaw.com -- THE BRANDI LAW FIRM

Image First Healthcare Laundry Specialists, Inc. and Image First
of California, LLC are represented by Eric Meckley, Esq. --
eric.meckley@morganlewis.com -- Amelia Louise Sanchez-Moran, Esq.
-- amelia.sanchez-moran@morganlewis.com -- and  Kathryn M.
Nazarian, Esq. -- kate.nazarian@morganlewis.com -- MORGAN, LEWIS
AND BOCKIUS


JOHNSON & JOHNSON'S: Faces Suit Over Talc Powder Cancer Link
------------------------------------------------------------
Sarah Klein, writing Injury Lawyer News, reports that one of the
most recent talcum powder lawsuits is alleging that prolonged use
of talc and talc-based products poses an increased risk of ovarian
cancer.  The plaintiff in this case lost his wife last year after
she lost her battle with ovarian cancer.

He claims that her diagnosis, and ultimate demise, was caused by
her lifetime use of talcum powder for feminine hygiene purposes,
since the company marketed the product for women to use safely on
a regular basis.  Due to this devastating loss, he seeks
substantial compensation.

Link between talc and cancer

The complaint presented by the plaintiff -- Patrick Barker --
concerns his deceased spouse -- Carla -- who was diagnosed with
ovarian cancer, which he claims was directly linked to her daily
use of Johnson & Johnson's (J&J) baby powder for feminine hygiene.
Ms. Barker alleges that the manufacturer falsely advertised their
talcum-based baby powder as suitable for feminine needs by
promising "freshness and comfort" to the thousands of women who
utilize it.

Ms. Barker states that if his wife had been properly informed
about the dangers of talcum powder, the outcome may have differed.
However, since Carla was not aware of the increased cancer risk,
she suffered a catastrophic injury, which resulted in pain,
disability, impairment, economic loss, and death.
Johnson & Johnson allegedly concealed risks

The original purpose of J&J's baby powder was to protect infants
from rashes that developed under their diapers.  However, the
manufacturer simultaneously advertised the product for female use
around the genital region to reduce friction and absorb excess
moisture, which they further solidified by assuring a feeling of
freshness.

Regardless of popularity, studies -- that date as far back as 1971
-- have indicated that talcum-based powder contains carcinogen
activity, some of which mirrors asbestos-like fibers.

Furthermore, numerous groups have advised the company to place
warnings on the product to inform women of the possible risks,
which some studies showed increased a woman's cancer risk by as
much as 60 percent.

Despite these recommendations, J&J has not added such precautions
to their labels, which this lawsuit cites as one of their biggest
complaints.  The plaintiff here claims that the company
intentionally failed to offer this information to their customers,
who have a right to know statistics of this nature.

Talcum powder lawsuit verdicts

Although this issue has a long-standing record, the recent
increase in awareness has brought forth many class action lawsuits
against J&J and the companies that mine and provide the talc, such
as Imerys Talc America, INC and Luzenac America, Inc.
Thus far, multi-million dollar verdicts have been awarded to two
plaintiffs who successfully pursued litigation against J&J.


JOY GLOBAL: "Tansey" Sues Over Komatsu Merger Deal
--------------------------------------------------
Kevin Tansey, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. Joy Global Inc., Edward L. Doheny II,
Steven L. Gerard, Mark J. Gliebe, John T. Gremp, John Nils Hanson,
Gale E. Klappa, Richard B. Loynd, P. Eric Siegert and James H.
Tate, Defendants, Case No. 1:16-cv-1201 (E.D. Wis., September 6,
2016), seeks to block the Defendant from proceeding with,
consummating, or closing a merger.  The suit also seeks rescissory
damages, reasonable attorneys' and experts' fees and such other
and further relief under the Securities and Exchange Act of 1933.

Joy will be acquired by Komatsu Ltd. through its U.S. based
subsidiary Komatsu America Corp. and its wholly-owned subsidiary,
Pine Solutions, Inc. Said agreement included a no-solicitation
clause, information rights provision, matching rights and a
termination fee of $75 million if the company decides to pursue a
competing offer. Plaintiff alleges that this is an onerous deal
and deprives the shareholders of the benefits of other and better
prospect deals other than the one at hand.

Kevin Tansey is a continuous shareholder of Joy.

Joy is a Delaware corporation with its principal executive offices
located at 100 E. Wisconsin Avenue, Suite 2780, Milwaukee,
Wisconsin 53202. The company manufactures and services heavy
machinery used in underground and surface mining. Edward L. Doheny
II, Steven L. Gerard, Mark J. Gliebe, John T. Gremp, John Nils
Hanson, Gale E. Klappa, Richard B. Loynd, P. Eric Siegert and
James H. Tate are members of the board of directors.

Komatsu is a Japanese multinational corporation that manufacturers
construction, mining, and military equipment, as well as
industrial equipment like press machines, lasers and
thermoelectric generators.

The Defendant is represented by:

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

             - and -

      Richard A. Acocelli, Esq.
      Michael A. Rogovin, Esq.
      Kelly C. Keenan, Esq.
      Seth M. Rosenstein, Esq.
      WEISSLAW LLP
      1500 Broadway, 16th Floor
      New York, NY 10036
      Tel: (212) 682-3025
      Fax: (212) 682-3010


LANNETT CO: Antitrust and Consumer Protection Suits Pending
-----------------------------------------------------------
Lannett Company, Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on August 29, 2016, for the
fiscal year ended June 30, 2016, that the Company and certain
competitors have been named as defendants in 19 lawsuits filed in
2016 alleging that the Company and certain generic pharmaceutical
manufacturers have conspired to fix prices of generic digoxin and
doxycycline.  There is a proceeding before the United States
Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation, regarding
centralization of all of these related cases.  Oral argument was
held on July 28, 2016.  The Panel has not yet made a decision.

The Company believes that it acted in compliance with all
applicable laws and regulations.  Accordingly, the Company
disputes the allegations set forth in these class actions.  The
Company does not believe that the ultimate resolution of these
lawsuits will have a significant impact on our financial position,
results of operations or cash flows.


MCKESSON CORP: True Health Appeals N.D. Cal. Ruling to 9th Cir.
---------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs True Health Chiropractic, Inc., and McLaughlin
Chiropractic Assocs., Inc., filed an appeal from a court ruling in
the lawsuit titled True Health Chiropractic, Inc., et al. v.
McKesson Corporation, et al., Case No. 3:13-c v-02219-HSG, in the
U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, San
Francisco.

The appellate case is captioned as True Health Chiropractic, Inc.,
et al. v. McKesson Corporation, et al., Case No. 16-80121, in the
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.

As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter on August 31,
2016, Judge Haywood S. Gilliam denied the Plaintiffs' motion for
certification of a nationwide class of:

     "[a]ll persons or entities who received faxes from
     'McKesson' from September 2, 2009, to May 11, 2010, offering
     'Medisoft,' 'Lytec,' or 'Revenue Management Advanced'
     software or 'BillFlash Patient Statement Service,' where the
     faxes do not inform the recipient of the right to 'opt out'
     of future faxes."

A copy of the Order is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=dDT3d8aw

Plaintiffs-Petitioners TRUE HEALTH CHIROPRACTIC, INC., and
MCLAUGHLIN CHIROPRACTIC ASSOCS., INC., individually and as
representatives of a class of similarly situated persons, are
represented by:

          Glenn Hara, Esq.
          ANDERSON & WANCA
          3701 Algonquin Road, Suite # 760
          Rolling Meadows, IL 60008
          Telephone: (847) 368-1500
          E-mail: GHara@andersonwanca.com

               - and -

          Willem Jonckheer, Esq.
          SCHUBERT JONCKHEER & KOLBE LLP
          Three Embarcadero Center
          San Francisco, CA 94111
          Telephone: (415) 788-4220
          Facsimile: (415) 788-0161
          E-mail: wjonckheer@schubertlawfirm.com

Defendants-Respondents MCKESSON CORPORATION and MCKESSON
TECHNOLOGIES, INC., are represented by:

          Tiffany Cheung, Esq.
          Benjamin F. Patterson, Esq.
          MORRISON & FOERSTER LLP
          425 Market Street
          San Francisco, CA 94105-2482
          Telephone: (415) 268-7000
          E-mail: tcheung@mofo.com
                  bpatterson@mofo.com


MICHAELS COMPANIES: Claims of 26 Former Class Members Pending
-------------------------------------------------------------
The Michaels Companies, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 26, 2016,
for the quarterly period ended July 30, 2016, that the individual
claims of 26 former class members remain pending in the Central
District of California.

On September 15, 2011, MSI was served with a lawsuit filed in the
California Superior Court in and for the County of Orange
("Superior Court") by four former store managers as a class action
proceeding on behalf of themselves and certain former and current
store managers employed by MSI in California. The lawsuit alleged
that MSI improperly classified its store managers as exempt
employees and as such failed to pay all wages, overtime, waiting
time penalties and failed to provide accurate wage statements. The
lawsuit also alleged that the foregoing conduct was in breach of
various laws, including California's unfair competition law.

On December 3, 2013, the Superior Court entered an order
certifying a class of approximately 200 members. MSI successfully
removed the case to the United States District Court for the
Central District of California and on May 8, 2014, the class was
decertified. The named plaintiffs' claims were resolved in
September 2014, but the individual claims of 26 former class
members remain pending in the Central District of California.

In addition, a separate representative action brought on behalf of
store managers throughout the state is pending in the California
Superior Court, County of San Diego.

"We believe we have meritorious defenses and intend to defend the
lawsuits vigorously. We do not believe the resolution of the
lawsuits will have a material effect on our consolidated financial
statements," the Company said.


MICHAELS COMPANIES: FCRA Lawsuits Remain Pending
------------------------------------------------
The Michaels Companies, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 26, 2016,
for the quarterly period ended July 30, 2016, that the Company
intends to defend the remaining Fair Credit Reporting
lawsuits vigorously.

On December 11, 2014, MSI was served with a lawsuit, Christina
Graham v. Michaels Stores, Inc., filed in the U.S. District Court
for the District of New Jersey by a former employee. The lawsuit
is a purported class action, bringing plaintiff's individual
claims, as well as claims on behalf of a putative class of
applicants who applied for employment with Michaels through an
online application, and on whom a background check for employment
was procured. The lawsuit alleges that MSI violated the Fair
Credit Reporting Act ("FCRA") and the New Jersey Fair Credit
Reporting Act by failing to provide the proper disclosure and
obtain the proper authorization to conduct background checks.
Since the initial filing, another named plaintiff joined the
lawsuit, which was amended in February 2015, Christina Graham and
Gary Anderson v. Michaels Stores, Inc., with substantially similar
allegations. The plaintiffs seek statutory and punitive damages as
well as attorneys' fees and costs.

Following the filing of the Graham case in New Jersey, five
additional purported class action lawsuits with six plaintiffs
were filed, Michele Castro and Janice Bercut v. Michaels Stores,
Inc., in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of
Texas, Michelle Bercut v. Michaels Stores, Inc. in the Superior
Court of California for Sonoma County, Raini Burnside v. Michaels
Stores, Inc., in the U.S. District Court for the Western District
of Missouri, Sue Gettings v. Michaels Stores, Inc., in the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of New York, and Barbara
Horton v. Michaels Stores, Inc., in the U.S. District Court for
the Central District of California.

All of the plaintiffs alleged violations of the FCRA. In addition,
the Castro, Horton and Janice Bercut lawsuits also alleged
violations of California's unfair competition law. The Burnside,
Horton and Gettings lawsuits, as well as the claims by Michele
Castro, have been dismissed. The Graham, Janice Bercut and
Michelle Bercut lawsuits were transferred for centralized pretrial
proceedings to the District of New Jersey.

The Company intends to defend the remaining lawsuits vigorously.

"We cannot reasonably estimate the potential loss, or range of
loss, related to the lawsuits, if any," the Company said.


MICHAELS COMPANIES: Appeal in Data Breach Suit Underway
-------------------------------------------------------
The Michaels Companies, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 26, 2016,
for the quarterly period ended July 30, 2016, that an appeal in a
case related to the data security incident is pending.

Five putative class actions were filed against MSI relating to the
January 2014 data breach. The plaintiffs generally alleged that
MSI failed to secure and safeguard customers' private information
including credit and debit card information, and as such, breached
an implied contract, and violated the Illinois Consumer Fraud Act
(and other states' similar laws) and are seeking damages including
declaratory relief, actual damages, punitive damages, statutory
damages, attorneys' fees, litigation costs, remedial action, pre
and post judgment interest, and other relief as available. The
cases are as follows: Christina Moyer v. Michaels Stores, Inc.,
was filed on January 27, 2014; Michael and Jessica Gouwens v.
Michaels Stores, Inc., was filed on January 29, 2014; Nancy Maize
and Jessica Gordon v. Michaels Stores, Inc., was filed on February
21, 2014; and Daniel Ripes v. Michaels Stores, Inc., was filed on
March 14, 2014. These four cases were filed in the United States
District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, Eastern
Division.

On March 18, 2014, an additional putative class action was filed
in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of
New York, Mary Jane Whalen v. Michaels Stores, Inc., but was
voluntarily dismissed by the plaintiff on April 11, 2014 without
prejudice to her right to re-file a complaint. On April 16, 2014,
an order was entered consolidating the Illinois actions. On July
14, 2014, the Company's motion to dismiss the consolidated
complaint was granted.

On December 2, 2014, Whalen filed a new lawsuit against MSI
related to the data breach in the United States District Court for
the Eastern District of New York, Mary Jane Whalen v. Michaels
Stores, Inc., seeking damages including declaratory relief,
monetary damages, statutory damages, punitive damages, attorneys'
fees and costs, injunctive relief, pre and post judgment interest,
and other relief as available.

The Company filed a motion to dismiss which was granted on
December 28, 2015, and judgment was entered in favor of the
Company on January 8, 2016. Plaintiff filed a notice of appeal on
January 27, 2016, appealing the judgment to the United States
Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit. The appeal is pending.

The Company intends to defend this lawsuit vigorously.

"We cannot reasonably estimate the potential loss, or range of
loss, related to the lawsuit, if any," the Company said.


MURRAY GOULBURN: Dairy Farmers Pull Supplies, Mull Class Action
---------------------------------------------------------------
Colin Kruger, writing for The Sydney Morning Herald, reports that
the board of dairy co-op, Murray Goulburn, are expected to claim
the full 50 per cent pay rise they were meant to get last year,
but they will be earning it.

Chairman Philip Tracy and his fellow directors are facing a revolt
by MG's dairy farmers, who are pulling supplies and contemplating
a class action over its retrospective cut to the farmgate milk
price that was needed to cover the botched strategy of former boss
Gary Helou.

In a letter to suppliers, ahead of meetings with them,
Mr. Tracy admitted that the Milk Supply Support Package (MSSP) --
designed to soften the blow of MG's disastrous farmgate milk price
cuts in April -- has actually backfired.

"Since its introduction it has become very clear that the MSSP is
not considered by suppliers to have addressed their most
significant concerns and is potentially proving counter-productive
from the perspective of their continued loyalty," said Mr. Tracy
in the letter, released to the ASX on Sept. 5.

It would not be news to anyone in the industry.

Law firms were briefing MG and Fonterra dairy suppliers on a
potential class action over the decision.

The dairy farmers elected to the MG board admitted that the
support package has proven inadequate and dairy farmers have been
deserting the co-op which, along with Fonterra, is now offering
the lowest farmgate milk prices across the industry.

Freshly elected Murray Goulburn director Harper Kilpatrick said
the latest figures show MG has lost 245 million litres of milk
supply.

"That's the key focus, initially, trying to get milk prices up and
stop the hemorrhaging of milk supply," the dairy farmer said.

Mr. Tracy, treading carefully ahead of the supplier meetings, said
the board and management are "actively reviewing all options with
a view to providing a better solution to support suppliers in the
long-term interests of suppliers and MG".

The board expects to have more details by the end of October.

"The issue is complex but is getting your board's very focused
attention," Mr. Tracy said.


NANTKWEST INC: "Wiencek" Securities Case Removed to C.D. Cal.
-------------------------------------------------------------
Craig Wiencek, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. Nantkwest, Inc., Patrick Soon-Shiong,
Richard J. Tajak, Angela Wilson and Richard Gomberg, Defendants,
Case No. 2:16-cv-03438 (Cal. Super., June 8, 2016), has been
removed to the United States District Court for the Central
District of California, on September 6, 2016, under Case No. 2:16-
cv-06705.

NantKwest is a clinical-stage immunotherapy company focused on
using cells to treat cancer, and infectious and inflammatory
diseases. It is a Delaware corporation with its principal
executive offices located at 3530 John Hopkins Court, San Diego,
California. Patrick Soon-Shiong was Chairman of the Board of
Directors and Chief Executive Officer of NantKwest. Richard J.
Tajak, Angela Wilson and Richard Gomberg served as CFOs at
different times.

Defendants allegedly made false and/or misleading statements, as
well as failed to disclose material adverse facts about the
Company business, operations and prospects. Specifically, it
failed to disclose that it was improperly accounting for stock-
based awards in violation of Generally Accepted Accounting
Principles. NantKwest issued financial statements that lacked
adequate internal controls over accounting and financial
reporting. NantKwest securities fell drastically as a result of
corrective disclosures.

The Defendant is represented by:

      Jordan Eth, Esq.
      Philip T. Besirof (CA SBN 185053)
      MORRISON & FOERSTER LLP
      425 Market Street
      San Francisco, CA 94105-2482
      Telephone: 415.268.7000
      Facsimile: 415.268.7522
      Email: JEth@mofo.com
             PBesirof@mofo.com


NATERA INC: Appeals From N.D. Cal. Ruling in "Nguyen" Class Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Defendants Roelof F. Botha, Todd Cozzens, Edward C. Driscoll Jr.,
James I. Healy, Natera, Inc., Matthew Rabinowitz, Herm Rosenman,
Jonathan Sheena and John Steuart filed an appeal from a court
ruling in the lawsuit titled Van Nguyen v. Natera, Inc., et al.,
Case No. 3:16-cv-02226-HSG, in the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of California, San Francisco.

As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the Plaintiff
sued the Defendants in the Superior Court of the State of
California for the County of San Mateo (Case No. CIV538020) over
alleged violations of securities laws.  That case was subsequently
removed to the District Court.

The appellate case is captioned as Van Nguyen v. Natera, Inc., et
al., Case No. 16-16578, in the United States Court of Appeals for
the Ninth Circuit.

The briefing schedule in the Appellate Case is set as follows:

   -- Appellants' opening brief is due on December 16, 2016;

   -- Appellee Van Nguyen's answering brief is due on January 17,
      2017; and

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

Plaintiff-Appellee VAN NGUYEN, Individually and on Behalf of All
Others Similarly Situated, is represented by:

          Lionel Z. Glancy, Esq.
          Robert V. Prongay, Esq.
          GLANCY PRONGAY & MURRAY LLP
          1925 Century Park East, Suite 2100
          Los Angeles, CA 90067
          Telephone: (310) 201-9150
          E-mail: lglancy@glancylaw.com
                  rprongay@glancylaw.com

Defendants-Appellants NATERA, INC., MATTHEW RABINOWITZ, JONATHAN
SHEENA, HERM ROSENMAN, ROELOF F. BOTHA, TODD COZZENS, EDWARD C.
DRISCOLL, Jr., JAMES I. HEALY and JOHN STEUART are represented by:

          Christina L. Costley, Esq.
          Bruce G. Vanyo, Esq.
          Richard Harold Zelichov, Esq.
          KATTEN MUCHIN ROSENMAN LLP
          2029 Century Park East, Suite 2600
          Los Angeles, CA 90067-3012
          Telephone: (310) 788 4400
          Facsimile: (310) 788 4471
          E-mail: christina.costley@kattenlaw.com
                  bruce@kattenlaw.com
                  richard.zelichov@kattenlaw.com

Defendants SEQUOIA CAPITAL XII, LP, and SC XII MANAGEMENT, LLC,
are represented by:

          Lloyd Winawer, Esq.
          GOODWIN PROCTER LLP
          100 Northern Avenue
          Boston, MA 02210
          Telephone: (617) 570-1337
          E-mail: lwinawer@goodwinprocter.com

Defendants LIGHTSPEED VENTURE PARTNERS VIII, LP, and LIGHTSPEED
ULTIMATE GENERAL PARTNER VIII LTD. are represented by:

          Kathleen H. Goodhart, Esq.
          COOLEY LLP
          101 California Street, 5th Floor
          San Francisco, CA 94111-5800
          Telephone: (415) 693-2012
          Facsimile: (415) 693-2222
          E-mail: kgoodhart@cooley.com

Defendants MORGAN STANLEY & CO. LLC, COWEN AND COMPANY, LLC, PIPER
JAFFRAY & CO., ROBERT W. BAIRD & CO. INC., and WEDBUSH SECURITIES,
INC., are represented by:

          Norman Jeffrey Blears, Esq.
          SIDLEY AUSTIN LLP
          Building 1
          1001 Page Mill Rd.
          Palo Alto, CA 94304
          Telephone: (650) 565-7014
          Facsimile: (650) 565-7100
          E-mail: nblears@sidley.com


NATERA INC: Seeks 9th Circuit Review of Decision in "Ellis" Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Defendants Roelof F. Botha, Todd Cozzens, Edward C. Driscoll Jr.,
James I. Healy, Natera, Inc., Matthew Rabinowitz, Herm Rosenman,
Jonathan Sheena and John Steuart filed an appeal from a court
ruling in the lawsuit styled M Ellis v. Natera, Inc., et al., Case
No. 3:16-cv-01554-HSG, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of California, San Francisco.

As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the District
Court Case was originally filed in the Superior Court of the State
of California for the County of San Mateo, Case No. CIV537896, and
was removed to the District Court.  The Plaintiff alleges
violations of securities laws.

The appellate case is captioned as M Ellis v. Natera, Inc., et
al., Case No. 16-16576, in the United States Court of Appeals for
the Ninth Circuit.

The briefing schedule in the Appellate Case is set as follows:

   -- Opening brief of Appellants Roelof F. Botha, Todd Cozzens,
      Edward C. Driscoll Jr., James I. Healy, Natera, Inc.,
      Matthew Rabinowitz, Herm Rosenman, Jonathan Sheena and John
      Steuart is due on December 16, 2016;

   -- Appellee M Jim Ellis' answering brief is due on January 17,
      2017; and

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

Plaintiff-Appellee M JIM ELLIS, Individually and on Behalf of All
Others Similarly Situated, is represented by:

          James M. Ficaro, Esq.
          Christopher L. Nelson, Esq.
          THE WEISER LAW FIRM, P.C.
          22 Cassatt Avenue
          Berwyn, PA 19312
          Telephone: (610) 225-2677
          E-mail: jmf@weiserlawfirm.com
                  cln@weiserlawfirm.com

               - and -

          Kathleen Ann Herkenhoff, Esq.
          THE WEISER LAW FIRM P.C.
          12707 High Bluff Drive, Suite 200
          San Diego, CA 92130
          Telephone: (858) 794-1441
          Facsimile: (858) 794-1450
          E-mail: kah@weiserlawfirm.com

Defendants-Appellants NATERA, INC., MATTHEW RABINOWITZ, JONATHAN
SHEENA, HERM ROSENMAN, ROELOF F. BOTHA, TODD COZZENS, EDWARD C.
DRISCOLL, Jr., JAMES I. HEALY and JOHN STEUART are represented by:

          Christina L. Costley, Esq.
          Bruce Vanyo, Esq.
          Richard Harold Zelichov, Esq.
          KATTEN MUCHIN ROSENMAN LLP
          2029 Century Park East
          Los Angeles, CA 90067
          Telephone: (310) 788-4485
          Facsimile: (310) 788-4471
          E-mail: christina.costley@kattenlaw.com
                  bruce@kattenlaw.com
                  richard.zelichov@kattenlaw.com

Defendants SEQUOIA CAPITAL XII, LP, and SC XII MANAGEMENT, LLC,
are represented by:

          Lloyd Winawer, Esq.
          GOODWIN PROCTER LLP
          100 Northern Avenue
          Boston, MA 02210
          Telephone: (617) 570-1337
          Facsimile: (650) 853-1038
          E-mail: lwinawer@goodwinprocter.com

Defendants LIGHTSPEED VENTURE PARTNERS VIII, LP, and LIGHTSPEED
ULTIMATE GENERAL PARTNER VIII LTD. are represented by:

          Kathleen H. Goodhart, Esq.
          COOLEY LLP
          101 California Street, 5th Floor
          San Francisco, CA 94111-5800
          Telephone: (415) 693-2012
          Facsimile: (415) 693-2222
          E-mail: kgoodhart@cooley.com

Defendants MORGAN STANLEY & CO. LLC, COWEN AND COMPANY, LLC, PIPER
JAFFRAY & CO., ROBERT W. BAIRD & CO. INC. and WEDBUSH SECURITIES,
INC., are represented by:

          Norman Jeffrey Blears, Esq.
          SIDLEY AUSTIN LLP
          1001 Page Mill Rd., Building 1
          Palo Alto, CA 94304
          Telephone: (650) 565-7014
          Facsimile: (650) 565-7100
          E-mail: nblears@sidley.com


NATIONAL CARRIERS: Seeks Review of Decision in "Pack" Class Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Defendant National Carriers, Inc., filed an appeal from a court
ruling in the lawsuit styled Lonzo Pack v. National Carriers,
Inc., Case No. 5:16-cv-01719-FMO-SP, in the U.S. District Court
for the Central District of California, Riverside.

The appellate case is captioned as Lonzo Pack v. National
Carriers, Inc., Case No. 16-80124, in the United States Court of
Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.

Plaintiff-Respondent LONZO PACK, individually and on behal of
others similarly situated, is represented by:

          Thomas A. Rist, Esq.
          HUMPHREY AND RIST LLP
          351 Paseo Nuevo
          Santa Barbara, CA 93101
          Telephone: (805) 618-2924
          Facsimile: (304) 574-0224
          E-mail: tom@humphreyrist.com

Defendant-Petitioner NATIONAL CARRIERS, INC., is represented by:

          Paul Scott Cowie, Esq.
          Ronald J. Holland, Esq.
          SHEPPARD MULLIN RICHTER & HAMPTON LLP
          4 Embarcadero Center
          San Francisco, CA 94111-4106
          Telephone: (415) 774-3182
          Facsimile: (415) 403-6032
          E-mail: pcowie@sheppardmullin.com
                  rholland@sheppardmullin.com

               - and -

          Karin Dougan Vogel, Esq.
          SHEPPARD MULLIN RICHTER & HAMPTON LLP
          501 West Broadway
          San Diego, CA 92101-3598
          Telephone: (619) 338-6532
          E-mail: kvogel@sheppardmullin.com


NATIONSTAR MORTGAGE: Youngblood Appeals Ruling in "Wright" Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs Kerry Youngblood and William Youngblood filed an appeal
from a court ruling in the lawsuit entitled Heather Wright, Carole
Stewart and Michael Doyle, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. Nationstar Mortgage LLC, Case No.
1:14-cv-10457, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of Illinois, Eastern Division.

As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the Case
seeks to redress the Defendant's alleged practice of making
unsolicited debt collection and other phone calls to the cellular
and landline telephones of consumers nationwide without consent
and with the use of an automatic telephone dialing system and pre-
recorded voice in violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection
Act.

The appellate case is captioned as Kerry Youngblood, et al. v.
Nationstar Mortgage, LLC, Case No. 16-3376, in the U.S. Court of
Appeals for the Seventh Circuit.

The briefing schedule in the Appellate Case is set as follows:

   -- Transcript information sheet is due by September 22, 2016;
      and

   -- Appellants' brief is due on or before October 18, 2016;

The Appellate Court also noted that these are the parties to the
Case as reflected on the District Court docket, yet are not
reflected on the Appellate docket/caption for administrative
purposes: Appellees Michael Doyle, Dana Skelton, Roger Reed,
Vanessa Ruggles and Rose Somers.

Appellants KERRY YOUNGBLOOD and WILLIAM YOUNGBLOOD are represented
by:

          Brent F. Vullings, Esq.
          VULLINGS LAW GROUP, LLC
          3953 Ridge Pike
          Collegeville, PA 19426
          Telephone: (610) 489-6060

Plaintiffs-Appellees HEATHER WRIGHT, CAROLE STEWART, JEANETTE
CHILDRESS, ROBERT JORDAN and SEAN HALBERT, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated, are represented by:

          Rafey S. Balabanian, Esq.
          EDELSON PC
          350 North LaSalle Street, Suite 1300
          Chicago, IL 60604
          Telephone: (312) 589-6380
          Facsimile: (312) 589-6378
          E-mail: rbalabanian@edelson.com

Defendant-Appellee NATIONSTAR MORTGAGE, LLC, is represented by:

          Henry Pietrkowski, Esq.
          REED SMITH LLP
          Ten S. Wacker Drive
          Chicago, IL 60606-7507
          Telephone: (312) 207-3904
          E-mail: hpietrkowski@reedsmith.com


NBD INTERNATIONAL: Viking Suit Remanded to Indiana State Court
--------------------------------------------------------------
District Judge Rudy Lozano of the United States District Court for
the Northern District of Indiana granted Plaintiff's motion to
remand to the Whitley Superior Court of Indiana the case
captioned, VIKING, INC., Plaintiff, v. NBD INTERNATIONAL, INC. and
SELECTIVE INSURANCE COMPANY OF AMERICA, Defendants, Case No. 1:16-
CV-25 (N.D. Ind.).

On January 6, 2016, the plaintiff, Viking, Inc. (Viking) filed its
complaint against NBD International, Inc. (NBD) and Selective
Insurance Company of America (Selective) in the Whitley Superior
Court of Indiana. Viking's claims arise from a "catastrophic fire
loss at its 70,000 square foot headquarters and manufacturing
facility," and the complaint alleges personal property and
business losses due to Defendants' negligence and breach of
contracts.

Selective was served with a copy of the summons and complaint on
January 11, 2016. NBD was served with a copy of the summons and
complaint on January 13, 2016. On January 22, 2016, Selective
filed its notice of removal based on diversity jurisdiction. In
it, Selective states that NBD "has consented to the removal of
this action as evidenced by Exhibit B." Exhibit B is a copy of an
email from Jennifer Kalas (Attorney Kalas), counsel for Selective,
to Adam D. Fuller (Attorney Fuller), counsel for NBD, asking
Attorney Fuller to confirm that NBD consents to the removal. In
that email, Attorney Fuller states that NBD "consents to the
removal." The notice of removal itself, however, is only signed by
Attorney Kalas.

On February 19, 2016, Viking filed the motion to remand, arguing
that the notice of removal is defective because the email
correspondence does not meet the requirements for formalizing
consent to remove in the Seventh Circuit. On February 22, 2016,
Selective filed an amended notice of removal, this time attaching
two emails as exhibits in support of its contention that NBD has
consented to removal. Selective filed its response in opposition
to Viking's motion to remand on March 9, 2016, arguing that the
motion should be denied because Selective had obtained written
consent from NBD prior to removal in the form of an email, which
was attached and incorporated into Selective's notice of removal.

In his Opinion and Order dated September 8, 2016 available at
https://is.gd/UJ18ON from Leagle.com, Judge Lozano found that the
initial notice of removal is defective. An unauthenticated email
attached to the notice of removal from an attorney who had not yet
appeared in the action on behalf of the non-removing defendant is
simply insufficient to establish proper consent.

Viking Inc. is represented by Craig R. Patterson, Esq. --
cpatterson@beckmanlawson.com -- BECKMAN LAWSON LLP

Viking Inc. is represented by Matthew J. Elliott, Esq. --
melliott@beckmanlawson.com -- BECKMAN LAWSON LLP

NBD International Inc. is represented by Adam D. Fuller, Esq. --
adfuller@bmdllc.com -- and  Donald W. Davis, Jr., Esq. --
dwdavis@bmdllc.com -- BRENNAN MANNA & DIAMOND LLC

They are also represented by:

      Jeremy J. Grogg, Esq.
      Lindsay Hurni Lepley, Esq.
      BURT BLEE DIXON SUTTON & BLOOM LLP
      200 E Main St.
      Fort Wayne, IN 46802
      Tel:(260)426-1300

Selective Insurance Company of America is represented by Daniel K.
Ryan, Esq. -- dryan@gibsondunn.com -- and  Jennifer J. Kalas, Esq.
-- jkalas@gibsondunn.com -- GIBSON DUNN


NEVADA CHECKER: Ninth Circuit Appeal Filed in "Noble" Class Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs Brett Noble, Amanda Fowler and Larry Tran filed an
appeal from a court ruling in their lawsuit styled Brett Noble, et
al. v. Nevada Checker Cab Corporation, et al., Case No. 2:15-cv-
02322-RCJ-VCF, in the U.S. District Court for the District of
Nevada, Las Vegas.

The appellate case is captioned as Brett Noble, et al. v. Nevada
Checker Cab Corporation, et al., Case No. 16-16573, in the United
States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.

The briefing schedule in the Appellate Case is set as follows:

   -- Transcript must be ordered by October 6, 2016;

   -- Transcript is due on November 7, 2016;

   -- Appellants' opening brief is due on December 15, 2016;

   -- Appellees' answering brief is due on January 17, 2017; and

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

Plaintiffs-Appellants BRETT NOBLE, AMANDA FOWLER and LARRY TRAN,
on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, are
represented by:

          Chant Yedalian, Esq.
          CHANT & COMPANY APLC
          1010 N. Central Ave.
          Glendale, CA 91202
          Telephone: (877) 574-7100
          Facsimile: (877) 574-9411
          E-mail: chant@chant.mobi

Defendants-Appellees NEVADA CHECKER CAB CORPORATION, DBA Checker
Cab Company; HENDERSON TAXI; WHITTLESEA BLUE CAB COMPANY; NEVADA
YELLOW CAB CORPORATION, DBA Yellow Cab Company; NEVADA STAR CAB
CORPORATION, DBA Star Cab Company; and WESTERN CAB COMPANY, DBA
Western Cab, are represented by:

          Joni Jamison, Esq.
          Robert R. McCoy, Esq.
          KAEMPFER CROWELL
          1980 Festival Plaza Drive, Suite 650
          Las Vegas, NV 89135
          Telephone: (702) 792-7000
          Facsimile: (702) 796-7181
          E-mail: jjamison@kcnvlaw.com
                  rmccoy@kcnvlaw.com


NIKOLAOS AMVROSIATOS: Castillo Seeks to Recover Minimum, OT Wages
-----------------------------------------------------------------
RAYMUNDO CASTILLO, ISRAEL SOLANO, LEONIDES RIVERA and MIROSLA VA
LOPEZ, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated
v. NIKOLAOS AMVROSIATOS BAKERY INC. d/b/a THE OASIS CAFE & BAKERY,
AGEN REALTY LLC, NIKOLAOS AMVROSIA TOS, GERASIMO AMVROSIATOS and
EVANGELOS "ANGELO" AMVROSIATOS, Jointly and Severally, Case No.
710590/2016 (N.Y. Sup. Ct., Queens Cty., September 2, 2016), seeks
to recover alleged unpaid minimum wages, overtime premium pay, and
spread-of-hours premiums pursuant to the New York Labor Law.

The Plaintiffs are former servers, bussers, baristas, and
bartenders at the Defendants' restaurant located in the Flushing
neighborhood of Queens County, New York.  While working for the
Defendants, the Plaintiffs allege that they were paid below
minimum wage and did not receive overtime premiums for hours
worked over 40 in a given workweek.  In addition, the Defendants
did not pay the Plaintiffs spread-of-hours premiums for shifts
lasting more than 10 hours and did not provide the Plaintiffs with
wage notices or wage statements.

Nikolaos Amvrosiatos Bakery Inc. is an active New York Corporation
doing business as "The Oasis Cafe" with its principal place of
business at in Flushing, New York.  Agen Realty LLC, is an active
New York Corporation with its principal place of business in
Flushing.  The Corporate Defendants' operations are interrelated
and unified and are a single enterprise or joint employer of the
Plaintiffs.  The Individual Defendants are owners and operators of
the Corporate Defendants.

The Oasis Cafe is a cafe, bar, restaurant, grill, and bakery in
Flusing and opens from 9:00 a.m. to 3:00 a.m., seven days a week.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Brent E. Pelton
          Taylor B. Graham
          PELTON GRAHAM LLC
          111 Broadway, Suite 1503
          New York, NY 10006
          Telephone: (212) 385-9700
          E-mail: Pelton@PeltonGraham.com
                  Graham@PeltonGraham.com


NORTH CENTRAL: Abrams Suit Seeks unpaid wages, OT Under Labor Law
-----------------------------------------------------------------
ANONZA J. ABRAMS, on behalf of herself and other similarly
situated individuals, the Plaintiffs, v. NORTH CENTRAL
CHIROPRACTIC, P.C.; MARK TISCHLER; and any other related entities
and individuals, the Defendants, Case No. 607015/2016 (N.Y. Sup.
Ct., Sep. 12, 2016), seeks to recover unpaid wages, unpaid
overtime wages, spread of hours compensation, and other wages owed
to Plaintiffs under New York Labor Law (NYLL).

According to the complaint, the Defendants did not provide payroll
receipts that accurately reflect the total amount of hours worked
and corresponding wages earned for the Plaintiff. The Defendants
employed Plaintiff and similarly situated individuals at all
relevant times and have had substantial control over their working
conditions and over the unlawful policies and practices alleged.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Michael A. Tompkins
          LEEDS BROWN LAW, P.C.
          One Old Country Road, Suite 347
          Carle Place, NY 11514
          Telephone: (516) 873 9550
          E-mail: mtompkins@leedsbrownlaw.com


NUTRAMARKS INC: Court Narrows Claims in "Hammock" Suit
------------------------------------------------------
Chief District Judge Barry Ted Moskowitz of the United States
District Court for the Southern District of California partially
granted Defendants' motion to dismiss in the case captioned,
CYNTHIA HAMMOCK, et al., Plaintiffs, v. NUTRAMARKS, INC., et al.,
Defendants, Case No. 15CV2056 BTM (NLS) (S.D Cal.).

Plaintiffs Cynthia Hammock, Sherry Bentley, and Linda Love
(Plaintiffs) filed a class action complaint (Complaint) on
September 15, 2015, against Defendants Nutramarks, Inc.,
Nutrapure, Inc., and Nutraceutical Corp. (Defendants). The
Complaint concerns seven NatraBio products, labeled: Smoking
Withdrawal; Leg Cramps; Restless Legs; Cold and Sinus Nasal Spray;
Allergy and Sinus; Children's Cold and Flu; and Flu Relief Spray
(collectively Products). Plaintiffs allege that six of the
Products, which state on their labels that they are "Natural
Homeopathic Medicines" made from "all natural" ingredients, in
fact contain one or more artificial or synthetic ingredients.

Plaintiff's Complaint includes fraud claims for intentional
misrepresentation and negligent misrepresentation, brought on
behalf of all three proposed classes; breach of warranty claims,
brought on behalf of the California class and alleging violations
of California law; breach of warranty claims, brought on behalf of
the Florida class and alleging violations of Florida law;
restitution claims, brought on behalf of all three proposed
classes; consumer protection claims, brought on behalf of the
California class and alleging violations of California law; and
consumer protection claims, brought by the Florida class and
alleging violations of Florida law

The Complaint proposes three different classes: (1) a "Nationwide
Class" that purchased any of the seven Products in the United
States; (2) a "California Class" that purchased either the Smoking
Withdrawal, Leg Cramps, or Restless Legs products; and (3) a
"Florida Class" that purchased either the Cold and Sinus Spray,
Allergy and Sinus, Children's Cold and Flu, or Flu Relief Spray
products.

Defendants move to dismiss, arguing that (A) Plaintiffs failed to
adequately plead their misrepresentation claims; (B) Plaintiffs
lack standing to request injunctive relief; (C) Defendants are not
liable for punitive damages; and (D) Plaintiffs lack privity to
allege breach of warranty claims.

In his Order dated September 12, 2016 available at
https://is.gd/XtQrdL from Leagle.com, Judge Moskowitz found that
Plaintiffs have sufficiently stated claims that Defendants made
false and deceptive misrepresentations regarding the effectiveness
of the Products, Plaintiffs have successfully plead false
advertising claims, and that Plaintiffs' general allegations that
Defendants knew the Products could not "live up to the promised
advertising" yet marketed the Products in many retail stores
regardless are sufficient under the Federal Rules to survive a
motion to dismiss.

Defendants' motion as to the three of Plaintiffs' warranty claims
for lack of privity is granted because the policy behind
California's exception for foodstuffs should not apply in the case
since Plaintiffs have sufficient recourse under consumer
protection laws to hold Defendants liable for Products that are
allegedly ineffective.

The Court granted Plaintiffs leave to file a First Amended
Complaint (FAC) remedying the defects within 20 days of the entry
of the Order.

Cynthia Hammock, et al. are represented by Beatrice Skye Resendes,
Esq. -- skye@consumersadvocates.com -- and  Ronald Marron, Esq. --
ron@consumersadvocates.com -- LAW OFFICES OF RONALD A. MARRON APLC

Nutramarks, Inc., et al. are  represented by John Charles Hueston,
Esq. -- jhueston@hueston.com -- and  Steven Nathaniel Feldman,
Esq. -- sfeldman@hueston.com -- HUESTON HENNIGAN


OTX LOGISTICS: "Calmet" Suit Seeks Overtime, Missed Breaks
----------------------------------------------------------
Miguel Angel Calmet, an individual, Plaintiff, v. OTX Logistics,
Inc., a Florida corporation, PAC International Logistics Company,
a California corporation, and Does 1-50, inclusive, Defendants,
Case No. BC632692 (Cal. Super., September 1, 2016), seeks overtime
pay, recovery of missed breaks, damages, statutory and civil
penalties, attorney's fees, statutory interest, and costs of suit
under California Labor Law and the General Business and
Professions Code.

Defendants provide logistical and warehousing services in Los
Angeles where Plaintiff worked as general laborer. Calmet claims
to be misclassified as an independent contractor, thus denied
overtime pay, break time and itemized pay slips.

Plaintiff is represented by:

      A. Jacob Nalbandyan, Esq.
      Charles L. Shute, Esq.
      EMPLOYEES' LEGAL ADVOCATES, LLP
      811 Wilshire Blvd, Suite 800
      Los Angeles, CA 90017
      Tel: (213) 232-4848
      Fax: (213) 232-4849
      Email: jnalbandyan@employeesla.com
             cshute@employeesla.com


PALATINE, IL: Collins Seeks Review of N.D. Ill. Order to 7th Cir.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiff Michael Collins filed an appeal from a court ruling in
the lawsuit entitled Michael Collins v. Village of Palatine,
Illinois, Case No. 1:16-cv-038143, in the U.S. District Court for
the Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division.

As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter on Sept. 5,
2016, the Hon. Matthew F. Kennelly granted the Defendant's motion
to dismiss the lawsuit finding that Mr. Collins filed the present
suit long after the statute of limitations had run.  Hence, the
Court dismissed the Case on this basis and, thus, need not address
Palatine's additional arguments in support of dismissal.

The appellate case is captioned as Michael Collins v. Village of
Palatine, Illinois, Case No. 16-3395, in the U.S. Court of Appeals
for the Seventh Circuit.

The briefing schedule in the Appellate Case is set as follows:

   -- Transcript information sheet is due by September 23, 2016;
      and

   -- Appellant's brief is due on or before October 19, 2016, for
      Michael Collins.

Plaintiff-Appellant MICHAEL COLLINS, on behalf of himself and all
others similarly situated, is represented by:

          Martin J. Murphy, Esq.
          LAW OFFICE OF MARTIN J. MURPHY
          1222 W. Arthur Ave.
          Chicago, IL 60626
          Telephone: (312) 933-3200
          E-mail: mjm@law-murphy.com

Defendant-Appellee VILLAGE OF PALATINE, ILLINOIS, is represented
by:

          Michael E. Kujawa, Esq.
          SCHAIN BANKS KENNY & SCHWARTZ
          70 W. Madison Street
          Chicago, IL 60602
          Telephone: (312) 345-5700
          E-mail: mkujawa@schainbanks.com


PERFECTION PAINTING: "Sigala" Suit to Recover Overtime Pay
----------------------------------------------------------
David Sigala, in his individual capacity and on behalf of others
similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Perfection Painting Company,
Michael Wagner, an individual and Karen Wagner, an individual,
Defendants, Case No. 1:16-cv-02216, (D. Colo., September 1, 2016),
seeks to recover unpaid or underpaid wages and other damages under
the provisions of the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938, Colorado
Minimum Wage Act and the Colorado Minimum Wage Order.

David Sigala worked as a painter and laborer for Defendants'
interior and exterior residential and commercial painting company
for approximately thirteen years.

Perfection Painting Company is a corporation doing business within
the County of Boulder with principal place of business located at
3560 Stagecoach N, Unit B, Longmont, CO 80504.

Plaintiff is represented by:

     Penn A. Dodson, Esq.
     Alexander L. Gastman, Esq.
     11 Broadway, Suite 615
     New York, NY 10004
     Tel: (212) 961-7639
     Fax: (646) 998-8051


PHARMACARE US: 9th Circuit Appeal Filed in "Sandoval" Class Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
John Sandoval filed an appeal from a court ruling in the lawsuit
entitled John Sandoval v. PharmaCare US, Inc., Case No. 3:15-cv-
00738-H-JLB, in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District
of California, San Diego.

As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the Plaintiff
purchased IntenseX, contends it didn't deliver the promised sexual
punch, and sued under California's unfair competition and false
advertising laws (among other claims), purporting to represent a
class of those who purchased IntenseX.

Pharmacare sold the dietary supplement called "IntenseX,"
advertised to enhance sexual power and performance.

The appellate case is captioned as John Sandoval v. PharmaCare US,
Inc., Case No. 16-56301, in the United States Court of Appeals for
the Ninth Circuit.

The briefing schedule in the Appellate Case is set as follows:

   -- Transcript must be ordered by October 11, 2016;

   -- Transcript is due pon November 7, 2016;

   -- Appellant John Sandoval's opening brief is due on
      December 19, 2016;

   -- Appellee PharmaCare US, Inc.'s answering brief is due on
      January 17, 2017; and

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

Plaintiff-Appellant JOHN SANDOVAL, on behalf of himself and all
others similarly situated, is represented by:

          Ronald A. Marron, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF RONALD A. MARRON
          651 Arroyo Drive
          San Diego, CA 92103
          Telephone: (619) 696-9006
          Facsimile: (619) 564-6665
          E-mail: ron@consumersadvocates.com

Defendant-Appellee PHARMACARE US, INC., is represented by:

          Aaron Belzer, Esq.
          SEYFARTH SHAW, LLP
          2029 Century Park East
          Los Angeles, CA 90067-3021
          Telephone: (310) 201-1546
          E-mail: abelzer@seyfarth.com

               - and -

          Lawrence E. Butler, Esq.
          Giovanna Alicia Ferrari, Esq.
          SEYFARTH SHAW LLP
          560 Mission Street
          San Francisco, CA 94105
          Telephone: (415) 397-2823
          E-mail: lbutler@seyfarth.com
                  gferrari@seyfarth.com


PSC INDUSTRIAL: Gonzalez Suit Seeks Unpaid Wages Under Labor Code
-----------------------------------------------------------------
RAMON GONZALEZ, as an individual and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. PSC INDUSTRIAL OUTSOURCING,
LLC, a Delaware Limited Liability Company; and DOES 1 through 100,
the Defendants, Case No. BC633197 (Cal. Super. Ct., Sep. 12,
2016), seeks to recover unpaid wages under Labor Code.

The Plaintiff was occasionally required to work fewer than 10.0
hours in a workday, and in such instances, Defendants failed to
pay Plaintiff overtime compensation for all hours worked in excess
of 8.0 hours per workday.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Paul K. Haines, Esq.
          Tuvia Korobkin, Esq.
          Fletcher W. Schmidt, Esq.
          Andrew J. Rowbotham, Esq.
          HAINES LAW GROUP, APC
          2274 East Maple Ave.
          El Segundo, CA 90245
          Telephone: (424) 292 2350
          Facsimile: (424) 292 2355
          E-mail: phaines@haineslawgroup.com
                  tkorobkin@haineslawgroup.com
                  fschmidt@haineslawgroup.com
                  arowbotham@haineslawgroup.com


PURE STORAGE: "Ramsay" Sues Over Share Price Drop
-------------------------------------------------
Dwight Ramsay, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. Pure Storage, Inc., Scott Dietzen, Timothy
Ritters, John Colgrove, Mike Speiser, Aneel Bhusri, Mark Garrett,
Anita M. Sands, Frank Slootman, Michelangelo Volpi, Greylock XIII
Limited Partnership, Greylock XHI Principals LLC, Greylock XIII -
A Limited Partnership, Greylock XIII GP LLC, Sutter Hill Ventures,
Redpoint Associates IV, LLC, Redpoint Ventures IV, L.P., Morgan
Stanley & Co. LLC, Goldman, Sachs & Co., Barclays Capital Inc.,
Allen & Company LLC, Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith
Incorporated, Pacific Crest Securities, Stifel, Nicolaus &
Company, Incorporated, Raymond James & Associates, Inc., Evercore
Group L.L.C. and DOES 1-25, inclusive, Defendants, Case No.
16CIV01183 (Cal. Super., September 1, 2016), seeks compensatory
damages, interests, reasonable costs and expenses, equitable,
injunctive or other relief pursuant to the Securities and Exchange
Act of 1933.

Pure Storage is a California-based manufacturer and purveyor of
all-flash data storage systems, predominately to mid-size and
large enterprise customers. It allegedly failed to disclose
substantial facts in its financial report during its IPO, thus
resulting in the Plaintiff purchasing their stock at artificially-
inflated prices.

Defendant is represented by:

      James I. Jaconette
      ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN & DOWD LLP
      655 West Broadway, Suite 1900
      San Diego, CA 92101
      Telephone: 619/231-1058
      Fax: (619) 231-74313

           - and -

      Shawn A. Williams, Esq.
      One Montgomery Street, Suite 1800
      San Francisco, CA 94104
      Telephone: (415) 288-4545
      Fax: (415) 288-4534


REGIS CORP: Suits in New York, New Jersey & Pennsylvania Ongoing
----------------------------------------------------------------
Regis Corporation said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on August 22, 2016, for the
fiscal year ended June 30, 2016, that the Company has been named a
co-defendant in a lawsuit filed in New York State which seeks
class action status. While management believes the Company will
successfully defend itself in this lawsuit, the ultimate outcome
and legal costs to defend the Company are undeterminable at this
time. As such, no accruals have been recognized in the
accompanying consolidated financial statements.

The Company has been named a co-defendant and defendant in
lawsuits filed in New Jersey and Pennsylvania, respectively. Each
of the suits seek class action status. While management believes
the Company will successfully defend itself in these lawsuits, the
ultimate outcome and legal costs to defend the Company are
undeterminable at this time. As such, no accruals have been
recognized in the accompanying consolidated financial statements.


RIVER ROCKS: Class Cert. Bid Denied in "Payne" Minimum Wage Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
District Judge Paul G. Byron of the United States District Court
for the Middle District of Florida adopted in part and denied in
part Magistrate's Judge's Recommendation in the case captioned,
BRENDON PAYNE, Plaintiff, v. RIVER ROCKS LLC, et al., Defendants,
Case No. 6:15-CV-1727-Orl-40 DAB (M.D. Fla.).

From January 21, 2013 to August 9, 2014, Plaintiff, Brendon Payne
(Payne), worked for Defendant, River Rocks LLC (River Rocks), as a
server and bartender. During his first week of employment, River
Rocks paid Payne $7.79 per hour -- an hourly rate that was greater
than the federal minimum wage at the time. As part of the terms of
his employment, River Rocks required Payne to purchase a work
uniform for $29.20, which River Rocks deducted from Payne's first
paycheck. As a result of this uniform deduction, however, River
Rocks paid Plaintiff less than the federal minimum wage for his
first week at work.

Payne initiated the lawsuit on October 13, 2015 by filing a one-
count Complaint under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA), 29
U.S.C. Sec.Sec. 201-219. Payne claims that River Rocks and its
managers violated the FLSA by paying him less than the federal
minimum wage during his first week of work and that he is entitled
to recover back wages, an equal amount of liquidated damages, and
his reasonable attorney's fees and costs. Payne additionally
brings the lawsuit as a putative collective action under the FLSA,
and seeks to vindicate the rights of other similarly situated
River Rocks employees who received less than the federal minimum
wage during their first week of work due to the mandatory paycheck
deduction for employee uniforms.

River Rocks agrees that it violated the FLSA and that Payne is
entitled to recover the damages he seeks. In fact, on November 16,
2015, River Rocks made an offer of judgment to Payne pursuant to
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 68 which would have provided Payne
with complete relief: $60 in back wages and liquidated damages
plus Payne's reasonable attorney's fees and costs. Payne rejected
that offer, however, and filed a motion to certify the lawsuit as
a collective action soon after.

Three days later, River Rocks moved to dismiss Payne's case. It
was River Rocks' position that Payne's rejection of the offer of
judgment acted to moot his FLSA claim. Magistrate Judge submitted
a report recommending that River Rocks' motion to dismiss be
denied, which the undersigned adopted and confirmed without
objection by any party. Less than a month later, River Rocks moved
for summary judgment. In its motion for summary judgment, River
Rocks concedes that it paid Payne less than the federal minimum
wage in violation of the FLSA and that Payne is entitled to all
the relief he seeks for his individual FLSA claim.

On May 18, 2016, the Magistrate Judge submitted a report on
Payne's motion for certification and on River Rocks' motion for
summary judgment. In his report, the Magistrate Judge recommends
that Payne's motion to certify the case as a collective action be
denied due to Payne's failure to identify any other similarly
situated employee who desires to opt-in to the litigation. The
Magistrate Judge additionally recommends that River Rocks' motion
for summary judgment be granted and that judgment be entered in
favor of Payne and against River Rocks on Payne's individual FLSA
claim.

Before the Court are Payne's objections to the Magistrate Judge's
Report and Recommendation.

In his Order dated September 9, 2016 available at
https://is.gd/FDGJnD from Leagle.com, Judge Byron adopted the
Magistrate Judge's recommendation and denied Payne's motion for
certification because Payne has failed to point to any other
employee who holds such a desire, conditional certification is
inappropriate. As to summary judgment, the Court rejected the
Magistrate Judge's recommendation and denied River Rocks' motion
for summary judgment because the Court is not inclined to enter
summary judgment under Rule 56(a) without Payne's consent, which
he does not give.

Brendon Payne is represented by:

      Mauricio Arcadier, Esq.
      Joseph C. Wood, Esq.
      Stephen J. Biggie, Esq.
      ARCADIER & ASSOCIATES, PA.
      2815 W. New Haven
      Ste 303 & 304
      Melbourne, FL 32904
      Tel: (321)953-5998

River Rocks LLC, et al. are represented by Thomas W. Tierney, Esq.
-- ttierney@rosswayswan.com -- ROSSWAY, MOORE & TAYLOR


RJ REYNOLDS: Obtains Favorable Ruling in Asbestos Case
------------------------------------------------------
Samantha Joseph, writing for Daily Business Review, reports that
R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co. and industrial manufacturers Crane Co.
and Hollingsworth & Vose Co. scored a major appellate victory
Wednesday with the reversal of an $8 million verdict for a man who
linked his cancer to alleged asbestos in their products.

On appeal, the companies disputed a connection between their
products and plaintiff Richard DeLisle's illness, and successfully
challenged the admission of expert testimony that showed
otherwise.

Crane claimed Broward Circuit Judge John Murphy III erred in
denying its motion for a directed verdict in excluding several
Fabre defendants from the verdict form and allowing expert
causation testimony.  R.J. Reynolds also argued that the evidence
from doctors testifying in the trial fell below the legal standard
for expert testimony.

"We hold that the court abused its discretion in admitting expert
testimony, and thus reverse for a new trial for R.J. Reynolds and
for entry of a directed verdict for Crane," Fourth District Court
of Appeal Judge Martha Warner wrote in a unanimous decision with
Chief Judge Cory Ciklin and District Judge Mark Klingensmith.

Mr. DeLisle filed a personal injury action against 16 defendants
but proceeded to trial against Crane and two companies R.J.
Reynolds acquired by merger -- Hollingsworth and Lorillard Tobacco
Co.

Mr. DeLisle filed suit with his wife, Aline, after he developed
mesothelioma.  He claimed each defendant caused him to be exposed
to asbestos and alleged negligence and strict liability under
failure-to-warn and design-defect theories.  He testified he'd
smoked original Kent cigarettes by a Lorillard predecessor that
used asbestos-containing filters.  Mr. DeLisle said he'd smoked
about a pack of Kent cigarettes daily for about four years from
junior high school until his enlistment in the U.S. Army in 1957.
He also said he'd been exposed to asbestos fibers in Crane Co.'s
sheet gaskets and in products by several nonparty defendants,
including Ford Motor Co., Honeywell International Inc., Union
Carbide Corp., Brightwater, Owens Corning Fiberglass and Garlock
Sealing Technologies LLC.

But Lorillard successfully challenged his testimony.
"Two of his high school friends . . . did not recall him smoking,
and his former wife testified that by the late 1960s, Mr. DeLisle
was only smoking unfiltered cigarettes," Judge Warner wrote in the
Sept. 14 appellate decision.

But at trial, Judge Murphy denied a request from defendants
Lorillard and Hollingsworth "to instruct the jury on the threshold
issue of whether Mr. DeLisle ever smoked Kent cigarettes."

After three days of deliberation, the jury found for Mr. DeLisle,
and awarded him $8 million.  It allocated 16 percent of the blame
to Crane, 20 percent each to Brightwater and Owens Corning, and 22
percent each to Lorillard and Hollingsworth.

The appellate court agreed that "a targeted instruction to the
jury" would have been appropriate, but conceded it would not have
reversed on that issue alone.  The judicial panel also found the
trial court "failed to properly exercise its gatekeeping function"
by allowing expert testimony without supporting data.
The appeals court ordered the new trial for R.J. Reynolds to
address all issues and reassess damages.  It also ordered
reconsidering Owens Corning's inclusion as a Fabre defendant on
the verdict form, due to insufficient evidence in the expert
testimony to support claims that exposure to the company's
products factored significantly in Mr. DeLisle's illness.


SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS: Court Trims "Coleman-Anacleto" Suit
--------------------------------------------------------
District Judge Lucy H. Koh of the United States District Court for
the Northern District of California partially granted Defendant's
motion to dismiss and denied motion to remand in the case
captioned, CINDY COLEMAN-ANACLETO, Plaintiff, v. SAMSUNG
ELECTRONICS AMERICA, INC., Defendant, Case No. 6:15-CV-1727-Orl-40
DAB (N.D. Cal.).

The case arises out of an alleged defect in the "Ultra Slim" wall
mounts manufactured by Defendant Samsung Electronics America, Inc.
beginning in 2009. Ultra Slim wall mounts -- models WMN1000A,
WMN1000B, WMN1000C, WMN2000A, WMN2000B, WMN2000C, WMN3000A,
WMN3000B, and WMN3000C -- are designed to hang various flat panel
televisions on the wall.  In September 2010, Plaintiff Cindy
Coleman-Anacleto (Plaintiff) purchased an Ultra Slim wall mount
(model WMN1000C) to hang her $3,200 television.  On January 7,
2016, one of the Ultra Slim wall mount's plastic disks failed,
causing Plaintiff's television to fall off of the wall and break.
Although Plaintiff contacted Defendant, Defendant refused to
repair the television.

According to Plaintiff, Defendant knew of, yet failed to disclose,
the defect in the plastic disks of Ultra Slim wall mounts.  Since
at least 2012, purchasers of Ultra Slim wall mounts have reported
on Amazon.com the plastic disk failures in their Ultra Slim wall
mounts.

On April 29, 2016, Plaintiff filed the complaint in Santa Clara
County Superior Court seeking to represent a putative class of
"all persons who purchased a Samsung Ultra Slim wall mount in
California." The complaint asserts six causes of action: (1)
violation of California's Unfair Competition Law (UCL); (2)
violation of the Consumer Legal Remedies Act (CLRA); (3) breach of
implied warranties under the Song-Beverly Consumer Warranty Act
(the Song-Beverly Act); (4) strict liability for design defect;
(5) strict liability for failure to warn; and (6) negligence.
Plaintiff also seeks restitution, disgorgement of profits,
attorney's fees and costs, and declaratory and injunctive relief.

Defendant removed the action from Santa Clara County Superior
Court based on diversity jurisdiction under the Class Action
Fairness Act (CAFA).

In the Motion, Plaintiff moves to remand the case to state court.
Also before the Court is Defendant's motion to dismiss Plaintiff's
complaint contending that Plaintiff lacks Article III standing to
assert claims related to Ultra Slim wall mount models that she did
not purchase.

In her Order dated September 12, 2016 available at
https://is.gd/m0Q5ZB from Leagle.com, Judge Koh concluded that
remand is unwarranted because the Defendant's first two
calculations put at least $5 million in controversy. As to the
motion to dismiss, the court denied as to Defendant's contention
that Plaintiff lacks Article III standing to sue over
substantially similar products merely because Plaintiff did not
personally purchase every model of Ultra Slim wall mount alleged
in the complaint, Plaintiff's claim under the Song-Beverly Act
Plaintiff's claim for negligence and Defendant's motion to dismiss
to the extent that the claim is founded upon negligent design. The
motion is granted as to Defendant's contention that Plaintiff
lacks statutory standing under the CLRA because Plaintiff fails to
allege reliance on any misrepresentation or omission of Defendant
and as to Plaintiff's claim under the UCL.

Should Plaintiff elect to file an amended complaint curing the
deficiencies identified in the order, Plaintiff shall do so within
21 days of the date of this order.

Cindy Coleman-Anacleto is represented by Andre Michel Mura, Esq.
-- amm@classlawgroup.com -- and  Eric H. Gibbs, Esq. --
ehg@classlawgroup.com -- GIBBS LAW GROUP LLP; Dylan Hughes, Esq.
-- dsh@classlawgroup.com -- and  Steven Augustine Lopez, Esq. --
sal@classlawgroup.com -- GIRARD GIBBS LLP

Samsung Electronics America, Inc. is represented by Nicole Susan
Phillis, Esq. -- nphillis@troygould.com -- Russell Ira Glazer,
Esq. -- rglazer@troygould.com -- Tony Dong Shin, Esq. --
tshin@troygould.com -- and  Jacob Michael Harper, Esq. --
jharper@troygould.com -- TROYGOULD PC


SEDGWICK CLAIMS: Sued Over Compensations Liens Misrepresentation
----------------------------------------------------------------
TRACEY DICKENS on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated, the Plaintiff, v. SEDGWICK CLAIMS MANAGEMENT SERVICES,
INC., and JOHN DOES (1-300), the Defendants, Case No. MID-L-
0530516 (N.J. Super. Ct., Sep. 12, 2016), seeks monetary
restitution of monies paid by Plaintiff and Class members above
the amounts permitted by law for damages arising out of
Defendant's improper and deceptive practice misrepresenting the
amounts of workers' compensations liens owed by individuals, in
violation of the New Jersey Truth in Consumer Contract, Notice and
Warranty Act, New Jersey Workers' Compensation Act, and the New
Jersey Consumer Fraud Act.

According to the complaint, by letter dated March 17, 2015,
Defendant represented to Plaintiff, that Defendant itself had a
lien and was entitled to a recovery of that lien for Workers'
Compensation benefits in the amount of $26,658.77.

Sedgwick is a leading global provider of technology-enabled risk
and benefits solutions.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Michael A. Galpern, Esq.
          Andrew P. Bell, Esq.
          Alfred M. Anthony, Esq.
          James A. Barry, Esq.
          LOCKS LAW FIRM, LLC
          801 N. Kings Highway
          Cherry Hill, NJ 08034
          Telephone: (856) 663 8200


SELECTRUCKS OF AMERICA: Trans Pro Sues on Behalf of Truck Buyers
----------------------------------------------------------------
TRANS PRO LEASING, LLC on behalf of itself and all others
similarly situated v. SELECTRUCKS OF AMERICA LLC d/b/a Selectrucks
Fleet and CUMMINS ENGINE COMPANY, INC. a/k/a Cummins Sale and
Service, Case No. 5:16-cv-00140-GNS (W.D. Ky., Sept. 7, 2016),
seeks to recover monetary damages against the Defendants for
alleged breaches of implied and express warranties.

The Plaintiff brings the action on behalf of itself and the
members of a class comprising of all commercial entities, who
purchased commercial trucks containing Cummins Brand ISX engines
manufactured and sold with ceramic fuel pump plungers and/or
ceramic fuel pump roller/tappet assemblies.

Trans Pro Leasing, LLC, is a Kentucky limited liability company
duly authorized to transact business in the Commonwealth of
Kentucky, having a principal business location in Paducah,
Kentucky.  Trans Pro's sole member is Liberty Propane Gas LLC,
whose members are all citizens of Kentucky.

Selectrucks of America, LLC, is a Delaware limited liability
company registered as a foreign limited liability company and
doing business in Kentucky under the name "Selectrucks of America,
LLC" and doing business in Tennessee under the assumed name of
"Selectrucks Fleet."

Trans Pro contends that it is from the Defendant's Tennessee
location that the trucks containing the engines, which are the
subject of the lawsuit, were purchased.  The sole member of
Selectrucks of America LLC is Daimler Trucks Remarketing
Corporation, which is believed to be an Oregon Corporation.

Cummins Engine Company Inc., a/k/a Cummins Sale and Service, is an
Indiana Corporation and is registered in Kentucky as a foreign
corporation and doing business in Kentucky as a manufacturer,
seller and servicer of diesel engines.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Eric Gibson, Esq.
          GENERAL COUNSEL, UNITED PROPANE GAS INC.
          4200 Cairo Road
          Paducah, KY 42003
          Telephone: (270) 450-4145
          E-mail: egibson@upgas.com

               - and -

          David L. Kelly, Esq.
          KEULER, KELLY, HUTCHINS BLANKENSHIP, LLP
          100 South 4th Street, Suite 400
          Paducah, KY 42001
          Telephone: (270) 448-8888
          Facsimile: (270) 448-0998
          E-mail: dkelly@kkhblaw.com


STATE FARM: Seeks 8th Circuit Review of Ruling in "Stuart" Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Defendant State Farm Fire and Casualty Company filed an appeal
from a decision entered in the lawsuit titled JEFF DENNINGTON;
JAMES STUART; and CAREDA HOOD individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. STATE FARM FIRE AND CASUALTY COMPANY
and STATE FARM GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY, Case No. 4:14-cv-04001-
SOH, in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of
Arkansas - Texarkana.

The appellate case is captioned as James Stuart, et al. v. State
Farm Fire, et al., Case No. 16-8017, in the United States Court of
Appeals for the Eighth Circuit.

As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter on Sept. 8,
2016, the Hon. Judge Susan O. Hickey entered an order:

      1. denying the Defendants' motion for hearing;

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

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

Plaintiffs James Stuart and Careda Hood are named as
representatives of the class.  The Court also approves the
Plaintiffs' counsel as class counsel.  A copy of the Order is
available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=9b21OYNH

Plaintiff-Respondent James Stuart, Individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated, is represented by:

          Kenneth P. Castleberry, Esq.
          Alfred F. Thompson, III, Esq.
          MURPHY & THOMPSON
          1141 E. Main Street
          P.O. Box 2595
          Batesville, AR 72503-0000
          Telephone: (501) 793-3821

               - and -

          John Clinton Goodson, Esq.
          Donald Mattson Keil, Esq.
          KEIL & GOODSON PA
          406 Walnut Street
          Texarkana, AR 71854
          Telephone: (870) 772-4113
          Facsimile: (870) 773-2967
          E-mail: jcgoodson@kglawfirm.com
                  mkeil@kglawfirm.com

               - and -

          Tanner W. Hicks, Esq.
          Jack A. Mattingly, Jr., Esq.
          Jason Ernest Roselius, Esq.
          MATTINGLY & ROSELIUS
          13182 N. MacArthur Boulevard
          Oklahoma, OK 73142
          Telephone: (405) 603-222
          E-mail: tanner@mroklaw.com
                  jackjr@mroklaw.com
                  jason@mroklaw.com

               - and -

          George Louis McWilliams, Esq.
          GEORGE L. MCWILLIAMS, P.C.
          406 Walnut
          Texarkana, AR 71854
          Telephone: (870) 772-2055

               - and -

          Matthew Leo Mustokoff, Esq.
          Richard A. Russo, Jr., Esq.
          KESSLER & TOPAZ
          280 King of Prussia Road
          Radnor, PA 19087-0000
          Telephone: (610) 667-7706
          Facsimile: (610) 667-7056
          E-mail: mmustokoff@ktmc.com
                  rrusso@ktmc.com

               - and -

          Richard Eugene Norman, Esq.
          Ronald M. Weber, Jr.
          CROWLEY & NORMAN LLP
          Three Riverway, Suite 1775
          Houston, TX 77056
          Telephone: (713) 651-1771
          Facsimile: (713) 651-1775
          E-mail: rnorman@crowleynorman.com
                  mweber@crowleynorman.com

               - and -

          James Marvin Pratt, Jr.
          LAW OFFICE OF JAMES M. PRATT, JR.
          144 Washington Street, N.W.
          P.O. Box 938
          Camden, AR 71701-0938
          Telephone: (870) 836-7328
          E-mail: jim@jamesrprattlaw.com

               - and -

          William B. Putman, Esq.
          TAYLOR LAW PARTNERS
          303 E. Millsap
          P.O. Box 8310
          Fayetteville, AR 72703
          Telephone: (877) 443-5222
          E-mail: wbputman@taylorlawpartners.com

Plaintiff-Respondent Careda L. Hood is represented by:

          Kenneth P. Castleberry, Esq.
          Alfred F. Thompson, III, Esq.
          MURPHY & THOMPSON
          1141 E. Main Street
          P.O. Box 2595
          Batesville, AR 72503-0000
          Telephone: (501) 793-3821

               - and -

          John Clinton Goodson, Esq.
          KEIL & GOODSON PA
          406 Walnut Street
          Texarkana, AR 71854
          Telephone: (870) 772-4113
          Facsimile: (870) 773-2967
          E-mail: jcgoodson@kglawfirm.com

               - and -

          George Louis McWilliams, Esq.
          GEORGE L. MCWILLIAMS, P.C.
          406 Walnut
          Texarkana, AR 71854
          Telephone: (870) 772-2055

               - and -

          Matthew Leo Mustokoff, Esq.
          Richard A. Russo, Jr., Esq.
          KESSLER & TOPAZ
          280 King of Prussia Road
          Radnor, PA 19087-0000
          Telephone: (610) 667-7706
          Facsimile: (610) 667-7056
          E-mail: mmustokoff@ktmc.com
                  rrusso@ktmc.com

               - and -

          Richard Eugene Norman, Esq.
          Ronald M. Weber, Jr.
          CROWLEY & NORMAN LLP
          Three Riverway, Suite 1775
          Houston, TX 77056
          Telephone: (713) 651-1771
          Facsimile: (713) 651-1775
          E-mail: rnorman@crowleynorman.com
                  mweber@crowleynorman.com

               - and -

          James Marvin Pratt, Jr.
          LAW OFFICE OF JAMES M. PRATT, JR.
          144 Washington Street, N.W.
          P.O. Box 938
          Camden, AR 71701-0938
          Telephone: (870) 836-7328
          E-mail: jim@jamesrprattlaw.com

               - and -

          William B. Putman, Esq.
          TAYLOR LAW PARTNERS
          303 E. Millsap
          P.O. Box 8310
          Fayetteville, AR 72703
          Telephone: (877) 443-5222
          E-mail: wbputman@taylorlawpartners.com

               - and -

          Jason Ernest Roselius, Esq.
          MATTINGLY & ROSELIUS
          13182 N. MacArthur Boulevard
          Oklahoma, OK 73142
          Telephone: (405) 603-222
          E-mail: jason@mroklaw.com

Defendant-Petitioner State Farm Fire and Casualty Company is
represented by:

          Joseph Cancila, Jr., Esq.
          Heidi Dalenberg, Esq.
          RILEY SAFER HOLMES & CANCILA LLP
          Three First National Plaza, Suite 2900
          70 W. Madison
          Chicago, IL 60602
          Telephone: (312) 471-8750
          Facsimile: (312) 471-8701
          E-mail: jcancila@rshc-law.com
                  hdalenberg@rshc-law.com

               - and -

          John E. Moore, Esq.
          Beverly Ann Rowlett, Esq.
          MUNSON, ROWLETT, MOORE & BOONE, P.A.
          1900 Regions Center
          400 W. Capitol
          Little Rock, AR 72201-0000
          Telephone: (501) 374-6535
          Facsimile: (501) 374-5906
          E-mail: john.moore@mrmblaw.com
                  beverly.rowlett@mrmblaw.com


SUBWAY RESTAURANTS: "Warciak" Suit Alleges TCPA Breach
------------------------------------------------------
Matthew Warciak, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Subway Restaurants, Inc., a
Delaware corporation, Defendant, Case No. 1:16-cv-08694, (S.D.
Tex., September 6, 2016), seeks disgorgement of any ill-gotten
funds acquired as a result of its unlawful telephone calling
practices, actual, statutory, and treble damages, reasonable
attorneys' fees and costs and such other and further relief that
the Court deems reasonable and just under the Telephone Consumer
Protection Act and the Illinois Consumer Fraud and Deceptive
Business Practices Act.

Subway operates a nationwide chain of fast food sandwich shops.
Subway, through a marketing partner, engaged in a massive text
message campaign offering millions of consumers a free Subway
Sandwich in which the recipients of these promotional text
messages, including the Plaintiff,  did not consent to receive
marketing messages sent by or on behalf of Subway.

Plaintiff is represented by:

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


SYNCHRONY FINANCIAL: "Jones" Sues Over Illegal Collection Practice
------------------------------------------------------------------
Jean Jones, Plaintiff v. Synchrony Financial, Defendants, Case No.
1:16-cv-01027 (W.D. Tex., September 1, 2016), seeks statutory
damages, injunctive relief, declaratory relief, and other relief
for violation of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act.

Synchrony Financial attempted to collect a consumer debt allegedly
owed by Plaintiff. It allegedly threatened legal action against
the Plaintiff in an attempt to coerce Plaintiff into paying the
balance in full on the alleged debt.

Synchrony Financial is a consumer financial services company
headquartered in Stamford, Connecticut.

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Michael Wood, Esq.
      Celetha Chatman, Esq.
      COMMUNITY LAWYERS GROUP, LTD.
      3300 N Interstate Hwy 35, Suite 7018
      Austin, TX 78722
      Tel: (512) 524-9352
      Fax: (512) 593-5976
      Email: mwood@communitylawyersgroup.com
             cchatman@communitylawyersgroup.com

             - and -

      Tyler Hickle, Esq.
      LAW OFFICE OF TYLER HICKLE
      4005C Banister Lane, Ste. 120C
      Austin, TX 78704
      Tel: (512) 289-3831
      Fax: (512) 870-9505
      Email: tylerhickle@hicklelegal.com


TARGET CORPORATION: Securities Actions in Minnesota Consolidated
----------------------------------------------------------------
Magistrate Judge Becky R. Thorson on Sept. 15 entered an order
consolidating securities class action lawsuits against Target
Corporation and setting a schedule for consolidated complaint.
The Securities Actions are consolidated and captioned "In re:
Target Corporation Securities Litigation" and the files of these
consolidated actions should be maintained in one file under Master
File No. Civ. No. 16-1315 (JNE/BRT), the Judge said.

Target Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on August 24, 2016, for the
quarterly period ended July 30, 2016, that on May 24, 2016, a
purported federal securities law class action was filed in the
United States District Court of the District of Minnesota under
the caption Rizzo v. Target Corporation, et al., Case No. 0:16-cv-
01485-JNE-BRT against substantially the same defendants, alleging
substantially the same claims, and seeking substantially the same
relief as the Police Retirement System of St. Louis lawsuit (the
"Securities Lawsuits").

"We expect the Securities Lawsuits to be consolidated. Target has
not yet responded to the Rizzo lawsuit, but intends to vigorously
defend against it," the Company said.

Target said there have been no material developments for Police
Retirement System of St. Louis v. Target Corporation, et al. since
last quarter.

Salvatore Rizzo is represented by Kate M. Baxter-Kauf, Esq. --
kmbaxter-kauf@locklaw.com -- and Gregg M Fishbein, Esq. --
gmfishbein@locklaw.com -- at Lockridge Grindal Nauen PLLP.

Target Corporation et al. are represented by Jeffrey P Justman --
jeff.justman@FaegreBD.com -- and Wendy J Wildung --
wendy.wildung@FaegreBD.com -- at Faegre Baker Daniels LLP.


TARGET CORPORATION: ERISA Class Actions in Minn. Consolidated
-------------------------------------------------------------
Magistrate Judge Becky R. Thorson entered an order on Sept. 15
consolidating the ERISA class action lawsuits against Target Corp.
and setting a schedule for consolidated complaint.

Target Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on August 24, 2016, for the
quarterly period ended July 30, 2016, that on July 12, 2016 and
July 15, 2016, respectively, Target Corporation, the Plan
Investment Committee and its current chief operating officer were
named as defendants in purported Employee Retirement Income
Security Act of 1974 ("ERISA") class actions filed in the United
States District Court of the District of Minnesota under the
captions Knoll v. Target Corporation, et al., Case No. 0:16-cv-
02400-JNE-BRT and Simmons, et al. v. Target Corporation, et al.,
Case No. 0:16-cv-02421-JNE-BRT, respectively (the "ERISA
Lawsuits"). The ERISA Lawsuits allege violations of Sections 404
and 405 of ERISA relating to the Canada Disclosure. The plaintiffs
seek to represent a class of persons who were participants in or
beneficiaries of the Target Corporation 401(k) Plan or the Target
Corporation Ventures 401(k) Plan (collectively, the "Plans")
between February 27, 2013 and May 19, 2014 and whose accounts
included investments in Target stock. The plaintiffs also seek
damages, imposition of a constructive trust, and other relief,
including attorneys' fees, based on allegations that the
defendants breached their fiduciary duties by continuing to allow
Target stock to remain as an investment option under the Plans
during the class period.

"We expect the ERISA Lawsuits to be consolidated. Target has not
yet responded to the ERISA Lawsuits, but intends to vigorously
defend against them," the Company said.

Mitchell W Knoll, Esq., is represented by:

     David E Krause, Esq.
     David E. Krause Law Office, Chtd.
     310 Groveland Avenue # 1
     Minneapolis, MN 55403-3563
     Tel: (612) 874-8550

and by, Michael J Klein, Esq. -- mklein@ssbny.com -- at Stull,
Stull & Brody

Target Corporation et al. are represented by Jeffrey P Justman --
jeff.justman@FaegreBD.com -- and Wendy J Wildung --
wendy.wildung@FaegreBD.com -- at Faegre Baker Daniels LLP.


TELENAV INC: Faces Nathan Gergetz Class Action in N.D. Cal.
-----------------------------------------------------------
Telenav, Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on August 22, 2016, for the
fiscal year ended June 30, 2016, that Nathan Gergetz filed on July
28, 2016, a putative class action complaint in the U.S, District
Court for the Northern District of California, alleging that
Telenav violated the Telephone Consumer Protection Act, or TCPA.
The complaint purports to be filed on behalf of a class, and it
alleges that Telenav caused unsolicited text messages to be sent
to the plaintiff from July 6, 2016 to July 26, 2016. Plaintiffs
seek statutory and actual damages under the TCPA law, attorneys'
fees and costs of the action, and an injunction to prevent any
future violations.

"Due to the preliminary nature of this matter and uncertainties
relating to litigation, we are unable at this time to estimate the
effects of this lawsuit on our financial condition, results of
operations, or cash flows," the Company said.


TIVO INC: Plaintiffs Dismiss Delaware Class Action
--------------------------------------------------
TiVo, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on August 29, 2016, for the quarterly
period ended July 31, 2016, that plaintiffs in the case by
Northern California Pipe Trades Trust Fund, et al., have filed a
voluntary dismissal of their class action litigation as moot.

On July 14, 2016, alleged stockholders of TiVo filed a putative
class action captioned Northern California Pipe Trades Trust Fund,
et al. v. Peter Aquino, et al., Case Number 12560, in the Delaware
Court of Chancery (the "Delaware Action"). The defendants are the
five members of the TiVo board of directors who approved the
Merger Agreement. The complaint in the Delaware Action alleges
that the defendants breached their fiduciary duties to TiVo's
stockholders by failing to disclose all material facts concerning
the Transactions described in the draft joint proxy
statement/prospectus filed on June 6, 2016, and as amended on July
8, 2016. The complaint in the Delaware Action seeks orders:
declaring that the action is properly maintainable as a class
action; declaring that the defendants breached their fiduciary
duties; enjoining consummation of the Transactions unless and
until full disclosure is made of all material information;
awarding plaintiffs their costs and disbursements, including
attorneys', accountants', and experts' fees; and awarding such
other and further relief as is just and equitable.

On July 14, 2016, plaintiffs in the Delaware Action filed a motion
for expedited proceedings. On July 25, 2016, the defendants filed
an opposition brief with the court.

On July 29, 2016, following the filing of the July 25 Amendment to
the S-4, the plaintiffs in the Delaware Action voluntarily
dismissed their litigation as moot.


TIVO INC: Plaintiffs Dismiss California Federal Actions
-------------------------------------------------------
TiVo, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on August 29, 2016, for the quarterly
period ended July 31, 2016, that the parties in the California
Federal Actions have filed a stipulation of dismissal.

On August 3 and August 10, 2016, alleged stockholders of TiVo
filed putative class actions captioned Rebecca Graham v. TiVo,
Inc., et al., Case Number 16-cv-04367-LHK, and Melvyn Klein v.
TiVo, Inc., et al., Case Number 16-cv-04503, in the United States
District Court for the Northern District of California (together,
the "California Federal Actions"). The defendants in the
California Federal Actions include TiVo and the five members of
the TiVo board of directors who approved the Merger Agreement. The
Klein action also names the remaining members of the TiVo board of
directors, Rovi Corporation, Titan Technologies Corporation, Nova
Acquisition Sub, Inc., and Titan Acquisition Sub, Inc. as
defendants. The complaints in the California Federal Actions
allege that the defendants violated Sections 14(a) and 20(a) of
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the "Exchange Act") and Rule
14a-9 promulgated thereunder by failing to disclose all material
facts concerning the Transactions in the draft joint proxy
statement/prospectus filed on June 6, 2016, and as amended on July
8, July 25, and August 2, 2016.

The complaints in the California Federal Actions seek orders:
declaring that the actions are properly maintainable as class
actions; declaring that the joint proxy statement/prospectus is
materially misleading and contains omissions of material fact in
violation of Section 14(a) of the Exchange Act and Rule 14a-9
promulgated thereunder; preliminarily and permanently enjoining
defendants from proceeding with, consummating, or closing the
Transactions unless and until defendants disclose the alleged
material information omitted from the joint proxy
statement/prospectus; directing the board of directors to
disseminate a proxy statement/prospectus that does not contain any
untrue statements of material fact and that states all material
facts required in it to make the statements contained therein not
misleading; awarding plaintiff and the proposed class rescissory
damages, including pre-judgment and post-judgment interest, to the
extent the Transactions are consummated; awarding plaintiff the
costs and disbursements of this action, including attorneys' and
expert fees and expenses; awarding extraordinary, equitable,
and/or injunctive relief as permitted by law; and granting such
other and further equitable relief as the court may deem just and
proper.

On August 23, 2016, the plaintiffs, TiVo, and the director
defendants in the California Federal Actions filed a stipulation
of dismissal. Pursuant to the stipulation, the plaintiffs
voluntarily dismissed the California Federal Actions,
acknowledging that the disclosures in TiVo's Form 8-K dated August
11, 2016 mooted plaintiffs' claims. The stipulation asks the court
to retain jurisdiction for the sole purpose of addressing any
application for attorneys' fees and expenses plaintiffs may make
in connection with the mooted claims.


UBIQUITI NETWORKS: 9th Cir. Class Action Appeal Still Pending
-------------------------------------------------------------
Ubiquiti Networks, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 22, 2016, for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2016, that an appeal in the
shareholder class action lawsuits remains pending.

Beginning on September 7, 2012, two class action lawsuits were
filed in the United States District Court for the Northern
District of California against Ubiquiti Networks, Inc., certain of
its officers and directors, and the underwriters of its initial
public offering, alleging claims under U.S. securities laws.

On January 30, 2013, the plaintiffs filed an amended consolidated
complaint. On March 26, 2014, the court issued an order granting a
motion to dismiss the complaint with leave to amend. Following the
plaintiffs' decision not to file an amended complaint, on April
16, 2014, the court ordered the dismissal of the lawsuit with
prejudice, and entered judgment in favor of the Company and the
other defendants, and against the plaintiffs.

On May 15, 2014, the plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal from the
judgment of the court. The appeal is ongoing before the U.S. Court
of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. There can be no assurance that
the Company will prevail in the appeal proceeding. The Company
cannot currently estimate the possible loss or range of possible
loss, if any, that it may experience in connection with this
litigation.


UNITED STATES: Pieper Appeals D. Md. Ruling to Fourth Circuit
-------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs Angela Pieper, et al., filed an appeal from a court
ruling in the lawsuit styled Angela Pieper v. US, Case No. 1:15-
cv-02457-CCB, in the U.S. District Court for the District of
Maryland at Baltimore.

As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the Case is
brought by current and former Frederick residents, who sued Fort
Detrick seeking $750 million for wrongful death and suffering.
Frederick residents and Randy White's family, along with members
of the Kristen Renee Foundation, filed a class-action lawsuit in
August claiming that Fort Detrick's failure to clean up
contaminated soil and groundwater caused the illnesses and deaths
of their relatives.  Decades ago, the Army dumped sludge from its
former decontamination plants, ashes from its incinerators,
potentially radioactive sludge from a sewage disposal plant, drums
of the industrial solvent trichloroethylene, chemical materials,
biological materials and herbicides at Area B.  The area is a Fort
Detrick property roughly bordered by Shookstown Road, Rocky
Springs Road and Kemp Lane.

The appellate case is captioned as Angela Pieper v. US, Case No.
16-2035, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth
Circuit.

The briefing schedule in the Appellate Case is set as follows:

   -- Opening Brief and Appendix are due on October 19, 2016; and
   -- Response Brief is due on November 21, 2016.

Plaintiffs-Appellants ANGELA PIEPER, Individually and as Personal
Representative of the Estate of Kristen Renee Hernandez, And All
Similarly Situated Personal Representatives of Estates of Deceased
Persons Whose Deaths Were Caused by Toxic Exposure On or Emanating
From US Army Base Ft. Detrick; WILFREDO HERNANDEZ; EMMA HERNANDEZ;
ROBERT ANDREW THOMAS, III; RANDY WHITE; LOUISE MASON, On Her Own
Behalf, and On Behalf of All Similarly Situated Persons Suffering
From Diseases Caused by Toxic Exposure On or Emanating From US
Army Garrison, Ft. Detrick; and BRANDON F. WHITE, On His Own
Behalf, and On Behalf of All Similarly Situated Persons Suffering
From Fear of Diseases Caused by Toxic Exposure On or Emanating
From US Army Garrison Ft. Detrick, are represented by:

          Michael R. Hugo, Esq.
          HUGO & ASSOCIATES
          1 Catherine Road
          Framington, MA 01701
          Telephone: (617) 448-4888
          E-mail: mike@hugo-law.com

               - and -

          Christopher T. Nace, Esq.
          PAULSON & NACE, PLLC
          1615 New Hampshire Avenue, NW, Third Floor
          Washington, DC 20036-2404
          Telephone: (202) 463-1999
          E-mail: ctnace@paulsonandnace.com

Defendant-Appellee UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, by and Through Its
Instrumentalities the Department of Defense, the U.S. Army And the
U.S. Army Garrison Fort Detrick, is represented by:

          Wagner Dupont Jackson, Jr.
          U. S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
          Ben Franklin Station
          P. O. Box 340
          Washington, DC 20044-0000
          Telephone: (202) 616-4222


VERIZON COMMUNICATIONS: Faces Jad & Ryan Class Suit in New York
---------------------------------------------------------------
JAD & RYAN, LLC, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. VERIZON, Case No. 606846/2016 (N.Y. Sup.
Ct., Nassau Cty., September 7, 2016), seeks monetary damages and
relief based upon Verizon's alleged negligence, negligent
misrepresentation, gross negligence, breach of fiduciary duty,
unjust enrichment, conversion, and violation of New York General
Business Law.

Jad & Ryan is a domestic for profit corporation duly authorized
under the laws of the state of New York.  Jad & Ryan maintains and
operates a hookah lounge and bar, at its place of business in
Nassau County, state of New York.

Verizon is a corporation authorized to do business in New York,
with its principal place of business located in Basking Ridge, New
Jersey.  Verizon is primarily engaged in the business of providing
television, internet and telephone services throughout the United
States.

According to the complaint, Verizon sold the Plaintiff the right
to broadcast the September 14, 2013 WBC Light Middleweight
Championship Fight Program between Floyd Mayweather Jr. and Saul
Alvarez in its place of business although Verizon did not have the
right to license, sell or authorize the receipt, transmission and
publication of the Event.

On December 21, 2015, the Plaintiff was served with a summons and
complaint captioned "J and J Sports Productions Inc. v. Jad and
Ryan LLC, d/b/a/ Off the Hookah, and Elias Fakury."  The J and J
Complaint alleged in part that Plaintiff was "in violation of J &
J Sports Productions, Inc.'s rights and federal and state law, the
Defendants willfully intercepted and/or received the interstate
communication of the Event . . .  The Defendants misappropriated J
& J Sports Productions, Inc. licensed exhibition of the Event and
infringed upon J & J Sports Productions, Inc. exclusive rights
while avoiding proper payment to J & J Sports Productions, Inc."

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Lesa Pascal, Esq.
          Shawn Cohen, Esq.
          CHARLES, PASCAL, COHEN P.C.
          405 RXR Plaza
          Uniondale, NY 11556
          Telephone: (516)522-0677
          Facsimile: (516)706-1978
          E-mail: lpascal@cpcohen.com
                  scohen@cpcohen.com


VERIZON COMMUNICATIONS: Court Denies Bids to Dismiss "Meza" Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
District Judge Anthony W. Ishii of the United States District
Court for the Eastern District of California denied combined
motions to dismiss pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. Rule 12(b)(1) and
12(b)(6) in the case captioned, DAVID MEZA, an Individual on
behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v.
VERIZON COMMUNICATIONS, INC., et al., Defendants, Case No. 1:16-
CV-0739 AWI MJS (E.D. Cal.).

In September 2015, Meza applied for a job with Verizon. On
September 23, 2016, Verizon procured or caused to be procured a
consumer report regarding Meza from A-Check Global. Meza alleges
that Verizon violated Fair Credit Reporting Act, 15 U.S.C. Sec.
1681b(b)(2) by procuring or causing to be procured consumer
reports for employment purposes regarding [Meza] and other class
members without first making a clear and conspicuous disclosure in
writing to Meza, in a document consisting solely of the
disclosure, that a consumer report may be obtained for employment
purposes and without first obtaining Meza's written authorization
for the procurement of a consumer report. In addition, while
Verizon had [Meza] sign a Post-Employment Background Check
Authorization and Disclosure of Rights under the FCRA on November
9, 2015, such document did not consist solely of the disclosure,
but included additional provisions not authorized by the FCRA,
including a provision that stated: Further, I consent to and
authorize Verizon to release a copy of any consumer report or
investigator consumer report to an authorized Verizon customer if
required by a customer contract.

The Complaint alleges that Meza did not receive a document that
consisted only of the necessary disclosure. Instead, he received a
document that contained additional information.  The allegation
indicates an informational injury under Sec. 1681b(b)(2)(A)(i).

In the motion, Defendants argue that Meza has failed to plead a
cognizable injury. The allegations do not demonstrate an injury in
fact because the allegations do not show that Meza suffered either
a particularized or concrete injury.

Meza argues inter alia that the Complaint sufficiently alleges a
concrete and personalized injury, and sufficiently states a claim
for relief. Meza argues that he was to obtain a specific type of
information and disclosure under Sec. 1681b(b)(2). By obtaining
consumer reports without first providing the proper disclosure
required by Sec. 1681b(b)(2), Meza argues that this caused him an
informational injury. Also, because the disclosure did not comply
with Sec. 1681b(b)(2), the authorization signed by Meza was also
improper. Using the improper authorization to obtain highly
private information is a violation of privacy.

In his Order dated September 9, 2016 available at
https://is.gd/tGBkNt from Leagle.com, Judge Ishii denied
Defendants' Rule 12(b)(1) motion because the Complaint's
allegations adequately show a concrete and particularized injury
to Meza. Defendants have not persuasively explained what further
factual detail is necessary in order to plausibly allege a
violation of Sec. 1681b(b)(2)(A), nor have they argued that the
allegations are anything other than improperly conclusory.

Defendant is directed to file an answer within 20 days of service
of the order.

Dave Meza is represented by Jeff Holmes, Esq. --
JeffHolmesJH@gmail.com -- JEFF HOLMES -- Lonnie C. Blanchard, III,
Esq. -- lonnieblanchard@gmail.com -- BLANCHARD LAW GROUP, APC --
Peter R. Dion-Kindem, Esq. -- Peter@Dion-KindemLaw.com -- PETER R.
DION-KINDEM, P.C

Verizon Communications, Inc. is represented by Liat L. Yamini,
Esq. -- lyamini@jonesday.com -- Steven M. Zadravecz, Esq. --
szadravecz@jonesday.com -- and Ramon Ramirez, Esq. --
rramirez@jonesday.com -- JONES DAY

Verizon California Inc., et al. are represented by Barbara A.
Fitzgerald, Esq. -- barbara.fitzgerald@morganlewis.com -- Jason S.
Mills, Esq. -- jason.mills@morganlewis.com -- and Joseph Vincent
Marra, III, Esq. -- joseph.marra@morganlewis.com -- MORGAN, LEWIS
& BOCKIUS LLP


VOLKSWAGEN AG: EU Aims to Coordinate Emissions Collective Suits
---------------------------------------------------------------
Gabriele Steinhauser, writing for The Wall Street Journal, reports
that the European Union's executive arm said on Sept. 5 it is
working to coordinate collective-action lawsuits against
Volkswagen AG in up to 20 EU states in an effort to get
compensation for owners of cars whose emissions the company
understated.

The announcement feeds into a months-long effort by the European
Commission to secure compensation for European car owners after
Volkswagen admitted a year ago that it had installed software in
some 11 million diesel cars that allowed it to cheat on tests for
harmful nitrogen oxide emissions.

Since then, the Wolfsburg, Germany, based auto maker has reached a
$14.7 billion settlement with U.S. authorities to cover fines and
compensation for the owners of 475,000 diesel cars that had been
equipped with these so-called defeat devices.

But VW has rejected demands by the commission and consumer-
protection organizations that it offer similar compensation to car
owners in the EU's 28 member states.  VW argues that it is already
refitting affected European cars during a broad recall and that EU
law doesn't have a legal basis for compensation claims such as the
ones agreed in the U.S.

"In the European Union the way to damages is more complicated than
in the United States," the EU's justice commissioner,
Vera Jourova said in a news conference on Sept. 5.

Neither the commission nor national authorities have the right to
impose compensation packages on a company, said Ms. Jourova.
Instead, consumers have to seek redress in court, which is
complicated by widely different laws across the bloc's members.

Because of that, Ms. Jourova said she is now working with
consumer-protection authorities as well as consumer organizations
to coordinate efforts and ease their way to filing effective
suits.

"We as a commission cannot behave as if nothing happened," she
said.

The commission believes that Volkswagen breached two laws in the
EU's broader consumer-protection rules--namely the directive on
the sale of consumer goods and associated guarantees as well as
the directive on unfair business practices, Ms. Jourova said.

A VW spokesman declined to comment.

The commissioner will meet representatives of consumer
organizations on Sept. 1 and will hold a get-together with
national consumer-protection agencies on Sept. 29.

Analysts on Sept. 5 played down the chances of getting significant
compensation packages for EU car owners.

In contrast to the U.S., national authorities in most EU countries
have been slow to punish Volkswagen.  Many governments are worried
about missing out on investment and jobs should the company suffer
too much from its financial and legal troubles.  If VW were to
give similar compensation to EU car owners to what it offered in
the U.S., it would face a minimum of $40 billion in costs.

At the same time, most EU member states don't have a legal
framework or tradition of successful collective-action lawsuits
similar to class-action suits in the U.S.

"There will be some EU legal penalties but we don't see the
rational for far reaching customer compensation," analysts at
Evercore ISI wrote in a note.


WASHINGTON, DC: Faces Class Action Over Lack of In-Home Care
------------------------------------------------------------
Tara Bahrampour, writing for The Washington Post, reports that as
a television blasted on the other side of the curtain of his
shared nursing home room in the District, 87-year-old
Edward Stith sat near his prosthetic leg and wondered if he would
ever get out of there.

In March, the retired hotel maintenance worker and veteran, whose
leg was amputated four years ago, had a glimmer of hope.  He was
accepted through a lottery into a federal program that helps
Medicaid recipients move out of nursing homes and receive services
in the community.  He had submitted the paperwork and knew he had
until Sept. 30 to use the voucher.  But here it was, the end of
August, and nothing had changed.

"Birth certificate, Social Security, government-issued ID --
everything they asked for, I gave it to them, and they're not
giving me nothing," he said, adding that he would prefer to live
on his own with someone coming to help with bathing and meals.  "I
wasn't supposed to be here no three years; I thought I'd be here
maybe a year."

Mr. Stith is among several hundred nursing home residents who are
plaintiffs in a class-action lawsuit alleging that the District
has failed to comply with a federal mandate to move eligible and
interested Medicaid recipients out of nursing homes and into the
community, where they are entitled to in-home care.

The suit, filed in 2010 by University Legal Services, AARP
Foundation Litigation and the private law firm of Arent Fox, was
scheduled to go to trial Sept. 13.  It contends that an estimated
500 to 2,900 people with disabilities are "unnecessarily
institutionalized in nursing facilities, segregated and isolated
from their families and friends.  These individuals desperately
want to return to their communities."

Surveys consistently show that older people prefer to stay in
their homes for as long as they can, and federal and local
government policies have increasingly moved in that direction.  A
1999 Supreme Court ruling said that public entities must provide
community-based services to people with disabilities whenever
possible and that unnecessarily institutionalizing them is a form
of discrimination.

Serving people at home is also more cost-effective, advocates say.

"The no-brainer part of this is this would actually save the
District money," said Kelly Bagby, an attorney for the AARP
Foundation, adding that there are people who have secured housing
but are waiting for the city to set up in-home services.  "We're
saying that they can do more and should."

The Office on Aging and the mayor's office declined to comment on
the lawsuit.  City officials also did not respond to a request for
the cost of nursing home care compared with in-home care.  But
Marjorie Rifkin, managing attorney for Disability Rights DC at
University Legal Services, said the District had reported that for
2014, the average cost was $52,334 a person for in-home care and
$69,886 for nursing facility care.

Despite the potential savings, getting people out of institutions
and provided with home care requires work upfront to find
appropriate housing and to set up the services, Ms. Bagby said.
"D.C. is just not setting enough resources to this task," she
said.  "Last year, D.C. was very proud of moving 35 people from
nursing homes to the community.  At this rate, a lot of people
will never get out, and a lot of our plaintiffs have died waiting
to get out of the nursing home."

Twenty-six people were moved in 2014, and previously the numbers
were in the teens or below, Ms. Rifkin said.

The suit also alleges that people with disabilities have been
forced into nursing homes because the city has not provided
adequate alternatives.

Federally and state-funded waivers for Medicaid recipients who are
elderly or have physical disabilities -- known as EPD
waivers -- allow people to receive up to 16 hours a day of in-home
services and case management if they need help with at least two
activities of daily living such as bathing, eating or dressing.
If they need 24-hour care, they can get an additional eight hours
through the D.C. Medicaid Personal Care Assistance program.

The program Stith qualified for, Money Follows the Person, is a
federal Medicaid program that helps older people and those with
disabilities move to their communities from nursing homes.  To
qualify, a person must have been in a nursing home or hospital for
at least 90 days and must have received Medicaid in the last month
of services there.

The Office on Aging's executive director, Laura Newland, said that
in the past, people had had trouble applying to the EPD waiver
program, so the application process was revamped in 2015.

Ms. Newland could not confirm how many people have been moved in
recent years from nursing homes into the community.  But she said
that of about 4,000 slots for EPD waivers, available to people who
have made that transition and also to those who have never moved
from their homes, only a little more than half have been filled.

"We have been kind of waiting to see if when we changed the
application process for the waiver, would that change the
utilization of the waiver," she said, adding that there has not
been a change. "It just looks like we have more slots than people
who are qualifying and wanted to use those services."

She added that the expiration date on MFP vouchers such as Stith's
are advisory.  "That deadline, honestly, it's a deadline because
we want to make sure that people use the voucher," she said. "The
deadline is extended on an individual, case-by-case basis. No one
has been denied a voucher because of that deadline."

Ms. Newland said that although the city sends workers to help
people complete the applications, "nursing-home social workers can
gather the information on their own as well."

But most facilities don't have enough staffing to do so, Rifkin
said.  Transitions Healthcare, the 360-bed Anacostia nursing home
where Stith lives, has three social workers, she said. "Other
states have far surpassed the District's level of providing basic
transition assistance . . . . There's no system here."

To Rifkin, the unfilled EPD waiver slots are a sign of a problem.
"Most states have years-long, in many cases decades-long waiting
lists to get home services.  It's a big mystery.  We think that
nobody's willing to go out and help them get these services."

James Edelin, 61, says he's too young to spend the rest of his
life in a nursing home.  A former addiction counselor who has
worked with nonprofit groups, he has lived at Deanwood
Rehabilitation and Wellness Center in Northeast Washington since
he had a kidney and liver transplant in 2013.  He said he is on a
waiting list for housing.

"I want to go back to the community.  I want to go back to work if
I can," he said.  "Here, every room you go to there's somebody
there. I use a curtain in my room, but that doesn't do anything
for sound.  If you wanted to have an intimate conversation I don't
know where you'd go.  The sooner I can get out of here, the
better."

Stith feels the same way.  He's sick of institutional food -- "we
eat turkey all the time" -- and would love some potato salad and
barbecued ribs.  He also misses the beach.

"I served this country.  I gave this country four good years of my
life," he said, "and they tell me they can't give me a house or
apartment to live in?"


WEST PUBLISHING: 9th Circuit Appeal Filed in "Stetson" Class Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs Christine Leigh Brown-Roberts, Jake Jeremiah Fathy,
Valentin Yuri Karpenko, Shane Lavigne and Stephen Stetson filed an
appeal from a court ruling relating to the lawsuit styled Stephen
Stetson, et al. v. West Publishing Corporation, et al., Case No.
2:08-cv-00810-RGK-E, in the U.S. District Court for the Central
District of California, Los Angeles.

As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, Lead
Plaintiff Stephen Stetson sued West Publishing, which offers
BarBri prep courses, and Kaplan in 2008, claiming the two colluded
to block competition in the market for bar review courses.

The appellate case is captioned as Stephen Stetson, et al. v. West
Publishing Corporation, et al., Case No. 16-56313, in the United
States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.

The briefing schedule in the Appellate Case is set as follows:

   -- Transcript must be ordered by October 11, 2016;

   -- Transcript is due on January 6, 2017;

   -- Appellants ' opening brief is due on February 15, 2017;

   -- Answering brief of Appellees John Amari, James Ralph
      Garrison III, Seth Bryant Grissom, Nathan Hunt, Kaplan,
      Inc., John Kelley, Dustin Kennemer and West Publishing
      Corporation is due on March 17, 2017; and

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

Plaintiffs-Appellants STEPHEN STETSON, SHANE LAVIGNE, CHRISTINE
LEIGH BROWN-ROBERTS, VALENTIN YURI KARPENKO, and JAKE JEREMIAH
FATHY, individual and all others similarly situated, are
represented by:

          Joel R. Bennett, Esq.
          JOEL R. BENNETT LAW OFFICE
          151 South Orange Drive
          Los Angeles, CA 90036
          Telephone: (323) 938-6053
          E-mail: joelrbennett@yahoo.com

               - and -

          Perrin Ferrari Disner, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF PERRIN F. DISNER
          1855 Camden Ave.
          Los Angeles, CA 90025
          Telephone: (310) 742-7944
          Facsimile: (888) 544-5154
          E-mail: pdisner@disnerlaw.com

               - and -

          Matthew E. Kavanaugh, Esq.
          HARRIS & RUBLE
          4771 Cromwell Avenue
          Los Angeles, CA 90027
          Telephone: (323) 962-3777
          E-mail: mkavanaugh@harrisandruble.com

Objectors-Appellees JAMES RALPH GARRISON, III, DUSTIN KENNEMER,
NATHAN HUNT, JOHN KELLEY and JOHN AMARI are represented by:

          George Richard Baker, Esq.
          BAKER LAW PC
          2925 Manor Road
          Charlotte, NC 28209
          Telephone: (205) 746-2703
          E-mail: richard@bakerlawpc.com

Defendant-Appellee WEST PUBLISHING CORPORATION, a Minnesota
Corporation doing business as BAR/BRI, is represented by:

          Heather Gilhooly, Esq.
          LINER GRODE STEIN YANKELEVITZ SUNSHINE
          REGENSTREIF & TAYLOR LLP
          1100 Glendon Avenue, 14th Floor
          Los Angeles, CA 90024-3503
          Telephone: (310) 500-3637
          E-mail: hgilhooly@linerlaw.com

               - and -

          Wayne D. Collins, Esq.
          SHEARMAN & STERLING
          599 Lexington Avenue
          New York, NY 10022-6069
          Telephone: (212) 848-4127
          E-mail: wcollins@shearman.com

               - and -

          Justin E. Klein, Esq.
          James F. Rittinger, Esq.
          SATTERLEE, STEPHENS, BURKE & BURKE, LLP
          230 Park Avenue
          New York, NY 10169-0079
          Telephone: (212) 818-9200
          E-mail: jklein@ssbb.com
                  jrittinger@ssbb.com

               - and -

          James Patrick Tallon, Esq.
          SHEARMAN & STERLING
          599 Lexington Avenue
          New York, NY 10022-6069
          Telephone: (212) 848-4650
          Facsimile: (212) 848-7179
          E-mail: jtallon@shearman.com

Defendant-Appellee KAPLAN, INC., is represented by:

          Elisabeth Jill Neubauer, Esq.
          1113 1/2 Cabrillo Avenue
          Venice, CA 90291
          Telephone: (310) 310-8905
          Email: Elisabeth.Neubauer@warnerbros.com

               - and -

          Bradley S. Phillips, Esq.
          Stuart Neil Senator, Esq.
          MUNGER TOLLES & OLSON, LLP
          355 South Grand Avenue, 35th Floor
          Los Angeles, CA 90071-1560
          Telephone: (213) 683-9100
          Facsimile: (213) 687-3702
          Email: brad.phillips@mto.com
                 stuart.senator@mto.com


WESTERN DIGITAL: Appeal in Antitrust Action Remains Pending
-----------------------------------------------------------
Western Digital Corporation said in its Form 10-K Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 29, 2016,
for the fiscal year ended July 1, 2016, that the plaintiffs'
appeal to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit in an
antitrust class action remains pending.

On June 25, 2010, Ritz Camera & Image, LLC ("Ritz") filed a
complaint captioned Ritz Camera & Image, LLC v. SanDisk
Corporation, Inc. and Eliyahou Harari in the U.S. District Court
for the Northern District of California, alleging that SanDisk
violated federal antitrust laws by conspiring to monopolize and
monopolizing the market for flash memory products. The lawsuit
purports to be on behalf of direct purchasers of flash memory
products sold by SanDisk and SanDisk-controlled joint ventures
from June 25, 2006 through the present. The complaint alleged that
SanDisk created and maintained a monopoly by fraudulently
obtaining patents and using them to restrain competition and by
allegedly converting other patents for its competitive use. The
complaint sought damages, injunctive relief, and fees and costs.

On February 24, 2011, the District Court granted in part SanDisk's
motion to dismiss, which resulted in Dr. Harari being dismissed as
a defendant. Between 2013 and 2014, the District Court granted
Ritz's motion to substitute in as named plaintiff Albert Giuliano,
the Chapter 7 Trustee of the Ritz bankruptcy estate, and the
Trustee's motions to add as named plaintiffs CPM Electronics Inc.,
E.S.E. Electronics, Inc. and Mflash, Inc.

On May 14, 2015, the District Court granted in part plaintiffs'
motion for class certification.

On April 29, 2016, the court granted SanDisk's motion for summary
judgment and entered judgment in SanDisk's favor as to all of the
plaintiffs' claims.

On May 31, 2016, the plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal to the
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. The appeal is
currently pending.


WESTERN DIGITAL: Dismissal of Securities Class Action Sought
------------------------------------------------------------
Western Digital Corporation said in its Form 10-K Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 29, 2016,
for the fiscal year ended July 1, 2016, that the Company has filed
a motion to dismiss a securities class action lawsuit.

Beginning on March 30, 2015, SanDisk and two officers, Sanjay
Mehrotra and Judy Bruner, were named in three putative class
action lawsuits filed in the United States District Court for the
Northern District of. Two complaints are allegedly brought on
behalf of a class of purchasers of SanDisk's securities between
October 16, 2014 and March 25, 2015, and one is brought on behalf
of a purported class of purchasers of SanDisk's securities between
April 16, 2014 and April 15, 2015. The complaints generally allege
violations of federal securities laws arising out of alleged
misstatements or omissions by the defendants during the alleged
class periods. The complaints seek, among other things, damages
and fees and costs.

On July 9, 2015, the Court consolidated the cases and appointed
Union Asset Management Holding AG and KBC Asset Management NV as
lead plaintiffs. The lead plaintiffs filed an amended complaint in
August 2015. On January 22, 2016, the court granted the
defendants' motion to dismiss and dismissed the amended complaint
with leave to amend. On February 22, 2016, the court issued an
order appointing as new lead plaintiffs Bristol Pension Fund; City
of Milford, Connecticut Pension & Retirement Board; Pavers and
Road Builders Pension, Annuity and Welfare Funds; the Newport News
Employees' Retirement Fund; and Massachusetts Laborers' Pension
Fund (collectively, the "Institutional Investor Group"). On March
23, 2016, the Institutional Investor Group filed an amended
complaint.

The defendants filed a motion to dismiss on April 29, 2016. On
June 24, 2016, the court granted the motion and dismissed the
amended complaint with leave to amend. On July 15, 2016, the
Institutional Investor Group filed a further amended complaint.
The Company filed a motion to dismiss on August 19, 2016. The
Company intends to defend itself vigorously in this matter.


WESTERN DIGITAL: Discovery Stayed Under After Pleading Stage
------------------------------------------------------------
Western Digital Corporation said in its Form 10-K Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 29, 2016,
for the fiscal year ended July 1, 2016, that discovery in a
California class action lawsuit is presently stayed until after
completion of the pleading stage.

On March 15, 2011, a complaint was filed against SanDisk, SD-3C,
Panasonic Corporation, Panasonic Corporation of North America,
Toshiba and Toshiba America Electronic Components, Inc. in the
U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California. The
lawsuit purports to be on behalf of a nationwide class of indirect
purchasers of Secure Digital ("SD") cards. The complaint asserts
claims under federal antitrust laws and California antitrust and
unfair competition laws, as well as common law claims. The
complaint seeks damages, restitution, injunctive relief, and fees
and costs. The plaintiffs allege that the defendants conspired to
artificially inflate the royalty costs associated with
manufacturing SD(TM) cards, which in turn allegedly caused the
plaintiffs to pay higher prices for SD cards. The allegations are
similar to and incorporate allegations in Samsung Electronics Co.,
Ltd. v. Panasonic Corp., et al.

On May 21, 2012, the District Court granted the defendants' motion
to dismiss the complaint with prejudice. The plaintiffs appealed.
On May 14, 2014, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
reversed the District Court's dismissal and remanded the case to
the District Court for further proceedings.

On February 3, 2015, the plaintiffs filed a second amended
complaint in the District Court. On September 30, 2015, the
District Court granted the defendants' motion to dismiss with
leave to amend.

On November 4, 2015, the plaintiffs filed a third amended
complaint. On November 25, 2015, the defendants filed a motion to
dismiss, which is currently pending.

Discovery is presently stayed until after completion of the
pleading stage. The Company intends to defend itself vigorously in
this matter.


* New Law Firms Biggest Contributor to Class Action Risk in AU
--------------------------------------------------------------
Jenny Campbell, Esq. -- Jenny.Campbell@allens.com.au -- and
Belinda Thompson, Esq. -- Belinda.Thompson@allens.com.au -- of
Allens, in an article for Blue Notes, report that class action
risk has increased significantly over the course of the past
decade -- more claims are being filed and more law firms and
third-party funders are promoting claims.  Although filings are
lumpy, a new baseline has been set in recent years.

That is, however, only half the picture.  A closer look at the
data reveal the number of companies facing class actions has
fallen.  This anomaly arises from the increasing number of
companies facing more than one claim in relation to the same
conduct.

In some cases this is because multiple law firms have commenced
competing class actions in relation to the same conduct -- this
occurs quite frequently in shareholder class actions.  In others
it is because the same firm has brought multiple actions on behalf
of different customers.

For example, eight class actions have been commenced against
Standard & Poor's in respect of its rating of eight different
collateralized debt obligations.  While these cluster or competing
claims create their own complications, the exposure is not
necessarily any higher than it would be from a single class
action.

NEW LAW FIRMS ARE THE BIGGEST CONTRIBUTOR TO RISK

A common perception is the entrepreneurial pursuits of litigation
funders are the biggest contributor to class action risk.  While
that undoubtedly has been the case in the past (and may be again),
Allens' analysis reveals the biggest contributor to class action
risk right now is the number of "new" law firms looking to
commence class actions.

More than one-quarter of the class actions filed since 2013 have
been commenced by 15 firms who have filed either one or two claims
in that period.  This trend is resulting in claims at the more
speculative end of the spectrum.

Moreover, the relative inexperience of these firms in running
class actions -- in particular, a lack of understanding of what is
expected of them when they take on the responsibilities of
bringing a class action on behalf of a group of people extending
beyond their clients -- can also create significant practical and
reputational issues for the defendants they sue.

THE FINANCIAL SERVICES SECTOR IS THE MOST FREQUENT TARGET

Banks and financial services companies are the most frequent class
action targets.  The most common claims made relate to the miss-
selling of financial products, the rating of financial products,
lending practices and compliance with trustee obligations.

It is, however, important to consider this trend in context.
Filings in this sector have been significantly affected (and
distorted) by cluster claims -- such as the 11 bank fees class
actions and the eight class actions against Standard & Poor's.

It remains to be seen whether filings in this sector are sustained
in the years to come, particularly as the limitation periods in
respect of global financial crisis-related losses expire.  Indeed,
financial services class action filings have fallen (as a
percentage of overall filings) in the past 18 months.

While financial services class actions can be very significant and
high-profile, this is the sector most likely to face smaller class
actions in terms of the number of group members, amounts claimed
and public interest.

The vast majority of class actions are settled, but almost
one-third are dismissed or otherwise discontinued with no money
changing hands.  This suggests so-called "blackmail settlements"
(companies paying to settle unmeritorious claims) are not as
common as some suggest.

AUSTRALIA IS A REGIONAL OUTLIER

Class action activity in Australia has not been mirrored in other
parts of the region or the rest of the world.  Indeed, it is often
said Australia has become the jurisdiction outside the United
States in which a company is most likely to face a class action

Representative and group actions (in various forms) are slowly
gaining traction in New Zealand, Hong Kong, China and
Singapore -- often without the benefit of a formal class actions
regime.  In Japan, class actions are limited to claims brought by
registered consumer organizations (as is the case in many European
jurisdictions).

Class actions in those jurisdictions are not currently seen as
presenting the same business opportunities for lawyers and funders
as in Australia.  The most likely places for that to change in the
medium term are Hong Kong and New Zealand.

COMMON FUND -- A POTENTIAL GAME CHANGER

Looking ahead, the biggest potential agent for change is the
possibility courts will permit third party funders to be
remunerated on a "common fund" basis.  This would see funders
receive a commission from the total amount recovered in a class
action and not just from the class members who have signed funding
agreements.

If permitted, this would encourage a race to file class actions
and significantly increase the amount required to settle class
actions.  The legality of the "common fund" approach is currently
before the Full Federal Court (sitting as a court of first
instance) in the shareholder class action against QBE.


* U.S. Law Firms Exploiting The Netherland's WCAM
-------------------------------------------------
John C. Coffee Jr., writing for New York Law Journal, reports
Europe (and much of the world) has long been skeptical of
American-style "opt out" class actions in which the plaintiff's
attorney defines the scope of the class.  Similarly, they have
prohibited the contingent fee, discouraged punitive damages,
insisted on "loser pays" fee shifting, and required opt-in classes
to be led by a public agency or an approved not-for-profit body.
All this should seemingly preclude the spread of "entrepreneurial
litigation" to Europe or elsewhere.  But it hasn't!

Major securities class actions for record or near record amounts
have recently settled in The Netherlands and Japan, and an even
larger securities action is now being litigated against Volkswagen
in Germany.  All have involved an international parade of
institutional investors, but the most striking fact about them is
the key organizational role in structuring them played by
traditional American plaintiff law firms.  Although the courthouse
door in the United States has been shut to these plaintiffs by
Morrison v. National Australia Bank, their U.S. law firms have
shown that they can take their show on the road to Europe and
Japan.  This had seemed impossible because no major European
jurisdiction authorizes an opt-out class applicable to securities
litigation; nor does any permit the contingent fee; and all also
employ "loser pays" rules.

How has it been done? Some will answer (too quickly) that U.S. law
firms have been exploiting The Netherland's unique Act on
Collective Settlement of Mass Claims (or "WCAM" in Dutch). Enacted
in 2005 to deal with a crisis caused by a drug (DES) that produced
birth defects, this statute does permit the Amsterdam Court of
Appeals to approve a global settlement class action, but it does
not permit any plaintiff to sue under it.  Indeed, The Netherlands
does not even authorize an "opt-in" class action.
If you can only settle but not sue, the U.S. Supreme Court said in
Amchem Products that such a plaintiff's attorney is "disarmed" and
cannot provide adequate representation to its clients.  Yet,
defendants do not settle securities class actions in Europe for
over $1 billion if the plaintiff's counsel is "disarmed."  In
reality, the plaintiff's attorneys "armed" themselves by achieving
three goals at once: (1) broad claim aggregation; (2) financing
from third parties; and (3) protection against fee shifting.  High
as the European barriers were, creative legal engineering has
outflanked them. What the U.S. firms have created may be a second-
best substitute to the American opt-out class action, but it
works.  In effect, it is a synthetic class action. And it shows
that legal entrepreneurs can survive and succeed even in an
inhospitable environment.

The most noteworthy case that reveals this new synthesis is the
settlement reached in March 2016 against Fortis for $1.337
billion.  That amount is a record for European securities
litigation, and it was structured by two well-known American
plaintiff's law firms: Grant & Eisenhofer (based in Delaware and
New York) and Kessler, Topaz, Meltzer & Check (based in
Philadelphia).  In combination with Deminor, a Belgian consulting
firm that describes itself on its website as specializing in
investor protection, and VEB, the Dutch shareholder's association,
they did the following:

First, they organized two "stichtings" (a Dutch word, loosely
translated as "association"), which gave limited liability to
their clients and protected them from fee shifting.  The investors
could transfer their legal claims to the stichting, but any
recovery would revert to each investor. Effectively, this device
amounts to the equivalent of an "opt-in" class action. That is, it
give centralized control over the litigation to the board of
directors of the stichting, and it eliminated the need (which is
present in a consolidated action) to list each plaintiff
separately.  The American law firms knew many of the institutional
investors that wanted representation against Fortis, because they
had been active in earlier litigation in the United States, in
which the foreign investors had been dismissed (even before
Morrison) because there was too little "conduct or effect" in the
United States to satisfy even the pre-Morrison rules.

Next, to finance the litigation, the organizers went to a hedge
fund specializing in "third-party funding."  This finance was
probably more costly than lawyers financing the case, themselves,
on a contingency basis, but it offended no European rules (which
bar only lawyers from receiving a contingent fee).  Finally, with
financing from the hedge fund, they purchased insurance from a
liability insurer against "loser pays" fee-shifting.

Of course, this action, filed in 2011, did not cover absent
parties.  But that was the next step.  Once the defendants decided
that they wanted to settle the "synthetic" class action, both
sides could now convert it into an "opt-out" class action under
the WCAM statute.  This protected defendants from the danger that
absent parties might be recruited by other lawyers to sue in other
jurisdictions (possibly because the first settlement would
publicize the dispute again), and it implied a larger recovery and
fee for the American law firms.  They hired local counsel and paid
them on a standard hourly basis, so that no practicing lawyer
received a contingent fee.  What did the U.S. law firms do if they
did not litigate? In short, they assumed the role of risk-taking
entrepreneur.

Thus, entrepreneurial litigation, long abhorred by many in Europe,
seems to have been exported to Europe anyway.  Moreover, no sooner
than Fortis had settled in March, 2016, than the same two law
firms brought suit in Germany on behalf of 277 institutional
investors from around the globe against Volkswagen. Now, they used
the German "KapMuG" law, which authorizes not a class action, but
rather a "bellwether" trial on common issues. This procedure,
familiar to American mass tort lawyers, allows an appellate court
in Germany to pick a representative case in order to resolve the
common issues.  The one drawback with this procedure is that it
leaves unresolved individual issues, such as damages or special
defenses.  Potentially, those could take years of litigation to
resolve.  But informed observers doubt that the action will ever
be resolved in Germany.  They suspect that when and if the parties
decide to settle, they will do so in The Netherlands under the
WCAM statute so that the settlement could cover absent parties --
in effect, converting their consolidated proceeding in Germany
into a de facto "opt out" settlement class action in The
Netherlands.

Still, the tactic of shifting the settlement to The Netherlands so
that it can be made global and binding on everyone may encounter
new difficulties in the near future.  According to press reports,
several American plaintiff's firms, including Berstein, Litowitz,
Berger & Grossman, that are not involved in the German litigation
are now active in The Netherlands, forming stichtings and signing
up clients.  This suggests that there could be competition in The
Netherlands to cut a deal with Volkswagen, and that necessarily
increases the defendant's leverage.  At its worst, the outcome
could resemble a "reverse auction" as the defendant induces
different teams of plaintiff's attorneyes to bid against each
other.  No prediction is here made that this will happen, but with
American law firms bumping into each other across Europe,
competition is likely to occur.  When it does, the one feature of
American class action litigation that maintains decorum and keeps
practices above board is conspicuously missing from the Dutch
legal landscape: namely, the Judicial Panel on Multi-District
Litigation.  That panel assigns the case to one judge, who in turn
appoints a lead class counsel. This precludes the defendant in
most cases from running an auction for settlement bids.  But in
The Netherlands, the court plays a more passive role and simply
waits for a settlement to be brought to it.

To be sure, there is a right to opt out under the WCAM statute.
But that right is valuable and will be exercised only if there is
another forum where one can sue.  In a case resembling the facts
of Volkswagen, if a group of institutional investors believed that
they were faced with a collusive settlement in The Netherlands,
they could opt out and continue the litigation in Germany.
Strangely, however, they cannot appeal the settlement to a higher
Dutch court because the only appeal permitted under the WCAM
statute is an appeal by all the parties if the Amsterdam Court of
Appeals declines to approve the settlement.

Under EU law, a judgment entered in The Netherlands must be
respected and enforced by all other member states in the EU. But
doubt remains about the extent to which a U.S. court must respect
it.  The Full Faith and Credit clause in the U.S. Constitution
only covers judgments in other states and does not apply to
foreign judgments.  Although prevailing principles of
international comity are respected by U.S. courts, they are
trumped by the Due Process Clause.  Thus, it is possible that a
U.S. person could object in some future case that a WCAM
settlement did not bind him, because such person did not receive
either constitutionally adequate notice or an adequate opportunity
to opt out.  Although such a case will sooner or later arise, it
seems less likely to arise in the context of securities
litigation.  If the securities were purchased outside the United
States, the objector cannot hope to sue in a U.S. court because of
Morrison.  If they were purchased inside the United States, there
is already a well-developed history of U.S. and Dutch courts
sharing jurisdiction, with the U.S. investors (and those who
purchased in the United States) settling in the United States and
the others settling in The Netherlands.  Indeed, the very first
settlement approved under the WCAM statute was a 2009 settlement
of a securities class action against Royal Dutch Shell; the U.S.
purchasers settled in the United States and the rest settled in a
$382 million settlement under WCAM.
Europe is not the only continent where class action activity has
recently picked up.  South Korea is unique in having authorized an
American-style "opt-out" class action.  Although Japan only has an
"opt-in" class action, it has recognized the fraud-on-the-market
doctrine, permits contingent fees, and has authorized insurance
against fee-shifting.  Not surprisingly, it has seen some increase
in actual class actions.  The major recent milestone in Japan has
been the Olympus cases, which settled in 2015 in Japan, after out-
of-court mediation, for $92 million. What most makes Olympus
unique is the degree to which it was organized by an American law
firm.  Many of the members of the plaintiff class were non-
Japanese institutional investors, who were solicited to join the
action by a Miami-based law firm, DRRT.  Although that law firm
was active in an earlier and much smaller U.S. class action
involving Olympus' ADRs, DRRT appears to function more as an
intermediary between its non-Japanese clients and Japanese
counsel.  Much like Deminor in Belgium, DRRT seems to be playing
the role of matchmaker, introducing global institutional investors
to local counsel in various foreign jurisdictions.  Japanese
companies have long been noted for their reluctance to sue, but
this same reluctance does not apply to global investors, who,
denied a U.S. forum by Morrison, are following firms like DRRT to
foreign jurisdictions.

The common denominator across Europe and Asia has been the
entrepreneurial role played by U.S. law firms in exploiting WCAM
and KapMuG in The Netherlands and Germany, respectively, and
exploring the possibilities of class actions in Japan.  How long
American firms can continue to play this role can be debated.
Possibly, there will be a counter-reaction, and the Empire will
strike back.  Stay tuned.  But, for the present, the American
entrepreneurial spirit has overcome all obstacles.


                            *********


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  * * *