CAR_Public/160926.mbx              C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

           Monday, September 26, 2016, Vol. 18, No. 192




                            Headlines


1980 CHINA: Faces "Wang" Suit in Southern District of New York
ACCOUNTS RECEIVABLE: Faces "Chein" Suit in S.D. of New York
AGEMY FAMILY: Faces "Lie" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages
AKIN & SON: "Smith" Suit Alleges Violation of FLSA, Ark. Wage Act
ALERE INC: Court Dismisses "Andren" Suit Over INRatio Products

ALLIANCE UNITED: Sued Over Negligent Mishandling of Information
ALLTRAN FINANCIAL: Faces "Henig" Suit in E.D. of New York
ALLTRAN FINANCIAL: Illegally Collects Debt, "Maleh" Suit Claims
AMERICAN AIRLINES: Faces "Zamber" Class Suit in S.D. Florida
AMERICAN CORADIUS: Faces "Gendelberg" Suit in E.D. of New York

AMIR'S FOOD: Faces "Gaguancela" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
ANZ BANK: Misuse of AFMA Pillar of BSW Rate Fixing Class Action
APPLE INC: Emil Frank Sues Over "Misleading" iPhone Upgrade Ad
AXELON SERVICES: Faces "Chaudhry" Suit Over Violation of FCRA
BANNER HEALTH: Faces "Weedman" Suit in District Arizona

BARE ESCENTUALS: Faces "Zamora" Suit in California Super. Court
BOARD OF EXAMINERS: "Mizrahi" Suit Alleges Theft of Personal Info
BP EXPLORATION: "Worley" Suit Moved to M.D. La. From E.D. La.
BUTLER COUNTY, OH: Nears Settlement in Speed Camera Case
CALIBER HOME LOANS: Court Dismisses "Fowler" Suit

CANADIAN RED: Moral Values Cited in Tainted-Blood Settlement
CARDINAL FINANCIAL: Faces "Winters" Suit in S.D. of California
CARDINAL GLASS: Faces "Reid" Suit Alleging Labor Code Violation
CARECO SHORELINE: Faces "Laiti" Lawsuit Seeking to Recoup Wages
CASH CONVERTERS: Faces Class Action Over Excessive Fees

CENTRAL CREDIT: Faces "Freilich" Suit in E.D. of New York
CLIENT SERVICES: Faces "Moskowitz" Suit in E.D. of New York
CORE LOGIC: "Zemel" Class Suit Removed to District of N.J.
COSIMO'S FAMILY: Faces "Vasquez" Suit Under FLSA, NJ Wage Laws
CRANEVEYOR CORP: Calvo Seeks OT & Minimum Wages Under Labor Code

CREATIVE HAIRDRESSERS: Faces "Gomez" Suit Over ADA Violation
CREDENCE RESOURCE: Faces TCPA Class Action in California
DAVE & BUSTER'S: "Banks" Suit Moved from Cir. Ct. to D. Or.
DENSHAN INC: Sued in Cal. Over Failure to Provide Meal Breaks
DIRECTV LLC: "Aguirre" Suit Claims FLSA, Cal. Labor Code Breaches

DOVE FOODS: "Calderon" Class Suit Removed to South. Dist. Florida
E*TRADE FINANCIAL: Transferred "Rayner" Suit to S.D. New York
EAST BUFFET: Faces "Licona" Suit in Eastern District of New York
EASTERN RECEPTION: Foster's Suit Cannot Proceed in Forma Pauperis
EDGEWELL PERSONAL: "Birmingham" Suit Transferred to E.D.N.Y.

ESSA BANCORP: Faces "Benefield" Suit Over Penn. UCC Breach
EXPRESS COURIER: Faces "Lovo" Suit by Local Delivery Drivers
FCA US: "Grimstad" Suit Transferred from Cal. to S.D.N.Y.
FCA US: Court Narrows Claims in "Faltermeier" Suit
FINANCIAL RECOVERY: Faces "Lugo" Suit in District of New Jersey

FIRST TRANSIT: "Alkady" Class Suit Removed to S.D. California
FITNESS INTERNATIONAL: Faces "Tuesta" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT
FLOYD'S 99-CALIFORNIA: Geiger Seeks Unpaid Wages Under Labor Code
FOCUS RECEIVABLES: Faces "Ailes" Suit in N.D. of Georgia
FORBES MEDIA: Court Stays "Hall" Suit, Allows Limited Discovery

FOX RESTAURANT: "Pae" Suit Moved from Super. Ct. to C.D. Cal.
FRONTIER COMMUNICATIONS: Faces "Ayer" Suit Over False Internet Ad
FRONTON HOLDINGS: "Lopez" Lawsuit Alleges Violation of FLSA
FUNDKITE: Faces "Ramos" Suit in Southern Dist. of Cal.
GATE GOURMET: "Gates" Class Suit Removed to C.D. California

GC SERVICES: Faces "Morgan" Suit in S.D. of California
GENERAL MILLS: Faces Granola False Advertising Class Action
GEORGE WASHINGTON UNI: Sued Over Mismanagement of Deceased Bodies
GRACIE-MUSE: Faces "Tokmakidis" Suit Under FLSA, NY Labor Laws
GRAIN MILLERS: Faces "Nielsen" Suit in District in Minnesota

HARTFORD FIRE: Faces "Allen" Suit Alleging Violation of FLSA
HHGREGG INC: "Adiyeh" Suit Transferred to Indiana Dist. Ct.
HIGH TECH: "Fuenmayor" Class Suit Removed to S.D. Florida
HSBC BANK: U.S. Court Lacks Jurisdiction in "Giron" Case
ICON PARKING: Sued in N.Y. Sup. Ct. Over Parking Garage Surcharge

ISRAELI-AMERICAN COUNCIL: Tsabag Seeks OT Pay Under Labor Code
ISRAM REALTY: "Redding" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT Wages
J&R CHINA PALACE: "Jie" Suit to Recover OT, Spread of Hours Pay
JEM PIZZA: Faces "Creech" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages
JOHN C. HEATH: Faces "Magee" Class Suit in D. Utah

JOY GLOBAL: Faces "Duncan" Lawsuit Over Sale to Komatsu Ltd.
KC JEWELRY: Faces "Greenbaum" Suit in Cent. District California
KOCH FOODS: Faces "Drucker" Suit Alleging Antitrust Act Violation
LABORATORY CORP: Court Narrows Claims in "Alvarez-Garcia" Suit
LEONIDAS LLC: "US Airline Pilots" Settlement Deal Has Final Okay

LIBERTY STAFFING: Illegally Obtains Background Reports, Suit Says
LOWE'S HOME: McMillan's Claim v. Gro-Well Brands Dismissed
LUMBER LIQUIDATORS: "Masters" Suit Transferred to N.D. Alabama
LUMBER LIQUIDATORS: "Gonzalez" Suit Transferred to D. Connecticut
LYFT INC: Faces "Applebaum" Suit in Southern Dist. New York

LYKES CARTAGE: "Berrios" Class Suit Removed to S.D. Florida
MACY'S INC: Court Consolidates 4 Cases, No Interim Counsel Yet
MAGIC BURGERS: Illegally Procures Background Reports, Suit Says
MAIN BAKERY: "Zhu" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages
MAIN STREET: Has Made Unsolicited Calls, "Melingonis" Suit Says

MARICOPA, AZ: 9th Cir. Upheld Judgment in Suit v. Sheriff Arpaio
MARK 2 RESTAURANT: Rahim, et al. Seek Wages Under Labor Law
MEDICAL AND FINANCIAL: Faces "Freund" Suit in S.D. of Florida
MENZIES AVIATION: Settlement in "Ali" Case Has Initial OK
MERRILL LYNCH: $3.2MM Settlement in "Davis" Suit Has Final OK

MIDLAND CREDIT: Faces "Tramondo" Suit in E.D.N.Y.
MONSTER WORLDWIDE: Faces "Dagut" Suit Over Sale to Randstad
MRS BPO: Faces "Freilich" Suit in Eastern Dist. of New York
MYLAN PHARMA: Faces Class Action Over EpiPen Price Increase
NATIONAL AUTO: Bid to Dismiss "Evans" Suit Denied

NATIONWIDE CREDIT: Faces "Ross" Suit in Eastern Dist. of New York
NETWORK CAPITAL: Sued in Cal. Over Fair Housing Act Violation
NITRO FLUIDS: "Ochoa" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages
NOBLE RESOURCES: "Contreras" Seeks to Recover Overtime Pay
NORTH AMERICAN: Inferrera, et al. Seek Unpaid OT Under FLSA

NORTHROP GRUMMAN: "Romano" Sues Over Property Contamination
NORTHROP GRUMMAN: "Roman" Suit Alleges Cal. Labor Code Violation
NOVIS CORP: "Rodriguez" Suit Seeks Money Damages Under FLSA
NRG ENERGY: Faces "Ahmed" Class Suit in Delaware Ch. Court
OCWEN FINANCIAL: Faces "Ricci" Suit in NY Superior Court

OKLAHOMA: Denial of Class Cert. Bid in "Greer" Suit Upheld
OPTIMUM OUTCOMES: Faces "Asayang" Suit in South. Dist. Florida
OUTDOOR CHANNEL: Denial of Attorney Fees in "Crocket" Affirmed
PANASONIC CORP: Dec. 8 Final Settlement Approval Hearing Set
PARKSIDE CONSTRUCTION: Rios Estrada Seeks OT Wage Under FLSA

PAUL J. COOPER: "Ford" Seeks Unpaid Overtime Under Labor Code
PERFORMANCE SPORTS: Faces Class Action Over "Channel Stuffing"
PORTFOLIO RECOVERY: Bid to Reconsider May 9 Order Denied
POWERSECURE INTERNATIONAL: Court Dismisses "Ash" Securities Suit
PPG INDUSTRIES: "Hoover" Sues Over Rescue It! Products Adverts

PRATT INDUSTRIES: Faces "De Leon" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT
PRE-EMPLOY.COM INC: Reply in "Marchioli" Case Moved to Oct. 14
PRIMANTI CORPORATION: Faces "Koenig" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT
PROSPECT INTERNATIONAL: Settlement in "Abdi" Case Has Initial OK
PUBLIC PARTNERSHIPS: Jackson, et al. Seek Unpaid Wages Under FLSA

QUEST DIAGNOSTICS: "Emmons" Case Has New Settlement Schedule
QUIK PARK: Sued in N.Y. Sup. Ct. Over Parking Garage Surcharge
RAYMOURS FURNITURE: 2nd Cir. Affirms Ruling in "Patterson" Case
RECONSTRUCTIVE ORTHOPAEDIC: Faces "Wolfington" Suit in E.D. Penn.
RHD JR: Faces "Jordan" Suit Under FLSA, Arkansas Min. Wage Act

S & S FOODS: "Martinez" Suit Seeks Overtime Pay Under Labor Code
SAFECO: Faces FCRA Suit in Richmond Over Background-Check Form
SAINT PATRICK'S: "Tosti" Suit Seeks Unpaid Pay Under Wage Act
SCHLUMBERGER TECHNOLOGY: Faces "Elliot" Suit in W.D. of Texas
SENJU PHARMACEUTICAL: 3rd Cir. Vacates Dismissal of "Hartig" Suit

SHRINERS HOSPITAL: "Moffet" Suit Seeks Unpaid Wages Under FLSA
SIF CONSULTANTS: No More Briefing Deadline in "Williams" Suit
SIRIUS XM: Faces "Wright" Class Suit in C.D. California
SOUTH NASSAU: "Foster" Seeks Overtime Pay Under NY Labor Law
SPRINGFIELD, GA: Sued for Segregating Students with Disabilities

STONEPEAK CERAMICS: "Lopez" Seeks Unpaid Wages Under Wage Order
SUE'S RENDEZVOUS: Faces "Bruton" Suit in New York Supreme Court
SUNRISE CREDIT: Faces "Caprio" Suit in District of New Jersey
SUPREME SERVICE: "Guerra" Suit Seeks to Recoup Pay Under FLSA
SYNGENTA AG: Court Drops Opinions of Peer Reviewers

TAMPA HUB: Faces "Willitte" Suit Seeking to Recoup Pay Under FLSA
TBC CORP: "Street" Suit Claims Fair Labor Standards Act Violation
TESLA MOTORS: Directors Sued Over SolarCity Acquisition Breaches
TOYOTA MOTOR: Plaintiffs' Appeal in Privacy Class Action Pending
TRUMP NATIONAL: Jupiter Golf Club Class Action Trial Concludes

UBER TECHNOLOGIES: Misclassification Issue Remain Unresolved
UNICOM SYSTEMS: Sued in Cal. Over Disability Discrimination
UNITED STORM: Faces "Sandoval" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
UNIVERSITY MEDICAL: Reply to "Small" Suit Due Oct. 10
VALDOME INC: Faces "Reinoso" Suit in Southern Dist. of New York

VIRGINIA MEADOWS: Faces "Campbell" Class Suit in S.D. W.Va.
VIZIO INC: Illegally Collects Consumer Data, Action Claims
VOLKSWAGEN AG: Fairfax Circuit Court Refuses to Stay Claims
VOLKSWAGEN AG: Faces Emissions-Cheating Claims in Ireland
WALKER, LA: Residents Mull Class Action Over I-12 Floodwater

WARNER CHILCOTT: "Margolis" Files Suit Over Waiver of ADEA Rights
WHIRLPOOL CORP: Faces "Whitley" Suit Over Defective Ovens
WHIRLPOOL CORP: Class Counsel Awarded Attorney's Fees, Costs
YIRENDAI: Faces Eight Class Actions Following New Lending Rules

* Third-Party Funding of Class Actions Gain Traction in Ontario


                            *********


1980 CHINA: Faces "Wang" Suit in Southern District of New York
--------------------------------------------------------------
A lawsuit has been filed against 1980 China Star Inc. The case is
captioned Jian Xing Wang, on behalf of himself and all other
persons similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. 1980 China Star
Inc., doing business as China Star, Yong Gui Huang, and John Does
No. 1-10, inclusive, the Defendants, Case No. 1:16-cv-07243
(S.D.N.Y., Sep. 16, 2016).

The Plaintiff appears pro se.


ACCOUNTS RECEIVABLE: Faces "Chein" Suit in S.D. of New York
-----------------------------------------------------------
A lawsuit has been filed against Accounts Receivable Technologies.
The case is captioned Devorah Chein, on behalf of herself and all
other similarly situated consumers, the Plaintiff, v. Accounts
Receivable Technologies, the Defendant, Case No. 1:16-cv-05146
(S.D.N.Y., Sep. 15, 2016).

Accounts Receivable is a New Jersey collection agency.

The Plaintiff appears pro se.


AGEMY FAMILY: Faces "Lie" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Vana Lie, on her own behalf and others similarly situated v. Agemy
Family Corporation, Case No. 8:16-cv-02617-MSS-AAS (M.D. Fla.,
September 9, 2016), is brought against the Defendants for failure
to pay overtime wages in violation of the Fair Labor Standards
Act.

Agemy Family Corporation operates a dry clean and laundry service
company in Hillsborough County, Florida.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      W. John Gadd, Esq.
      THE LAW OFFICE OF W.JOHN GADD
      Bank of America Building
      2727 Ulmerton Rd., Ste. 250
      Clearwater, FL 33762
      Telephone: (727) 524-6300
      E-mail: wjg@mazgadd.com

         - and -

      Kyle J. Lee, Esq.
      LEE LAW, PLLC
      PO Box 4476
      Brandon, FL 33509-4476
      Telephone: (813) 343-2813
      E-mail: Kyle@KyleLeeLaw.com


AKIN & SON: "Smith" Suit Alleges Violation of FLSA, Ark. Wage Act
-----------------------------------------------------------------
KEVIN SMITH, COLE McCALMAN and BARRY NOBLES, Each Individually and
on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated vs. AKIN & SON, INC.,
and DAVID AKIN, Case 4:16-cv-04085-SOH (W.D. Ark., September 12,
2016), alleges violations of the overtime provisions of the Fair
Labor Standards Act, and the Arkansas
Minimum Wage Act, and the Arkansas Civil Justice Reform Act.

AKIN & SON, INC. provides towing and roadside assistance services.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Joshua West, Esq.
     Josh Sanford, Esq.
     SANFORD LAW FIRM, PLLC
     One Financial Center
     650 South Shackleford, Suite 411
     Little Rock, AK 72211
     Phone: (501) 221-0088
     Fax: (888) 787-2040
     E-mail: west@sanfordlawfirm.com
             josh@sanfordlawfirm.com


ALERE INC: Court Dismisses "Andren" Suit Over INRatio Products
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the case captioned DINA ANDREN and SIDNEY BLUDMAN, individually
and on behalf of other members of the general public similarly
situated, Plaintiffs, v. ALERE, INC., a Delaware corporation ALERE
HOME MONITORING, INC., a Delaware Corporation; ALERE SAN DIEGO,
INC., a Delaware corporation, Defendants, Case No. 16cv1255-
GPC(NLS) (S.D. Cal.), Judge Gonzalo P. Curiel granted the
defendants' motion to dismiss the complaint with leave to amend.

On May 26, 2016, Dina Andren and Sidney Bludman filed a purported
class action complaint alleging that the defendants, Alere, Inc.,
Alere Home Monitoring, Inc. and Alere San Diego, Inc.,
unlawfully, deceptively and misleadingly engaged in the
manufacturing, marketing and sales of the INRatio products which
include "INRatio PT/INR Monitors," "INRatio PT/INR Test Strips,"
"INRatio2 PT/INR Monitors" and "INRatio2 PT/INR Test Strips".

The plaintiffs alleged that the defendants misrepresented in its
marketing advertising and promotional materials that the INRatio
products were "accurate" "convenient," "effective," "reliable,"
"optimal," and "safe" and the defendants made further
misrepresentations to consumers by omitting material information,
particularly by failing to disclose that the INRatio products
produce false and misleading results, from the packaging and
marketing materials of the INRatio testing kit.

The defendants move to dismiss based on the plaintiffs' failure to
satisfy the pleading requirements of Federal Rule of Civil
Procedure 9(b) for their allegations of material
misrepresentations and fraudulent omissions.

First, the defendants argued that the plaintiffs failed to allege
they ever viewed or relied on a representation made by them.  In
responding, the plaintiffs asserted that the defendants made
material misrepresentations in their packaging, marketing,
advertising and promotional materials where they claimed the
INRatio products were "accurate" "convenient" "effective"
"reliable" "optimal" and "safe" when in fact they were not.  The
plaintiffs also argued that they do not need to prove reliance as
there is a presumption of reliance in a fraudulent omission case
or misrepresentation case.

Judge Curiel found that while the complaint makes numerous
allegations as to the alleged material misrepresentations in the
defendants' marketing, advertising, promotional, and packaging
materials, the complaint does not specifically allege when and
where Andren and Bludman saw the misrepresentations.  Accordingly,
the judge granted the defendants' motion to dismiss all claims
under Rule 9(b) premised on material misrepresentations.

Next, the defendants argued that the plaintiffs have not alleged a
duty to disclose the alleged fraudulently omitted facts.  Judge
Curiel agreed, finding that the plaintiffs failed to assert a duty
to disclose based on exclusive knowledge of a material fact or
based on active concealment.

Judge Curiel also held that since the plaintiffs have failed to
allege a cause of action for relief, the unjust enrichment claim
also must be dismissed.

The defendants also raised the learned intermediary doctrine
asserting that a manufacturer's duty to warn runs to the physician
and not the patient, but the defendants did not explain which
cause of action is deficient based on this doctrine.  In
opposition, the plaintiffs noted the deficiency in the defendants'
argument and further argued that if the learned intermediary
doctrine applied, it is a fact-based defense to be determined at
summary judgment or at trial and they also argued that the
doctrine does not apply because INRatio products are not
exclusively prescription devices and can be bought without a
prescription.

Judge Curiel noted that the complaint does not assert a failure to
warn cause of action, although it appears that the
misrepresentations and omissions claims are based on a failure to
warn of the INRatio products' discrepant results.  The plaintiffs
argued, but did not allege in the complaint, that Andren purchased
the INRatio2 testing kit at a pharmacy and therefore, the doctrine
does not apply.  The judge thus suggested that, given that the
plaintiffs are granted leave to amend, they should clarify whether
the INRatio was prescribed by Andren's doctor or not.

A full-text copy of Judge Curiel's September 13, 2016 order is
available at https://is.gd/R3IOEO from Leagle.com.

Dina Andren, Sidney Bludman, Plaintiffs, represented by Mark P.
Pifko -- mpifko@baronbudd.com -- Baron & Budd, Roland K. Tellis --
rtellis@baronbudd.com -- Baron Budd P.C. & Peter B. Klausner --
pklausner@baronbudd.com -- Baron & Budd, PC.

Alere Inc., Alere Home Monitoring, Inc., Alere San Diego, Inc.,
Defendants, represented by Anthony John Anscombe -- Sedgwick LLP &
Mary E. Buckley -- mary.buckley@sedgwicklaw.com -- Sedgwick LLP,
pro hac vice.


ALLIANCE UNITED: Sued Over Negligent Mishandling of Information
---------------------------------------------------------------
ABRAHAM MORALES, an individual, appearing individually and on
behalf of others similarly situated; and ESMERALDA MEJIA, an
individual, appearing individually and on behalf of others
similarly situated, the Plaintiffs, v. ALLIANCE UNITED GROUP,
INC., a California Corporation; and DOES 1-50, inclusive, the
Defendants, Case No. (S.D. Fla., Sep. 7, 2016), seeks to enjoin
Defendants from continuing their unlawful practices of negligent
mishandling of Plaintiffs' and Class members' confidential
information.

According to the complaint, the Defendants set their customers'
online user name and password as the customers' policy number and
zip code, respectively, the information was published each and
every time Plaintiffs produced their insurance card, including but
not limited to every time insurance information was exchanged due
to an accident.

The Plaintiffs' account with Defendants included unencrypted
sensitive personal information including, first and last names,
addresses, billing information, partial birthdates, partial
Driver's License Numbers, Vehicle Identification Number, and
policy limits. Additionally, persons accessing the account could
print out a California Insurance ID Card with the account holder's
information.

As a direct and/or proximate result of Defendants' wrongful
actions and/or inaction, Plaintiffs' confidential and personal
information and records were disseminated into the public domain
without their knowledge, authorization, or consent. As a further
direct and/or proximate result, Plaintiffs suffered, and will
continue to suffer, damages including without limitation expenses
for credit monitoring and insurance, out of pocket expenses, loss
of privacy, and other economic and non-economic harm.

The Defendants are an auto-insurance company that provides auto
insurance for high-risk drivers. The Defendants have a network of
more than 900 brokers across nearly 2,000 locations.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Allen B. Felahy, Esq.
          FELAHY EMPLOYMENT LAWYERS
          550 South Hope Street, Suite 2655
          Los Angeles, CA 90071
          Telephone: (323) 645 5197
          Facsimile: (323) 645 5198

               - and -

          George Chakmakis, Esq.
          CHAKMAKIS & ASSOCIATES
          301 N. Canon Drive, Suite 315
          Beverly Hills, CA 90210
          Telephone: (310) 550 1555
          Facsimile: (310) 550 1151


ALLTRAN FINANCIAL: Faces "Henig" Suit in E.D. of New York
---------------------------------------------------------
A lawsuit has been filed against Alltran Financial, LP. The case
is styled Tzvi Henig, on behalf of himself and all other similarly
situated consumers, the Plaintiff, v. Alltran Financial, LP,
formerly known as United Recovery Systems, L.P., the Defendant,
Case No. 1:16-cv-05144 (E.D.N.Y., Sep. 15, 2016).

Alltran Financial is a debt collecting company.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Maxim Maximov, Esq.
          MAXIM MAXIMOV, LLP
          1701 Avenue P
          Brooklyn, NY 11229
          Telephone: (718) 395 3459
          Facsimile: (718) 408 9570
          E-mail: m@maximovlaw.com


ALLTRAN FINANCIAL: Illegally Collects Debt, "Maleh" Suit Claims
---------------------------------------------------------------
Barouk Maleh, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated v. Alltran Financial, LP, Case No. 1:16-cv-05077
(E.D.N.Y., September 12, 2016), seeks to stop the Defendant's
unfair and unconscionable means to collect a debt.

Alltran Financial, LP operates a debt collection firm in New York.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Alan J. Sasson, Esq.
      LAW OFFICE OF ALAN J. SASSON, P.C.
      2687 Coney Island Avenue, 2nd Floor
      Brooklyn, NY 11235
      Telephone: (718) 339-0856
      Facsimile: (347) 244-7178
      E-mail: alan@sassonlaw.com


AMERICAN AIRLINES: Faces "Zamber" Class Suit in S.D. Florida
------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been commenced against American
Airlines, Inc.

The case is captioned Kristian Zamber, on behalf of himself and
all others similarly situated v. American Airlines, Inc., Case No.
1:16-cv-23901-JEM (S.D. Fla., September 12, 2016).

American Airlines, Inc. is an airline company headquartered in
Fort Worth, Texas.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Jeremy L. Kahn, Esq.
      Scott Brian Cosgrove, Esq.
      Alec Huff Schultz, Esq.
      LEON COSGROVE LLC
      255 Alhambra Circle, Suite 800
      Coral Gables, FL 33134
      Telephone: (305) 740-1975
      E-mail: jkahn@leoncosgrove.com
              scosgrove@leoncosgrove.com
              aschultz@leoncosgrove.com


AMERICAN CORADIUS: Faces "Gendelberg" Suit in E.D. of New York
--------------------------------------------------------------
A lawsuit has been filed against American Coradius International
LLC. The case is titled Leonard Gendelberg, on behalf of himself
and all other similarly situated consumers, the Plaintiff, v.
American Coradius International LLC, the Defendant, Case No. 1:16-
cv-05148-LDH-JO (E.D.N.Y., Sept. 15, 2016). The assigned Judge is
Hon. LaShann DeArcy Hall.

ACI is a full service contact center operation with focus on
customer care and account receivables management.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Maxim Maximov, Esq.
          MAXIM MAXIMOV, LLP
          1701 Avenue P
          Brooklyn, NY 11229
          Telephone: (718) 395 3459
          Facsimile: (718) 408 9570
          E-mail: m@maximovlaw.com


AMIR'S FOOD: Faces "Gaguancela" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Jorge Gaguancela, on behalf of others similarly situated v. Amir's
Food Services, Inc., Feras Abdul Samad, Joseph Samad, Ashley Snow,
Feras Abdul Samad, Joseph Samad, and Ashley Snow, Case No. 1:16-
cv-07121 (S.D.N.Y., September 12, 2016), is brought against the
Defendants for failure to pay overtime wages in violation of the
Fair Labor Standards Act.

Amir's Food Services, Inc. supplies fresh, packaged, ready-to-eat
foods to grocery stores and food service providers.

Jorge Gaguancela is a pro se plaintiff.


ANZ BANK: Misuse of AFMA Pillar of BSW Rate Fixing Class Action
---------------------------------------------------------------
Banking Day reports that the explicit use, or misuse of AFMA (an
Australian industry association) is a pillar of the US class
action claim brought by Sonterra Capital, Frontpoint Financial and
Richard Dennis against an array of banks over the alleged BBSW
rate fix.

The statement of claim in a matter to be heard in a New York court
sets out in unambiguous terms the mechanics and lead actors of the
alleged rate fixing conspiracy.

On Sept. 5, Banking Day headlined "AFMA slaughtered in US BBSW
claim", and the following material is a companion to that report.
The Australian Financial Markets Association distanced itself from
the matter in comments reported on Sept. 5.

The bank defendants -- ANZ, CBA, Macquarie, NAB, Westpac and
others -- "used their domination of the AFMA market governance
committees, including the BBSW and NTI committees, to control the
BBSW rule-making process, conceal complaints from other market
participants, and perpetuate the BBSW methodology that they used
to secretly manipulate BBSW," one section of the claim begins.

A later cracker is that the banks "used their domination of the
AFMA market committees to propose rules and regulations that kept
the committees' activities secret."

One of the biggest claims: "The defendants used their control of
the BBSW rate-setting process to keep BBSW susceptible to
manipulation."

The body of the material unfolds almost as tragedy.

"The existence of the BBSW and NTI committees, and the supposed
oversight that these committees maintained over the BBSW rate-
setting process, created the illusion that BBSW was a trustworthy,
reliable market rate.

"By placing BBSW-based derivatives traders on the market
governance committees, the defendants created a conflict of
interest.

"In many instances, defendants went one step further and placed
BBSW manipulators in important positions on the BBSW and NTI
committees.

"For example, Paul Woodward, who was ANZ's single face to market
during the class period, also served as ANZ's representative on
both the BBSW and NTI Committees.

"ANZ also appointed traders Matthew Morris and Andrew Miller to
serve on both the NTI and BBSW committees during the class period.

"All three of ANZ's representatives regularly manipulated BBSW.
(See Part II.A-B supra).

"Similarly, Westpac placed its most prolific BBSW manipulators,
Colin Roden, Sophie Johnston, and Michael Dodd on both the NTI and
BBSW committees during the class period.

"In fact, Sophie Johnston served as chairperson of the NTI
committee in at least 2010 and 2011.

"NAB traders Paul Howarth and Michael Tsakiris served as NAB
representatives on the NTI committee, during the same time period
when Howarth and Tsakiris regularly manipulated BBSW.

"NAB traders Robert Collins and Hermeet Najjhur, both of whom also
manipulated BBSW during the class period, represented NAB on the
BBSW committee.

"The defendants appointed senior executives at the highest ranks
of the AFMA, including Chair (Morgan Stanley) and Deputy Chair
(NAB) of the AFMA, ensuring that oversight of the BBSW process by
the board of directors was illusory because of each banks'
conflicting motive to keep BBSW susceptible to manipulation so
they could generate additional illicit profits.

"The following defendants placed senior executives on the AFMA
Board of Directors during the class period: Morgan Stanley, NAB,
Deutsche Bank, UBS, JPMorgan, Citi, CBA, Macquarie, Westpac, ANZ,
Credit Suisse, and RBS.

"Throughout the class period, the defendants maintained a
substantial majority of seats on the AFMA board of directors.

"Defendants used their domination of the AFMA market committees to
propose rules and regulations that kept the committees' activities
secret.

"For example, throughout the period, a market committee rule held
that 'minutes are confidential documents and care should be taken
in their circulation'.

"The defendants used their control of the BBSW rate-setting
process to keep BBSW susceptible to manipulation.

"For example, in a 2012 position paper, AFMA rejected a proposal
to switch to a mechanical calculation system whereby BBSW would be
calculated by averaging of the National Best Bid and Best Offer
rates for prime bank bills at each tenor, as well as introducing a
number of complementary measures.

"AFMA rejected the proposed reforms and defended the existing
methodology, despite the fact that the proposed changes would lead
to less manipulated BBSW rates.

"This decision is indicative of collusion in the rule-making
process because the defendants knew that the BBSW rate-setting
mechanism allowed them to manipulate BBSW to gain an unfair
advantage over counterparties."


APPLE INC: Emil Frank Sues Over "Misleading" iPhone Upgrade Ad
--------------------------------------------------------------
Emil Frank, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. Apple Inc., Defendant, Case 5:16-cv-05217-
NC (N.D. Cal., September 12, 2016), seeks to hold Apple
responsible for its misleading marketing of the iPhone Upgrade
Program.

Apple Inc. -- http://www.apple.com/about/-- is an American
multinational technology company.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Whitney E. Street, Esq.
     BLOCK & LEVITON LLP
     610 16th Street, Suite 214
     Oakland, CA 94612
     E-mail: whitney@blockesq.com

        - and -

     Jason M. Leviton, Esq.
     Jacob A. Walker, Esq.
     Joel A. Fleming, Esq.
     BLOCK & LEVITON LLP
     155 Federal Street, Suite 400
     Boston, MA 02110
     Phone: (617)398-5600
     E-mail: jason@blockesq.com
             jake@blockesq.com
             joel@blockesq.com


AXELON SERVICES: Faces "Chaudhry" Suit Over Violation of FCRA
-------------------------------------------------------------
IRYAN CHAUDHRY, individually, and as a representative of the
classes, Plaintiff, v. AXELON SERVICES CORPORATION, Defendant,
Case ID:160901436 filed in the Philadelphia County Court of Common
Pleas, Trial Division on September 13, 2016, alleges that
Defendant caused a consumer report on Plaintiffs to be procured
without first obtaining authorization or providing required
disclosure under the Fair Credit Reporting Act.

Defendant provides staffing and consulting services to customer
clients throughout the United States.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

        - and -

     Anna P. Prakash, Esq.
     Brock J. Specht, Esq.
     NICHOLS KASTER, PLLP
     4600 IDS Center
     80 South Eighth Street
     Minneapolis, MN 55402
     Phone: (612)256-3200
     E-mail: aprakash@nka.com
             bspecht@nka.com

BANNER HEALTH: Faces "Weedman" Suit in District Arizona
-------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been commenced against Banner Health
and Banner-University Medical Group.

The case is captioned Tracy Weedman, Joseph Weedman, individually
and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Banner Health
and Banner-University Medical Group, Case No. 2:16-cv-03086-MHB
(D. Ariz., September 13, 2016).

Banner Health is a non-profit health system in the United States,
based in Phoenix, Arizona.

Banner-University Medical Group is an academic medical center in
Tucson, Arizona.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Andrew S Friedman, Esq.
      BONNETT FAIRBOURN FRIEDMAN & BALINT PC
      2325 E Camelback Rd., Ste. 300
      Phoenix, AZ 85016
      Telephone: (602) 776-5902
      Facsimile: (602) 274-1199
      E-mail: afriedman@bffb.com

         - and -

      Christopher D. Jennings, Esq.
      JOHNSON VINES PLLC
      2226 Cottondale Lane, Ste. 210
      Little Rock, AR 72202
      Telephone: (501) 372-1300
      Facsimile: (888) 505-0909
      E-mail: cjennings@johnsonvines.com

         - and -

      David G. Scott, Esq.
      EMERSON SCOTT LLP
      1301 Scott St.
      Little Rock, AR 72202
      Telephone: (501) 907-2555
      Facsimile: (501) 907-2556
      E-mail: DSCOTT@EMERSONFIRM.COM

         - and -

      John G. Emerson, Esq.
      EMERSON SCOTT LLP
      830 Apollo Lane
      Houston, TX 77058
      Telephone: (281) 488-8854
      Facsimile: (281) 488-8867
      E-mail: JEMERSON@EMERSONFIRM.COM

         - and -

      Manfred Muecke, Esq.
      Patricia Nicole Syverson, Esq.
      BONNETT FAIRBOURN FRIEDMAN & BALINT PC
      600 W Broadway, Ste. 900
      San Diego, CA 92101
      Telephone: (619) 798-4292
      E-mail: psyverson@bffb.com

         - and -

      Samuel M. Ward, Esq.
      Stephen Richard Basser, Esq.
      BARRACK RODOS & BACIne
      1 American Plaza
      600 W Broadway., Ste. 900
      San Diego, CA 92119
      Telephone: (619) 230-0800
      Facsimile: (619) 230-1874
      E-mail: sward@barrack.com
              sbasser@barrack.com


BARE ESCENTUALS: Faces "Zamora" Suit in California Super. Court
---------------------------------------------------------------
A lawsuit has been filed against BARE ESCENTUALS, INC. The case is
styled ZAMORA, ZULMA AN INDIVIDUAL; and VALLIN, SEAN AN
INDIVIDUAL, ON BEHALF OF THEMSELVED AND ALL OTHERS SIMILARLY
SITUATED, AND ON BEHALF OF THE GENERAL PUBLIC, the Plaintiffs, v.
DOES 1-50, BARE ESCENTUALS, INC., A DELAWARE CORPORATION, and BARE
ESCENTUALS BEAUTY, INC., A DELAWARE CORPORATION, the Defendants,
Case No. CGC 16 554294 (Cal. Super. Ct., Sept. 16, 2016).

Bare Escentuals develops, markets, and sells mineral-based
cosmetics in the United States. The company also offers skin- and
body-care products.


BOARD OF EXAMINERS: "Mizrahi" Suit Alleges Theft of Personal Info
-----------------------------------------------------------------
NICOLE MIZRAHI, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. NATIONAL BOARD OF EXAMINERS IN
OPTOMETRY, INC., 351 West Camden Street Baltimore, Maryland 21201
Baltimore County Defendant, Case No. 1:16-cv-03146-JFM (D. Md.,
September 13, 2016), alleges that sensitive personal information
of optometric licensure test-takers were stolen from Defendant
NBEO's database and used to open fraudulent Chase Bank credit card
accounts.

Defendant National Board of Examiners in Optometry, Inc. provides
optometric licensure testing for all United States jurisdictions.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Donald J. Enright, Esq.
     LEVI & KORSINSKY LLP
     1101 30th St., NW, Suite 115
     Washington, DC 20007
     Phone: 202/524-4292
     Fax: 202/333-2121
     E-mail: denright@zlk.com

        - and -

     Michael Liskow, Esq.
     WOLF HALDENSTEIN ADLER FREEMAN & HERZ LLP
     270 Madison Avenue
     New York, NY 10016
     Phone: 212/545-4600
     Fax: 212/545-4653
     E-mail: liskow@whafh.com

        - and -

     Carl Malmstrom, Esq.
     WOLF HALDENSTEIN ADLER FREEMAN & HERZ LLC
     One South Dearborn St., Suite 2122
     Chicago, IL 60603
     Phone: 312/984-0000
     Fax: 312/212-4401
     E-mail: malmstrom@whafh.com


BP EXPLORATION: "Worley" Suit Moved to M.D. La. From E.D. La.
-------------------------------------------------------------
Magistrate Judge Joseph C. Wilkinson, Jr. ordered the transfer of
the case styled, JAMES WORLEY, v. BP EXPLORATION & PRODUCTION,
INC. ET AL., SECTION "J" (2), Civil Action No. 16-3620 (E.D. La.),
to the Middle District of Louisiana.

The Court denied the Plaintiffs' Motion for Venue to Remain in the
Eastern District of Louisiana.

The case involves the BELO portion of the Medical Benefits Class
Action Settlement Agreement in In re Oil Spill by the Oil Rig
"Deepwater Horizon" in the Gulf of Mexico, on April 20, 2010, MDL
No. 2179, Record Doc. No. 6427-1.

A district court may transfer any civil action to any other
district or division where it might have been brought or to any
district or division to which all parties have consented.
Applicable case law establishes that factors relevant to the
court's venue determination include (1) the relative ease of
access to sources of proof; (2) the availability of compulsory
process to secure the attendance of witnesses; (3) the cost of
attendance for willing witnesses; and (4) all other practical
problems that make trial of a case easy, expeditious and
inexpensive.

In the case, the Court held that access to sources of proof,
witness availability and containing the costs associated with
obtaining most of the principal proof, either by witness
attendance at depositions or trial and through the costs of
obtaining documents, are superior in the Middle District than in
the Eastern District

A copy of the Court's Order dated September 7, 2016 is available
at https://goo.gl/KcLi1J from Leagle.com.

View Case Cited Cases Citing Case
Attorney(s) appearing for the Case

James Worley, et al., Plaintiffs, represented by David L. Colvin,
David L. Colvin & Associates.

BP Exploration & Production, Inc., et al., Defendants, represented
by Kevin Michael Hodges -- khodges@wc.com -- Williams & Connolly,
LLP, Catherine Pyune McEldowney -- cpm@maronmarvel.com -- Maron
Marvel Bradley and Anderson LLC & Don Keller Haycraft --
dkhaycraft@liskow.com -- Liskow & Lewis.


BUTLER COUNTY, OH: Nears Settlement in Speed Camera Case
--------------------------------------------------------
Denise G. Callahan, writing for WHIO, reports that with legal
bills nearing $100,000, the two sides in the New Miami speed
camera case have, for the first time, scheduled a settlement
conference.

Since a complaint filed three years ago by two Butler County women
and two Cincinnati residents, the village has incurred $98,575 in
legal expenses.

Typically when a governmental body is sued their insurance company
handles and pays for the litigation, but the Butler County village
has been paying its legal costs in this lawsuit because they
determined their insurance company wouldn't cover it.

"This is a question of law, this is about whether or not
legislation we passed was constitutional," Adams told the Journal-
News previously.  "If it was a civil rights case for example our
insurance company would have provided coverage, absolutely.  But I
don't think we even submitted it to our insurance company and
requested coverage.  Because I believe we reviewed the policy and
understood there was no coverage."

New Miami's former speed program was deemed unconstitutional in
2014, when a Butler County judge banned its use and granted the
case class-action status, meaning thousands of other motorists who
had been cited could join a lawsuit and seek a legal remedy.

For the first time the two sides are scheduled to meet with former
common pleas judge and 12th District Court of Appeals Judge H.J.
Bressler on Oct. 18 to talk settlement.

One of the plaintiff's attorneys Josh Engel said they are ready to
negotiate but declined to say more.

"Settlement negotiations are always ongoing and delicate, so I
don't want to get into specifics," he said "But our goal remains
the same, the return of money to motorists who paid fines under
the unconstitutional scheme."

The operative amount in this case has always been $1.8 million but
earlier this month attorneys for the speeders asked the judge to
award them the $3 million they paid.

The village contracted with Optotraffic to run the previous speed
camera program and for that service the Maryland traffic camera
people were paid $1.2 million or 40 percent of the total fine
collection amount of $3 million.

Harold Person, a trucker who was recently nabbed by the speed
camera, was hoping he could join the class action.  He is furious
about the $95 ticket.

"It's in the letter just send us your money," he said.  "It's like
what a scam.  That's ridiculous, I didn't think it was even
allowed in Ohio anymore.  You got the right to meet your accuser,
right. It's totally bogus."

After the old program ended, New Miami contracted with Blue Line
Solutions of Athens, Tenn., at the end of January for use of hand-
held speed cameras.  At any given time a patrol vehicle, with an
officer aiming the camera, can be seen tucked in between buildings
on the main drag just at the point where the speed limit drops
coming out of Hamilton to 35 mph, past the bridge on U.S. 127.

The new program -- which has yielded $203,335 3,298 in paid
tickets as of July -- has not been challenged in court so Person
has no class action to join.

The village's litigation attorney James Englert said the Judge
Michael A. Oster Jr. scheduled the mediation hearing and since the
case has dragged on so long and is still really only in the
beginning stages -- with no rulings yet on substantive issues --
it's time for the two sides to talk.

"I think both sides want to go along with Judge Oster's order and
see if it can be resolved," he said.  "Both sides just have to be
aware of the risks that are still out there."

The case has twice gone to the 12th District Court of Appeals and
the village tried to get the Ohio Supreme Court to hear arguments
on the class action, to no avail.


CALIBER HOME LOANS: Court Dismisses "Fowler" Suit
-------------------------------------------------
In the case captioned RICHARD L. FOWLER, et al., Plaintiffs, v.
CALIBER HOME LOANS, INC., et al, Defendants, Case No. 15-24542-
CIV-GOODMAN (S.D. Fla.), Judge Jonathan Goodman granted the
defendants' motion and dismissed the complaint with prejudice.

The class action lawsuit, which is one of many putative class
actions that have been filed around the country against various
servicers and insurers regarding their lender-placed insurance
(LPI) programs, was filed against American Security Insurance
Company (ASIC), an insurer, and Caliber Home Loans, Inc., a
mortgage servicing firm, in a force-placed insurance lawsuit.  The
plaintiffs alleged that Caliber colluded with its LPI insurer,
ASIC, to charge them inflated LPI premiums that included
"kickbacks" paid to Caliber and its affiliates.

ASIC and Caliber have both moved to dismiss the complaint with
prejudice on grounds of the filed-rate doctrine, contending that
the filed-rate doctrine bars all of the plaintiffs' claims because
the damages sought would effectively require an assessment of the
regulator-approved rates.

The case captioned Taffet v. S. Co., 967 F.2d 1483, 1494 (11th
Cir. 1992) explains the filed-rate doctrine as follows: "Where the
legislature has conferred power upon an administrative agency to
determine the reasonableness of a rate, the rate-payer can claim
no rate as a legal right that is other than the filed rate[.]"
The doctrine bars all claims which would effectively result in a
rate lower than the filed rate.

The plaintiffs conceded that all of the claims asserted in their
complaint would be subject to dismissal if the filed-rate doctrine
applied at the motion to dismiss stage.  Naturally, the plaintiffs
contended that the filed-rate doctrine does not apply at all and
they further argued that the doctrine should certainly not apply
when the court is evaluating the sufficiency of the complaint as
part of its assessment of the two motions to dismiss.  Just as
naturally, the defendants argued that the doctrine does apply
(across the board and also at the pleadings evaluation stage) and
should result in a with-prejudice dismissal of the complaint.

Judge Goodman held that addressing the doctrine at the motion-to-
dismiss stage is not unusual, citing that in at least four cases,
the Eleventh Circuit has held the filed-rate doctrine bars claims
at the pleadings stage.  In addition, the plaintiffs' counsel
agreed at the hearing on the motion to dismiss that the court may
decide whether or not the filed-rate doctrine applies on this
motion.

Based on his review of the Eleventh Circuit's opinions in other
cases not involving LPI in which the filed-rate doctrine was
asserted, Judge Goodman predicted that the Eleventh Circuit would
apply the filed-rate doctrine to the LPI class action case.  Thus,
the judge decided to grant the defendants' motion to dismiss and
dismissed the complaint with prejudice.

A full-text copy of Judge Goodman's September 13, 2016 amended
order is available at https://is.gd/kn9cds from Leagle.com.

Richard L. Fowler, Plaintiff, represented by Aaron Samuel
Podhurst, Podhurst Orseck, P.A..

Richard L. Fowler, Plaintiff, represented by Eric D. Holland --
eholland@allfela.com -- Holland Groves Schneller & Stolze LLC, pro
hac vice, Howard Mitchell Bushman, Harke Clasby & Bushman LLP,
Lance August Harke, Harke Clasby & Bushman LLP, Matthew Weinshall
-- mweinshall@podhurst.com -- Podhurst Orseck, Peter Prieto --
pprieto@podhurst.com -- Podhurst Orseck, P.A., Rachel Sullivan --
rs@kttlaw.com -- Kozyak, Tropin & Throckmorton, P.A., Randall Seth
Crompton -- scrompton@allfela.com -- Holland, Groves, Schneller &
Stolze, pro hac vice, Robert J. Neary -- rn@kttlaw.com -- Kozyak
Tropin & Throckmorton, P.A., Sarah Clasby Engel, Harke Clasby &
Bushman LLP, Thomas A. Tucker Ronzetti -- tr@kttlaw.com -- Kozyak
Tropin & Throckmorton & Adam M. Moskowitz -- amm@kttlaw.com --
Kozyak Tropin & Throckmorton.

Glenda Keller, Plaintiff, represented by Aaron Samuel Podhurst --
apodhurst@podhurst.com -- Podhurst Orseck, P.A., Eric D. Holland,
Holland Groves Schneller & Stolze LLC, pro hac vice, Howard
Mitchell Bushman, Harke Clasby & Bushman LLP, Lance August Harke,
Harke Clasby & Bushman LLP, Matthew Weinshall, Podhurst Orseck,
Peter Prieto, Podhurst Orseck, P.A., Rachel Sullivan, Kozyak,
Tropin & Throckmorton, P.A., Randall Seth Crompton, Holland,
Groves, Schneller & Stolze, pro hac vice, Robert J. Neary, Kozyak
Tropin & Throckmorton, P.A.,Sarah Clasby Engel, Harke Clasby &
Bushman LLP, Thomas A. Tucker Ronzetti, Kozyak Tropin &
Throckmorton & Adam M. Moskowitz, Kozyak Tropin & Throckmorton.

Yvonne Yambo-Gonzalez, on behalf of themselves and all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff, represented by Aaron Samuel
Podhurst, Podhurst Orseck, P.A., Eric D. Holland, Holland Groves
Schneller & Stolze LLC, pro hac vice,Howard Mitchell Bushman,
Harke Clasby & Bushman LLP, Lance August Harke, Harke Clasby &
Bushman LLP, Matthew Weinshall, Podhurst Orseck,Peter Prieto,
Podhurst Orseck, P.A., Rachel Sullivan, Kozyak, Tropin &
Throckmorton, P.A., Randall Seth Crompton, Holland, Groves,
Schneller & Stolze, pro hac vice, Robert J. Neary, Kozyak Tropin &
Throckmorton, P.A.,Sarah Clasby Engel, Harke Clasby & Bushman LLP,
Thomas A. Tucker Ronzetti, Kozyak Tropin & Throckmorton & Adam M.
Moskowitz, Kozyak Tropin & Throckmorton.

Caliber Home Loans, Inc, Defendant, represented by Alan Graham
Greer, Richman Greer, P.A., Alisa A. Givental, Severson & Werson,
pro hac vice, Erik Kemp, Severson & Werson, pro hac vice, John B.
Sullivan, Severson & Werson, pro hac vice, Mary Kate Kamka,
Severson & Werson, pro hac vice & Nathaniel Mark Edenfield,
Richman Greer, P.A..

American Security Insurance Company, Defendant, represented by
Brian P. Perryman, Carlton Fields Jorden Burt, P.A., pro hac vice,
Farrokh Jhabvala, Carlton Fields Jorden Burt, P.A. & Franklin G.
Burt, Carlton Fields Jorden Burt P.A..


CANADIAN RED: Moral Values Cited in Tainted-Blood Settlement
------------------------------------------------------------
Shannon Kari, writing for Law Times, reports that moral values
must be part of the analysis when interpreting a settlement
agreement, a senior Ontario Superior Court judge has stated, in
ruling against the federal government's claim to more than $200
million in "excess capital" from settlements in two national class
actions stemming from the tainted-blood tragedy.

Moral values highlighted in tainted-blood settlement

The process by Justice Paul Perell, Chief Justice Christopher
Hinkson of the B.C. Supreme Court and Quebec Superior Court
Justice Chantal Corriveau, who adjudicated the dispute, may also
pave the way for similar hearings in national class actions.

"It is legal arguments, not moral ones, which will decide these
applications," said Justice Perell in his ruling on how to
interpret a settlement agreement reached 17 years earlier,
stemming from the failure of the Canadian Red Cross to screen
blood donations for Hepatitis C.

"That is not to say, however, that morality has no role to play in
deciding these applications.  The law of contract and the law of
civil procedure, including the law that governs class proceedings,
are infused with moral values," wrote Justice Perell, in his
decision issued Aug. 15.

Toronto lawyer Kathryn Podrebarac -- kp@toughcounsel.com -- part
of a joint committee that was set up to administer the ongoing
disbursement of funds from the initial $1.1-billion settlement
with the federal government that was approved in 1999, says the
ruling is "one of the first of its kind."

It is believed to be the first time judges from different
jurisdictions in Canada have sat together in a class action
proceeding other than to decide whether to approve a joint
settlement agreement, Ms. Podrebarac says.

The judges were presiding over applications by the federal
government seeking the return of $207 million held in trust, which
was described as excess capital from what it agreed to pay in the
1999 settlement.

The class actions involved people who contracted Hepatitis C from
blood transfusions between 1986 and 1990.  By the end of 2013,
nearly $780 million had been paid out to 5,283 infected class
members.

A successful investment strategy undertaken by the trustee on the
recommendation of the joint committee resulted in more money
remaining in the fund than was originally expected.  For any order
to take effect, approval from the judges in all three provinces
where the class actions were brought was required.

Rather than hold separate proceedings, the judges presided over a
special joint hearing in Toronto this summer.  Video technology
was used so the public could watch the hearing in courts in B.C.
and Quebec (a Supreme Court of Canada decision on whether video
links are required in each court in these types of hearings is
expected to be released this fall).  There were more than 700
submissions from class members and their families, as part of the
evidentiary record.

While each judge was required to come up with independent
decisions, they were permitted to consult with each other, despite
being from different jurisdictions.

"This was an ambitious hearing," says Ms. Podrebarac, principal at
Podrebarac Barristers, in reference to the extensive evidentiary
record and the use of video technology.

The approach taken by the courts "saved costs and saved money for
class members," she adds.

Ranjan Agarwal -- agarwalr@bennettjones.com -- a partner at
Bennett Jones LLP in Toronto who specializes in class actions,
says more courts in multi-jurisdictional proceedings may adopt
this approach.

Mr. Agarwal was not involved in the case.

"Judges are increasingly looking for common sense solutions," he
says.

The main decision was issued first by Justice Perell.  His
colleagues released rulings that concurred with his findings along
with their own analysis of the issues.

The joint order was that $175 million of the excess funds be
allocated for class members.

The courts rejected a request by the joint committee to allocate
$27.6 million for loss of income payments as a result of
deductions for other government benefits.  That money, though, is
to remain in the trust fund rather than be returned to the federal
government.

In describing the case before the court as one of strict
contractual interpretation, Justice Perell referred to an
amendment to the 1999 settlement agreement that gave the courts
"unfettered discretion" to decide what to do with surplus funds.
He noted that while the federal government was seeking the excess
capital in this case, it was not obligated to provide more money
to funds from other tainted-blood class actions that are now
depleted.

Bill Dermody -- Bill@dermody.ca -- who represents two class
members who were successful in having their compensation claims
re-assessed because of their personal circumstances, says it was
appropriate to make a reference to morality.

"I think Justice Perell and the other judges are speaking to class
members.  That is important. At the same time, the decision is
grounded in the terms of the settlement agreement," says
Mr. Dermody, who heads Dermody Law in Hamilton.

That view is shared by Daniel Bach, Esq. --
daniel.bach@siskinds.com -- a class action lawyer and partner at
Siskinds LLP in Toronto.  Mr. Bach was not involved in the case.

"Justice Perell is affected by the life stories of class members,
but he makes clear his decision is consistent with the intention
of the parties," says Mr. Bach.

The outcome in this case is a reminder for class action lawyers to
be careful about every term in a settlement agreement, even if it
is being urged by the judge presiding over the hearing, says Mr.
Agarwal.

"No matter what the judge says, the deal is yours.  It is your
words that will be scrutinized," he states.  The federal
government has not yet stated if it will appeal the decisions.


CARDINAL FINANCIAL: Faces "Winters" Suit in S.D. of California
--------------------------------------------------------------
A lawsuit has been filed against Cardinal Financial Company. The
case is titled Jackie Winters, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. Cardinal Financial
Company, Limited Partnership, the Defendant, Case No. 3:16-cv-
02347-BAS-BGS (S.D. Cal., Sept. 16, 2016). The assigned Judge is
Hon. Cynthia Bashant.

Cardinal Financial offers mortgage lending solutions for home
loans.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Abbas Kazerounian, Esq.
          KAZEROUNIAN LAW GROUP, APC
          245 Fischer Avenue, Suite D1
          Costa Mesa, CA 92626
          Telephone: (800) 400 6808
          Facsimile: (800) 520 5523
          E-mail: ak@kazlg.com


CARDINAL GLASS: Faces "Reid" Suit Alleging Labor Code Violation
---------------------------------------------------------------
RIALTON REID, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiffs, v. CARDINAL GLASS INDUSTRIES, INC., a
business entity form unknown; CARDINAL CT COMPANY, a Wisconsin
corporation; CATALINA TEMPERING, INC., a business entity form
unknown; and DOES 1 through 100, Inclusive, Defendants, CCW-CA-D-
307 (Cal. Super., County of Los Angeles, September 13, 2016),
alleges failure to pay overtime wages, failure to pay minimum
wages, failure to provide meal periods, failure to provide rest
periods, failure to pay all wages upon termination, failure to
provide accurate wage statements, and unfair competition.

Cardinal Glass Industries, Inc. develops residential glass for
windows and doors.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Michael Nourmand, Esq.
     James A. De Sario, Esq.
     THE NOURMAND LAW FIRM, APC
     8822 WestOlympic Boulevard
     Beverly Hills, CA 90211
     Phone: (310) 553-3600
     Fax: (310)553-3603


CARECO SHORELINE: Faces "Laiti" Lawsuit Seeking to Recoup Wages
---------------------------------------------------------------
RHANDI LAITI, individually and on behalf of all similarly situated
individuals, Plaintiff, V. CARECO SHORELINE, INC.,
Defendant, Case 3:16-cv-01534 (D. Conn., Septembers 12, 2016),
seeks to recover unpaid wages under the Fair Labor Standards Act.

CareCo Shoreline Inc. offers non-medical home care services for
the elderly.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Neal L. Moskow, Esq.
     URY & MOSKOW, L.L.C.
     883 Black Rock Turnpike
     Fairfield, CT 06825
     Phone: (203) 610-6393
     Fax: (203) 610-6399
     E-mail: neal@urymoskow.com

        - and -

     William F. Cash III, Esq.
     Brandon L. Bogle, Esq.
     LEVIN, PAPANTONIO, THOMAS, MITCHELL, RAFFERTY & PROCTOR P.A.
     316 South Baylen Street, Suite 600
     Pensacola, FL 32502
     Phone: (850) 435-7043
     E-mail: bbogle@levinlaw.com
             bcash@levinlaw.com


CASH CONVERTERS: Faces Class Action Over Excessive Fees
-------------------------------------------------------
Mike King, writing for The Motley Fool, reports that Cash
Converters International Ltd. faces a class action from borrowers
for charging excessive fees and interest between 2009 and 2013 and
that is obviously hanging over the company's head.  The pawnbroker
and personal finance company is also in the process of
restructuring its UK business and unprofitable -- hence investors
dislike for the company.


CENTRAL CREDIT: Faces "Freilich" Suit in E.D. of New York
---------------------------------------------------------
A lawsuit has been filed against Central Credit Services LLC. The
case is entitled Rachel Freilich, on behalf of herself and all
other similarly situated consumers, the Plaintiff v. Central
Credit Services LLC, the Defendant, Case No. 1:16-cv-05147
(E.D.N.Y., Sep. 15, 2016).

Central Credit is a collection agency.

The Plaintiff appears pro se.


CLIENT SERVICES: Faces "Moskowitz" Suit in E.D. of New York
-----------------------------------------------------------
A lawsuit has been filed against Client Services, Inc. The case is
captioned Gwendolyn Moskowitz, on behalf of herself and all other
similarly situated consumers, the Plaintiff v. Client Services,
Inc., the Defendant, Case No. 1:16-cv-05143 (E.D.N.Y., Sep. 15,
2016).

Client Services is a full-service accounts receivable management
firm.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Maxim Maximov, Esq.
          MAXIM MAXIMOV, LLP
          1701 Avenue P
          Brooklyn, NY 11229
          Telephone: (718) 395 3459
          Facsimile: (718) 408 9570
          E-mail: m@maximovlaw.com


CORE LOGIC: "Zemel" Class Suit Removed to District of N.J.
----------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit entitled Daniel Zemel, Individually and
on behalf of all other similarly situated persons v. Core Logic
Safe Rent, Case No. ESX-L-5073, was removed from the Superior
Court of New Jersey, Essex County to the U.S. District Court
District of New Jersey. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No.
2:16-cv-05480-WJM-MF to the proceeding.

The Plaintiff alleges violation of the Fair Credit Reporting Act.

Core Logic Safe Rent operates a consumer reporting agency in New
Jersey.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Aaron Rubin, Esq.
      NEUHAUSER RUBIN & MENDLOWITZ LLC
      1306 River Avenue, Suite 11
      Lakewood, NJ 08701
      Telephone: (516) 590-0544
      E-mail: arubin@nrmlawllc.com

         - and -

      Diane A. Bettino, Esq.
      REED SMITH, LLP
      136 Main Street, Suite 250
      Princeton, NJ 08540
      Telephone: (609) 514-5962
      E-mail: dbettino@reedsmith.com


COSIMO'S FAMILY: Faces "Vasquez" Suit Under FLSA, NJ Wage Laws
--------------------------------------------------------------
YONY DE JESUS DUBON VASQUEZ, HECTOR SAUL SALDANA-PEREZ and RUBEN
ISAIAS VELASQUEZ TOMAS, on behalf of themselves and all others
similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. COSIMO'S FAMILY RESTAURANT, INC
d/b/a COSIMO'S ITALIAN RESTAURANT, COSIMO LOIA, ANGELA LOIA, PERRY
LOIA, DAVID LOIA, LISA LOIA, JOHN DOE, and JANE DOE, Defendants,
Case No. 2:16-cv-05555 (D.N.J., September 13, 2016), was brought
under the Fair Labor Standards Act and their New Jersey State Wage
and Hour.

Defendants own and operate an Italian restaurant in Westfield, New
Jersey.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

     Benjamin B. Xue, Esq.
     XUE & ASSOCIATES, P.C.
     1001 Avenue of the Americas
     11th Floor New York, NY 10018
     Phone: (212) 219-2275
     Fax: (212) 219-2276


CRANEVEYOR CORP: Calvo Seeks OT & Minimum Wages Under Labor Code
----------------------------------------------------------------
FELIPE CALVO, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, the Plaintiffs, v. CRANEVEYOR CORP., a California
corporation; and DOES 1 through 100, (Inclusive), the Defendants,
Case No. BC6 34 012 (Cal. Super. Ct., Sep. 14, 2016), seeks to
recover overtime and minimum wages, premium wages for missed meal
and rest periods, penalties, and reasonable attorney's fees and
costs pursuant to Labor Code.

According to the complaint, for at least four years prior to the
filing of the action and through to the present, Defendants have
had a consistent policy of failing to pay wages, including
overtime wages, to Plaintiff and other non-exempt employees in the
State of California in violation of California state wage and hour
laws as a result of, including but not limited to, unevenly
rounding time worked.

Craneveyor manufactures overhead cranes and distributes packaged
hoists for the construction industry.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Michael Nourmand, Esq.
          James A. De Sario, Esq.
          THENOURMAND LAWFIRM, APC
          8822 West Olympic Boulevard
          Beverly Hills, CA 90211
          Telephone: (310) 553 3600
          Facsimile: (310) 553 3603


CREATIVE HAIRDRESSERS: Faces "Gomez" Suit Over ADA Violation
------------------------------------------------------------
Andres Gomez, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. Creative Hairdressers, Inc. d/b/a Hair Cuttery, Case
No. 1:16-cv-23872-RNS (S.D. Fla., September 12, 2016), is brought
against the Defendants for violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act.

Creative Hairdressers, Inc. operates a chain of hair salons
throughout the United States.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


CREDENCE RESOURCE: Faces TCPA Class Action in California
--------------------------------------------------------
Jenie Mallari-Torres, writing for Northern California Record,
reports that a Ventura County woman alleges a debt collector
invaded her privacy and has filed a class-action suit.

Cortney Perez filed a complaint individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated on Aug. 24 in the U.S. District Court
for the Central District of California against Credence Resource
Management LLC alleging that the debt collector violated the
Telephone Consumer Protection Act and the Fair Debt Collection
Practices Act.

According to the complaint, the plaintiff claims that in March,
she started receiving calls from the defendant in an attempt to
collect an alleged outstanding debt.  Although she has revoked any
consent to call her, the suit states the defendant continued to
call her multiple times using an automatic telephone dialing
system or an artificial or prerecorded voice on her cellular
telephone.

The plaintiffs hold Credence Resource Management LLC responsible
because the defendant allegedly violated plaintiffs' right to
privacy and violated TCPA by using an automatic dialing system.

The plaintiffs request a trial by jury and seek judgment against
defendant, damages, costs of suit, attorney's fees and further
relief as may be just.  She is represented by Todd M. Friedman,
Adrian R. Bacon and Meghan E. George of Law Offices of Todd M.
Friedman in Woodland Hills.

U.S. District Court for the Central District of California Case
number 16-cv-06366


DAVE & BUSTER'S: "Banks" Suit Moved from Cir. Ct. to D. Or.
-----------------------------------------------------------
A lawsuit entitled Makenna Banks, on behalf of herself
individually as well as on behalf of all similarly situated
employees, the Plaintiff, v. Dave & Buster's of Oregon, Inc., an
Oregon corporation; and Dave & Buster's Management Corporation,
Inc., Interested Party, the Defendants, Case No. 16cv25618, was
removed from the Multnomah County Circuit Court, to the U.S.
District Court for the District of Oregon (Portland 3). The
District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 3:16-cv-01825-AC to the
proceeding. The assigned Magistrate Judge is Hon. John V. Acosta.

Dave & Buster's is a family-friendly chain offering a sports-bar-
style setting for American food & arcade games.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Jon M. Egan, Esq.
          JON M. EGAN, P.C.
          547 Fifth Street
          Lake Oswego, OR 97034-3009
          Telephone: (503) 697 3427
          Facsimile: (866) 311 5629
          E-mail: jegan@eganlegalteam.com

The Defendants are represented by:

          Tamsen L. Leachman, Esq.
          Littler Mendelson, PC
          121 SW Morrison Street, Suite 900
          Portland, OR 97204
          Telephone: (503) 221 0309
          Facsimile: (503) 242 2457
          E-mail: tleachman@littler.com

              - and -

          Jennifer Neth Warberg, Esq.
          LITTLER MENDELSON, PC
          121 SW Morrison Street, Suite 900
          Portland, OR 97204
          Telephone: (503) 221 0309
          Facsimile: (503) 296 5373
          E-mail: jwarberg@littler.com


DENSHAN INC: Sued in Cal. Over Failure to Provide Meal Breaks
-------------------------------------------------------------
Kelven Rios, an individual, on behalf of himself, all others
similarly situated v. Denshan, Inc., Case No. BC633812 (Cal.
Super. Ct., September 13, 2016), is brought against the Defendants
for failure to provide meal period and failure to pay such
employees one hour of pay at the employees' regular rate of
compensation for each workday that the meal period is not provided
or provided after five hours.

Denshan, Inc. operates a restaurant in Los Angeles, California.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Eric B. Kingsley, Esq.
      Liane Katzenstein Ly, Esq.
      Ari J. Stiller, Esq.
      KINGSLEY & KINGSLEY, APC
      16133 Ventura Blvd., Suite 1200
      Encino, CA 91436
      Telephone: (818) 990-8300
      Facsimile: (818) 990-2903
      E-mail: eric@kingsleykingsley.com
              liane@kingsleykingsley.com
              ari@kingsleykingsley.com


DIRECTV LLC: "Aguirre" Suit Claims FLSA, Cal. Labor Code Breaches
-----------------------------------------------------------------
ELISA AGUIRRE on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, vs. DIRECTV, LLC, and DOES 1 through 10,
inclusive, Defendants, Case 2:16-cv-06836 (C.D. Cal., September
12, 2016), alleges various Federal Labor Standards Act violations,
as well as California Labor Code and Industrial Welfare Commission
Wage Order violations stemming from Defendants' failure to pay all
overtime wages, failure to provide accurate itemized wage
statements, failure to timely pay final wages, unauthorized
payment of wages on ATM cards, and unfair competition.

DIRECTV is a provider of digital television entertainment to more
than 39 million customers in the U.S. and Latin America.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Brian J. Mankin, Esq.
     Peter J. Carlson, Esq.
     FERNANDEZ & LAUBY LLP
     4590 Allstate Drive
     Riverside, CA 92501
     Phone: (951) 320-1444
     Fax: (951) 320-1445
     E-mail: bjm@fernandezlauby.com
             pjc@fernandezlauby.com

        - and -

     Kirk D. Hanson, Esq.
     LAW OFFICES OF KIRK D. HANSON
     2790 Truxtun Rd., Ste. 140
     San Diego, CA 92106
     Phone: (619) 523-1992
     Fax: (619) 523-9002
     E-mail: kdh@khansonlaw.com


DOVE FOODS: "Calderon" Class Suit Removed to South. Dist. Florida
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit captioned Anyee Calderon, Sarai Arias,
Ruth Mariela Castro and other similarly situated employees v. Dove
Foods, Inc. d/b/a Las Olas Cafe, Vincent Diaz, Las Olas Cafe, LLC,
and Carlos Flores, Case No. 16-014049 CA 01, was removed from the
11th Judicial Circuit of Florida to the U.S. District Court for
the Southern District of Florida (Miami). The District Court Clerk
assigned Case No. 1:16-cv-23931-UU to the proceeding.

The case alleges violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act.

The Defendants own and operate Las Olas Cafe restaurant in
Florida.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Jason Saul Remer, Esq.
      REMER & GEORGES-PIERRE, PLLC
      Court House Tower
      44 West Flagler Street, Suite 2200
      Miami, FL 33130
      Telephone: (305) 416-5000
      Facsimile: (305) 416-5005
      E-mail: jremer@rgpattorneys.com

The Defendant is represented by:

      Miguel Armenteros, Esq.
      PERLMAN, BAJANDAS, YEVOLI & ALBRIGHT, PL
      283 Catalonia Avenue, Suite 200
      Coral Gables, FL 33134
      Telephone: (305) 377-0086
      E-mail: eservicemia@pbyalaw.com


E*TRADE FINANCIAL: Transferred "Rayner" Suit to S.D. New York
-------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit entitled Ty Rayner, on behalf of himself
and all others similarly situated v. E*Trade Financial Corporation
and E*Trade Securities LLC, Case No. 5:15-cv-01384, was
transferred from the United States District Court - District of
California Northern to the U.S. District Court
Southern District of New York (Foley Square). The District Court
Clerk assigned Case No. 1:16-cv-07129-UA to the proceeding.

The Defendants operate a financial services company headquartered
in New York City.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Ashley Rawlins Rifkin, Esq.
      Brian James Robbins, Esq.
      Kevin Andrew Seely, Esq.
      Leonid Kandinov, Esq.
      ROBBINS ARROYO LLP
      600 B Street, Suite 1900
      San Diego, CA 92101
      Telephone: (619) 525-3990
      Facsimile: (619) 525-3991
      E-mail: arifkin@robbinsarroyo.com
              notice@robbinsarroyo.com
              kseely@robbinsarroyo.com
              lkandinov@robbinsarroyo.com

           - and -

      John Kenneth Landay, Esq.
      Malcolm Byron Roberts, Esq.
      LANDAY ROBERTS LLP
      450 J. Street, Unit 5291
      San Diego, CA 92101
      Telephone: (805) 305-3384
      E-mail: jlanday@knlh.com

           - and -

      Thomas Joseph O'Reardon II, Esq.
      Timothy G. Blood, Esq.
      BLOOD HURST O'REARDON LLP
      701 B Street, Suite 1700
      San Diego, CA 92101
      Telephone: (619) 338-1100
      Facsimile: (619) 338-1101
      E-mail: toreardon@bholaw.com
              tblood@bholaw.com

The Defendant is represented by:

      Faith Elizabeth Gay, Esq.
      Julia Marie Beskin, Esq.
      Marc Greenwald, Esq.
      Patrick C. Doolittle, Esq.
      Renita Nath Sharma, Esq.
      Richard Corey Worcester, Esq.
      QUINN EMANUEL URQUHART AND SULLIVAN LLP
      51 Madison Ave, 22nd Floor
      New York, NY 10010
      Telephone: (212) 849-7000
      Facsimile: (212) 849-7100
      E-mail: faithgay@quinnemanuel.com
              juliabeskin@quinnemanuel.com
              marcgreenwald@quinnemanuel.com
              patrickdoolittle@quinnemanuel.com
              renitasharma@quinnemanuel.com
              coreyworcester@quinnemanuel.com


EAST BUFFET: Faces "Licona" Suit in Eastern District of New York
----------------------------------------------------------------
A lawsuit has been filed against East Buffet on Main Inc. The case
is captioned Alejandro Licona, individually and on behalf of
others similarly situated, the Plaintiff v. East Buffet on Main
Inc., doing business as East Buffet and Restaurant; East Bistro
Flushing Inc., doing business as East Buffet and Restaurant; Hey
Cheng; and Larry Doe, the Defendants, Case No. 1:16-cv-05162
(E.D.N.Y., Sept. 16, 2016).

The Defendant operates a restaurant located at 4207 Main St,
Flushing, New York.

The Plaintiff appears pro se.


EASTERN RECEPTION: Foster's Suit Cannot Proceed in Forma Pauperis
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, WILLIAM WENTWORTH FOSTER, Plaintiff, v. GEORGE
LOMBARDI, et al, Defendants, No. 4:16CV373 RLW (E.D. Mo.),
District Judge Ronnie L. White vacated its prior order granting
Plaintiff the ability to proceed as a pauper.

The case involves a prisoner incarcerated at Eastern Reception,
Diagnostic and Correction Center ("ERDCC") which the Court
initially granted the plaintiff in forma status.

The Court held that a prisoner may not bring a civil action in
forma pauperis if, on 3 or more occasions . . . the prisoner has
brought an action or appeal in a court of the United States that
was dismissed on the grounds that it is frivolous, malicious or
fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, unless
the prisoner is under imminent danger of serious physical injury.

A review of the Court's files indicate that the plaintiff has had
three or more actions or appeals dismissed as frivolous and that
the amended complaint indicates that the plaintiff is not under
imminent danger of serious physical injury.

A copy of the Court's Order dated September 6, 2016 is available
at https://goo.gl/yWZLh0 from Leagle.com.

William Wintworth Foster, Plaintiff, Pro Se.


EDGEWELL PERSONAL: "Birmingham" Suit Transferred to E.D.N.Y.
------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit styled Laurel Birmingham, individually
and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Edgewell
Personal Care Company, Edgewell Personal Care Brands, LLC, and
Edgewell Personal Care, LLC, Case No. 2:16-cv-04707, was
transferred from the Central District of California to the U.S.
District Court for the Eastern District of New York (Brooklyn).
The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:16-cv-05036-DLI-PK to
the proceeding.

The case asserts product-liability claims.

The Defendants operate a consumer products company based in St
Louis, Missouri.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Betsy C. Manifold, Esq.
      Jacob D. Fuchsberg, Esq.
      WOLF HALDENSTEIN ADLER FREEMAN & HERZ LLP
      500 Fifth Avenue
      New York, NY 10110
      Telephone: (212) 869-3500
      Facsimile: (212) 545-4653
      E-mail: manifold@whafh.com

         - and -

      Brittany DeJong, Esq.
      Rachele R. Rickert, Esq.
      WOLF HALDENSTEIN ADLER FREEMAN AND HERZ LLP
      750 B Street Suite 2770
      San Diego, CA 92101
      Telephone: (619) 239-4599
      Facsimile: (619) 234-4599
      E-mail: dejong@whafh.com
              rickert@whafh.com

The Defendant is represented by:

      Daniel Scott Schecter, Esq.
      LATHAM AND WATKINS, LLP
      355 South Grand Ave.
      Los Angeles, CA 90071-1560
      Telephone: (213) 485-1234
      Facsimile: (213) 891-8763
      E-mail: daniel.schecter@lw.com


ESSA BANCORP: Faces "Benefield" Suit Over Penn. UCC Breach
----------------------------------------------------------
JOHNNIE BENEFIELD, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated Plaintiff v. ESSA BANCORP, INC., d/b/a
ESSA BANK & TRUST, Defendant, Case ID: 160901381 filed in the
Court of Common Pleas, Philadelphia County on September 13, 2016,
alleges that Defendants failed to provide consumers proper notice
when repossessing and reselling a financed vehicle as provided by
the Pennsylvania Uniform Commercial Code.

ESSA BANCORP, INC. is a chartered stock holding company of ESSA
Bank & Trust.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Cary L. Flatter, Esq.
     Andrew M. Milz, Esq.
     FLITTER MILZ, P.C
     450 N. Narberth Avenue, Suite 101
     Narberth, PA 19072
     Phone: (610)822-0782

        - and -

     Carlo Sabatini, Esq.
     SABATINI LAW FIRM, LLC
     216 N. Blakely Street
     Dunmore, PA 18512
     Phone: (570)341-9000


EXPRESS COURIER: Faces "Lovo" Suit by Local Delivery Drivers
------------------------------------------------------------
HUGO LOVO; BASHAR MASOUD; LUIS GOMEZ; MARK URBINA; LUIS
CASTELLANOS; KAIMA C. WILDER; SURAJ BAJRACHARYA; ALFHEED KHALID;
TARIQ ALFHEED, AND ALL THOSE SIMILARLY SITUATED, Plaintiffs, V.
EXPRESS COURIER INTERNATIONAL, INC., d/b/a LSO AND LSO FINAL MILE;
RICK KERRIGAN; CHARLES MOYER; LLOYD PRICE; LONE STAR HOLDINGS,
INC., d/b/a LONE STAR OVERNIGHT, LONE STAR OVERNIGHT, LLC, LSO,
LSO PARCEL; AND RICHARD T. JONES, Defendants, Case 4:16-cv-00853-Y
(N.D. Tex., September 12, 2016), seeks to recover all alleged
unpaid overtime wages and other damages under the federal Fair
Labor Standards Act, and the Federal Portal-to-Portal Act, on
behalf of local package delivery drivers located within a ten-
state area who work/worked for Express delivering packages to
local businesses and residences during the period of time from
July 1, 2015, forward.

EXPRESS COURIER INTERNATIONAL, INC. is in the business of
delivering thousands of packages.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

     Roger D. Marshall, Esq.
     10604 Corvallis Dr.
     Dallas, TX 75229
     Phone: 214-850-1989
     Fax: 214-363-4833
     E-mail: Rmarsh9558@aol.com


FCA US: "Grimstad" Suit Transferred from Cal. to S.D.N.Y.
---------------------------------------------------------
LYNN GRIMSTAD, an individual, and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, and MARA MANUEL, an individual, and on behalf
of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, V. FCA US LLC, a
Delaware limited liability company, and DOES 1 -250, inclusive,
Defendants, Case No. 1:16-cv-07125-WHP (April 22, 2016), was
transferred from the United States District Court for the District
of California Central to the United States District Court for the
Southern District of New York.

The case alleges that the performance of motor vehicle Recall N23
on vehicles, and other model-years 2005-2010 Jeep Grand Cherokee
and model years 2006-2010 Jeep Commander vehicles equipped with a
Quadra-Drive II or Quadra-Trac II system, resulted in certain
aspects of those systems becoming non-operational.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Rowena Santos, Esq.
     THOMPSON COBURN LLP
     2029 Century Park East, 19th Floor
     Los Angeles, CA 90067
     Phone: 310.282.2500
     Fax: 310.282.2501
     E-mail: rsantos@thompsoncoburn.com

        - and -

     Kathy A. Wisniewski, Esq.
     Stephen A. DTAunoy, Esq.
     Scott H. Morgan, Esq.
     THOMPSON COBURN LLP
     One U.S. Bank Plaza
     St. Louis, MO 63 101
     Phone: 314.552.6000
     Fax: 314.552.7000
     E-mail: kwisniewski@thompsoncoburn.com
             SDAunoy@thompsoncoburn.com
             smorgan@thompsoncoburn.com


FCA US: Court Narrows Claims in "Faltermeier" Suit
--------------------------------------------------
In the case captioned DAVID FALTERMEIER, on behalf of himself and
all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. FCA US LLC,
Defendant, Case No. 4:15-cv-00491-DGK (W.D. Mo.), Judge Greg Kays
granted in part and denied, in part, the motion filed by the
defendant to dismiss the plaintiff's First Amended Complaint.

The case is a putative class action arising from alleged
violations of the Missouri Merchandising Practices Act (MMPA).
David Faltermeier alleged that FCA US LLC made misrepresentations
during a vehicle safety recall that have caused him and all other
consumers who have purchased the recalled vehicles since June 4,
2013, an ascertainable financial loss.

FCA sought to dismiss Faltermeier's suit under Federal Rules of
Civil Procedure 12(b)(1), for lack of subject matter jurisdiction,
and 12(b)(6), for failure to state a claim.  FCA made five
arguments for dismissal.

FCA asserted that the National Highway Traffic Safety
Administration (NHTSA) found that the trailer hitch remedy
provided by FCA under the recall has fixed the vehicles and made
them safe to use, and this constitutes a final agency action that
cannot be collaterally attacked via Faltermeier's lawsuit.  In
support of this argument, FCA provided a printout of a Frequently
Asked Questions (FAQ) page from safercar.gov, a website run by the
NHTSA.

Judge Kays, however, found that although the Office of Defects
Investigation (ODI) initiated an investigation into the adequacy
of the proposed trailer hitch repair, these findings were not
subject to either a notice-and-comment period or a formal hearing
by the NHTSA before the FAQ page statements were published.
Because the FAQ page statements do not mark the consummation of
the NHTSA's decision-making process, Judge Kays concluded that
they do not constitute a "final agency decision" for purposes of
the Administrative Procedure Act (APA).  Accordingly, Judge Kays
held that Faltermeier's suit is not an improper collateral attack
of a final agency action reviewable only in an action against the
NHTSA under the APA, and FCA's motion to dismiss on this ground
was denied.

Next, FCA argued that all of the alleged misrepresentations fall
under Missouri's absolute privilege for communications related to
quasi-judicial proceedings.  Faltermeier argued the doctrine is
limited to defamation cases.  Alternatively, Faltermeier contended
the policies underlying the litigation immunity and the MMPA
counsel against applying it in the case.

Judge Kays found that the alleged misrepresentations were made
through public news outlets, in publicly-disseminated press
releases, and, apparently, were communicated to the third-party
Center for Auto Safety prior to the preparation of their White
Paper.  The judge explained that while absolute candor in an
administrative investigation is important, the fact that at least
some of these representations were aimed toward the public or
third parties undermines FCA's argument.  Judge Kays thus declined
to extend absolute immunity to the statements at issue and FCA's
motion to dismiss on this ground was denied.

Next, FCA argued the alleged misrepresentations were not made "in
connection with the sale or advertisement of any merchandise in
trade or commerce" and that Faltermeier has failed to allege an
injury "as a result of" the misrepresentations, as required by the
MMPA. Mo.  Faltermeier asserted the MMPA's reach is broad enough
to encompass these misrepresentations and that he need not have
relied on the misrepresentations to state a claim under the MMPA.

Judge Kays found that FCA publicly disseminated the press releases
containing the alleged misrepresentations.  "Due to the nature of
press releases, it can be reasonably inferred FCA expected the
representations contained in those statements to reach current and
future owners of Jeep Vehicles.  Though these statements were made
in the course of a safety recall, a reasonable jury could conclude
that FCA was aware future purchasers of Jeep Vehicles could rely
on the statements in making their purchases," the judge explained.
Thus, Judge Kays concluded that Faltermeier has sufficiently pled
these alleged misrepresentations were made in connection with the
sale of the Jeep Vehicles, and FCA's motion to dismiss on this
ground was denied.

FCA next argued that all of the alleged misrepresentations are
non-actionable opinions.  Faltermeier contended the MMPA is much
broader than other actions sounding in fraud, and FCA's statements
are more than mere puffery.

Judge Kays, however, found that the statement that the Jeep
Vehicles are "similar to comparable vehicles" in the June 4, 2013,
press release is vague enough to constitute puffery.  Further, the
judge also found that FCA's statements that the recall was a
"campaign" and that the vehicles "are among the safest in the peer
group" in the June 18, 2013, press release are also vague and
subjective statements constituting puffery.  Judge Kay thus
granted FCA's motion to dismiss the MMPA claim as it relates to
these specific statements.

Finally, FCA argued Faltermeier has failed to allege he has
suffered an ascertainable loss of money or property, as required
to state a claim under the MMPA.  FCA asserted that the Jeep
Vehicles' defect is un-manifested and Faltermeier has not suffered
a cognizable injury.  Faltermeier contended he and putative class
members suffered an ascertainable loss when they paid more for
their Jeep Vehicles than they were actually worth due to FCA's
misrepresentations, and this is sufficient to plead a cognizable
injury under the MMPA.

Judge Kay held that Faltermeier sufficiently alleged he did not
receive the benefit of the bargain in purchasing his vehicle, and
thus, FCA's motion to dismiss on this ground was denied.

A full-text copy of Judge Kays' September 13, 2016 order is
available at https://is.gd/cv1KNz from Leagle.com.

David Faltermeier, Plaintiff, represented by Christopher S. Shank,
Shank & Moore, LLC, David Lee Heinemann, Shank & Moore, LLC &
Stephen J. Moore, Shank & Moore, LLC.

FCA US LLC, Defendant, represented by Kathy Ann Wisniewski --
kwisniewski@thompsoncoburn.com -- Thompson Coburn LLP, Scott
Harston Morgan -- smorgan@thompsoncoburn.com -- Thompson Coburn
LLP, Sharon B. Rosenberg -- srosenberg@thompsoncoburn.com --
Thompson Coburn LLP & Stephen A. D'Aunoy --
sdaunoy@thompsoncoburn.com -- Thompson Coburn LLP.


FINANCIAL RECOVERY: Faces "Lugo" Suit in District of New Jersey
---------------------------------------------------------------
A lawsuit has been filed against Financial Recovery Services Inc.
The case is styled Wendy Lugo, On behalf of herself and all others
similarly situated, the Plaintiff v. FINANCIAL RECOVERY SERVICES,
INC., and JOHN DOES 1-25, the Defendants, Case No. 2:16-cv-05639-
MCA-LDW (D.N.J., Sept. 16, 2016). The assigned Judge is Hon.
Madeline C. Arleo.

Financial Recovery offers collection services to mid-size
companies across the United States.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


FIRST TRANSIT: "Alkady" Class Suit Removed to S.D. California
-------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit styled Andrew Alkady, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated v. First Transit, Inc. and
Does 1 through 20, inclusive, Case No. 37-02016-00022652-CU-OE-
CTL, was removed from the Superior Court of the State of
California to the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of
California (San Diego). The District Court Clerk assigned Case No.
3:16-cv-02291-L-BGS to the proceeding.

First Transit, Inc. provides contract public transit and
paratransit services, transit management services and transit
consulting throughout North America.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Jessica Lynn Campbell, Esq.
      AEGIS LAW FIRM
      9811 Irvine Center Drive, Suite 100
      Irvine, CA 92618
      Telephone: (949) 379-6250
      Facsimile: (949) 379-6251
      E-mail: jcampbell@aegislawfirm.com

The Defendant is represented by:

      David Dow, Esq.
      LITTLER MENDELSON, PC
      501 West Broadway, Suite 900
      San Diego, CA 92101-3577
      Telephone: (619) 232-0441
      Facsimile: (619) 232-4302
      E-mail: ddow@littler.com

FITNESS INTERNATIONAL: Faces "Tuesta" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Alfredo Tuesta v. Fitness International, LLC d/b/a LA Fitness,
Case No. 9:16-cv-81578-KAM (S.D. Fla., September 13, 2016), is
brought against the Defendants for failure to pay overtime wages
in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act.

Fitness International, LLC operates a health club chain in the
United States.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Victoria Mesa-Estrada, Esq.
      MESA-ESTRADA LAW, P.A.
      Compson Financial Center, Suite 205
      1880 North Congress Avenue
      Boynton Beach, FL 33426
      Boynton Beach, FL 33426
      Telephone: (561) 880-8062
      Facsimile: (561) 828-8359
      E-mail:  victoria@mesaestradalaw.com

         - and -

      Christopher J. Rush, Esq.
      CHRISTOPHER J. RUSH ASSOCIATES, P.A.
      Compson Financial Center, Suite 205
      Boynton Beach, FL 33426
      Boynton Beach, FL 33426
      Telephone: (561) 880-8062
      Facsimile: (561) 828-8359
      E-mail:  crush@crushlawfl.com


FLOYD'S 99-CALIFORNIA: Geiger Seeks Unpaid Wages Under Labor Code
-----------------------------------------------------------------
FREDDY GEIGER, an individual, on behalf of himself and on behalf
of all persons similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. FLOYD'S 99-
CALIFORNIA LLC, a Corporation; and Does 1-50, Inclusive, the
Defendants, Case No. 30-2016-0087-4943 (S.D. Fla., Sep. 14, 2016),
seeks to recover unpaid wages, including overtime wages, according
to proof, interest, statutory costs, as well as the assessment of
any statutory penalties against Defendant, in a sum as provided by
the California Labor Code and/or other applicable statutes.

The complaint says the Defendant knowingly and intentionally
failed to comply with California Labor Code, causing injury and
damages to Plaintiff and the other members of the California Labor
Sub-Class. The damages include, but are not limited to, costs
expended calculating the correct rates for the overtime worked and
the amount of employment taxes which were not properly paid to
state and federal tax authorities.

Floyd's offers hair cutting, styling, and coloring services for
men and women, as well as specialty barbering services that
include face and head shaves.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Norman B. Blumenthal, Esq.
          Kyle R. Nordrehaug, Esq.
          Aparajit Bhowmik, Esq.
          BLUMENTHAL, NORDREHAUG & BHOWMIK
          2255 Calle Clara
          La Jolla, CA 92037
          Telephone: (858)551-1223
          Facsimile: (858) 551-1232
          Website: www.bamlawca.com


FOCUS RECEIVABLES: Faces "Ailes" Suit in N.D. of Georgia
--------------------------------------------------------
A lawsuit has been filed against Focus Receivables Management,
LLC. The case is captioned Tiovah Ailes, on behalf of herself and
others similarly situated Plaintiff v. Focus Receivables
Management, LLC, the Defendant, Case No. 1:16-cv-03484-ELR-JFK
(N.D. Ga., Sept. 16, 2016). The assigned Judge is Hon. Eleanor L.
Ross.

Focus Receivables, a collections company, offers debt collection
services.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Michael Lewis Greenwald, Esq.
          GREENWALD DAVIDSON & RADBIL, PLLC
          5550 Glades Road, Suite 500
          Boca Raton, FL 33431
          Telephone: (561) 826 5477
          E-mail: mgreenwald@gdrlawfirm.com

               - and -

          Shireen Hormozdi
          Hormozdi Law Firm, LLC
          1770 Indian Trail Lilburn Road, Suite 175
          Norcross, GA 30093
          Telephone: (678) 395 7795
          Facsimile: (866) 929 2434
          E-mail: shireen@norcrosslawfirm.com


FORBES MEDIA: Court Stays "Hall" Suit, Allows Limited Discovery
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the case captioned BRIAN HALL, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. FORBES MEDIA LLC,
Defendant, Case No. 15-CV-13844 (E.D. Mich.), Judge George Caram
Steeh granted in part the defendant's motion to stay the action
and provided for limited discovery during pendency of stay.

Brian Hall filed the putative class action alleging that defendant
Forbes Media LLC violated Michigan's Preservation of Personal
Privacy Act, popularly referred to as the Video Rental Privacy Act
(VRPA), by unlawfully disclosing subscribers' information to data
miners and other third party companies. Hall also alleged a state
law claim of unjust enrichment.

Hall alleged that he purchased a one-year subscription to Forbes
magazine directly from Forbes in August 2009.  Hall further
alleged that Forbes then sold information about him, including his
full name, the title of the magazine he subscribed to and his home
address, to data miners and other unrelated third party companies.
Regarding damages, Hall alleged that he suffered "concrete
economic harm" as a result of Forbes' actions in that he would not
have purchased the subscription had he known of Forbes' practices.

As an affirmative defense, Forbes averred that Hall purchased his
magazine subscription through a third party, and not directly from
Forbes as alleged in the complaint.  Forbes moved the court to
stay all proceedings pending the Sixth Circuit's decision in
Coulter-Owens v. Time, Inc., Case No. 16-1321, because the opinion
"could dispose of Plaintiff's claims in this action, without the
need for further expenditure of time and expense by the parties or
the Court."

In Coulter-Owens v. Time, Inc., the district court granted summary
judgment for the defendant, after finding that Time, Inc. did not
sell its subscriptions to the plaintiff and the putative class
members "at retail", as that term is used in the VRPA, because
plaintiff and the class purchased their subscriptions through
third-party websites.  The plaintiff appealed from the summary
judgment order on the issue of whether the defendant was "engaged
in the business of selling at retail" where both parties agreed
that the plaintiff purchased her magazine subscriptions from a
third party.  On May 26, 2016, Time filed a motion to dismiss the
plaintiff's appeal on the basis of two recent developments that
are relevant to a plaintiff's Article III standing.  According to
Time's motion to dismiss, the Supreme Court's decision in Spokeo,
Inc. v. Robins, 136 S.Ct. 1540 (2016), and recent amendments to
the VRPA, compel the conclusion that the plaintiff lacks Article
III standing and the court therefore lacks subject-matter
jurisdiction over the appeal.

Judge Steeh found that only the jurisdiction issue before the
Sixth Circuit warrants the granting of a limited stay.  The judge
held that the Sixth Circuit's decision on Time's motion to dismiss
in Coulter-Owens will likely be instructive on the issue of
Article III standing and should, at the very least, provide
guidance on some of the issues pertaining to Article III standing
pending before the court.

A full-text copy of Judge Steeh's September 13, 2016 order is
available at https://is.gd/XjrbfT from Leagle.com.

Brian Hall, Plaintiff, represented by Benjamin Scott Thomassen --
bthomassen@edelson.com -- Edelson PC, Roger J. Perlstadt --
rperlstadt@edelson.com -- Edelson PC & Ari J. Scharg --
ascharg@edelson.com -- Edelson P.C..

Forbes Media LLC, Defendant, represented by Arthur Thomas O'Reilly
-- aoreilly@honigman.com -- Honigman, Miller, Sean Michael
Sullivan -- seansullivan@dwt.com -- Davis Wright Tremaine LLP &
Sharon Schneier -- sharonschneier@dwt.com -- Davis, Wright,
Tremaine, LLP.


FOX RESTAURANT: "Pae" Suit Moved from Super. Ct. to C.D. Cal.
-------------------------------------------------------------
A lawsuit titled Jennifer Pae, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. Fox Restaurant
Concepts, LLC, doing business as True Food Kitchen, a Arizona
limited liability company; FRC True Food SMP, LLC, a California
limited liability company; FRC True Food SDFV, LLC, a California
limited liability company; FRC True Food NBFI, LLC, a California
limited liability company; and Does, the Defendants, Case No.
BC628004, was removed from the Los Angeles Superior Court, to the
U.S. District Court for the Central District of California
(Western Division - Los Angeles). The District Court Clerk
assigned Case No. 2:16-Cv-06965 to the proceeding.

Fox Restaurant owns and operates a chain of fast food and fine
dining restaurants across Arizona, California, Colorado, Texas,
and Kansas.

The Plaintiff appears pro se.


FRONTIER COMMUNICATIONS: Faces "Ayer" Suit Over False Internet Ad
-----------------------------------------------------------------
DOROTHY AYER, individually, and on behalf of other members of the
general public similarly situated, Plaintiff, vs. FRONTIER
COMMUNICATIONS CORPORATION, Defendant, Case 5:16-cv-01946-PA-DTB
(C.D. Cal., September 12, 2016), alleges violation of the
California False Advertising Act and violation of Unfair
Competition Law.  It aims to stop Defendant's alleged practice of
falsely advertising its internet services.

Defendant is a corporation with principal place of business in
Connecticut, and state of incorporation in Delaware. It is engaged
in the sale and distribution of internet and telephone services.

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
     Phone: 877-206-4741
     Fax: 866-633-0228
     E-mail: tfriedman@toddflaw.com
             abacon@toddflaw.com


FRONTON HOLDINGS: "Lopez" Lawsuit Alleges Violation of FLSA
-----------------------------------------------------------
JORGE L. LOPEZ and ESTEBAN MACHADO, Plaintiffs, v. FRONTON
HOLDINGS, LLC, Defendant, Case 1:16-cv-23890-UU (S.D. Fla.,
September 12, 2016), seeks to recover unpaid wages, compensation
and damages under the Fair Labor Standards Act.

Fronton Holdings LLC is in the hotels and motels industry.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Todd W. Shulby, Esq.
     TODD W. SHULBY, P.A.
     1792 Bell Tower Lane
     Weston, FL 33326
     Phone No.: (954) 530-2236
     Fax: (954) 530-6628
     E-mail: tshulby@shulbylaw.com

        - and -

     William Brady, Esq.
     WILLIAM BRADY, P.A.
     4000 Ponce de Leon Blvd., Suite 800
     Coral Gables, FL 33146
     Phone: (305) 358-7688
     Fax: (786) 221-2810
     E-mail: wbrady@wbradylaw.com


FUNDKITE: Faces "Ramos" Suit in Southern Dist. of Cal.
------------------------------------------------------
A lawsuit has been filed against Fundkite. The case is styled Ron
Ramos, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, the Plaintiff v. Fundkite et al. and Does 1-10,
inclusive, and each of them, the Defendant, Case No. 3:16-cv-
02333-AJB-WVG (S.D. Cal., Sep. 15, 2016). The assigned Judge is
Hon. Anthony J. Battaglia.

Fundkite is a privately held company in the financial services
industry.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


GATE GOURMET: "Gates" Class Suit Removed to C.D. California
-----------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit styled Shantel Gates, on behalf of
herself and all others similarly situated v. Gate Gourmet, Inc.
and Does 1 to 100, inclusive, Case No. BC629819 was removed from
the Los Angeles County Superior Court to the U.S. District Court
for the Central District of California. The District Court Clerk
assigned Case No. 2:16-cv-06780 to the proceeding.

The case asserts labor-related claims.

Gate Gourmet, Inc. is a provider of airline catering and
provisioning services.

Shantel Gates is a pro se plaintiff.

GC SERVICES: Faces "Morgan" Suit in S.D. of California
------------------------------------------------------
A lawsuit has been filed against GC Services Limited Partnership.
The case is captioned James Morgan, on behalf of himself and
others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. GC Services Limited
Partnership, the Defendant, Case No. 3:16-cv-02349-JM-MDD (S.D.
Cal., Sept. 16, 2016). The assigned Judge is Hon. Jeffrey T.
Miller.

GC Services is the largest privately-held outsourcing provider of
call center management and collection agency services in North
America.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Daniel G. Shay, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF
          DANIEL G. SHAY
          409 Camino del Rio South, Suite 101B
          San Diego, CA 92108
          Telephone: (619) 222 7429
          Facsimile: (866) 431 3292
          E-mail: DanielShay@TCPAFDCPA.com


GENERAL MILLS: Faces Granola False Advertising Class Action
-----------------------------------------------------------
Jenie Mallari-Torres, writing for Northern California Record,
reports that an Alameda County man has filed a class-action suit
against a food manufacturer alleging it falsely advertises a brand
of granola bars as containing 100 percent natural, whole-grain
oats.

Edward Salamanca filed a complaint on behalf of himself and all
others similarly situated on Aug. 24 in the U.S. District Court
for the Northern District of California against General Mills Inc.
citing California's False Advertising Law, Unfair Competition Law,
breach of express warranty and other counts.

According to the complaint, the plaintiff alleges that the
defendant advertises its Nature Valley products, such as granola
bars and biscuits, as "made with 100 percent natural whole grain
oats."  He alleges the products contain glyphosate, a synthetic
biocide with human health effects, thus making the defendant's
advertising claim false.

The plaintiffs hold General Mills Inc. responsible because the
defendant allegedly failed to disclose that its products contain
glyphosate, failed to inform consumers of the harmful effects of
ingesting glyphosate and failed to produce a product that measured
up to consumer expectations.

The plaintiffs request a trial by jury and seek judgment against
defendant, a corrective advertising campaign, damages, costs,
disbursements, attorneys' fees and further relief as may be deemed
just.  He is represented by Michael F. Ram -- mram@rocklawcal.com
-- of Ram, Olson, Cereghino & Kopczynski LLP in San Francisco and
Beth E. Terrell -- bterrell@terrellmarshall.com -- and Adrienne D.
McEntee -- amcentee@terrellmarshall.com -- of Terrell Marshall Law
Group PLLC in Seattle.

U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California Case
number 16-cv-04871


GEORGE WASHINGTON UNI: Sued Over Mismanagement of Deceased Bodies
-----------------------------------------------------------------
EILEEN KOSTARIS, 15 Cullinan Court Gaithersburg, Maryland 20878;
ALEX NAAR, 1200 Bryan Point Road Accokeek, MD 20607; and
MARY LOUISE POWELL, 1425 4th Street, SW, Apt. Al 12
Washington, DC 20024, All of the above Individually Named
Plaintiffs On Behalf of Themselves and all Others Similarly
Situated, the Plaintiffs, v. THE GEORGE WASHINGTON UNIVERSITY,
23001 Street, N.W. Washington, DC 20037, Defendants, Case No. 2016
CA Q06815 B (D.C. Super. Ct., Sep. 13, 2016), is brought by the
Plaintiffs as a result of the gross mismanagement of the remains
of departed loved ones loaned to the George Washington University
for study by its medical students and the subsequent attempts by
the University to cover-up its negligence.

The lawsuit demands $10,000,000.00 for each Plaintiff in
compensatory damages, punitive damages in an amount to be
determined by a jury, costs and attorneys' fees, injunctive relief
in the form of an order that any and all efforts be made to
identify and return the remains of their loved ones and establish
lasting policies and procedures to ensure that this never happens
again, and such other relief as this Honorable Court deems
appropriate.

According to the complaint, the University negligently lost track
of the identities of the deceased in its care. Over the last seven
years, procedures were inconsistently followed, oversight was poor
and metal tags used to identify the bodies were not kept with the
bodies as required. Due to the efforts of an internal
whistleblower, in the fall of 2015, high-ranking University
officials became aware that the University had approximately 50
unidentified bodies in its possession.

The George Washington University is a private research university
located in the Foggy Bottom neighborhood of Washington, D.C.,

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Cary J. Hansel, Esq.
          HANSEL LAW, PC
          2514 N. Charles Street
          Baltimore, MD 21218
          Telephone: (301) 461 1040
          Facsimile: (443) 451 8606
          E-mail: cary@hansellaw.com

               - and -

          Annie B. Hirsch, Esq.
          HIRSCH & COSCA, PC
          2514 N. Charles Street
          Baltimore, MD 21218
          Telephone: (410) 864 8491
          Facsimile: (410) 982 6597
          E-mail: abh@hirschandcosca.com


GRACIE-MUSE: Faces "Tokmakidis" Suit Under FLSA, NY Labor Laws
--------------------------------------------------------------
Maria E. Tokmakidis, on behalf of herself and others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. Gracie-Muse Restaurant Corp. d/b/a Gracie
Mews Restaurant, Michael Kreatsoulas and, Steven Kreatsoulas, Case
1:16-cv-07159 (S.D.N.Y., September 13, 2016), was filed under the
Fair Labor Standards Act and the New York Labor Law and the New
York State Wage Theft Prevention Act.

Gracie Mews Restaurant serves traditional favorites like omelets,
pancakes, sandwiches & salads, and is located at 1550 1st Avenue,
New York, NY.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Justin Cilenti, Esq.
     Peter H. Cooper, Esq.
     CILENTI & COOPER, PLLC
     708 Third Avenue 6th Floor
     New York, NY 10017
     Phone: (212) 209-3933
     Fax: (212) 209-7102
     E-mail: info@jcpclaw.com


GRAIN MILLERS: Faces "Nielsen" Suit in District in Minnesota
------------------------------------------------------------
A lawsuit has been filed against Grain Millers, Inc. The case is
entitled Joshua Nielsen, individually, and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. Grain Millers, Inc., the
Defendant, Case No. 0:16-cv-03103 (D. Minn., Sept. 16, 2016).

Grain Millers manufactures and sells conventional and organic
whole grain ingredients that are used in cereals, breads, bars,
and other food products.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Douglas J Nill, Esq.
          DOUGLAS J NILL, LLC
          50 6th St., Suite 1100
          Mpls, MN 55402-1801
          Telephone: (612) 573 3669
          Facsimile: (612) 330 0959
          E-mail: dnill@farmlaw.com

The Defendant is represented by:

          Christina Hanson, Esq.
          James K Langdon, Esq.
          Peter Mayer, Esq.
          DORSEY & WHITNEY LLP
          50 6th St Ste 1500
          Mpls, MN 55402-1498
          Telephone: (612) 492 6648
          Facsimile: (612) 395 5401
          E-mail: hanson.christina@dorsey.com
                  langdon.jim@dorsey.com
                  mayer.peter@dorsey.com


HARTFORD FIRE: Faces "Allen" Suit Alleging Violation of FLSA
------------------------------------------------------------
Cordell Allen, Alia Clark, Patricia Dearth, Chris Depierro,
Jessica Leighton, Jessica Perez, Jamie Rivera, Layfon Rosu, Mariss
Shimko and Carol Somers, On behalf of themselves and others
similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. HARTFORD FIRE INSURANCE
COMPANY, a Foreign for Profit Corporation, Defendant, Case 6:16-
cv-01603-GKS-KRS (M.D. Fla., September 13, 2016), was filed under
the Fair Labor Standards Act.

HARTFORD FIRE INSURANCE COMPANY -- https://www.thehartford.com/ --
offers auto and fire insurance solutions.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

     Mary E. Lytle, Esq.
     David V. Barszcz, Esq.
     Robert N. Sutton, Esq.
     LYTLE & BARSZCZ, P.A.
     543 N. Wymore Road, Ste. 103
     Maitland, FL 32751
     Phone: (407) 622-6544
     Fax: (407) 622-6545
     E-mail: mlyte@lblaw.attorney
             dbarszcz@lblaw.attorney
             rsutton@lblaw.attorney


HHGREGG INC: "Adiyeh" Suit Transferred to Indiana Dist. Ct.
-----------------------------------------------------------
The case captioned EMAD ADIYEH and ALLAN TURNQUIST, on behalf of
themselves and similarly situated employees, Plaintiffs, v.
hhgregg, INC. Defendant, Case Number 2:16-cv-00094, was
transferred from the United States District Court for the Western
District of Pennsylvania to the United States District Court for
the Southern District of Indiana (Indianapolis), and assigned
Case No. 1:16-cv-02340-TWP-MJD.

The case seeks recovery of overtime wages under the Fair Labor
Standards Act.

hhgregg, INC. is an appliance, consumer electronics and furniture
retailer.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

     R. Andrew Santillo, Esq.
     Mark J. Gottesfeld, Esq.
     WINEBRAKE & SANTILLO, LLC Peter Winebrake
     715 Twining Road, Suite 211
     Dresher, PA 19025
     Phone: (215) 884-2491
     Fax: (215) 884-2492

        - and -

     Gregg I. Shavitz, Esq.
     Susan H. Stern, Esq.
     SHAVITZ LAW GROUP, P.A.
     1515 South Federal Highway, Suite 404
     Boca Raton, FL 33432
     Phone: (561) 447-8888
     Fax: (561) 447-8831

        - and -

     Seth R. Lesser, Esq.
     Fran L. Rudich, Esq.
     KLAFTER OLSEN & LESSER LLP
     Two International Drive, Suite 350
     Rye Brook, NY 10573
     Phone: (914) 934-9200
     Fax: (914) 934-9220


HIGH TECH: "Fuenmayor" Class Suit Removed to S.D. Florida
---------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit styled Heli Fuenmayor and other similarly
situated individuals v. High Tech Engineering Incorporated d/b/a
High Tech Locating, Case No. 01-019178-CA-01, was removed from the
11th Judicial Circuit to the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of Florida (Miami). The District Court Clerk assigned
Case No. 1:16-cv-23897-RNS to the proceeding.

The Plaintiff alleges violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act.

High Tech Engineering Incorporated is in the business of providing
air conditioning, heating, cooling services.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Jason Saul Remer, Esq.
      REMER & GEORGES-PIERRE, PLLC
      Court House Tower
      44 West Flagler Street, Suite 2200
      Miami, FL 33130
      Telephone: (305) 416-5000
      Facsimile: (305) 416-5005
      E-mail: jremer@rgpattorneys.com

The Defendant is represented by:

      Michael Richard Tricarico, Esq.
      Kelly Marie Pena, Esq.
      OGLETREE DEAKINS NASH SMOAK & STEWART PC
      701 Brickell Avenue, Suite 1600
      Miami, FL 33131
      Telephone: (305) 374-0506
      Facsimile: 374-0456
      E-mail: michael.tricarico@ogletreedeakins.com
              kelly.pena@ogletreedeakins.com


HSBC BANK: U.S. Court Lacks Jurisdiction in "Giron" Case
--------------------------------------------------------
District Judge Otis D. Wright, II found no personal jurisdiction
over a defendant foreign bank in the case, RAMIRO GIRON, NICOLAS
J. HERRERA, ORLANDO ANTONIO MENDEZ, on behalf of themselves and a
class of all others similarly situated; Plaintiffs, v. HONGKONG
AND SHANGHAI BANKING CORPORATION LIMITED; HSBC BANK USA, N.A.; and
DOES 1 through 100, inclusive, Defendants, Case No. 2:15-CV-08869-
ODW (JCx), (C.D. Cal.).

The case involves a Pyramid/Ponzi scheme where the Plaintiffs
filed an Ex Parte Application seeking from the Court an Order
permitting the Plaintiffs to take limited jurisdictional
discovery.

The Court held that the Plaintiffs fail to demonstrate how the
jurisdictional discovery would produce documents aiding a
determination of factual issues pertinent to either the three-part
Picot test or the "strong nexus" requirement used in the case,
Trans-Continental Inv. Corp., S.A. v. Bank of Commonwealth, 500
F.Supp. 565, 569 (C.D. Cal. 1980).  The Court added that the
Plaintiffs failed to prove the existence of a strong nexus between
the transactions at issue and HBAPs' activities in California.

A copy of the Court's Order dated September 7, 2016 is available
at https://goo.gl/RX4tGN from Leagle.com.

Ramiro Giron, Plaintiff, represented by Christopher H. Hagen --
chris@wardhagen.com -- Ward and Hagen LLP.

Ramiro Giron, Plaintiff, represented by Julio J. Ramos --
ramosfortrustee@yahoo.com -- Law Offices of Julio Ramos, Peter
Conrad Ward, Ward and Hagen LLP & Steven M. Nunez --
snunez@wardhagen.com -- Ward and Hagen LLP.

Nicolas J. Herrera, et al., Plaintiffs, represented by Christopher
H. Hagen -- chris@wardhagen.com -- Ward and Hagen LLP, Julio J.
Ramos -- ramosfortrustee@yahoo.com -- Law Offices of Julio Ramos,
Peter Conrad Ward -- pcw@wardhagen.com -- Ward and Hagen LLP &
Steven M. Nunez -- snunez@wardhagen.com -- Ward and Hagen LLP.

HSBC Bank USA, N.A., et al., Defendants, represented by Stuart M.
Richter -- stuart.richter@kattenlaw.com -- Katten Muchin Rosenman
LLP & Gregory S. Korman -- greg.korman@kattenlaw.com -- Katten
Muchin Rosenman LLP.


ICON PARKING: Sued in N.Y. Sup. Ct. Over Parking Garage Surcharge
-----------------------------------------------------------------
RUSSELL SPITZER Individually and on Behalf of All Other Persons
Similarly Situated, the Plaintiff, v. ICON PARKING SYSTEMS, LLC
and MPC PARKING LLC, jointly and severally, the Defendants, Case
No. 654757/2016 (N.Y. Sup. Ct., Sep. 7, 2016), seeks judgment
requiring Icon to disgorge its ill-gotten gains and pay that as
restitution to Spitzer and the Class Members.

On August 2, 2016, Spitzer parked his motor vehicle on an hourly
basis at Icon's parking garage located at 1104 Second Avenue, New
York, New York, and he paid his hourly parking garage fees by a
credit card.

Icon imposes a surcharge at approximately all of its 200 parking
garages for customers who pay their parking garage hourly fees
with a credit or debit card. The surcharge fee is presently $2.00
per transaction. While Icon denominates the $2.00 fee as a
"processing fee," it is, in fact, a "surcharge" since the fee is
applicable to credit and debit card payments for its hourly
customers (with the minor exception of super early bird and early
bird rates).

Icon is one of the largest operators of parking garages in the
State of New York with 200 or more locations, predominantly in the
City of New York.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Douglas Lipsky, Esq.
          BRONSON LIPSKY LLP
          630 Third Avenue, Fifth Floor
          New York, NY 10017-6705
          Telephone (212) 392 4772
          E-mail: dl@bronsonlipsky.com

               - and -

          Jeffrey M. Gottlieb, Esq.
          Dana L. Gottlieb, Esq.
          GOTTLIEB & ASSOCIATES
          150 East 18th Street, Suite PHR
          New York, NY 10003
          Telephone: (212) 228 9795
          E-mail: danalgottlieb@aol.com
                  nyjg@aol.com


ISRAELI-AMERICAN COUNCIL: Tsabag Seeks OT Pay Under Labor Code
--------------------------------------------------------------
ELRAN TSABAG, the Plaintiff, v. ISRAELI-AMERICAN COUNCIL; and
DOES 1-20, inclusive, the Defendants, Case No. BC888042 (Cal.
Super. Ct., Sep. 7, 2016), seeks to recover minimum wage for all
hours worked and all statutory damages and penalties under the
Labor Code.

The Defendants allegedly failed to compensate Plaintiff with
overtime for his hours worked including over eight hours per day
and over 40 hours per week and double-time for his hours worked
over 12 in a day and/or seven consecutive days.

The Israeli-American Council is an American nonprofit umbrella
organization whose mission is "to build an engaged and united
Israeli-American community that strengthens our next generations,
the American Jewish community and the State of Israel."

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Lawrence W. Freiman, Esq.
          Michael J. Freiman, Esq.
          FREIMAN LAW
          100 Wilshire Blvd., Ste. 700,
          Santa Monica, CA 90491
          Telephone: (310) 917 1024
          Facsimile: (888) 835 8511
          E-mail: lawrence@freimanlaw.com
                  michael@freimanlaw.com


ISRAM REALTY: "Redding" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT Wages
-------------------------------------------------------------
Robert Redding, on his own behalf and others similarly situated v.
Isram Realty and Management, Inc., Case No. 8:16-cv-02630-VMC-TBM
(M.D. Fla., September 12, 2016), seeks to recover unpaid overtime
wages and other relief under the Fair Labor Standards Act.

Isram Realty and Management, Inc. operates a real agency at 506 S
Dixie Hwy, Hallandale Beach, FL 33009.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      W. John Gadd, Esq.
      THE LAW OFFICE OF W.JOHN GADD
      Bank of America Building
      2727 Ulmerton Rd., Ste. 250
      Clearwater, FL 33762
      Telephone: (727) 524-6300
      E-mail: wjg@mazgadd.com

         - and -

      Kyle J. Lee, Esq.
      LEE LAW, PLLC
      PO Box 4476
      Brandon, FL 33509-4476
      Telephone: (813) 343-2813
      E-mail: Kyle@KyleLeeLaw.com


J&R CHINA PALACE: "Jie" Suit to Recover OT, Spread of Hours Pay
---------------------------------------------------------------
Jie Li, individually and on behalf of all other employees
similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. J & R China Palace Inc., China
Palace Inc., Maple Brother Inc., Zhou Zhao He, Hao Jiang,
Defendants, Case No. 1:16-cv-04941 (E.D. N.Y., September 2, 2016),
seeks to recover unpaid wages and minimum wages, unpaid overtime,
unpaid spread of hours premium, reimbursement for expenses
relating to tools of the trade, liquidated damages, prejudgment
and post-judgment interest and attorneys' fees and costs pursuant
to the Fair Labor Standards and New York Labor Law.

J & R China Palace Inc., Maple Brother, Inc. and China Palace Inc.
jointly operate China Palace Chinese Restaurant located at 185
Forest Ave, Glen Cove, NY 11542 where Jie worked as a delivery
personnel. Zhou and Hao own stock of China Palace Inc.

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Jian Hang, Esq.
      136-18 39th Ave., Suite 1003
      Flushing, NY 11354
      Tel: 718.353.8588
      Email: jhang@hanglaw.com


JEM PIZZA: Faces "Creech" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Trina Creech, individually and on behalf of similarly situated
persons v. JEM Pizza Group LLC, JEM Restaurant Group of Florida
Inc., and Does 1-25, Case No. 16-cv-03087-PMD (D.S.C., September
12, 2016), is brought against the Defendants for failure to pay
overtime wages in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act.

The Defendants own and operate a restaurant located in Charleston,
South Carolina.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Amy Lohr Gaffney, Esq.
      GAFFNEY LEWIS AND EDWARDS
      3700 Forest Drive, Suite 400
      Columbia, SC 29204
      Telephone: (803) 790-8838
      Facsimile: (803) 790-8841
      E-mail: agaffney@glelawfirm.com


JOHN C. HEATH: Faces "Magee" Class Suit in D. Utah
--------------------------------------------------
A lawsuit has been filed against John C. Heath Attorney at Law.
The case is captioned Scott Magee, on behalf of himself and other
persons similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. John C. Heath
Attorney at Law doing business as Lexington Law Professional
Limited Liability Company, the Defendant, Case No. 2:16-cv-00963-
EJF (D. Utah, Sept. 15, 2016). The assigned Magistrate Judge is
Hon. Evelyn J. Furse.

John C. Heath, Attorney at Law, doing business as Lexington Law,
provides legal advisory services.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Jonathan L. Jaussi, Esq.
          FREEDOM LEGAL
          PO BOX 460
          Payson, UT 84651
          Telephone: (801) 373 3366
          E-mail: info@freedomlegal.com


JOY GLOBAL: Faces "Duncan" Lawsuit Over Sale to Komatsu Ltd.
------------------------------------------------------------
STEVEN DUNCAN, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly
Situated, 4000 Meridian Street, #12GF Indianapolis, IN 46208,
Plaintiff, vs. JOY GLOBAL INC., 100 East Wisconsin Avenue, Suite
2780 Milwaukee, WI 53202 KOMATSU LTD., 2-3-6 Akasaka Minato-ku,
Tokyo KOMATSU AMERICA CORP., 1701 West Golf Road Rolling Meadows,
IL 60008, PINE SOLUTIONS INC., c/o Registered Agent The
Corporation Trust Company Corporation Trust Center 1209 Orange
Street Wilmington, DE 19801, EDWARD L. DOHENY II, 2300 West Cedar
Lane Milwaukee, WI 53217, JOHN NILS HANSON, 3008 Pescadero Cove
Austin, TX 78746, STEVEN L. GERARD, 3 Mallory Lane Redding, CT
06896, MARK J. GLIEBE, 13055 Promontory Trial Roscoe, IL 61073,
JOY GLOBAL INC., 100 East Wisconsin Avenue, Suite 2780 Milwaukee,
WI 53202 KOMATSU LTD., 2-3-6 Akasaka Minato-ku, Tokyo KOMATSU
AMERICA CORP., 1701 West Golf Road Rolling Meadows, IL 60008,
PINE SOLUTIONS INC., c/o Registered Agent The Corporation Trust
Company Corporation Trust Center 1209 Orange Street Wilmington, DE
19801, EDWARD L. DOHENY II, 2300 West Cedar Lane Milwaukee, WI
53217, JOHN NILS HANSON, 3008 Pescadero Cove Austin, TX 78746,
STEVEN L. GERARD, 3 Mallory Lane Redding, CT 06896, MARK J.
GLIEBE, 13055 Promontory Trial Roscoe, IL 61073, JOHN T. GREMP,
8830 Stable Crest Blvd. Houston, TX 77024, GALE E. KLAPPA, 1522 N.
Prospect Ave., Unit 1102 Milwaukee, WI 53202, RICHARD B. LOYND, 19
Randall Drive Short Hills, NJ 07078, P. ERIC SIEGERT,
140 West 79th Street, Apt. 4E New York, NY 10024, JAMES H. TATE,
17605 Lasiandra Drive Chesterfield, MO 63005, Defendants, Civil
Case No. 16-CV-01229 (E.D. Wis., September 13, 2016), alleges
breaches of fiduciary duty, aiding and abetting breaches of
fiduciary duty and/or other violations of federal law arising out
of defendants' efforts to complete the sale of Joy Global Inc. to
Komatsu Ltd.

Joy Global Inc. is a provider of advanced equipment, systems and
direct services for the global mining industry.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     K. Scott Wagner, Esq.
     WAGNER LAW GROUP, S.C.
     839 North Jefferson Street, Suite 400
     Milwaukee, WI 53202
     Phone: 414/278-7000
     Fax: 414/278-7590
     E-mail: ksw@wagner-lawgroup.com

        - and -

     David T. Wissbroecker, Esq.
     Edward M. Gergosian, Esq.
     ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN & DOWD LLP
     655 West Broadway, Suite 1900
     San Diego, CA 92101
     Phone: 619/231-1058
     Fax: 619/231-7423

        - and -

     FRANK J. JOHNSON, Esq.
     JOHNSON & WEAVER, LLP
     600 West Broadway, Suite 1540
     San Diego, CA 92101
     Phone: 619/230-0063
     Fax: 619/255-1856

        - and -

     W. Scott Holleman, Esq.
     JOHNSON & WEAVER, LLP
     99 Madison Avenue
     5th Floor New York, NY 10016
     Phone: 212/802-1486
     Fax: 212/602-1592


KC JEWELRY: Faces "Greenbaum" Suit in Cent. District California
---------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been commenced against KC Jewelry,
Inc., Rouben Youssian, Ramin Yosian, Modern Jewelry, Inc., Does 1-
50, and Roes 1-500.

The case is captioned Sidney Greenbaum, individually and Others
Similarly Situated v. KC Jewelry, Inc., Rouben Youssian, Ramin
Yosian, Modern Jewelry, Inc., Does 1-50, and Roes 1-500, Case No.
2:16-cv-06845-SVW-JPR (C.D. Cal., September 12, 2016).

The Defendants operates a jewelry store located in Paradise
Jewelry Plaza, 550 Hill St #825, Los Angeles, CA 90013,

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Keith L. Altman, Esq.
      THE LAW OFFICE OF KEITH ALTMAN
      32250 Calle Avella
      Temecula, CA 92592
      Telephone: (516) 456-5885
      Facsimile: (248) 436-6858
      E-mail: kaltman@lawampmmt.com


KOCH FOODS: Faces "Drucker" Suit Alleging Antitrust Act Violation
-----------------------------------------------------------------
ABRAHAM DRUCKER, ILANA HARWAYNE-GIDANSKY, SABRINA MAJERNIK and
CHRISTOPHER NELSON, Individually and on Behalf of All Others
Similarly Situated, Plaintiffs, v. Koch Foods, Inc.; JCG Foods Of
Alabama, LLC; JCG Foods Of Georgia, LLC; Koch Meats Co. Inc.;
Tyson Foods, Inc.; Tyson Chicken, Inc.; Tyson Breeders, Inc.;
Tyson Poultry, Inc.; Pilgrim's Pride Corporation; Perdue Farms,
Inc.; Sanderson Farms, Inc.; Sanderson Farms, Inc. (Foods
Division); Sanderson Farms, Inc. (Production Division); Sanderson
Farms, Inc. (Processing Division); Wayne Farms, LLC; Mountaire
Farms, Inc.; Mountaire Farms, LLC; Mountaire Farms Of Delaware,
Inc.; Peco Foods, Inc.; Foster Farms, LLC; House of Raeford Farms,
Inc.; Simmons Foods, Inc.; Fieldale Farms Corporation; George's,
Inc.; George's Farms, Inc.; O.K. Foods, Inc,; O.K. Farms, Inc.;
and O.K. Industries, Inc., Case No: 1:16-cv-08874 (N.D. Ill.,
September 13, 2016), was filed on behalf of Plaintiffs and
purported Classes of persons and entities who indirectly purchased
for end-use fresh or frozen raw whole broiler chickens or
commodified chicken parts.  The case was filed pursuant to the
Sherman Act, and the Clayton Act.

Koch Foods, Inc. -- http://www.kochfoods.com/-- is an American
poultry processor.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

     Theodore B. Bell, Esq.
     Carl V. Malmstrom, Esq.
     WOLF HALDENSTEIN ADLER FREEMAN & HERZ LLC
     One South Dearborn Street, Suite 2122
     Chicago, IL 60603
     Phone: (312) 984-0000
     Fax: (312) 212-4401
     E-mail: tbell@whafh.com
             malmstrom@whafh.com

        - and -

     Fred T. Isquith, Sr., Esq.
     Thomas H. Burt, Esq.
     WOLF HALDENSTEIN ADLER FREEMAN & HERZ LLP
     270 Madison Ave.
     New York, NY 10016
     Phone: (212) 545-4600
     Fax: (212) 545-4653
     E-mail: isquith@whafh.com
             burt@whafh.com

LABORATORY CORP: Court Narrows Claims in "Alvarez-Garcia" Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the case captioned JESSICA ALVAREZ-GARCIA, Plaintiff, v.
LABORATORY CORPORATION OF AMERICA HOLDINGS, Defendant, Case No.
16-cv-02395-SI (N.D. Cal.), Judge Susan Illston granted, without
leave to amend, the defendant's motion to dismiss the first cause
of action and portions of the fourth, fifth, sixth, seventh, and
eighth causes of action.

Jessica Alvarez-Garcia filed the lawsuit in Alameda County
Superior Court on April 5, 2016 seeking damages and injunctive
relief against Laboratory Corporation of America Holdings
(LabCorp) in connection with the termination of her employment
with LabCorp.  The First Amended Complaint (FAC) alleged the
following causes of action: (1) wrongful discharge in violation of
public policy; (2) wrongful discharge in violation of public
policy - wage and hour complaints; (3) failure to pay overtime
compensation in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act; (4)
failure to pay meal period compensation in violation of California
law; (5) failure to provide accurate itemized wage statements; (6)
failure to provide meal periods; (7) failure to compensate for all
hours worked; (8) late pay and waiting time penalties in
connection with defendant's failure to pay overtime wages and meal
period premiums; (9) failure to accommodate; (10) intentional
infliction of emotional distress; (11) negligence; (12) unfair
business practices; and (13) civil penalties pursuant to the
California Private Attorneys General Act.  LabCorp removed the
case to the United States District Court for the Northern District
of California on May 2, 2016.

LabCorp moved to dismiss Garcia's first, fourth, fifth, sixth,
seventh, and eighth causes of action.

LabCorp sought to dismiss Garcia's first cause of action for lack
of subject matter jurisdiction, on the ground that Garcia's
allegation that she was terminated for her participation in union
activity is preempted by the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA).
LabCorp argued that Garcia's claim is within the exclusive
jurisdiction of the NLRB and thus cannot be litigated in the
district court.  LabCorp further argued that even if there were no
jurisdictional bar, Garcia could not state a valid claim because
she has failed to exhaust the mandatory pre-filing administrative
remedies required by the NLRA.

Garcia argued that her single act of speaking out at a LabCorp
meeting does not qualify as "concerted activity" within the scope
of the NLRA.  Garcia further argued that preemption only applies
to union members, and thus that her claim is not preempted because
neither she nor any of her colleagues were part of a collective
bargaining unit.

The FAC alleged that "[i]n response to GARCIA's exercise of her
right to free speech," LabCorp retaliated against her by inter
alia, putting her on a "blacklist," harassing her, and ultimately
terminating her.  Judge Illston held that these allegations bring
Garcia's first cause of action within the scope of NLRA
preemption.  Garcia also suggested that her first cause of action
is not preempted because she is not a union member.  However,
Judge Illston held that the discharge of a non-union employee
because of a belief that she was sympathetic to, or active in, a
union violates the NLRA.  Garcia also alleged that during an
August 2015 meeting, LabCorp attempted to dissuade its
phlebotomists from unionizing, and that most, if not all, LabCorp
employees whose names appeared on the employee blacklist were
terminated by LabCorp solely because they were suspected of
supporting unionization.  Judge Illston held that LabCorp's
alleged attempt to dissuade unionization also falls within the
ambit of Section 8 of the NRLA.

LabCorp also sought to dismiss portions of Garcia's fourth, fifth,
sixth, seventh, and eighth causes of action.  LabCorp argued that
any alleged wage and hour violations predating December 15, 2014
have already been fully adjudicated based on the class settlement
in Andres v. Laboratory Corp. of America, Case No. 13-cv-8774-GW.
LabCorp stated that because Garcia is a class member in Andres and
she did not opt-out of that settlement, Garcia cannot pursue in
this case the portions of her state wage and hour claims that are
covered and released by the Andres settlement.

Garcia did not dispute that she is a member of the Andres class,
nor did she dispute that she sought to litigate claims that were
resolved in Andres.  However, Garcia argued that her claims should
not be barred because the Andres settlement was unfair.

Judge Illston concluded that Garcia's fourth, fifth, sixth,
seventh, and eighth causes of action are barred by the Andres
settlement to the extent those claims allege violations prior to
December 15, 2014.  The judge pointed out that Garcia did not cite
any authority for the proposition that the court can review
Garcia's claim that her due process rights were violated by the
Andres settlement, given that she was a member of the Andres
class, she received notice, she did not opt out and she neither
objected nor filed a claim.

A full-text copy of Judge Illston's September 13, 2016 order is
available at https://is.gd/K35eJU from Leagle.com.

Jessica Alvarez-Garcia, Plaintiff, represented by Eric M.
Lightman.

Laboratory Corporation of America Holdings, Defendant, represented
by Saman M. Rejali -- saman.rejali@klgates.com -- K and L Gates &
Christopher John Kondon -- christopher.kondon@klgates.com --
K and L Gates LLP.


LEONIDAS LLC: "US Airline Pilots" Settlement Deal Has Final Okay
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case captioned US AIRLINE PILOTS ASSOCIATION, Plaintiff, v.
ROGER VELEZ, on behalf of himself and all similarly situated
former America West Pilots, and LEONIDAS, LLC, Defendants, No.
3:14-cv-00577-RJC-DCK (W.D.N.C.), Judge Robert J. Conrad, Jr.
granted the joint motion for final approval of class action
settlement agreement and release.

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

The case involves claims for declaratory and injunctive relief and
alleges violations of Title V of the Labor Management Reporting
and Disclosure Act (LMRDA), 29 U.S.C. section 501(b), with respect
to the validity of the actions taken by the U.S. Airline Pilots
Association (USAPA) National Officers to defer dissolution and
distribution of assets and related decisions.

On August 8, 2016, the parties submitted a joint motion for final
approval of class action settlement agreement and release.

The agreement provided for a settlement amount of $5.5 million.

Under Paragraph 6 of the Settlement Agreement and Release, USAPA
Officers, past and present, and Board of Pilot Representatives
members, past and present, agreed to waive, relinquish and forego
any and all claims and/or potential claims against USAPA for
indemnification under the USAPA Constitution & Bylaws, except for
the defendants in LMRDA action I and LMRDA action II until USAPA
has fully reimbursed the attorneys' fees and expenses incurred by
defendants in LMRDA action I and LMRDA action II.  As to all other
USAPA officers, past and present, and Board of Pilot
Representatives members, past and present, the release is
effective immediately.

Under Paragraphs 14 through 19 of the Settlement Agreement and
Release, the released parties, individually and as settlement
classes, absolutely and unconditionally released and forever
discharged the parties from any and all released claims that the
released parties, individually and as settlement classes,
directly, indirectly, derivatively, or in any other capacity ever
had, now have or hereafter may have.

Under Paragraph 8 of the Settlement Agreement and Release,
effective on the date of Judge Conrad's order and until three
years from then, USAPA and any officer, agent, or employee of
USAPA are enjoined from authorizing, permitting, or causing USAPA
to spend any USAPA funds on any type of expenditure relating to,
whether directly or indirectly, any merger or seniority-related
matter, including but not limited to any litigation directly or
indirectly related to any merger or seniority-related matter,
except as to those matters provided in Paragraph 7 of the
Settlement Agreement and Release.

A total of 10 timely objections were filed from three different
objecting parties consisting of 14 individuals, all of which were
overruled.

Andrew Riolo, Esq. filed four written objections.  At the fairness
hearing, Riolo presented and focused on his objection that the
class notice was inadequate, based on the fact that he believes
himself to be a class member, but he did not receive notice
through U.S. mail.  Judge Conrad, however, found that the parties'
process of mailing, e-mailing, and posting notice on two different
websites was reasonable and reflects best efforts to provide
notice to class members.  Furthermore, the judge found it clear
that Riolo did receive notice and was able to object in a timely
fashion.

Riolo also presented other objections.  He objected to the use of
USAPA treasury funds to settle the various claims against USAPA,
which Riolo argued should be paid by the USAPA officers, former
officers and members of the Board of Pilot Representative (BPR).
Additionally, Riolo objected on the grounds that non-members
represented by USAPA who paid agency fees instead of membership
dues should receive a refund of their fees that were used by USAPA
to litigate the cases.  Judge Conrad found that a union's
litigation related to its bargaining function is chargeable to
objecting non-members and that the expenses related to the
Addington Cases has already been determined by an arbitrator to be
chargeable to non-member fee payers.

Stephen Bourtin, Esq. on behalf of 11 pilot-plaintiffs in a
current civil action against USAPA and the USAPA Merger Committee,
among other defendants, objected to the settlement agreement
because it would leave USAPA and the USAPA Merger Committee
without any assets and render them unable to satisfy a potential
judgment against the civil action.  Judge Conrad held that the
district court is not the proper forum for Bourtin's objection,
and that there are legal venues and processes that Bourtin, on
behalf of his clients, can pursue in order to help secure payment
on a possible judgment against USAPA or its merger committee.

Frederick Brown and Jose Gonzalez each filed a set of five
identical objections.

First, they argued that the representatives and class counsel for
the East Pilot Settlement Class are inadequate representatives of
the class because: (1) class counsel represents individual
defendant officers in the case; therefore, it has a conflict of
interest; and (2) John Owens and Bob Burdick are either officers
or representatives of USAPA, and therefore, have a conflict.  Upon
further explanation by counsel for USAPA and the East Pilots
Settlement Class regarding mediation and settlement negotiations,
Judge Conrad was convinced that Owens' and Burdick's interests in
their roles with USAPA and the BPR, respectively, and with the
East Pilots Settlement Class were aligned and no conflict
sufficient for disqualification as class representatives existed.

Second, Brown and Gonzalez argued that the class notice was
inadequate because it did not disclose necessary information.
Judge Conrad, however, found that the notice appears to be
sufficient.

Third, Brown and Gonzalez challenged the fairness of the
settlement agreement, claiming it is unfair to East Pilots.
However, Judge Conrad was persuaded by results of the mediation
and the representation from counsel for each of the parties that
the proposed settlement agreement is the best deal to resolve the
claims against USAPA and its representatives.

Brown's and Gonzalez's fourth and fifth objections relate to
substantive arguments under the LMRDA.  They argued that the
settlement violates the LMRDA because it settles improper claims
brought under the LMRDA.  They also contended that the LMRDA
plaintiffs are improper plaintiffs who cannot maintain the LMRDA
claims alleged.   Judge Conrad, however, found nothing in the
settlement agreement that is contrary to or prohibited by the
LMRDA.

US Airline Pilots Association, Plaintiff, represented by John West
Gresham -- jgresham@tinfulton.com -- Tin, Fulton, Walker & Owens,
Brian O'Dwyer, O'Dwyer & Bernstein LLP, pro hac vice, Gary
Silverman, O'Dwyer & Bernstien, LLP, pro hac vice, Joy Kim Mele,
O'Dwyer & Bernstien, LLP, pro hac vice & Zachary Richard Harkin,
O'Dwyer & Bernstien LLP, pro hac vice.

Eddie Bollmeier, Bill Tracey, Simon Parrott, Consol Plaintiffs,
represented by C. Grainger Pierce, Jr. -- gpierce@nexsenpruet.com
-- Nexsen Pruet, PLLC, Jeffrey R. Freund, Bredhoff & Kaiser
P.L.L.C., pro hac vice, Kelly Joyce Flood, ASU Alumni Law Group,
pro hac vice, Marty Harper, ASU Alumni LawGroup, pro hac vice,
Robert Adams Blake, Jr., Wyatt & Blake, LLP & Zachary Ista,
Bredhoff & Kaiser P.L.L.C., pro hac vice.

Roger Velez, Leonidas, LLC, Defendants, represented by Kelly Joyce
Flood, ASU Alumni Law Group, pro hac vice, Marty Harper, ASU
Alumni LawGroup, pro hac vice & C. Grainger Pierce, Jr., Nexsen
Pruet, PLLC.

Gary Hummel, Rob Streble, Steve Smyser, Joe Stein, Pete Dugstad,
Jay Milkey, Stephen Bradford, Stephen Nathan, Consol Defendant,
represented by Brian O'Dwyer, O'Dwyer & Bernstein LLP, Gary
Silverman, O'Dwyer & Bernstien, LLP, pro hac vice, John West
Gresham, Tin, Fulton, Walker & Owens, Joy Kim Mele, O'Dwyer &
Bernstien, LLP, pro hac vice, Lee Seham -- lseham@ssmplaw.com --
Seham, Seham, Meltz & Petersen, LLP, pro hac vice, Robert Adams
Blake, Jr., Wyatt & Blake, LLP, Stanley J. Silverstone, Seham,
Seham, Meltz & Petersen, LLP & Zachary Richard Harkin, O'Dwyer &
Bernstien LLP.

John Taylor, Consol Defendant, represented by Brian O'Dwyer,
O'Dwyer & Bernstein LLP, Gary Silverman, O'Dwyer & Bernstien, LLP,
pro hac vice, John West Gresham, Tin, Fulton, Walker & Owens, Joy
Kim Mele, O'Dwyer & Bernstien, LLP, pro hac vice, Robert Adams
Blake, Jr., Wyatt & Blake, LLP,Stanley J. Silverstone, Seham,
Seham, Meltz & Petersen, LLP & Zachary Richard Harkin, O'Dwyer &
Bernstien LLP.

Robert Frear, Ronald Nelson, Paul Diorio, Paul Music, Consol
Defendants, represented by Narendra Kumar Ghosh, Patterson Harkavy
LLP.

Courtney Borman, Consol Defendant, represented by John West
Gresham, Tin, Fulton, Walker & Owens, Lee Seham, Seham, Seham,
Meltz & Petersen, LLP, pro hac vice, Robert Adams Blake, Jr.,
Wyatt & Blake, LLP & Stanley J. Silverstone, Seham, Seham, Meltz &
Petersen, LLP.

Jane Doe Borman, Consol Defendant, represented by Lee Seham,
Seham, Seham, Meltz & Petersen, LLP, pro hac vice & Stanley J.
Silverstone, Seham, Seham, Meltz & Petersen, LLP.


LIBERTY STAFFING: Illegally Obtains Background Reports, Suit Says
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Clifford Young, on his own behalf and all similarly situated
individuals v. Liberty Staffing, LLC, Case No. 8:16-cv-02636-JSM-
MAP (M.D. Fla., September 13, 2016), is filed against the
Defendants for failure to provide required disclosures prior to
procuring background reports on applicants and employees.

Liberty Staffing, LLC operates a staffing company located at 550
Balmoral Cir N, Jacksonville, FL 32218.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Andrew Ross Frisch, Esq.
      MORGAN & MORGAN, PA
      Suite 400, 600 N Pine Island Rd
      Plantation, FL 33324
      Telephone: (954) 318-0268
      Facsimile: (954) 333-3515
      E-mail: afrisch@forthepeople.com

         - and -

      C. Ryan Morgan, Esq.
      MORGAN & MORGAN, PA
      20 N Orange Ave Ste 1600
      Orlando, FL 32801
      Telephone: (407) 420-1414
      Facsimile: (407) 245-3401
      E-mail: rmorgan@forthepeople.com

         - and -

      Marc Reed Edelman, Esq.
      MORGAN & MORGAN, PA
      201 N Franklin St Fl 7
      Tampa, FL 33602-5157
      Telephone: (813) 223-5505
      Facsimile: (813) 257-0572
      E-mail: MEdelman@forthepeople.com

LOWE'S HOME: McMillan's Claim v. Gro-Well Brands Dismissed
----------------------------------------------------------
Judge Dale A. Drozd granted Gro-Well Brands, Inc.'s motion to
dismiss the plaintiff's claim for injunctive relief in the case
captioned GLENN McMILLAN, Plaintiff, v. LOWE'S HOME CENTERS, LLC;
GRO-WELL BRANDS, INC. Defendants, No. 1:15-cv-00695-DAD-SMS (E.D.
Cal.).

On May 17, 2016, Glenn McMillan filed a first amended class action
complaint against Lowe's Home Centers, LLC and Gro-Well.  McMillan
-- who sought both monetary and injunctive relief -- alleged
multiple causes of action stemming from the defendants' production
and sale of bags of mulch that were allegedly under filled.

On June 14, 2016, Gro-Well filed a motion to dismiss pursuant to
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1) challenging McMillan's
ability to seek injunctive relief.  Gro-Well asserted two
arguments:

     1) that McMillan's declaration that he will purchase mulch
        in the future is too vague to constitute a concrete and
        particularized injury; and

     2) that McMillan's claim for prospective injunctive relief
        has been mooted by a stipulated final judgment entered in
        state court "permanently enjoin[ing] and restrain[ing]
        [defendant Gro-Well] from directly or indirectly
        packaging bags of mulch and/or groundcover ... in volumes
        less than that indicated on the packages."

Judge Drozd found Gro-Well's second argument persuasive, and
concluded that the court need not reach the first.

McMillan claimed the injunction contained in the stipulated final
judgment lasts for only three years.  However, Judge Drozd found
that McMillan's assertion regarding the limited effect of the
injunction imposed by the state court stipulated final judgment is
not accurate.  The judge found that the final stipulated judgment
clearly states Gro-Well is "permanently enjoined and restrained"
from engaging in the behavior McMillan wishes to enjoin.

McMillan also claimed the protection afforded by the final
stipulated judgment falls short because it concerns only products
sold by Gro-Well in California, whereas McMillan is seeking relief
on behalf of a nationwide class.  Judge Drozd held that this
argument also fails because McMillan is a resident of California,
and there is no indication in his complaint that he has purchased
or plans to purchase Premium Mulch outside of California.

A full-text copy of Judge Drozd's September 13, 2016 order is
available at https://is.gd/pW5Ivb from Leagle.com.

Glenn McMillan, Plaintiff, represented by Matthew C. De Re --
matt@attorneyzim.com -- Zimmerman Law Offices, P.C., pro hac vice.

Glenn McMillan, Plaintiff, represented by Thomas A. Zimmerman
tom@attorneyzim.com -- Zimmerman Law Offices, P.C., pro hac vice,
Todd M. Friedman, Law Offices of Todd M. Friedman, P.C. & Meghan
George, Law Offices Of Todd M. Friedman.

Lowe's Home Centers, LLC, Defendant, represented by Neil K. Gilman
-- ngilman@hunton.com -- Hunton & Williams LLP, pro hac vice &
Phillip J. Eskenazi -- peskenazi@hunton.com -- Hunton & Williams
LLP.

Gro-Well Brands, Inc., Defendant, represented by Eric Michael
Roberts -- eric.roberts@dlapiper.com -- DLA Piper LLP & Todd
Michael Noonan -- todd.noonan@dlapiper.com -- DLA Piper LLP.


LUMBER LIQUIDATORS: "Masters" Suit Transferred to N.D. Alabama
--------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit styled Doreen Masters, individually and
on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated v. Lumber
Liquidators Inc., Case No. 2:16-cv-06577, was transferred from the
District of California Central to the U.S. District Court
for the Northern District of Alabama (Southern). The District
Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:16-cv-01529-JHE to the proceeding.

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

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

         - and -

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

         - and -

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

LUMBER LIQUIDATORS: "Gonzalez" Suit Transferred to D. Connecticut
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit styled Jason Gonzalez, Katie Gonzalez,
individually and on behalf of themselves and all others similarly
situated v. Lumber Liquidators, Inc., Case No. 2:16-cv-06567,
2:16-cv-06567, was transferred from the District of California
Central to the U.S. District Court for the District of Connecticut
(New Haven). The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 3:16-cv-
01552-AVC to the proceeding.

The case asserts product-liability claims.

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


LYFT INC: Faces "Applebaum" Suit in Southern Dist. New York
-----------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been commenced against Lyft, Inc.

The case is captioned Josh Applebaum, on behalf of himself and all
other persons similarly situated v. Lyft, Inc., Case No. 1:16-cv-
07062 (S.D.N.Y., September 8, 2016).

Lyft, Inc. is transportation network company based in San
Francisco, CA.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

Josh Applebaum is a pro se plaintiff.


LYKES CARTAGE: "Berrios" Class Suit Removed to S.D. Florida
-----------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit captioned John Berrios and other
similarly situated individuals v. Lykes Cartage Company, Case No.
16-020587-CA-01 was removed from the 11th Judicial Circuit Court
to the U.S. District Court Southern District of Florida (Miami).
The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:16-cv-23885-FAM to
the proceeding.

The case asserts labor-related claims.

Lykes Cartage Company is a shipping and delivery transportation
company in Austin, Texas.

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

The Defendant is represented by:

      Elizabeth Mercedes Rodriguez, Esq.
      FORD & HARRISON LLP
      Suite 2150, 100 S.E. 2nd Street
      Miami, FL 33131
      Telephone: (305) 808-2100
      Facsimile: (305) 808-2101
      E-mail: erodriguez@fordharrison.com


MACY'S INC: Court Consolidates 4 Cases, No Interim Counsel Yet
--------------------------------------------------------------
District Judge Haywood S. Gilliam, Jr. granted the Plaintiffs'
request for an order consolidating their filed cases against
Macy's Inc., saying the suits assert similar claims against the
Defendants.

The cases are styled, KRISTIN HALEY, et al., Plaintiffs, v.
MACY'S, INC., et al., Defendants. TODD BENSON, et al., Plaintiffs,
v. MACY'S, INC., et al., Defendants. ZOHREH FARHANG, et al.,
Plaintiffs, v. MACY'S, INC., et al., Defendants. JOB CARDER, et
al., Plaintiffs, v. MACY'S, INC., et al., Defendants, Case Nos.
15-cv-06033-HSG, 16-cv-01252-HSG, 16-cv-02850-HSG, 16-cv-03341-SBA
(N.D. Cal.).

All the actions arise out an issue of an alleged pricing scheme by
the Defendants to mislabel their merchandise with false or
inflated original, regular, or "compare at" prices.

The Court held that the Plaintiffs, Haley, Thompson, Benson, and
Farhang involve common questions of law or fact regarding the
Defendants' alleged pricing scheme. However, the Court cannot
determine whether consolidation of any future cases is
appropriate.

Moreover, the Court finds that the consolidated action does not
present the special circumstances that warrant appointment of
interim counsel on its stage. Thus, the Court denied the motion of
the Plaintiffs to appoint interim counsel.

A copy of the Court's Order dated September 7, 2016 is available
at https://goo.gl/wYOOBT from Leagle.com.

Kristin Haley, et al., Plaintiffs, represented by Robert S. Green,
Green & Noblin, P.C..

Todd Benson, Plaintiff, represented by Rosemary M. Rivas --
rrivas@finkelsteinthompson.com -- Finkelstein Thompson LLP.

Macy's, Inc., et al., Defendants, represented by Brian Michael
Parsons, Macy's Law Department, pro hac vice & Stephanie Anne
Sheridan -- stephanie.sheridan@sedgwicklaw.com -- Esq., Sedgwick
LLP.


MAGIC BURGERS: Illegally Procures Background Reports, Suit Says
---------------------------------------------------------------
Alexendria Coss, on behalf of herself of all similarly-situated
individuals v. Magic Burgers, LLC, Case No. 8:16-cv-02608-MSS-AEP
(M.D. Fla., September 12, 2016), asserts Defendant's failure to
provide required disclosures prior to procuring background reports
on applicants and employees.

Magic Burgers, LLC operates a restaurant chain throughout the
United States.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Brandon J. Hill, Esq.
      WENZEL FENTON CABASSA, PA
      1110 N Florida Ave Ste 300
      Tampa, FL 33602-3343
      Telephone: (813) 224-0431
      Facsimile: (813) 229-8712
      E-mail: bhill@wfclaw.com


MAIN BAKERY: "Zhu" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages
--------------------------------------------------------------
Lheng Zhu, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. Main Bakery Group LLC d/b/a Tour Les Jour, Yi Jun Hu,
Jin Hui Jiang, "John Doe" and "Jane Doe" #1-10, Case No.
710923/2016 (N.Y. Super Ct., September 12, 2016), seeks to recover
unpaid overtime wages and damages pursuant to the New York Labor
Law.

The Defendant is a bakery located at 42-35 Main Street, IF,
Flushing, NY 11355.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Marisol Santos, Esq.
      HANG & ASSOCIATES, PLLC
      136-18 39th Avenue, Suite 1003
      Flushing, NY 11354
      Telephone: (718) 353-8522
      Facsimile: (718) 352-6288
      E-mail: contact@hanglaw.com


MAIN STREET: Has Made Unsolicited Calls, "Melingonis" Suit Says
---------------------------------------------------------------
Christopher Melingonis, Individually and on behalf of All Other
Similarly Situated v. Main Street Marketing, Inc., Case No. 3:16-
cv-02292-MMA-JLB (S.D. Cal., September 12, 2016), seeks to stop
the Defendants' practice of using an artificial and prerecorded
voice to deliver a message without prior express consent of the
called party.

Main Street Marketing, Inc. operates a marketing and advertising
firm headquartered in Houston, Texas.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Joshua Swigart, Esq.
      HYDE & SWIGART
      2221 Camino Del Rio South, Suite 101
      San Diego, CA 92108
      Telephone: (619) 233-7770
      Facsimile: (619) 297-1022
      E-mail: josh@westcoastlitigation.com


MARICOPA, AZ: 9th Cir. Upheld Judgment in Suit v. Sheriff Arpaio
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case captioned MIRIAM MENDIOLA-MARTINEZ, Plaintiff-
Appellant, v. JOSEPH M. ARPAIO, Maricopa County Sheriff; UNKNOWN
PARTIES, named as: Jane Doe Officers 1-5, John Doe Officers 1-5,
Jane Doe Doctors 1-5, John Doe Doctors 1-5, Jane Doe Nurses 1-5,
and John Doe Nurses 1-5 (in their individual capacities); COUNTY
OF MARICOPA, as named in amended complaint; MARICOPA COUNTY
SPECIAL HEALTH CARE DISTRICT, named Maricopa County Special Health
District on amended complaint, Defendants-Appellees, No. 14-15189
(9th Cir.), the United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit
ruled on Miriam Mendiola-Martinez's appeal of the district court's
grant of summary judgment and cost awards for the Maricopa County
and Sheriff Joe Arpaio (collectively, "the County Defendants") and
the Maricopa County Special Health Care District ("the Medical
Center").

Mendiola-Martinez was in the custody of Maricopa County for a
nonviolent offense when she gave birth to her son.  After her
release, she filed suit alleging that her constitutional rights
were violated when, among other things, she was shackled and
restrained during labor and postpartum recovery.  Mendiola-
Martinez brought her claims against Maricopa County and Sheriff
Joe Arpaio (collectively "the County Defendants"), the Maricopa
County Special Health Care District ("the Medical Center") where
she had her baby, and individual John and Jane Doe defendants.
The district court granted summary judgment for the County
Defendants and the Medical Center on all of Mendiola-Martinez's
claims, and taxed costs against her, amounting to $1,971 for the
Medical Center and $936 for the County Defendants.  Mendiola-
Martinez appealed the summary judgment orders and the cost awards.

The Ninth Circuit found that the district court erred in ruling
that the County Defendants were entitled to qualified immunity on
the shackling claims and in granting summary judgment on that
basis.  The appellate court held that Maricopa County is not
eligible for qualified immunity because counties "do not enjoy
immunity from suit -- either absolute or qualified -- under
section 1983."  The appellate court also held that Sheriff Arpaio
is likewise not eligible for qualified immunity because when a
county official like Sheriff Arpaio is sued in his official
capacity, the claims against him are claims against the county.

The Ninth Circuit vacated the summary judgment for the County
Defendants on Mendiola-Martinez's shackling claims.  The
Transportation and Restraint of Prisoners and Inmates Policy
("Restraint Policy") of the Maricopa County Sheriff's Office
(MCSO) requires officers to restrain all inmates during transport
and while at the hospital.  The Ninth Circuit held that without
more than a broad assertion about the penological interest in
restraining all inmates -- even one who is in labor -- a
reasonable jury could find that the Restraint Policy exposed
Mendiola-Martinez to a substantial and unjustified risk of harm.

The Ninth Circuit, however, affirmed summary judgment in favor of
the Medical Center on Mendiola-Martinez's shackling claims.  The
appellate court agreed with the district court that Mendiola-
Martinez had not proffered sufficient evidence to support her
claims and survive summary judgment.

The Ninth Circuit also found that summary judgment on the aspect
of Mendiola-Martinez's postpartum leg tether claim was proper.
The appellate court explained that the use of a leg tether long
enough to permit Mendiola-Martinez to walk around indicates that
the County Defendants were aware of the risk of restraining woman
in postpartum recovery and sought to neutralize the risk, not
disregard it.  Therefore, the Ninth Circuit concluded that a
reasonable jury would not find that the use of the leg tether
constituted deliberate indifference to Mendiola-Martinez's health
and safety in violation of her constitutional rights.

The Ninth Circuit also affirmed summary judgment for the
defendants on Mendiola-Martinez' breast pump claims, in which she
contended that the County Defendants and the Medical Center were
deliberately indifferent to her serious medical needs by
prohibiting her from using, or failing to provide her with, a
breast pump.  The Ninth Circuit held that Mendiola-Martinez lacks
a plausible theory of liability supported by facts on the breast
pump claims as to both the County Defendants and the Medical
Center, because she did not attempt to link any policy or practice
of the County Defendants or of the Medical Center to the alleged
failure to provide her with a breast pump.

Mendiola-Martinez also argued that the County Defendants'
nutrition policy constituted deliberate indifference to her
serious medical needs.  However, the Ninth Circuit found that
Mendiola-Martinez lacks sufficient evidence to support her
nutrition claim and thus affirmed summary judgment on this matter.

Mendiola-Martinez also alleged that the MCSO Restraint Policy
disparately impacts pregnant women born outside of the United
States because they are more likely to be detained under the
Arizona Bailable Offenses Act than similarly-situated United
States citizens.  The Ninth Circuit, however, found that Mendiola-
Martinez's amended complaint and supplemental appellate briefing
clearly show that she is challenging the Restraint Policy, not the
Arizona Bailable Offenses Act.  The appellate court affirmed the
district court's entry of summary judgment on the equal protection
claim because Mendiola-Martinez failed to present sufficient
evidence that the Restraint Policy violated the Equal Protection
Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.

As to the cost award, the Ninth Circuit held that because it
vacated summary judgment for the County Defendants on most of the
shackling claims, it must also vacate the cost award for the
County Defendants and remand to the district court to reassess
costs in light of this decision.  The cost award in favor of the
Medical Center was affirmed.

A full-text copy of the Ninth Circuit's September 12, 2016 opinion
is available at https://is.gd/qV8UOs from Leagle.com.

Joy Bertrand (argued) -- joy@joybertrandlaw.com -- Joy Bertrand
Esq., L.L.C., Scottsdale, Arizona, for Plaintiff-Appellant.

Eileen Dennis GilBride (argued) -- egilbride@jshfirm.com -- and
William R. Jones, Jr. -- wjones@jshfirm.com -- Jones, Skelton &
Hochuli, P.L.C., Phoenix, Arizona, for Defendant-Appellee Maricopa
County Special Health Care District.

Michele M. Iafrate (argued), Iafrate & Associates, Phoenix,
Arizona, for Defendants-Appellees Joseph Arpaio, Maricopa County
Sheriff, and Maricopa County.


MARK 2 RESTAURANT: Rahim, et al. Seek Wages Under Labor Law
-----------------------------------------------------------
SHAHIDUL ISLAM RAHIM, NASIR AHMED, and BOSAB HOSSAIN, individually
and on behalf of others similarly situated,
Plaintiffs, v. MARK 2 RESTAURANT LLC; MARK OPCO LP; SIMON ELIAS;
IZAK SENBAHAR; and any other related entities, Defendants, Case
No. 157785/2016 (N.Y. Sup. Ct., Sept. 16, 2016), seeks
compensation, including gratuities that they were deprived of,
plus interest, attorneys' fees, and costs to Plaintiffs.

The Defendants have allegedly engaged in a policy and practice of
failing to pay the service charge to the Plaintiffs and similarly
situated employees, and instead retained the money for their own
benefit in violation of Labor Law Article.

Mark 2 Restaurant, located at 25 East 77th Street, New York, New
York, is engaged in the hospitality industry.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

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


MEDICAL AND FINANCIAL: Faces "Freund" Suit in S.D. of Florida
-------------------------------------------------------------
A lawsuit has been filed against Medical and Financial Management,
Inc. The case is styled Teri Freund, on behalf of herself and all
others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. Medical and Financial
Management, Inc. a Florida Corporation, the Defendant, Case No.
2:16-cv-14405-KAM (S.D. Fla., Sept. 16, 2016). The assigned Judge
is Hon. Kenneth A. Marra.

Medical and Financial Management provides health care services.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Sovathary K. Jacobson, Esq.
          Leo Wassner Desmond, Esq.
          DESMOND LAW FIRM, P.C.
          5070 A1A Suite D
          Vero Beach, FL 34963
          Telephone: (772) 231 9600
          Facsimile: (772) 231 0300
          E-mail: jacobson@verobeachlegal.com
                  lwd@verobeachlegal.com


MENZIES AVIATION: Settlement in "Ali" Case Has Initial OK
---------------------------------------------------------
In the case, OMAR ALI, an individual, and KHALID MOHAMED, an
individual, and MOHAMUD JAMA, an individual, Plaintiffs, v.
MENZIES AVIATION, INC., a foreign business entity, and JOHN
MENZIES PLC, a foreign limited liability company, Defendants, Case
No. 2:16-cv-00262RSL (W.D. Wash.), District Judge Robert S. Lasnik
granted, on a preliminary basis, the parties' proposed Settlement
Agreement. The final approval hearing of the case is scheduled on
January 5, 2017.

The certified settlement class, for settlement purposes only,
consists of all employees of the Defendants who are alleged to
have been either Hospitality Workers or Transportation Workers and
who worked one or more hours within the City of SeaTac at any time
during the time period from January 1, 2014, to February 14, 2016,
and who were paid less than the prevailing minimum wage prescribed
by City of SeaTac Ordinance 7.45.050, i.e., a base rate of $15.00
per hour in 2014 and $15.24 in 2015 and 2016.

The Court held that all proceedings in the case are stayed until
further order of the Court, except as may be necessary to
implement the terms of the settlement.

A copy of the Court's Order dated September 6, 2016 is available
at https://goo.gl/AS3RCd from Leagle.com.

Omar Ali, Plaintiff, represented by Daniel R. Whitmore.

Omar Ali, Plaintiff, represented by Duncan Calvert Turner, BADGLEY
MULLINS TURNER PLLC.

Khalid Mohamed, et al., Plaintiffs, represented by Daniel R.
Whitmore & Duncan Calvert Turner -- dturner@badgleymullins.com --
BADGLEY MULLINS TURNER PLLC.

Menzies Aviation, Inc., et al., Defendants, represented by
Christopher G. Ward -- cward@foley.com -- FOLEY & LARDNER LLP, pro
hac vice & Paul H. Beattie -- paul.beattie@rimonlaw.com.
?

MERRILL LYNCH: $3.2MM Settlement in "Davis" Suit Has Final OK
-------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, BENJAMIN E. DAVIS and ROBERTO F. GARCIA, on behalf of
themselves and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v.
MERRILL LYNCH & CO., INC. and MERRILL LYNCH, PIERCE, FENNER &
SMITH, INC., Defendants, No. 3:15-cv-175-RJC-DCK (W.D. N.C.),
District Judge Robert J. Conrad, Jr. granted the Plaintiffs'
Unopposed Motion for Final Approval of Class Action Settlement.

For purposes of the Settlement, the Settlement Class is defined as
those individuals who: (a) were employed by Merrill Lynch in the
United States on September 15, 2008; (b) participated in one or
more of the Plans and/or ATP1; (c) are either employed by Merrill
Lynch as of March 23, 2016 or were involuntarily terminated from
employment by Merrill Lynch between January 1, 2009 and March 22,
2016; and (d) either as of March 23, 2016 have or at the time of
their termination had unvested awards in one or more of the Plans
and/or would have been eligible to receive remaining Unpaid ATP
Bonus Amounts.

The Court approves an award of attorneys' fees in the amount of
$3,212,917.82, costs in the amount of $124,254.90 to Shumaker,
Loop & Kendrick, LLP, and Class Representative enhancement
payments in the amount of $20,000.00 to Plaintiff Davis, and
$20,000.00 to Plaintiff Garcia.

Without affecting the finality of the Judgment, the Court retains
continuing jurisdiction over: (a) implementation of the
Settlement; (b) the payment of the Net Settlement Sums; and (c)
all parties hereto for the purpose of construing, enforcing, and
administering the Stipulation.

A copy of the Court's Order dated September 6, 2016 is available
at https://goo.gl/tLkCVi from Leagle.com.

Benjamin E. Davis, Plaintiff, represented by David L. Wyant, Jr. -
- dwyant@slk-law.com -- Shumaker Loop & Kendrick, LLP, pro hac
vice.

Benjamin E. Davis, et al., Plaintiffs, represented by Michael D.
Bressan -- mbressan@slk-law.com -- Shumaker Loop & Kendrick, LLP,
pro hac vice, Michael S. Taaffe -- mtaaffe@slk-law.com --
Shumaker, Loop & Kendrick, LLP, pro hac vice, Jarrod J. Malone --
jmalone@slk-law.com -- Shumaker Loop & Kendrick, LLP, pro hac vice
& Steven Ari Meckler -- smeckler@slk-law.com -- Shumaker, Loop &
Kendrick.

Merrill Lynch & Co., Inc., et al., Defendants, represented by Mark
Andrew Nebrig -- marknebrig@mvalaw.com -- Moore & Van Allen, Mark
S. Dichter -- mark.dichter@morganlewis.com -- Morgan, Lewis &
Bockius LLP, pro hac vice, S. Elaine McChesney --
elaine.mcchesney@morganlewis.com -- Morgan, Lewis & Bockius, LLP,
pro hac vice & Sam Scott Shaulson -- sam.shaulson@morganlewis.com
-- Morgan, Lewis & Bockius, LLP, pro hac vice.


MIDLAND CREDIT: Faces "Tramondo" Suit in E.D.N.Y.
-------------------------------------------------
A lawsuit has been filed against Midland Credit Management, Inc.
The case is titled James Tramondo, on behalf of himself and all
others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. Midland Credit
Management, Inc., Midland Funding, LLC, and Encore Capital Group,
Inc., the Defendants, Case No. 2:16-cv-05174 (E.D.N.Y., Sept. 16,
2016).

Midland Credit provides debt collections and information
management services.

The Plaintiff appears pro se.


MONSTER WORLDWIDE: Faces "Dagut" Suit Over Sale to Randstad
-----------------------------------------------------------
FREDERIC DAGUT, Individually and On Behalf of All Others Similarly
Situated, Plaintiff, v. MONSTER WORLDWIDE, INC., EDMUND P.
GIAMBASTIANI, JR., TIMOTHY T. YATES, JOHN GAULDING, JAMES P.
MCVEIGH, GILLIAN MUNSON, JEFFREY F. RAYPORT, ROBERTO TUNIOLI,
RANDSTAD NORTH AMERICA, INC., and MERLIN GLOBAL ACQUISITION, INC.,
Defendants, Case 1:16-cv-11852 (D. Mass., September 12, 2016),
stems from a proposed transaction announced on August 9, 2016,
pursuant to which Monster Worldwide, Inc. will be acquired by
Randstad North America, Inc., and its wholly-owned subsidiary,
Merlin Global Acquisition, Inc.

MONSTER WORLDWIDE, INC. provides job seeking, career management,
recruitment, and talent management services.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Mitchell J. Matorin, Esq.
     MATORIN LAW OFFICE, LLC
     18 Grove Street, Suite 5
     Wellesley, MA 02482
     Phone: (781) 453-0100

        - and -

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

        - and -

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


MRS BPO: Faces "Freilich" Suit in Eastern Dist. of New York
-----------------------------------------------------------
A lawsuit has been filed against MRS BPO, L.L.C. The case is
titled Rachel Freilich, on behalf of herself and all other
similarly situated consumers, the Plaintiff v. MRS BPO, L.L.C.,
the Defendant, Case No. 1:16-cv-05142 (E.D.N.Y., Sept. 15, 2016).

MRS is an industry leader in financial services, healthcare,
cable, utilities, and telecommunication debt recovery.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Maxim Maximov, Esq.
          MAXIM MAXIMOV, LLP
          1701 Avenue P
          Brooklyn, NY 11229
          Telephone: (718) 395 3459
          Facsimile: (718) 408 9570
          E-mail: m@maximovlaw.com


MYLAN PHARMA: Faces Class Action Over EpiPen Price Increase
-----------------------------------------------------------
Austin Fast and Kristen Swilley, writing for WCPO, report that
Cincinnati attorney Carl Lewis says he will become one of the
first lawyers in the United States to file a class-action lawsuit
against the makers of the EpiPen over skyrocketing costs on
Sept. 6.

The price of the EpiPen, a device designed to combat life-
threatening allergic reactions, has climbed from about $100 in
2007 to $600 to $700 for a pack of two in 2016.  The
pharmaceutical company Mylan acquired the company in 2007 and is
responsible for the price increase.

This isn't the first class-action suit filed, but it's the first
going after the increased price tag.  An additional federal
lawsuit seeking class-action status was filed against Mylan on
Aug. 23 in Detroit.  That lawsuit alleges the company engages in
price gouging by forcing customers to buy the pens in packs of
two, according to the Detroit Free Press.

The EpiPen customers behind this local lawsuit -- being filed at
11:00 a.m. on Sept. 6 in Hamilton County -- want to recover what
they call "overpayments" to Mylan.

"There is no legitimate, lawful reason for these price increases,"
the lawsuit alleges.  It also says the Ohio Consumer Sales
Protection Act promises Ohioans the right to be free from "price
gouging," especially on medically necessary products.

The lawsuit calls the rising cost of the potentially life-saving
drug an "unlawful scheme involving the exorbitant and
unconscionable price increase of more than 548 percent since 2007
of its consumer drug product," and the familiar story of one
family's struggle to keep up with those costs is behind it.

A Cincinnati mother involved in the suit says she paid $50 in 2015
for her son's EpiPen, which expires in October.  Her pharmacist
told her that same dose now costs $600.  Her son uses the drug to
treat his peanut allergy and has relied on it since he was 5 years
old.

The plaintiffs are seeking an unspecified amount of money to be
determined at trial.  More information will be available after the
attorney and plaintiffs hold a news conference at 11:00 a.m. on
Sept. 6.


NATIONAL AUTO: Bid to Dismiss "Evans" Suit Denied
-------------------------------------------------
In the case captioned FREDERICK EVANS, on behalf of himself and
all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. NATIONAL AUTO
DIVISION, L.L.C., ARIEL FREUD, and DOES 1-25, Defendants, Civ. No.
15-8714 (D.N.J.), Judge Anne E. Thompson denied the defendants'
motion to dismiss, as well as the plaintiff's motion for partial
summary judgment.

The case involves alleged violations of the Telephone Consumer
Protection Act (TCPA).  Evans alleged that the defendants' calls
to the his cellular telephone violated the TCPA because the
defendants utilized an automatic telephone dialing system to make
these calls, but Evans did not expressly consent to this in
writing, as required by the TCPA.

Evans filed a class action lawsuit on December 17, 2015 on behalf
of all persons within the United States who received similar calls
from the defendants without having provided their prior, express
consent.  The defendants filed a motion to dismiss on February 11,
2016, which was denied by the court on March 8, 2016.  Then, on
July 21, 2016, Evans filed a motion for partial summary judgment
on the issue of whether the defendants received Evans' prior
express written consent.  On August 4, 2016, the defendants
opposed the motion and also filed a cross-motion to dismiss the
complaint pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1).

The defendants argued that Evans has not pled an injury in fact
because Evans' complaint asserted "bare procedural violations of
the TCPA."  Judge Thompson refused to dismiss the complaint on
this basis, finding that Evans pled the existence of concrete
injuries which provided an adequate injury in fact for standing
purposes.

The defendants also argued that the court lacks jurisdiction
because Evans' interests do not fall within the zone of interests
protected by the TCPA.  Although Evans falls directly within the
zone of interests protected by the TCPA as a consumer complaining
of receiving intrusive telemarketing calls, the defendants
nonetheless argued that Evans should not receive the protection of
the statute because he voluntarily provided his cell phone number
to the defendants with the express purpose of filing lawsuits
under the TCPA.

Judge Thompson found that the defendants' only evidence of Evans'
motivations for providing his cell phone number is that he has
allegedly been associated with a large number of phone numbers and
email addresses.  The judge held that speculation on the basis of
such limited, uncorroborated facts does not provide sufficient
evidence to refute Evans' showing that he falls within the TCPA's
zone of interests.

As to Evans' motion for partial summary judgment on the question
of whether the defendants acquired appropriate consent under the
TCPA, Judge Thompson held that because the issue of whether
defendants acquired appropriate consent is so interlocked with the
other elements of the case, the issue cannot be resolved alone.
Therefore, Judge Thompson found that partial summary judgment is
inappropriate as to this issue.

A full-text copy of Judge Thompson's September 13, 2016 opinion is
available at https://is.gd/SYch1t from Leagle.com.

FREDERICK EVANS, Plaintiff, represented by JEREMY M. GLAPION --
jmg@glapionlaw.com -- The Glapion Law Firm.

NATIONAL AUTO DIVISION, L.L.C., ARIEL FREUD, Defendants,
represented by CRAIG A. OLLENSCHLEGER -- co@olss.com -- ORLOFF,
LOWENBACH & JEFFREY M. GARROD -- jmg@olss.com -- ORLOFF,
LOWENBACH, STIFELMAN.


NATIONWIDE CREDIT: Faces "Ross" Suit in Eastern Dist. of New York
-----------------------------------------------------------------
A lawsuit has been filed against Nationwide Credit, Inc. The case
is captioned Sara Ross, on behalf of herself and all other
similarly situated consumers, the Plaintiff v. Nationwide Credit,
Inc., the Defendant, Case No. 1:16-cv-05145 (E.D.N.Y., Sep. 15,
2016).

Nationwide Credit is a debt collection agency.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Maxim Maximov, Esq.
          MAXIM MAXIMOV, LLP
          1701 Avenue P
          Brooklyn, NY 11229
          Telephone: (718) 395 3459
          Facsimile: (718) 408 9570
          E-mail: m@maximovlaw.com


NETWORK CAPITAL: Sued in Cal. Over Fair Housing Act Violation
-------------------------------------------------------------
Joshua Doan and Van Duong, on behalf of themselves and all others
similarly situated v. Network Capital Funding Corporation, Case
No. 8:16-cv-01678 (C.D. Cal., September 9, 2016), is brought
against the Defendants for violation of the Fair Housing Act.

Network Capital Funding Corporation is a mortgage lender
headquartered at 5 Park Plaza #800, Irvine, CA 92614.

Joshua Doan and Van Duong are pro se plaintiffs.


NITRO FLUIDS: "Ochoa" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Joshua Ochoa, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. Nitro Fluids, LLC, Bobby Lee Koricanek and Jackie R.
Simpson, Jr., Case No. 2:16-cv-00380 (S.D. Tex., September 9,
2016), seeks to recover unpaid overtime wages, liquidated damages,
attorneys' fees, and costs, pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards
Act.

The Defendants operate a Nordheim, Texas based company that
provides oilfield services to drilling and production sites
throughout the State of Texas.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Clif Alexander, Esq.
      Austin W. Anderson, Esq.
      Lauren E. Braddy, Esq.
      ANDERSON2X, PLLC
      819 N. Upper Broadway
      Corpus Christi, TX 78401
      Telephone: (361) 452-1279
      Facsimile: (361) 452-1284
      E-mail: clif@a2xlaw.com
              austin@a2xlaw.com
              lauren@a2xlaw.com


NOBLE RESOURCES: "Contreras" Seeks to Recover Overtime Pay
----------------------------------------------------------
Pedro Contreras, on behalf of himself and others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. Noble Resources Corporation, a Florida
Profit Corporation, Defendant, Case No. 8:16-cv-02563 (S.D. Tex.,
September 2, 2016), seeks unpaid overtime compensation, liquidated
damages, reasonable attorneys' fees and costs under the Fair Labor
Standards Act.

Defendant specializes in the underground installation of fiber
optic and coaxial splicing where Plaintiff worked as an installer.
He claims to be denied overtime pay.

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Marc R. Edelman, Esq.
      MORGAN & MORGAN, P.A.
      201 N. Franklin Street, #600
      Tampa, FL 33602
      Telephone 813-223-5505
      Fax: 813-257-0572
      Email: Medelman@forthepeople.com

NORTH AMERICAN: Inferrera, et al. Seek Unpaid OT Under FLSA
-----------------------------------------------------------
SALVATORE INFERRERA, DANIEL DORMINEY, JAMI ALLRED, ROBERT FISCH,
KEVIN LARSON AND TREVOR UPSTILL, on behalf of themselves and all
other similar situated individuals, and the general public
Plaintiffs, v. NORTH AMERICAN SUBSTATION SERVICES, LLC; GMAA,
INC.; MARK HOWARD ROBERTS an individual; ALPHEUS ROBERT KELLEY JR.
an individual; BARBARA PRINCIPE-SILER an individual,
Defendants, Case No. 2:16-at-01143 (E.D. Cal., September 14,
2016), seeks to recover unpaid overtime wages, compensation and
interest thereon, waiting time penalties, liquidated damages and
other penalties, injunctive relief, declaratory relief and
reasonable attorney fees and costs, under the Fair Labor Standards
Act (FLSA), the California Code of Regulations, the California's
Prevailing Wage, and the California Business and Professions Code.

According to the complaint, the Defendants routinely suffered
and/or permitted Plaintiffs and California Class Members to work
in excess of 40 hours in a seven day work week and in excess of
daily overtime and double-time thresholds under California law
without paying them full and proper overtime compensation; failing
to pay prevailing wages whether due pursuant to a contract and/or
statute, willfully failing to pay compensation (including premium
pay) in a prompt and timely manner, failing to pay meal period
premiums, failure to provide mandated meal periods as well as
straight time/minimum wages for such hours of work, failing to pay
conceded wages, and willfully failing to provide Plaintiffs and
the California Class Members with accurate semi-monthly itemized
wage statements.

North American Substation specializes in transformer and
substation apparatus installation, services, and repair.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          David E. Mastagni, Esq.
          Isaac Stevens, Esq.
          Ace T. Tate, Esq.
          MASTAGNI HOLSTEDT
          1912 I Street
          Sacramento, CA 95811-3151
          Telephone: (916) 446 4692
          Facsimile: (916) 447 4614


NORTHROP GRUMMAN: "Romano" Sues Over Property Contamination
-----------------------------------------------------------
Rosalie Romano; Patricia Glueckert; William P. Glueckert;
Francisco Pastolero and Maria Spicer; John Varghese; Jayne Mann;
Denise Florio; Ross Meadow and Arlene Meadow; Jacob Kholodny and
Bella Kholodny; Flo Raucci; and Daniel Gallante and Jennifer
Gallante, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. Northrop Grumman Corporation and Northrop Grumman
Systems Corporation, Case No. 607036/2016 (N.Y. Sup. Ct.,
September 13, 216), is an action brought on behalf of the
Plaintiffs arising out of the prior and continuing release,
discharge, and deposit of toxic and hazardous substances and
contaminants into the Plaintiffs' neighborhood and onto the
Plaintiffs' properties and persons, including but not limited to
volatile organic compounds ("VOCs") and industrial solvents such
as trichloroethylene ("TCE") and its breakdown products, 2-
butanone, tetrachloroethylene ("PERC"), 1,1,1-trichloroethane, 2-
hexanone, and carbon tetrachloride.

The Defendants operate a global aerospace and defense technology
company headquartered in Bethpage, New York.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Robert Gitelman, Esq.
      Paul J. Napoli, Esq.
      Patrick J. Lanciotti, Esq.
      NAPOLI SHKOLNIK PLLC
      360 Lexington Ave., 11th Floor
      New York, NY, 10017
      Telephone: (212) 397-1000
      Facsimile: (646) 843-7603
      E-mail: rgitelman@napolilaw.com
              pnapoli@napolilaw.com
              planciotti@napolilaw.com


NORTHROP GRUMMAN: "Roman" Suit Alleges Cal. Labor Code Violation
----------------------------------------------------------------
Henry Roman, an individual, on behalf of himself and all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff, vs. Northrop Grumman Corporation, a
Delaware corporation, and Does 1 through 10, Defendants, Case
2:16-cv-06848 (C.D. Cal., September 13, 2016), arises out of
Defendants' alleged failure to comply with the California Labor
Code and applicable Wage Orders in the treatment of its non-exempt
employees, including failure to pay wages for regular and overtime
hours, failure to provide lawful meal and rest periods, failure to
pay meal period and rest period wages, failure to pay waiting time
wages, and failure to provide lawful itemized wage statements,
inter alia.

Northrop Grumman Corporation -- http://www.northropgrumman.com/--
is a global security company.

     Peter R. Dion-Kindem, Esq.
     THE DION-KINDEM LAW FIRM
     PETER R. DION-KINDEM, P. C.
     21550 Oxnard Street, Suite 900
     Woodland Hills, CA 91367
     Phone: (818) 883-4900
     Fax: (818) 883-4902
     Email: peter@dion-kindemlaw.com

        - and -

     Lonnie C. Blanchard, III, Esq.
     THE BLANCHARD LAW GROUP, APC
     3311 East Pico Boulevard
     Los Angeles, CA 90023
     Phone: (213) 599-8255
     Fax: (213) 402-3949
     Email: lonnieblanchard@gmail.com


NOVIS CORP: "Rodriguez" Suit Seeks Money Damages Under FLSA
-----------------------------------------------------------
RODOLFO RODRIGUEZ, Plaintiff, v. NOVIS, CORP. INTERNATIONAL, d/b/a
PANTERA GUNS SEAN GILLEY, and KARINA GILLEY, individually
Defendant, the Defendant, Case No. 1:16-cv-23996-CMA (S.D. Fla.,
Sept. 16, 2016), seeks to recover money damages for unpaid
overtime and retaliation under the laws of the United States and
the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA).

According to the complaint, the Plaintiff had a regular schedule
during his employment with Defendants. He worked 6 days per week
from Monday to Friday, Plaintiff worked from 8:30 AM to 6:30 PM
(10 hours daily); on Saturdays Plaintiff worked from 9:30 AM to
5:30 PM (8 hours). Plaintiff was unable to take bona fide lunch
periods and he worked a total of 58 hours each week. However,
Plaintiff was not paid for overtime hours.

Novus International provides animal nutrition solutions to
optimize efficiency and manage food production challenges in a
sustainable way.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


NRG ENERGY: Faces "Ahmed" Class Suit in Delaware Ch. Court
----------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been commenced against Ferrell P.
McClean, NRG Energy Inc., John F. Chlebowski, David Crane,
Mauricio Gutierrez, Kirkland B. Andrews, Brian R. Ford, and
Christopher S. Sotos.

The case is captioned Bobbie Ahmed v. Ferrell P. McClean, NRG
Energy Inc., John F. Chlebowski, David Crane, Mauricio Gutierrez,
Kirkland B. Andrews, Brian R. Ford, and Christopher S. Sotos, Case
No. 12742-CB (Del. Ch. Ct., September 12, 2016).

NRG is an integrated power company in the U.S.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Peter B. Andrews, Esq.
      Craig J. Springer, Esq.
      David Sborz, Esq.
      ANDREWS & SPRINGER LLC
      3801 Kennett Pike Bldg C Ste 305
      Wilmington, DE 19807
      Telephone: (302) 504-4957
      Facsimile: (302) 397-2681
      E-mail: pandrews@andrewsspringer.com
              cspringer@andrewsspringer.com
              dsborz@andrewsspringer.com


OCWEN FINANCIAL: Faces "Ricci" Suit in NY Superior Court
--------------------------------------------------------
David Ricci, individually on behalf of himself and all others
similarly situated v. Ocwen Financial Corporation, Ocwen Loan
Servicing, LLC, Litton Loan Servicing, LP, The Goldman Sachs
Group, Inc., Goldman Sachs Bank USA and New York State Department
of Financial Services, Case No. 16-006556 (N.Y. Super. Ct.,
September 12, 2016), is an action for damages as a result of the
Defendants' failure to reduce by 25 percent the unpaid principal
balance on the first lien residential mortgage loans of the
Plaintiff and class members.

The Defendants are providers of residential and commercial
mortgage loan servicing, special servicing and asset management
services.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Spencer Sheehan, Esq.
      Joshua Levin-Epstein, Esq.
      SHEEHAN & ASSOCIATES, P.C.
      891 Northern Boulevard, Suite 201
      Great Neck, NY 11021
      Telephone: (516) 303-0552
      Facsimile: (516) 234-7800
      E-mail: spcncer@spencersheehan.com


OKLAHOMA: Denial of Class Cert. Bid in "Greer" Suit Upheld
----------------------------------------------------------
District Judge Vicki Miles-LaGrange adopted the Report and
Recommendation issued by a Magistrate Judge on August 8, 2016
denying the plaintiff's Motion Requesting Certification as Class
Action with Appointment of Counsel, in the case, TRAVIS GREER,
Plaintiff, v. MARY FALLIN, et al., Defendants, Case No. CIV-14-
1066-M (W.D. Okla.).

A copy of the Court's Order dated September 7, 2016 is available
at https://goo.gl/3zw4p8 from Leagle.com.

Travis Greer, Plaintiff, Pro Se.

Mary Fallin, et al., Defendants, represented by Stefanie E.
Lawson, Attorney General's Ofc & Stefanie E. Lawson, Attorney
General's Ofc.


OPTIMUM OUTCOMES: Faces "Asayang" Suit in South. Dist. Florida
--------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been commenced against Optimum
Outcomes, Inc.

The case is captioned Ben Asayag, on behalf of himself and all
others similarly situated v. Optimum Outcomes, Inc., Case No.
0:16-cv-62185-UU (S.D. Fla., September 13, 2016).

Optimum Outcomes, Inc. operates a hospital receivables management
outsourcing company in Florida.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Astrid Evelyn Gabbe, Esq.
      THE LAW OFFICE OF ASTRID E. GABBE, P.A.
      P.O. Box 4216
      Hollywood, FL 33083
      Telephone: (954) 303-9882
      Facsimile: (954) 983-1427
      E-mail: AstridGabbe@aol.com


OUTDOOR CHANNEL: Denial of Attorney Fees in "Crocket" Affirmed
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the case captioned RICHARD A. CROCKET et al., Plaintiffs and
Appellants, v. OUTDOOR CHANNEL HOLDINGS, INC., et al., Defendants
and Respondents, No. G050906 (Cal. Ct. App.), the Court of Appeals
of California, Fourth District, Division Three affirmed the trial
court's order denying the motion for an award of attorneys fees
that was filed by the plaintiffs, Richard A. Crocket and Kurt
Hueneke.

Crocket and Hueneke, shareholders in defendant Outdoor Channel
Holdings, Inc., filed a putative class action challenging a
proposed merger between Outdoor and InterMedia Outdoors Holdings,
LLC.  After Outdoor was ultimately acquired by Kroenke Sports and
Entertainment, LLC (KSE) and the plaintiffs' action was dismissed,
the plaintiffs sought an award of attorney fees, arguing their
action provided a substantial benefit to Outdoor shareholders
because it caused the increased purchase price paid by KSE.

The trial court denied the plaintiffs' motion, ruling that it
could not see that the plaintiffs "performed a substantial benefit
or that there was a causal connection or [plaintiffs] conferred a
benefit."

The plaintiffs claimed the court erred in denying their motion,
arguing Delaware law, not California law, should have been
applied, and they satisfied the required Delaware elements
entitling them to an award of fees.  Alternatively they contended
that even applying California law they were entitled to attorney
fees.

The plaintiffs argued they are entitled to attorneys fees pursuant
to the Delaware corporate benefit doctrine, which is an exception
to the American Rule that requires a prevailing party to pay its
own attorney fees.  The substantial benefit doctrine provides that
attorney fees may be awarded if the following elements are
satisfied: "(1) the suit was meritorious when filed, (2) the
defendants took an action that produced a corporate benefit before
the plaintiffs obtained a judicial resolution, and (3) the suit
and the corporate benefit were causally related."  The appellate
court concluded that at minimum, the third element was not
satisfied, and that there is no basis to award attorney fees under
the substantial benefit doctrine.

While the defendants did not discuss the Delaware corporate
benefit doctrine but argued California law, the appellate court
noted that the substantial benefit theories in the two states are
similar.  The appellate court also found that there is no evidence
the litigation had anything to do with the KSE proposal or the
purchase at all.  Thus the court concluded that the defendants
overcame the presumption of causation and defeated the plaintiffs'
claim for attorney fees.

A full-text copy of the appellate court's September 7, 2016
opinion is available at https://is.gd/NF28Cm from Leagle.com.

Bramsom, Plutzik, Mahler & Birkhaeuser, Alan R. Plutzik --
aplutzik@bramsonplutzik.com -- Michael S. Strimling --
mstrimling@bramsonplutzik.com -- Pomerantz, Gustavo F. Bruckner
-- gfbruckner@pomlaw.com -- and Samuel J. Adams --
sadams@rgrdlaw.com -- for Plaintiffs and Appellants.

Wilson Sonsini Goodrich & Rosati, David J. Berger --
dberger@wsgr.com -- Steven D. Guggenheimand --
sguggenheim@wsgr.com -- Thomas J. Martin -- tmartin@wsgr.com --
for Defendants and Respondents.


PANASONIC CORP: Dec. 8 Final Settlement Approval Hearing Set
------------------------------------------------------------
Dawn Geske, writing for Northern California Record, reports that a
class-action settlement case has been set up by Hagens Berman
Sobol Shapiro LLP for owners of optical disc drives manufactured
by four electronics companies in the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of California.

Through litigation, Hagans Berman is in the process of securing
settlement payments of $124.5 million from manufacturers Panasonic
Corp., Panasonic Corp. of North America, NEC Corp., Sony Corp.,
Sony Optiarc Inc., Sony Optiarc America Inc. and Hitachi-LG Data
Storage Inc. and Hitachi-LG Data Storage Korea Inc. for optical
disc drives, which the suit states the companies colluded to price
fix the sale of these products.

"Through our investigation, our firm found that manufacturers of
almost all optical disc drives (ODDs) colluded to stabilize the
prices of ODDs worldwide, artificially and illegally raising
prices for consumers across the country," Steve Berman, managing
partner at Hagens Berman, told the Northern California Record.
"This litigation seeks to return millions of dollars in ill-gotten
profits to honest purchasers who were blindsided by this scheme.
To date, we have recovered $124.5 million."

To be eligible for the settlement, individuals would have had to
purchase a computer with an internal optical disc drive, a stand-
alone optical disc drive for internal use in a computer or an
optical disc drive designed for external use with a computer.  The
optical disc drive refers to DVD-RW, DVD-ROM or Combo drive that
have been manufactured by one of the defendants.

Purchases needed to have been completed between April 2003 and
December 2008 by a resident of Arizona, California, District of
Columbia, Florida, Hawaii, Kansas, Maine, Massachusetts, Michigan,
Minnesota, Missouri, Montana, Nebraska, Nevada, New Hampshire, New
Mexico, New York, North Carolina, Oregon, Tennessee, Utah,
Vermont, West Virginia or Wisconsin.

Claims can be filed on the court-approved settlement website
www.opticaldiskdriveantitrust.com

Settlement awards include businesses as well as individuals that
have purchased the optical disc drives.

"The simple online claim form only takes 3 to 5 minutes for most
individuals," said Mr. Berman.  "The deadline to file a claim is
July 1, 2017.  If final approval is granted to one, some or all of
the settlements, class members who have filed valid and timely
claims will receive an electronic payment.  The amount of any
settlement payment will be based on a class member's qualifying
purchases and the total number of class members."

Hagens Berman has identified settlements for recovery from
Panasonic for $16.5 million, NEC for $6.5 million, Sony for $28.5
million and Hitachi-LG Data Storage for $73 million.  According to
the company, if final approval is granted for the class-action
case, those who have filed valid and timely claims will receive
payment, which will be based on the quantity of optical disc
drives purchased and number of claims made by the class member.

Class members can choose to exclude themselves from the
settlements and litigation and keep their right to an individual
lawsuit by declining benefits from the settlement in a written
exclusion form postmarked by Oct. 19.

The final approval hearing for the settlement case will be held on
Dec. 8 in San Francisco.


PARKSIDE CONSTRUCTION: Rios Estrada Seeks OT Wage Under FLSA
------------------------------------------------------------
HENRY Y RIOS ESTRADA, BRAUUO NARANJO, JULIO A PINEDA GIRALDO,
GERSSON OSBERTO LOPEZ LOPEZ, YEISON RIOS CUARTAS, YOBANNY
RJOS CUARTAS, Individually and on BEHALF OF ALL OTHER COLLECTIVE
PERSONS SIMILARLY SITUATED, the Plaintiffs, v. PARKSIDE
CONSTRUCTION BUILDERS CORP, PARK SIDE CONSTRUCTION CONSULTANTS CO,
INC., PARJZ SIDE CONSTRUCTION CONTRACTORS INC and FRANCESCO
PUGLIESE, the Defendants, Case No. 706103/2016 (N.Y. Sup. Ct.,
Sept. 16, 2016), seeks to recover overtime wage including
applicable liquidated damages, interest, attorneys' fees and
costs, pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) and New
York Labor Law.

The Plaintiffs allegedly worked for Defendants in excess of 40
hours per week without receiving the appropriate compensation for
the hours over 40 hours per week that they worked.

The Defendant is enganged in the building construction industry.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Sanh J. Sim, Esq.
          PARK & SIM LAW GROUP LLP
          39-01 Main Street, Suite 608
          Flushing, NY 11354
          Telephone: (718) 445 1300
          Facsimile: (718) 445 8616
          E-mail: petersimesq@yahoo.com


PAUL J. COOPER: "Ford" Seeks Unpaid Overtime Under Labor Code
-------------------------------------------------------------
TANERA FORD, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated, the Plaintiff, v. PAUL J. COOPER CENTER FOR HUMAN
SERVICES INC., the Defendant, Case No. 707230/2016 (N.Y. Sup. Ct.,
Sept. 14, 2016), seeks an award for the amount of the Plaintiffs
and Class Members' unpaid overtime and pre- and post-judgment
interest as allowed by the New York Labor Law (NYLL).

The Plaintiff and other Class Members have sustained similar types
of damages as a result of the Defendant's failure to comply with
the NYLL. The Plaintiff and other Class Members have been injured
in that they have been uncompensated or under-compensated due to
the Defendant's common policies, practices, and patterns of
conduct.

Paul J. Cooper Center for Human Services offers outpatient
assistance for those with chemical dependency and mental health
issues.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Louis Ginsberg, Esq.
          LOUIS GINSBERG, P.C.
          1613 Northern Boulevard
          Roslyn, NY 11576
          Telephone: (516) 625 0105


PERFORMANCE SPORTS: Faces Class Action Over "Channel Stuffing"
--------------------------------------------------------------
Christina Pellegrini, writing for The Globe and Mail, reports that
Performance Sports Group Ltd. is fending off a class-action
lawsuit in the United States that accuses the company and several
current and former executives of "channel stuffing" -- pulling
future sales into the current period to give an impression of
strong revenue.  None of these allegations has been proven in
court.


PORTFOLIO RECOVERY: Bid to Reconsider May 9 Order Denied
--------------------------------------------------------
In the case captioned NACOLA MAGEE and JAMES PETERSON,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated,
Plaintiffs, v. PORTFOLIO RECOVERY ASSOCIATES, LLC, Defendant, Case
No. 12-cv-1624 (N.D. Ill.), Judge John W. Darrah denied defendant
Portfolio Recovery Associates, LLC's motion for reconsideration of
the court's May 9, 2016 order denying its motion for summary
judgment as to Counts I and II of the plaintiffs' First Amended
Complaint, and granting plaintiffs Nacola Magee and James
Peterson's motion for summary judgment.

The plaintiffs brought the class action against Portfolio for
alleged violations of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act
(FDCPA).  On August 15, 2012, the court granted Portfolio's Motion
to Dismiss the plaintiffs' initial complaint and granted the
plaintiffs leave to file an amended pleading.  The plaintiffs
filed a two-count amended complaint on August 23, 2012, asserting
violations of the FDCPA in Count I (Misleading Settlement Offers
on Time-Barred Debts) and Count II (Threat of Credit Reporting).

On October 16, 2015, the plaintiffs filed a Motion for Summary
Judgment on all of their claims.  Portfolio filed a Response to
the Motion for Summary Judgment as well as a Cross-Motion for
Summary Judgment.  On May 9, 2016, the court denied Portfolio's
Motion for Summary Judgment as to Counts I and II and granted the
plaintiffs' Motion for Summary Judgment.  Portfolio filed a Motion
to Reconsider the Order granting Plaintiff's Motion for Summary
Judgment on Count I of the First Amended Complaint or,
alternatively, to stay this case pending the outcome of an appeal
of a case cited in this Court's opinion.

The court's May 9 order held that Portfolio's failure to include
language stating that the plaintiffs' debt was time barred, that
the plaintiffs could no longer be sued on that debt, and that the
plaintiffs' partial payment would reset the statute of limitations
period was clearly deceptive on its face.  Therefore, summary
judgment was awarded on Count I without extrinsic evidence as the
deceptive language is materially false.

Portfolio presented three arguments as to why the court should
reconsider its judgment granting the plaintiff's Motion for
Summary Judgment on Count I under Rule 59(e).

First, Portfolio argued that the court erred because it did not
address whether an unsophisticated consumer would believe
Portfolio's settlement offer implied that it would sue.  Judge
Darrah, however, found that Portfolio has already previously
presented this argument which the court has already considered and
rejected.  Thus, the judge denied the motion.

Portfolio further argued that the court previously found that the
letters were plainly and clearly not misleading.  However, Judge
Darrah held that Portfolio's argument takes liberties with the
court's prior ruling and misconstrues the holding.  "The prior
ruling does not, however, hold that the letters were plainly and
clearly not misleading nor does the prior ruling contradict the
Order. In this respect, the prior ruling did not specifically hold
that the letters were plainly and clearly not misleading.
Moreover, the prior ruling was based on procedurally different
grounds," explained the judge.  Because the order does not
contradict the court's prior ruling, Judge Darrah held that
Portfolio's argument is without merit, and denied the motion.

Finally, the Portfolio argued that the court erred in finding that
the language in the letters could influence a consumer's decision
and was material and that applying Pantoja v. Portfolio Recovery
Associates, LLC, No. 13 C 7667, 2015 WL 848568, *3 (N.D. Ill. Jan.
14, 2015), was in error.  Judge Darrah pointed out that, once
again, Portfolio has already presented these arguments, which the
court has already rejected.  The judge held that because the
plaintiffs were not required to present extrinsic evidence, the
court did not err in its finding. Accordingly, the motion was
denied.

A full-text copy of Judge Darrah's September 13, 2016 memorandum
opinion and order is available at https://is.gd/EtWW2Q from
Leagle.com.

Nacola Magee, James Peterson, Plaintiffs, represented by Daniel A.
Edelman, Edelman, Combs, Latturner & Goodwin LLC, Cassandra P.
Miller, Edelman, Combs, Latturner & Goodwin LLC, Cathleen M.
Combs, Edelman, Combs, Latturner & Goodwin LLC & James O.
Latturner, Edelman, Combs, Latturner & Goodwin LLC.

Portfolio Recovery Associates, LLC, Defendant, represented by
David M. Schultz -- dschultz@hinshawlaw.com -- Hinshaw &
Culbertson, Avanti Bakane -- abakane@hinshawlaw.com -- Hinshaw &
Culbertson, LLP, Jennifer W. Weller -- jweller@hinshawlaw.com --
Hinshaw & Culbertson LLC & Katherine H. Oblak, Hinshaw &
Culbertson Llp.


POWERSECURE INTERNATIONAL: Court Dismisses "Ash" Securities Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Judge James C. Dever, III granted the defendants' motion to
dismiss the amended complaint in the case captioned LEONARD C.
ASH, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated,
Plaintiffs, v. POWERSECURE INTERNATIONAL, INC., SIDNEY HINTON, and
CHRISTOPHER T. HUTTER, Defendants, No. 4:14-CV-92-D (E.D.N.C.).

On May 22, 2014, Leonard C. Ash filed a securities class action
suit against PowerSecure International, Inc., Sidney Hinton, and
Christopher T. Hutter.  On October 10, 2014, the court granted a
motion to consolidate the case with two other cases and named
Maguire Financial, LP, as lead plaintiff.  On December 29, 2014,
the plaintiffs filed a consolidated securities class action suit.

On February 26, 2015, the defendants named in the original
complaint moved to dismiss the complaint for failure to state a
claim upon which relief can be granted.  On September 15, 2015,
the court granted the defendants' motion to dismiss and dismissed
without prejudice the plaintiffs' complaint.  The court held that
the plaintiffs' complaint "fail[ed] to adequately plead scienter
and therefore fail[ed] to state a claim under section 10(b) and
Rule 10b-5."  Alternatively, the court held that the allegations
in the original complaint and other reviewable documents, when
reviewed holistically, failed to state with particularity facts
giving rise to a strong inference of scienter.

On October 16, 2015, the plaintiffs filed an amended complaint
against PowerSecure and Hinton.  The plaintiffs' amended complaint
involved a single representation defendants made regarding
PowerSecure's relationship with Florida Power & Light (FP&L).  The
plaintiffs claimed that "the market price of PowerSecure
securities was artificially inflated during the Class Period" due
to the defendants' August 7, 2013, statement regarding its
contract with FP&L.

On November 23, 2015, the defendants moved to dismiss the amended
complaint.

Judge Dever observed that the plaintiffs' amended complaint raised
largely the same allegations regarding scienter as in their
initial complaint.  Accordingly, Judge Dever adopted the  court's
analysis from the order of September 15, 2015, and, held that the
plaintiffs have failed to state a claim even when viewing the
unchanged allegations holistically and in conjunction with the new
allegations in the amended complaint.

The plaintiffs' amended complaint raised the following new
allegations regarding the defendants' incentive to commit
securities fraud: (1) that, having already stated that PowerSecure
would obtain a contract renewal from FP&L before the class period,
Hinton was "likely" hesitant to "concede to the market that ...
the customer did not renew the Company's contract"; (2) that
PowerSecure had a pecuniary incentive to defraud the market, as
the "money raised from the public" due to the alleged misstatement
"provided PowerSecure with additional cash" to defray the costs
resulting from FP&L's new contract in a different geographic area;
and, (3) that Hinton had incentive to defraud the market in order
to realize "considerable savings ... by transferring shares at an
artificially inflated price to his wife" as part of Hinton's
divorce settlement.  Additionally, the plaintiffs argued that
because the court's order of September 15, 2015, found that the
plaintiffs had sufficiently pleaded that the August 7, 2013
statement was a material misrepresentation, Hinton "certainly ...
knew" that this statement was false.

As for the plaintiffs' claim that Hinton possessed an incentive to
defraud the market to avoid "conced[ing] to the market that, in
fact, the customer did not renew the Company's contract," Judge
Dever held that this assertion is conclusory regarding Hinton's
knowledge and fails to support a strong inference of scienter.

As for the plaintiffs' claim that the defendants had incentive to
defraud the market in order to raise funds to offset the costs of
the new contract with FP&L, Judge Dever observed that the
plaintiffs raised a similar claim in their initial complaint, and
thus held that this allegation fails for the reasons outlined in
the court's order of September 15, 2015.  Jude Dever concluded
that this allegation does not aid in curing the defects identified
in the court's order of September 15, 2015.

As for the plaintiffs' slightly more specific allegation regarding
Hinton's divorce settlement, Judge Dever held that this allegation
fails to support a strong inference of scienter.

Finally, the plaintiffs argued that the court's order of September
15, 2015, necessitates a holding that the plaintiffs have
sufficiently pleaded scienter.  However, Judge Dever pointed out
that the court's order then stated explicitly that the plaintiffs
had failed to sufficiently allege scienter.

Additionally, Judge Dever denied as moot the defendants' motion
for judicial notice and notice of incorporation by reference.

A full-text copy of Judge Dever's September 13, 2016 order is
available at https://is.gd/iQIydu from Leagle.com.

Maguire Financial, LP, Movant, represented by Michael A. Ostrander
-- mostrander@wrlaw.com -- Wilson & Ratledge, PLLC.

Clay Leslie, Paul E. Moore, Movants, represented by L. Bruce
McDaniel -- mcdas@mcdas.com -- McDaniel & Anderson, L.L.P..

Leonard C. Ash, Plaintiff, represented by Gary W. Jackson --
gjackson@ncadvocates.com -- The Jackson Law Group, PLLC.

Powersecure International, Inc., Sidney Hinton, Christopher T.
Hutter, Defendants, represented by Barry M. Kaplan --
bkaplan@wsgr.com -- Wilson Sonsini Goodrich & Rosati, PC, Gregory
L. Watts -- gwatts@wsgr.com -- Wilson Sonsini Goodrich & Rosati,
PC & Lee M. Whitman, Jr. -- lwhitman@wyrick.com -- Wyrick Robbins
Yates & Ponton, LLP.


PPG INDUSTRIES: "Hoover" Sues Over Rescue It! Products Adverts
--------------------------------------------------------------
GREG HOOVER, RENEE GRAVLEE, JAN PANKOW, JOHN R. DAVIS, JANA BERG,
and ELIZABETH MORTENSEN Plaintiffs, v. PPG INDUSTRIES, INC., PPG
ARCHITECTURAL FINISHES, INC., and PPG ARCHITECTURAL COATINGS,
LLC, Defendants, Case 1:16-cv-03415-WSD (N.D. Ga., September 12,
2016), alleges that PPG's Rescue It! Products are defective and
PPG's representations are false, and PPG knows it. PPG's conduct
allegedly violates the implied and express warranties that run
from PPG to each purchaser of a Rescue It! Product; violates
Georgia's Deceptive Trade Practices Act, Alabama's Deceptive Trade
Practices Act, Arkansas's Deceptive Trade Practices Act,
Wisconsin's Deceptive Trade Practices Act, South Carolina's Unfair
Trade Practices Act, and Pennsylvania's Unfair Trade Practices and
Consumer Protection Law.

PPG INDUSTRIES, INC. manufactures, markets, and sells paint and
stain products.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

     James F. McDonough, III, Esq.
     HENINGER GARRISON DAVIS, LLC
     3621 Vinings Slope, Suite 4320
     Atlanta, GA 30339
     Phone: 404.996.0869
     E-mail: jmcdonough@hgdlawfirm.com

        - and -

     Taylor C. Bartlett, Esq.
     W. Lewis Garrison, Jr., Esq.
     HENINGER GARRISON DAVIS, LLC
     2224 First Avenue North
     Birmingham, AL 35203
     Phone: 205.326.3336
     E-mail: lewis@hgdlawfirm.com
             taylor@hgdlawfirm.com


PRATT INDUSTRIES: Faces "De Leon" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT
-------------------------------------------------------------
Jorge Mario Juarez De Leon, Francisco Javier Bolanos Galindo and
all others similarly situated v. Pratt Industries, Inc., All
Industrial Restoration, LLC, and Russ McCollam, Case No. 1:16-cv-
03409-MHC (N.D. Ga., September 9, 2016), is brought against the
Defendants for failure to pay overtime wages for all hours worked
in excess of 40 hours in a workweek.

The Defendants operate a recycled paper and packaging company in
Conyers, Georgia.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Dawson Morton, Esq.
      DAWSON MORTON, LLC
      1813 Parker St.
      Berkeley, CA  94703
      Telephone: (404) 590-1295
      E-mail: dawson@dawsonmorton.com


PRE-EMPLOY.COM INC: Reply in "Marchioli" Case Moved to Oct. 14
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, MARC MARCHIOLI, Plaintiff, v. PRE-EMPLOY.COM, INC.;
EISENHOWER MEDICAL CENTER; Defendants, Case No. 2:16-cv-01195-MCE-
AC (E.D. Cal.), District Judge Morrison C. England, Jr. granted
the Defendants' ex parte joint motion for extension of time to
file responsive pleadings to plaintiff's complaint on October 14,
2016.

The Court granted the Defendants an extension to file responsive
pleadings to Plaintiffs' Complaint in order to get sufficient time
to rule on Defendant Eisenhower Medical Center's (EMC's) Motion to
Transfer Venue in the related putative class action and for
Defendants to prepare their pleadings in light of that ruling.

A copy of the Court's Order dated September 6, 2016 is available
at https://goo.gl/ulmfgj from Leagle.com.

Marc Marchioli, Plaintiff, represented by Duncan Scott MacDonald -
- dmacdonald@ardmlaw.com -- Rossi & Macdonald, APC.

Marc Marchioli, Plaintiff, represented by Anna Marie Rossi --
amrossi@amrossilaw.com -- Rossi & MacDonald.

Eisenhower Medical Center, Defendant, represented by Adam Ryan
Rosenthal -- arosenthal@sheppardmullin.com -- Sheppard Mullin
Richter & Hampton LLP.


PRIMANTI CORPORATION: Faces "Koenig" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT
----------------------------------------------------------------
Chelsea Koenig, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated v. Primanti Corporation et al d/b/a Primanti Bros.; David
Head; Andrew Taub; Demetrios Patrinos; James Chu; Nicholas
Nicholas; and Doe Defendants 1-10, Case No. 2:16-cv-01402-NBF
(W.D. Penn., September 9, 2016), is brought against the Defendants
for failure to pay overtime wages in violation of the Fair Labor
Standards Act.

The Defendants own and operate a string of full-service
restaurants located across the United States.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Gary F. Lynch, Esq.
      Benjamin J. Sweet, Esq.
      Jamisen A. Etzel, Esq.
      CARLSON LYNCH SWEET KILPELA & CARPENTER, LLP
      1133 Penn Ave, 5th Floor
      Pittsburgh, PA 15222
      Telephone: (412) 322-9243
      Facsimile: (412) 231-0246
      E-mail: glynch@carlsonlynch.com
              bsweet@carlsonlynch.com
              jetzel@carlsonlynch.com

         - and -

      Gerald D. Wells III, Esq.
      Robert J. Gray, Esq.
      CONNOLLY WELLS & GRAY, LLP
      2200 Renaissance Blvd., Suite 308
      King of Prussia, PA 19406
      Telephone: (610) 822-3700
      Facsimile: (610) 822-3800
      E-mail: gwells@cwg-law.com
              rgray@cwg-law.com

         - and -

      Michael K. Yarnoff, Esq.
      KEHOE LAW FIRM, P.C.
      Two Penn Center Plaza
      1500 JFK Boulevard, Suite 1020
      Philadelphia, PA 19102
      Telephone: (215) 792-6676
      Facsimile: (215) 792-6676
      E-mail: myarnoff@kehoelawfirm.com


PROSPECT INTERNATIONAL: Settlement in "Abdi" Case Has Initial OK
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, SAMATAR ABDI, an individual, and AHMED HIRSI
ABDIRAHMAN Plaintiffs, v. PROSPECT INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT SERVICES
CORPORATION, a foreign corporation, Defendant, Case No. 2:16-cv-
00372 RSL (W.D. Wash.), District Judge Robert S. Lasnik initially
granted the parties' proposed Settlement Agreement. The final
approval hearing of the case is scheduled for January 5, 2017.

The certified settlement class, for settlement purposes only,
consists of all employees of the Defendant who are alleged to have
been either Hospitality Workers or Transportation Workers and who
worked one or more hours within the City of SeaTac at any time
during the time period from January 1, 2014, to February 14, 2016,
and who were paid less than the prevailing minimum wage prescribed
by City of SeaTac Ordinance 7.45.050, i.e., a base rate of $15.00
per hour in 2014 and $15.24 in 2015 and 2016.

The Court held that all proceedings in the case are stayed until
further order of the Court, except as may be necessary to
implement the terms of the settlement.

A copy of the Court's Order dated September 6, 2016 is available
at https://goo.gl/HJnUvp from Leagle.com.

Samatar Abdi, Plaintiff, represented by Daniel R. Whitmore.

Samatar Abdi, Plaintiff, represented by Duncan Calvert Turner,
BADGLEY MULLINS TURNER PLLC.

Ahmed Hirsi Abdirahman, Plaintiff, represented by Daniel R.
Whitmore & Duncan Calvert Turner, BADGLEY MULLINS TURNER PLLC.

Prospect International Airport Services Corporation, Defendant,
represented by Darren Anthony Feider -- dfeider@sebrisbusto.com
-- SEBRIS BUSTO JAMES & Jeffrey A. James -- jaj@sebrisbusto.com
-- SEBRIS BUSTO JAMES.


PUBLIC PARTNERSHIPS: Jackson, et al. Seek Unpaid Wages Under FLSA
-----------------------------------------------------------------
LATASHA JACKSON, 3829 Berkeley Avenue, Drexel Hill, PA 19026, and
TYONNA JACKSON, 1615 S. Frazier Street, Philadelphia, PA 19143,
individually and on behalf of all similarly situated individuals,
the Plaintiffs, v. PUBLIC PARTNERSHIPS, LLC, 40 Broad Street, 4th
Floor, Boston, MA 02109, the Defendant, Case No. 2:16-cv-04837-HB
(E.D. Penn., Sep. 7, 2016), seeks to recover unpaid wages owed to
the Plaintiff pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA).

The Defendant did not pay overtime pay to the Plaintiffs or those
similarly situated, even though these employees were not exempt
from the FLSA's protections or the protections of the Pennsylvania
Minimum Wage Act.

Public Partnerships is a financial management service (FMS)
organization that is dedicated to assisting state, county, and
local public agencies to implement a consumer-directed service.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Louis F. D'Onofrio, Esq.
          Heather K. D'Onofrio, Esq.
          THE D'ONOFRIO FIRM, LLC
          303 Chestnut Street
          Philadelphia, PA 19106
          Telephone: (215) 923 1056
          Facsimile: (215) 923 1057
          E-mail: ldonofrio@donofriofirm.com
                  hdonofrio@donofriofirm.com

               - and -

          Brandon L. Bogle, Esq.
          William F. Cash III, Esq.
          LEVIN, PAPANTONIO, THOMAS,
          MITCHELL, RAFFERTY & PROCTOR, P.A.
          316 South Baylen Street, Suite 600
          Pensacola, FL 32502
          Telephone: (850) 435 7043
          E-mail: bbogle@levinlaw.com
                  bcash@levinlaw.com

               - and -

          David H. Grounds, Esq.
          JOHNSON BECKER, PLLC
          33 South Sixth Street, Suite 4530
          Minneapolis, MN 55402
          Telephone: (612) 436 1800
          Facsimile: (612) 436 1801
          E-mail: dgrounds@johnsonbecker.com
                  jrusch@johnsonbecker.co


QUEST DIAGNOSTICS: "Emmons" Case Has New Settlement Schedule
------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, DOROTHEA EMMONS and LISA STAPLETON, individually, and
on behalf of other members of the general public similarly
situated, and as aggrieved employees, Plaintiffs v. QUEST
DIAGNOSTICS CLINICAL LABORATORIES, INC., a Delaware corporation,
et al., Defendants, No. 1:13-cv-00474-DAD-BAM (E.D. Cal.),
District Judge Dale A. Drozd granted the parties' joint
stipulation regarding a revised settlement implementation
schedule.

The revised settlement administration schedules are:

     (1) Last day for settlement administrator to mail the
         September 14, 2016 Class Notice to all Class Members on
         October 14, 2016 (or at least 7 days prior to the Last
         day for Plaintiffs to file their motion for response
         deadline);

     (2) Attorneys' fees, costs, and class representative
         enhancement payments on October 21, 2016 (or not later
         than 45 days after the Settlement Administrator mails
         the Class Last day for Class Members to submit requests
         for Notice);

     (3) Exclusion or objections to the settlement Last day for
         Plaintiffs to file the motion for final on November 4,
         2016;

     (4) Approval of class action settlement Last day for
         Plaintiffs to file a reply (if desired) in support of
         the motion for final approval of class on November 25,
         2016;

     (5) Action settlement and motion for attorneys' fees, costs,
         and class representative enhancement payments Hearing on
         motion for final approval of class on December 20, 2016
         at 9:30 a.m. action settlement and motion for attorneys'
         fees, costs, and class representative enhancement
         payments.

A copy of the Court's Order dated September 7, 2016 is available
at https://goo.gl/PfO2EH from Leagle.com.

Dorothea Emmons, Plaintiff, represented by Bevin Elaine Allen Pike
-- Bevin.Pike@capstonelawyers.com -- Capstone Law APC.

Dorothea Emmons, Plaintiff, represented by Jonathan Sing Lee --
Jonathan.Lee@capstonelawyers.com -- Capstone Law APC & Robert J.
Drexler -- Robert.Drexler@CapstoneLawyers.com -- Capstone Law APC.

Lisa Stapleton, Plaintiff, represented by Bevin Elaine Allen Pike
-- Bevin.Pike@capstonelawyers.com -- Capstone Law APC, Jonathan
Sing Lee -- Jonathan.Lee@capstonelawyers.com -- Capstone Law APC &
Robert J. Drexler, Capstone Law APC.

Quest Diagnostics Clinical Laboratories, Inc., et al., Defendants,
represented by Erica C. Parks -- ecp@msk.com -- Lee Tran & Liang
LLP, Jonathan M. Brenner, Sidley Austin LLP & Aimee Grace Mackay
-- amackay@sidley.com -- Sidley Austin LLP.


QUIK PARK: Sued in N.Y. Sup. Ct. Over Parking Garage Surcharge
--------------------------------------------------------------
MARGO STANKUS, Individually and on Behalf of All Other Persons
Similarly Situated, the Plaintiff, v. QUIK PARK MANAGEMENT LLC,
QUIK PARK MANAGEMENT HOLDINGS LLC, AND QUIK PARK TRUFFLES LLC, the
Defendants, Case No. 654752/2016 (N.Y. Sup. Ct., Sep. 7, 2016),
seeks judgment requiring Quik Park to disgorge its ill-gotten
gains and pay that as restitution to Stankus and the Class
Members, pursuant to New York General Business Law.

On August 8, 2016, Stankus parked her motor vehicle on an hourly
basis at Quik Park's parking garage located at 312 West 34th
Street, New York, New York, and she paid her hourly parking garage
fees by a credit card.

Quik Park imposes a surcharge at approximately all of its 140
parking garages for customers who pay their parking garage hourly
fees with a credit or debit card. The surcharge fee is presently
$2.00 per transaction. Quik Park charged Stankus an extra $2.00
fee as a direct consequence of paying the hourly fee with her
credit card. She was not eligible for the super early bird or
early bird rate.

Quik Park is one of the largest operators of parking garages in
the State of New York with 90 or more locations, predominantly in
New York City.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Douglas Lipsky, Esq.
          BRONSON LIPSKY LLP
          630 Third Avenue, Fifth Floor
          New York, NY 10017-6705
          Telephone (212) 392 4772
          E-mail: dl@bronsonlipsky.com

               - and -

          Jeffrey M. Gottlieb, Esq.
          Dana L. Gottlieb, Esq.
          GOTTLIEB & ASSOCIATES
          150 East 18th Street, Suite PHR
          New York, NY 10003
          Telephone: (212) 228 9795
          E-mail: danalgottlieb@aol.com
                  nyjg@aol.com


RAYMOURS FURNITURE: 2nd Cir. Affirms Ruling in "Patterson" Case
---------------------------------------------------------------
The United States Court of Appeals, Second Circuit, affirmed the
district court's ruling rejecting Patterson's work-related claims,
in the case, CONNIE PATTERSON, on behalf of herself and all others
similarly situated, and DAVID AMBROSE, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v.
RAYMOURS FURNITURE COMPANY, INC., Defendant-Appellee, No. 15-2820-
cv (2nd Cir.).

The district court rejected Patterson's claim that the Employment
Arbitration Program's (EAP's) ban on class or collective
litigation or arbitration of workplace grievances violated the
employees' right under the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA) to
"engage in . . . concerted activities for the purpose of . . .
mutual aid or protection." It held that the Federal Arbitration
Act (FAA) mandated arbitration of Patterson's claims because the
plaintiffs, by accepting the EAP, had agreed to arbitrate their
claims according to its terms.

A copy of the Court's Order dated September 7, 2016 is available
at https://goo.gl/gByKpg from Leagle.com.

MICHAEL RUBIN -- mrubin@altber.com -- Altshuler Berzon LLP, San
Francisco, CA (Eric P. Brown, Altshuler Berzon, San Francisco;
Justin M. Swartz, Outten & Golden LLP, New York, NY on the brief),
for Appellant.

DAVID M. WIRTZ -- dwirtz@littler.com -- Littler Mendelson P.C.,
New York, NY (Ron Chapman, Jr., Ogletree, Deakins, Nash, Smoak &
Stewart, P.C., Dallas, TX; Christopher C. Murray --
christopher.murray@ogletreedeakins.com -- Ogletree, Deakins, Nash,
Smoak & Stewart, P.C., Indianapolis, IN on the brief), for
Appellees.

JOEL A. HELLER, on behalf of National Labor Relations Board,
Washington, DC. EVAN M. TAGER -- etager@mayerbrown.com -- Mayer
Brown LLP, Washington, DC, on behalf of The Chamber of Commerce of
the United States of America (Andrew J. Pincus, Archis A.
Parasharami, Matthew A. Waring, Mayer Brown LLP, Washington, DC;
Kate Comerford Todd, Warren Postman, U.S. Chamber Litigation
Center, Washington, DC on the brief), for Amici Curiae.


RECONSTRUCTIVE ORTHOPAEDIC: Faces "Wolfington" Suit in E.D. Penn.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been commenced against Reconstructive
Orthopaedic Associates II, P.C. a/k/a The Rothman Institute,
Rothman Institute, and Does 1 through 10, inclusive.

The case is captioned Andrew Wolfington, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated v. Reconstructive
Orthopaedic Associates II, P.C. a/k/a The Rothman Institute,
Rothman Institute, and Does 1 through 10, inclusive, Case No.
2:16-cv-04935-MMB (E.D. Penn., September 13, 2016).

Reconstructive Orthopaedic Associates II, P.C. operates as a
provider of orthopaedic care and services.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Arkady Eric Rayz, Esq.
      KALIKHMAN & RAYZ LLC
      1051 County Line Road, Suite A
      Huntingdon Valley, PA 19006
      Telephone: (215) 364-5030
      Facsimile: (215) 364-5029
      E-mail: erayz@kalraylaw.com


RHD JR: Faces "Jordan" Suit Under FLSA, Arkansas Min. Wage Act
--------------------------------------------------------------
Mark Jordan and Brandon Watkins, Individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. RHD, Jr., INC., d/b/a Mayflower RV
Sales & Service; and Robert H. Dudley, Jr., individually and as an
Officer of RHD, Jr., Inc., Case 2:16-cv-02227-PKH (W.D. Ark.,
September 12, 2016), was brought under the Fair Labor Standards
Act and the Arkansas Minimum Wage Act.

RHD, Jr., INC. operates a recreational vehicle sales and service
company.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

     Chris Burks, Esq.
     Josh Sanford, Esq.
     SANFORD LAW FIRM, LLC
     One Financial Center
     650 S. Shackleford, Suite 411
     Little Rock, AK 72211
     Phone: (501) 221-0088
     Fax: (888) 787-2040
     E-mail: chris@sanfordlawfirm.com
             josh@sanfordlawfirm.com


S & S FOODS: "Martinez" Suit Seeks Overtime Pay Under Labor Code
----------------------------------------------------------------
BERTHA MARTINEZ, as an individual, and on behalf of all similarly
situated employees, the Plaintiff, v. S & S FOODS, LLC and DOES 1-
50, inclusive, the Defendants, Case No. BC632989 (Cal. Super. Ct.,
Sep. 7, 2016), seeks to recover overtime compensation for all
hours worked under the Labor Code.

According to the complaint, the Defendant employed Plaintiff and
similarly situated persons and failed to pay Plaintiff and
Plaintiff Class for all hours worked as a result of working off
the clock, overtime premium for overtime hours worked; failed to
provide meal periods or pay a meal period penalty in lieu of;
failed to provide rest periods or pay a rest period penalty in
lieu of; and failed to pay due and owing wages upon ending of
employment for employees within California.

S&S Foods manufactures raw and cooked protein products including
meat products and frozen ground beef products.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Kevin Mahoney, Esq.
          Na'Shaun Neal, Esq.
          MAHONEY LAW GROUP, APC
          249 E. Ocean Blvd., Ste. 814
          Long Beach, CA 90802
          Telephone: (562) 590 5550
          Facsimile: (562) 590 8400
          E-mail: kmahonev@mahonev-law.net
                  nneal@mahonev-law.net


SAFECO: Faces FCRA Suit in Richmond Over Background-Check Form
--------------------------------------------------------------
Deborah Elkins, writing for Virginia Lawyers Weekly, reports that
in this class action asserting defendant employer violated the
Fair Credit Reporting Act with inadequate disclosures about
obtaining pre-hiring consumer reports, the Richmond U.S. District
Court says the Safeco "objective reasonableness" test does not
apply to defendant's action and any assumed "interpretation" of
the statute by defendant is not objectively reasonable.


SAINT PATRICK'S: "Tosti" Suit Seeks Unpaid Pay Under Wage Act
-------------------------------------------------------------
CORINNE TOSTI, on behalf of herself and those similarly situated,
the Plaintiff, v. SAINT PATRICK'S MANOR, INC., the Defendants,
Case No. 16-2568 (Mass. Super. Ct., Sep. 7, 2016), seeks to
recover damages as a result of Defendant's unlawful and
inexplicable failure to furnish earned wages for each and every
hour actually worked in violation of the Massachusetts Wage Act.

Despite being required by the Company to punch-out at a designated
time, the Plaintiff was required to work beyond that particular
time. The Plaintiff was also required to punch out during a
scheduled lunch break, but was required to work through the lunch
break without pay.

Patrick's Manor is a nursing home located in Framingham,
Massachusetts.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Michael J. Bace, Esq.
          BACE LAW GROUP, LLC
          PO Box 9316
          Boston. MA 02114
          Telephone: (508) 922 8328
          E-mail: mjb@bacelaw.com


SCHLUMBERGER TECHNOLOGY: Faces "Elliot" Suit in W.D. of Texas
-------------------------------------------------------------
A lawsuit has been filed against Schlumberger Technology
Corporation. The case is entitled Chris Elliot, Raymond Genta,
Richard Largent, Marc Piazza, and Kenly Hunter, on behalf of
himself and on behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, the
Plaintiff v. Schlumberger Technology Corporation and Schlumberger
Limited Schlumberger N.V., the Defendants, Case No. 1:16-mc-01068-
SS (W.D. Tex., Sept. 15, 2016). The assigned Judge is Hon. Sam
Sparks.

Schlumberger is the world's largest oilfield services company.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Don Foty, Esq.
          Galvin B. Kennedy, Esq.
          KENNEDY HODGES LLP
          4409 Montrose Blvd., Suite 200
          Houston, TX 77006
          Telephone: (713) 523 0001
          Facsimile: (713) 523 1116
          E-mail: dfoty@kennedyhodges.com
                  gkennedy@kennedyhodges.com

The Defendant is represented by:

          Samuel Zurik, III, Esq.
          THE KULLMAN FIRM
          1600 Energy Centre
          1100 Poydras Street
          New Orleans, LA 70163
          Telephone: (504) 596 4191
          Facsimile: (504) 596 4114
          E-mail: sz@kullmanlaw.com


SENJU PHARMACEUTICAL: 3rd Cir. Vacates Dismissal of "Hartig" Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The United States Court of Appeals, Third Circuit vacated the
district court's order of dismissal in the case captioned HARTIG
DRUG COMPANY INC., on behalf of itself and all others similarly
situated, Appellant, v. SENJU PHARMACEUTICAL CO. LTD.; KYORIN
PHARMACEUTICAL CO. LTD.; ALLERGAN INC., No. 15-3289 (3rd Cir.).

The appeal arose from a putative class action in which Hartig Drug
Company Inc. filed a complaint against Senju Pharmaceutical Co.,
Ltd., Kyorin Pharmaceutical Co., Ltd., and Allergan Inc., alleging
antitrust violations involving medicated eyedrops manufactured by
the defendants.  Hartig argued that the defendants' wrongful
suppression of generic competition resulted in supracompetitive
pricing of those eyedrops.  Although not a direct purchaser of the
medications, Hartig claimed it has standing to sue because of an
assignment of rights from AmerisourceBergen Drug Corporation which
is a direct purchaser.

Allergan responded to Hartig's suit by filing a motion to dismiss
under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1) for lack of subject
matter jurisdiction.  Kyorin and Senju jointly filed a motion to
dismiss under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) for failure
to state a claim.  Allergan's 12(b)(1) motion argued that Hartig
lacked "[s]tanding to sue under the antitrust laws" because an
anti-assignment clause in the Distribution Services Agreement
("DSA") that Allergan had with Amerisource expressly prohibited
either party from assigning the agreement or related rights and
obligations without prior written consent from the other party.

The district court granted Allergan's 12(b)(1) motion and
dismissed Hartig's complaint for lack of subject matter
jurisdiction.  In its opinion, the court ruled that an anti-
assignment clause in a distribution agreement between Allergan and
Amerisource barred any assignment of antitrust claims from
Amerisource to Hartig, leaving Hartig without standing to sue and
divesting the court of subject matter jurisdiction.

Hartig timely appealed.  Later, a group of seven drug retailers
joined the appeal as amici curiae in support of Hartig.  While the
parties failed to challenge the district court's decision to
address antitrust standing as a question of subject matter
jurisdiction, the amici contended that Allergan's anti-assignment
argument implicated only antitrust standing and that such standing
is different from Article III standing, so that the district
court's subject matter jurisdiction has never been rightly in
question.  The amici argued that the district court erred by
addressing Allergan's motion to dismiss as a factual challenge to
jurisdiction under Rule 12(b)(1), and that the court should have
addressed the motion under Rule 12(b)(6) for failure to state a
claim.

The Third Circuit concluded that the District Court should have
treated antitrust standing not as an Article III jurisdictional
issue, but rather as a merits issue, and thus should have resolved
the motion to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6) rather than Rule
12(b)(1).  The appellate court also found that Hartig had Article
III standing sufficient to give the district court subject matter
jurisdiction, and thus held that a dismissal under Rule 12(b)(1)
was not legitimately in play.

Allergan argued that the DSA can be considered in a 12(b)(6)
analysis because it is a document "integral to or explicitly
relied upon in the complaint." The Third Circuit disagreed, and
pointed out that the DSA was never mentioned in Hartig's
complaint, was not attached to the complaint, was not a matter of
public record, and did not form a basis for any of the claims.
Because the DSA is extrinsic to the complaint, the Third Circuit
held that the district court could not have properly considered it
for purposes of a Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss, and, as such,
without the DSA, Allergan's entire challenge to the validity of
Amerisource's assignment lacks a foundation.

A full-text copy of the Third Circuit's September 7, 2016 opinion
is available at https://is.gd/uvN7Sp from Leagle.com.

Counsel for Appellant:

         J. Clayton Athey, Esq.
         Prickett Jones & Elliott
         1310 King Street
         P.O. Box 1328
         Wilmington, DE 19899.
         E-mail: jcathey@prickett.com

         Brent W. Landau, Esq.
         Hausfeld
         325 Chestnut - Ste. 900
         Philadelphia, PA 19106,
         Email: blandau@hausfeldllp.com

Counsel for Appellee Senju Pharmaceutical Co. Ltd.:

         Stephen B. Brauerman, Esq.
         The Bayard Firm
         222 Delaware Avenue-Ste. 900
         Wilmington, DE 19801
         E-mail: sbrauerman@bayardlaw.com

         William F. Sondericker, Esq.
         Carter Ledyard & Milburn
         2 Wall Street
         New York, NY 10005
         E-mail: sondericker@clm.com

Counsel for Kyorin Pharmaceutical Co. Ltd.:

         Sara Kusiak, Esq.
         Jones Day
         250 Vesey Street
         New York, NY 10281

         Rosanna K. McCalips, Esq
         Kevin D. McDonald, Esq.
         Jones Day
         51 Louisiana Avenue, NW
         Washington, DC 20001
         E-mail: rkmccalips@jonesday.com
                 kdmcdonald@jonesday.com

         David E. Ross, Esq.
         Benjamin J. Schladweiler, Esq.
         Ross Aronstam & Moritz
         100 South West Street - #400
         Wilmington, DE 19801
         E-mail: der@msf-law.com
                 bschladweiler@ramllp.com

Counsel for Appellee Allergan Inc.:

         Ashley E. Johnson, Esq.
         M. Sean Royall, Esq.
         Gibson Dunn & Crutcher
         2100 McKinney Avenue - Ste. 1100
         Dallas, TX 75201
         E-mail: ajohnson@gibsondunn.com
                 sroyall@gibsondunn.com

         Mark A. Perry, Esq.
         Lucas C. Townsend, Esq.
         Gibson Dunn & Crutcher
         1050 Connecticut Avenue, NW - 9th Fl.
         Washington, DC 20036
         E-mail: mperry@gibsondunn.com
                 ltownsend@gibsondunn.com

Counsel for Amicus Appellants, Walgreen Co., Safeway, Inc., Kroger
Co., HEB Grocery Co. LP, Albertsons LLC:

         Scott E. Perwin, Esq.
         Kenny Nachwalter
         1441 Brickell Avenue - Ste. 1000
         Miami, FL 33131
         E-mail: sep@kennynachwalter.com

Counsel for Amicus Appellant, Rite Aid Corp.:

         Barry L. Refsin, Esq.
         Hangley Aronchick Segal Pudlin & Schiller
         One Logan Square
         18th & Cherry Sts. - 27th Fl.
         Philadelphia, PA 19103
         E-mail: brefsin@hangley.com


SHRINERS HOSPITAL: "Moffet" Suit Seeks Unpaid Wages Under FLSA
--------------------------------------------------------------
TONIEKA MOFFET, on her own behalf and others similarly situated,
the Plaintiff, v. SHRINERS HOSPITAL FOR CHILDREN, INC., the
Defendant, Case No. 8:16-cv-02638-CEH-TGW (M.D. Fla., Sep. 13,
2016), seeks to recover unpaid wages pursuant to the Fair Labor
Standards Act (FLSA).

The Defendants allegedly failed to pay the Plaintiff for work
performed off the clock. The hours work by the Plaintiff is
classified as hours constituting overtime hours.

Shriners Hospitals provides specialized care to children with
orthopedic conditions, burns, spinal cord injuries, and cleft lip
and palate.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          John Gadd, Esq.
          Kyle Lee, Esq.
          Bank of America Building
          2727 Ulmerton Rd. Ste. 250
          Clearwater, FL 33762
          Telephone (727) 524 6300
          E-mail: wjg@mazgadd.com


SIF CONSULTANTS: No More Briefing Deadline in "Williams" Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Billy H. Ezell of the Court of Appeals of Louisiana, Third
Circuit, denied the Appellee's Motion to Stay and Reset Briefing
Deadline in the case, GEORGE RAYMOND WILLIAMS, M.D., ET AL., v.
SIF CONSULTANTS OF LOUISIANA, INC., ET AL., No. CA 16-343 (La.
App.).

The Third Circuit rendered the Appellee's motion as moot following
the Appellant's submission of the supplemental record on July 26,
2016.

The matter arises out of a settlement agreement in a class action
lawsuit involving claims of improper medical billing practices in
workers' compensation cases. On December 21, 2015, the appellee
filed a Motion for Summary Judgment against the appellant,
Homeland Insurance Company of New York, for the full amount if its
policy limits. The motion was granted on February 5, 2016, and the
appellant was ordered to pay $10,000,000, together with legal
interest thereon, in favor of the appellee.  The appellant filed a
timely motion to appeal the judgment, and appellant was granted a
suspensive appeal on March 21, 2016.

A copy of the Court's Order dated September 7, 2016 is available
at https://goo.gl/LtN7Dm from Leagle.com.

Counsel For Defendant/Appellant Homeland Ins. Co. of New York:

     Randall Kurt Theunissen, Esq.
     Michael Edward Parker, Esq.
     Allen & Gooch
     Post Office Box 81129
     Lafayette, LA 70598-1129
     Tel: (337) 291-1000

     Martin A. Stern, Esq.
     Edward Paige Sensenbrenner, Esq.
     Raymond Peter Ward, Esq
     Adams & Reese, LLP
     701 Poydras Street, Suite 4500
     New Orleans, LA 70139
     Tel: (504) 581-3234
     E-mail: martin.stern@arlaw.com
             paige.sensenbrenner@arlaw.com
             raymond.ward@arlaw.com

     Michael J. Rosen, Esq.
     Peter F. Lovato, III, Esq.
     E-mail: plovato@skarzynski.com
     Skarzynksi Black, LLP
     205 North Michigan Ave., Suite 2600
     Chicago, IL 60601
     Tel: (312) 946-4200

Counsel For Plaintiffs/Appellees George Raymond Williams, M.D.,
Orthopaedic Surgery, A Professional Medical LLC:

     John Stanton Bradford, Esq.
     William Boyce Monk, Esq.
     Stockwell, Sievert, Viccellio, Clements & Shaddock, LLP
     Post Office Box 2900
     Lake Charles, LA 70602
     Tel: (337) 436-9491

     Patrick Craig Morrow, Sr., Esq.
     James P. Ryan, Esq.
     Morrow, Morrow, Ryan & Bassett
     Post Office Box 1787
     Opelousas, LA 70570
     Tel: (337) 948-4483
     E-mail: CraigM@mmrblaw.com
             JamesR@mmrblaw.com

     Stephen Barnett Murray, Esq.
     Stephen Barnett Murray, Jr., Esq.
     Arthur M. Murray, Esq.
     Nicole A. Murray-Ieyoub, Esq.
     Murray Law Firm
     650 Poydras Street, Suite 2150
     New Orleans, LA 70130
     Tel: (504) 525-8100

     Thomas Allen Filo, Esq.
     Michael Kevin Cox, Esq.
     Cox, Cox, Filo, Camel & Wilson, LLC
     723 Broad Street
     Lake Charles, LA 70601
     Tel: (337) 436-6611

Counsel For Defendant/Appellee Med-Comp USA, Inc.:

     Charles Thach Curtis, Jr., Esq.
     Gerard George Metzger
     829 Baronne Street
     New Orleans, LA 70113
     Tel: (504) 581-9322

Patrick Juneau, Special Master:

     Patrick A. Juneau, Jr., Esq.
     The Juneau Firm
     Post Office Drawer 51268
     Lafayette, LA 70505-1268
     Tel: (337) 269-0052,
     E-mail: paj@juneaudavid.com

Counsel For Defendant/Appellee Bestcomp, Inc.:

     Larry Lane Roy, Esq.
     Brown Sims
     600 Jefferson Street, Suite 800
     Lafayette, LA 70501
     Tel: (337) 484-1240

Counsel For Defendant/Appellee Risk Management Services:

     Janice Bertucci Unland, Esq.
     Rabalais, Unland
     1404 Greengate Drive, #110
     Covington, LA 70433-5272
     Tel: (985) 893-9900

     Daniel J. Layden, Esq.
     Ronald P. Schiller, Esq/
     Hangley, Aronchick, Segal
     One Logan Square, 27th Floor
     Philadelphia, PA 19103

Counsel For Defendant/Appellee Executive Risk Specialty Ins. Co.:

     Steven William Usdin, Esq.
     Barrasso, Usdin, Kupperman, Freeman & Sarver
     909 Poydras Street, #2400
     New Orleans, LA 70112
     Tel: (504) 589-9700

Counsel For Defendant/Appellee SIF Consultants of Louisiana, Inc.:

     Cynthia J. Thomas, Esq.
     Galloway, Johnson, Thompkins, Burr and Smith
     3 Sanctuary Boulevard, Suite 301
     Mandeville, LA 70471
     Tel: (985) 674-6710

Counsel For Defendant/Appellee Cor Vel Corp.:

     John Mark Fezio, Esq.
     Stone, Pigman
     546 Carondelet Street
     New Orleans, LA 70130
     Tel: (504) 581-3200
     E-mail: jfezio@stonepigman.com

Court composed of Billy H. Ezell, Shannon J. Gremillion and
Phyllis M. Keaty, Judges.


SIRIUS XM: Faces "Wright" Class Suit in C.D. California
-------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been commenced against Sirius XM Radio
Inc.

The case is captioned Paul Wright, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated v. Sirius XM Radio Inc., Case No.
8:16-cv-01688 (C.D. Cal., September 12, 2016).

Sirius XM Radio Inc. is a broadcasting company that provides three
satellite radio and online radio services operating in the United
States.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

         - and -

      Cornelius P. Dukelow, Esq.
      ABINGTON COLE AND ELLERY
      320 South Boston Avenue Suite 1130
      Tulsa, OK 74103
      Telephone: (918) 588-3400
      Facsimile: (918) 588-3400
      E-mail: cdukelow@abingtonlaw.com

SOUTH NASSAU: "Foster" Seeks Overtime Pay Under NY Labor Law
------------------------------------------------------------
LYDIA FOSTER, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. SOUTH NASSAU COMMUNITIES HOSPITAL, the
Defendant, Case No. 607085/2016 (N.Y. Sup. Ct., Sept. 14, 2016),
seeks to recover unpaid straight and overtime pay under the New
York Labor Law (NYLL).

According to the complaint, the Defendant employed in excess
of 40 Hourly Employees and systematically failed and refused to
pay them for all compensable hours worked.

South Nassau Communities Hospital is a general medical and
surgical hospital in Oceanside, New York.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Louis Ginsberg, Esq.
          LOUIS GINSBERG, P.C.
          1613 Northern Boulevard
          Roslyn, NY 11576
          Telephone: (516) 625 0105


SPRINGFIELD, GA: Sued for Segregating Students with Disabilities
----------------------------------------------------------------
By Heather Adams, writing for masslive.com, reports that in August
the Department of Justice announced they were suing Georgia for
"unnecessarily segregating students with disabilities."  A similar
lawsuit has been going on in Springfield since 2014.

On June 27, 2014, a parent of a student at the Springfield Public
Day School, a school specifically for children with disabilities,
filed a federal class suit against the city of Springfield and the
city's school system.  The suit claimed the student was being
"warehoused in a segregated Springfield school without educational
opportunities or therapeutic supports."

The case claims the separate facility is in violation of the
Americans With Disabilities Act, due to the lack of providing
services in integrated settings among typically developing peers.

Superintendent of Public Schools Daniel J. Warwick called the
complaint "outrageous," according to a previous report by The
Republican.

He said that the goal of the public day programs is to provide
alternative pathways for students with disabilities to be
successful within the public school setting.

Mr. Warwick also said the district's public day programs are fully
approved by the Department of Elementary and Secondary Education
and have been praised by school districts throughout the state as
a model of excellence.

Although, the school did run into some problems with the
Department of Elementary and Secondary Education the same year as
the lawsuit.

The 2014 Massachusetts Department of Elementary and Secondary
Education Coordinated Program Review Report claimed the students
at Springfield Public Day Middle School and Springfield Public Day
High School "do not have equal opportunity to participate in
vocational, nonacademic and extracurricular programs" as their
peers in other schools.  The report also said the schools "are not
located in fully accessible facilities" with the example of the
high school having "only stairs to the second floor."

The case hasn't been without its share of complications.  The city
attempted to have the case dismissed but a federal judge denied
the motion.  According to the Center for Public Representation
Assistant Director Robert Fleischner, the next step is a hearing
in late September or October to treat the case as a class action
before proceeding.

The similarities between this case and the case in Georgia,
though, could prove to be important.

Both cases in Springfield and Georgia claim students at the
schools are being segregated in violation of the Americans With
Disabilities Act, which requires public systems provide services
in integrated settings.

Both cases talk about the schools being "inferior" and education
not being the main priority.

"Academic expectations are low.  Education is not the primary
mission of the Public Day School, and students make little
academic progress there," the Springfield class action complaint
reads.

Physical restraints were also brought up in both claims.  The
Atlanta Journal-Constitution found that in Georgia's segregated
schools, known as Georgia Network for Educational and Therapeutic
Support (GNETS), students were restrained nearly five times more
than in all of Georgia's other public schools combined.

In the case with Springfield Public Day Schools the complaint
includes that the school focuses "on behavior control using
drastic methods including dangerous physical restraints, forced
isolation in padded rooms and repeated arrests and suspensions for
minor offenses."

The cases claim students in both states could be educated among
their typical developing peers.

"These are children of great promise," the complaint said.  "They
could be educated in neighborhood schools and given the same
opportunity to progress academically and graduate that is enjoyed
by their peers without a disability."

Although, there are a few differences.  The main being Georgia's
schools are a statewide program, while the case is Springfield is
specific to one school district.

That doesn't mean, however, that there aren't other school
districts in Massachusetts operating the same way.  But they are
not run under one roof and operate individually.

Depending on the outcome of the Springfield case, it could have a
larger impact, Mr. Fleischner said.

If Springfield is found in violation of ADA requirements, it could
impact how other districts in the state run their special
education departments.

It could also impact the case in Georgia or vice versa, providing
another example of a similar case.

"Whichever one is (decided) first will have some impact on the
other, I suspect," Mr. Fleischner said.

The outcome, though, could go beyond these two cases. Other states
have similar separate schools for students with disabilities such
as Missouri State Schools for the Severely Disabled and Pasadena
Unified School District Focus Point Academy in Los Angeles.

Emily Suski, an assistant professor at the University of South
Carolina School of Law who specializes in education law, told
Mother Jones if Georgia is found not complying with the ADA it
sets a precedent and other states and school districts will have
to reexamine their approaches.

The cases are all part of a larger movement to apply ADA more
heavily on schools than in the past, Jennifer Mathis, deputy legal
director at Judge David L. Bazelon Center for Mental Health Law
said.

Previously, schools focused on the Individuals with Disabilities
Education Act, or IDEA, which passed in 1975 and mandated by law
that schools must provide a free, appropriate education in a least
restrictive environment to all children.

The law is left broad, not specifying what is "appropriate" or
"least restrictive," allowing states and schools to figure out the
best practices for educating children with special needs.  But it
did not require "inclusion," the integration of students with
special needs into the regular education classroom -- something
many disability advocates push for.

Dr. George Giuliani, executive director at the National
Association of Special Education Teachers said during an interview
with Columbia, Missouri NPR affiliate KBIA that the concept of
"free appropriate public education" was the focus of the 1982
Petitioners v. Amy Rowley court case.  While the school felt Amy
was doing fine, her parents thought she could do even better with
a sign language interpreter. But the court decided that wasn't the
expectation of the school.

"The standard is we have to provide an appropriate education not a
best education," Dr. Giuliani said.

Although the primary focus for schools has been IDEA, since 1990
they also fall under the ADA -- which has clearer language and
requires inclusion.  And court cases like the ones in Springfield
and Georgia are forcing the courts and schools to look at this
requirement.

"It always takes time to raise these arguments in different
contexts," Ms. Mathis said.  She continued saying she doesn't
think the schools are trying to be harmful "but that doesn't mean
it's OK or legal."

Ms. Mathis said some parents might feel the segregated schools can
provide a service the traditional public schools can't, but she
said getting those services in integrated settings is an important
part of the court case.


STONEPEAK CERAMICS: "Lopez" Seeks Unpaid Wages Under Wage Order
---------------------------------------------------------------
MANUEL LOPEZ as an individual and on behalf all others similarly
situated, the Plaintiff, v. STONEPEAK CERAMICS, INC., a Delaware
Corporation; and DOES 1-100, the Defendants, Case No. 30-2016-
00874675-CU-OE-CXC (Cal. Super. Ct., Sep. 13, 2016), seeks to
recover unpaid wages, penalties, declaratory relief and
restitution under the California Business and Professions Code,
the Labor Code, and the Industrial Welfare Commission Wage Order.

During Plaintiff's employment with Defendants, the Plaintiff was
allegedly not provided with all required meal periods due to
Defendants' meal period policy which is silent as to the timing of
first meal periods and fails to provide a second meal period for
shifts over 10.0 hours. In practice, Plaintiff rarely received a
timely 30-minute meal period (i.e. before the end of his fifth
hour of work) due to Defendants' policy/practice of not scheduling
meal periods before the end of the fifth hour of work. Further,
when Plaintiff worked shifts over 10.0 hours, he was not provided
a second 30-minute meal period due to Defendants' meal period
policies/practices, which fail to provide a second meal period for
shifts greater than 10.0 hours.

StonePeak Ceramics produces and distributes porcelain tiles. It
offers castle rocks, lime stones, mosaics, and terrain stones.

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


SUE'S RENDEZVOUS: Faces "Bruton" Suit in New York Supreme Court
---------------------------------------------------------------
A lawsuit has been filed against Sue's Rendezvous of Westchester,
Inc. The case is captioned BRUTON, FALEMA INDIVIDUALLY AND ON
BEHALF OF OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED, the Plaintiff, v. SUE'S
RENDEZVOUS OF WESTCHESTER, INC. AND GAETANO GIZZO, the Defendants,
Case No. 55924/2016 (N.Y. Sup. Ct., Sept. 16, 2016).

Sue's Rendezvous is a food Service establishment in New York.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          LEEDS BROWN LAW, P.C.
          One Old Country Road, Ste 347
          Carle Place, NY 11514
          Telephone: (516) 873 9550

The Defendant is represented by:

          VENERUSO, CURTO, SCHWARTZ, LLP
          35 East Grassy Sprain Rd.
          Yonkers, NY 10710
          Telephone: (914) 779 1100


SUNRISE CREDIT: Faces "Caprio" Suit in District of New Jersey
-------------------------------------------------------------
A lawsuit has been filed against Sunrise Credit Services, Inc.
The case is styled RAY V. CAPRIO, on behalf of himself and all
others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. SUNRISE CREDIT
SERVICES, INC. and JOHN DOES 1-25, the Defendants, Case No. 3:16-
cv-05642-AET-TJB (D.N.J., Sept. 15, 2016). The assigned Judge is
Hon. Anne E. Thompson.

Sunrise Credit provides credit and accounts receivables management
services for credit grantors in the United States.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


SUPREME SERVICE: "Guerra" Suit Seeks to Recoup Pay Under FLSA
-------------------------------------------------------------
ANDREW GUERRA, Individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated Plaintiff, v. SUPREME SERVICE & SPECIALTY *
COMPANY, INC., Case 2:16-cv-14653 (E.D. La., September 13, 2016),
seeks to recover compensation, liquidated damages, attorneys'
fees, and costs, pursuant to the provisions of Section 216(b) of
the Fair Labor Standards Act.

SUPREME SERVICE & SPECIALTY COMPANY, INC. provides land-based and
offshore oilfield services.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Michael T. Tusa, Jr., Esq.
     SUTTON, ALKER & RATHER, LLC
     4080 Lonesome Road, Suite A
     Mandeville, LA 70448
     Phone: (985) 727-7501
     Fax: (985) 727-7505
     Email: mtusa@sutton-alker.com

        - and -

     Clif Alexander, Esq.
     ANDERSON2X, PLLC
     819 N. Upper Broadway
     Corpus Christi, TX 78401
     Phone: (361) 452-1279
     Fax: (361) 452-1284
     Email: clif@a2xlaw.com


SYNGENTA AG: Court Drops Opinions of Peer Reviewers
---------------------------------------------------
In the case, IN RE: SYNGENTA AG MIR 162 CORN LITIGATION, MDL No.
2591, Case No. 14-md-2591-JWL (D. Kans.), District Judge John W.
Lungstrum granted the Plaintiffs' motion to strike the Phipps
plaintiffs' expert report with respect to opinions by peer
reviewers; and partly granted the Plaintiffs' alternative request
to submit rebuttal reports.

The Court finds that the report does not state any basis for the
reviewers' agreement and approval of the other experts' opinions.
Meanwhile, the Court will consider the rebuttal reports only to
the extent that they address opinions in the Phipps plaintiffs'
expert report.

On the other hand, the motion by Defendant Syngenta to strike
certain arguments and new evidence from the Plaintiffs' class
certification reply brief is granted in part and denied in part.
The motion is granted with respect to the Court's consideration of
plaintiffs' rebuttal reports as applied to Syngenta, but the
motion is otherwise denied.

Moreover, Defendant Syngenta's motion for an evidentiary hearing
on class certification is granted -- but only with a total of 75
minutes for argument, with plaintiffs permitted to reserve up to
half of that time for rebuttal argument. The allocated time is
different from the Defendant's proposal which suggested an eight-
hour testimony from each side's experts, followed by oral
argument.

A copy of the Court's Order dated September 2, 2016 is available
at https://goo.gl/Z9eRNS from Leagle.com.

In Re All Plaintiffs (for Lead/Liaison Counsel ONLY), represented
by Don M. Downing, Gray, Ritter & Graham, PC, pro hac vice.

In Re All Plaintiffs (for Lead/Liaison Counsel ONLY), represented
by Patrick J. Stueve -- stueve@stuevesiegel.com -- Stueve Siegel
Hanson LLP, Scott A. Powell, Hare Wynn Newell & Newton, pro hac
vice & William B. Chaney -- scott@hwnn.com -- Gray Reed & McGraw,
pro hac vice.

All Defendants (for Lead/Liaison Counsel ONLY), In Re, represented
by Michael D. Jones -- michael.jones@kirkland.com -- Kirkland &
Ellis, pro hac vice & Thomas P. Schult --
tschult@berkowitzoliver.com -- Berkowitz Oliver Williams Shaw &
Eisenbrandt, LLPMO.

Ellen K. Reisman, represented by Ellen K. Reisman, Reisman Karron
Greene LLP.

Stracener Farming Company, et al., Plaintiffs, represented by
Clark W. Mason, Clark Mason Attorneys, pro hac vice, James J.
Thompson, Jr. -- JT@JimThompsonLaw.com -- pro hac vice, Jerry
Kelly, Kelly Law Firm, pro hac vice, John Paul Byrd, Paul Byrd Law
Firm, PLLC, pro hac vice, Martin J. Phipps, Phipps Anderson Deacon
LLP, Mikal C. Watts -- mcwatts@wattsguerra.com -- Watts Guerra,
LLP & Nolan E. Awbrey, Riley Jackson, PC, pro hac vice.

Trans Coastal Supply Company Inc., Plaintiff, represented by Jayne
Conroy -- JConroy@simmonsfirm.com -- Simmons Hanly Conroy, Martin
J. Phipps -- MPhipps@phippsandersondeacon.com -- Phipps Anderson
Deacon LLP, Mikal C. Watts -- mcwatts@wattsguerra.com -- Watts
Guerra, LLP, Patrick J. Stueve -- stueve@stuevesiegel.com --
Stueve Siegel Hanson LLP, Paul J. Hanly, Jr. --
phanly@simmonsfirm.com -- Simmons Hanly Conroy, Sarah Burns --
sburns@simmonsfirm.com -- Simmons Hanly Conroy & William B. Chaney
-- wchaney@grayreed.com -- Gray Reed & McGraw.


TAMPA HUB: Faces "Willitte" Suit Seeking to Recoup Pay Under FLSA
-----------------------------------------------------------------
THOMAS WILLITTE, on behalf of himself and those similarly
situated, Plaintiff, vs. TAMPA HUB CORPORATION d/b/a CRAB SHACK,
and MICHELE BRAVE, Individually, Defendants, Case 8:16-cv-02635-
EAK-JSS (M.D. Fla., September 13, 2016), was filed under the Fair
Labor Standards Act, seeking to recover alleged unpaid minimum
wages, an additional equal amount as liquidated damages, obtain
declaratory relief, and reasonable attorney's fees and costs and
other relief as available under Florida common law.

Plaintiff was employed as a busboy and dishwasher at the Crab
Shack Restaurant.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Marc R. Edelman, Esq.
     MORGAN & MORGAN, P.A.
     201 N. Franklin Street, #600
     Tampa, FL 33602
     Phone 813-223-5505
     Fax: 813-257-0572
     Email: Medelman@forthepeople.com


TBC CORP: "Street" Suit Claims Fair Labor Standards Act Violation
-----------------------------------------------------------------
ALVIN STREET, Individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated Plaintiff, v. TBC CORPORATION, TBC RETAIL GROUP, INC.,
NTW, LLC d/b/a NATIONAL TIRE AND BATTERY, Defendants, Case 2:16-
cv-00384 (S.D. Tex., September 12, 2016), seeks to recover
compensation, liquidated damages, attorneys' fees, and costs,
pursuant to the provisions of Section 216(b) of the Fair Labor
Standards Act of 1938.

TBC Corporation -- http://www.tbccorp.com/-- sells private brand
tires and retail tires.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Clif Alexander, Esq.
     Austin W. Anderson, Esq.
     Lauren E. Braddy, Esq.
     ANDERSON2X, PLLC
     819 N. Upper Broadway
     Corpus Christi, TX 78401
     Phone: (361) 452-1279
     Fax: (361) 452-1284
     E-mail: clif@a2xlaw.com
             austin@a2xlaw.com
             lauren@a2xlaw.com


TESLA MOTORS: Directors Sued Over SolarCity Acquisition Breaches
----------------------------------------------------------------
P. EVAN STEPHENS, Individually and on Behalf of All Others
Similarly Situated and Derivatively on Behalf of TESLA MOTORS,
INC., the Plaintiff, v. ELON MUSK, ANTONIO J. GRACIAS, KIMBAL
MUSK, IRA EHRENPREIS, STEPHEN T. JURVETSON, BRAD W. BUSS, and
ROBYN M. DENHOLM, the Defendants, and TESLA MOTORS, INC., a
Delaware corporation, Nominal Defendant, Case No. 12745 (Del.
Chancery Ct., September 13, 2016), seeks judgment against
Defendants for breaches of fiduciary duties and other legal
violations in connection with their agreement to acquire SolarCity
Corporation (SolarCity) for an exorbitant price (Proposed
Acquisition) in order to secure personal financial benefits at the
expense of the reputation, goodwill, and financial standing of
Tesla.

According to the complaint, Tesla's Board is eager to kowtow to
Defendant E. Musk's personal desire to attempt to save SolarCity
at the expense of Tesla and its stockholders, and will not go
against his wishes for fear of losing their prestigious positions
and the related substantial economic benefits. The desire of the
conflicted Tesla directors to serve their own self-interests and
also bail out SolarCity at the expense of the Company is the only
plausible rationale for their decision to approve the Proposed
Acquisition and Tesla's entry into the Agreement and Plan of
Merger (the Merger Agreement) with SolarCity.

Tesla designs, develops, manufactures, and sells high-performance
fully electric vehicles.  The Company's primary source of revenue
is from the sale of its vehicles. To a significantly lesser
extent, Tesla also designs, develops, manufactures, and sells
energy storage products, such as batteries.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Robert D. Goldberg, Esq.
          BIGGS AND BATTAGLIA
          921 North Orange Street
          Wilmington, DE 19801
          Telephone: (302) 655 9677
          Facsimile: (302) 655 7924
          E-mail: goldberg@batlaw.com

               - and -

          Brian J. Robbins, Esq.
          Felipe J. Arroyo, Esq.
          Stephen J. Oddo, Esq.
          Gina Stassi, Esq.
          ROBBINS ARROYO LLP
          600 B Street, Suite 1900
          San Diego, CA 92101
          Telephone: (619) 525 3990


TOYOTA MOTOR: Plaintiffs' Appeal in Privacy Class Action Pending
----------------------------------------------------------------
Hanley Chew, writing for IPWatchdog, reports that security
concerns about connected vehicles prompted the filing of a class
action complaint in 2015 in Cahen, et. al., v. Toyota Motor Corp,
et. al., No. 3:15-cv-01104 WHO against Toyota Motor Corp., Ford
Motor Co., and General Motors LLC, alleging fraud, false
advertising, and violations of consumer protection laws based on a
purported failure to disclose their vehicle's lack of electronic
security and a susceptibility to hacking.   The district court
dismissed the complaint, finding that the plaintiffs lacked
standing because they had not suffered an actual injury and
possessed only a speculative risk of future harm.  The plaintiffs
appealed and the case is currently pending before the Ninth
Circuit.  The Electronic Privacy Information Center (EPIC) has
filed an amicus curiae brief, requesting that the Ninth Circuit
reverse the dismissal.  The EPIC alleges that connected vehicles
without authentication or encryption are inherently vulnerable and
pose more than a speculative risk of harm.


TRUMP NATIONAL: Jupiter Golf Club Class Action Trial Concludes
--------------------------------------------------------------
Jason Silverstein, writing for New York Daily News, reports that
members of the Trump National Golf Club Jupiter filed a federal
class action lawsuit demanding refunds after Donald Trump bought
the course in 2012 and changed the membership rules.

A judge ruled in July that case could go to trial.  During a
testimony, Mr. Trump spawn Eric Trump copped his father's campaign
slogan, saying his dad made the club "great again."  The trial has
concluded and U.S. District Judge Kenneth Marra asked for proposed
judgments by Sept. 16.

Mr. Trump visited one of his non-American golf courses -- in South
Ayrshire, Scotland -- right after the Brexit vote in June.
Protesters with Mexican flag and Nazi golf balls awaited him.

Speaking to reporters, Mr. Trump compared renovating a golf course
to managing a country, and acknowledged that some people who live
near his golf clubs usually aren't too happy about it.

"Most neighbors love us," he said.

"I have one or two that are a little contentious, which is fine,
because they lost.  It's like some of the people I beat in the
primaries.  They're not exactly in love with me."

Mr. Trump in May asked to build a stone wall around a golf course
in Ireland because of rising sea levels -- even though he has
dismissed climate change as a "hoax."


UBER TECHNOLOGIES: Misclassification Issue Remain Unresolved
------------------------------------------------------------
Jane Mundy, writing for LawyersandSettlements.com, reports that
the continuing saga between Uber and California labor law
regarding misclassification may take years to resolve.  "Even if
both parties reached an agreement, there needs to be a change in
the law," says employment attorney Todd Scherwin.

In yet another strike against a potential resolution against Uber,
Judge Edward Chen recently rejected an $84 million settlement
offered by Uber to resolve the major class action lawsuits it is
currently facing.

About four years after its San Francisco launch in 2009, Uber was
hit with a class action lawsuit filed by attorney Shannon Liss-
Riordan on behalf of 8,000 California Uber drivers.  The
California labor lawsuit was upgraded to include all Uber drivers
in California, which comprises more than half of the company's
current US workforce.

In April 2016, Uber believed the agreement had been reached.  On
its website Travis Kalanick, Uber's CEO and Co-Founder, announced
a settlement in two class-action lawsuits: O'Connor (California)
and Yucesoy (Massachusetts).  "The key issue at stake in both
cases is whether drivers using the Uber app should be classified
as independent contractors or employees," said Mr. Kalanick,
adding that drivers will remain contractors, not employees.  But
it's not up to Uber.

Ultimately both parties will go back to the drawing board to
settle, but Attorney Scherwin believes not before "we see a true
fight and potential trial with a decision being reached," he says.
"Most everyone is frustrated with the lack of ability to settle."
This lack of ability is due to the difficulty in putting a number
on what is considered a reasonable settlement because so many
individuals are involved.  According to Uber, some 385,000 drivers
from California and Massachusetts are affected by this settlement.
And after legal fees, the average driver will likely end up with
less than $1,000 -- should they settle.

"The issue of misclassification is not being resolved and it is
gnawing at the court," says Mr. Scherwin.  "So this suit is stuck
between a settlement and payout to the Uber class or it will be a
trial based on the merits.  People are trying to avoid the latter,
but the more times this settlement falls apart, the more likely it
will end up in a trial."

Mr. Scherwin explains that Judge Chen isn't saying that he won't
consider more settlement proposals.  But perhaps both parties -
Uber and plaintiffs -- get stuck figuring out what may get
approved by the court, throw up their hands and agree not to agree
-- they cannot settle this issue.  Or they may try one more shot
with a certain amount.  "Now the appellate court is deciding
whether the arbitration agreements signed by the drivers are
enforceable.  If the arbitration agreements are determined to be
enforceable it will cut the class size down by over 90 percent,"
he says.

If the California labor law needs to be changed regarding
misclassification that change will not come anytime soon -- not
until a court decision comes out and makes the law.  Legislature
reads the decision and develops a statute that agrees with this
decision, and that typically takes years.  Uber drivers still
won't be considered employees under the settlement, and even when
a group is created like the gig economy, a happy medium cannot be
created by Uber.  There must be a change in the law, even if the
gig people all agreed one way or the other.

In the meantime Mr. Scherwin gazes into his crystal ball.  "If
they are unable to come to an agreement, we will see it move
forward to reach a decision on its merits ??" independent
contractor or not.  My gut check is that the Uber driver is an
independent contractor but that doesn't mean a jury or court will
agree with me.  There needs to be a change in the law."

Update: September 7, 2016

The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals has ruled that Uber drivers
suing the company may be bound by arbitration agreements.  This
ruling is a major victory for Uber, reversing a district court
ruling from 2015 that voided the company's arbitration agreements
and allowed a driver class action lawsuit to proceed to challenge
Uber's background-check practices.  The reasoning in the Ninth
Circuit's ruling could also apply to the case over drivers'
classification.


UNICOM SYSTEMS: Sued in Cal. Over Disability Discrimination
-----------------------------------------------------------
Gina La Porte v. Unicom Systems, Inc., Corry S. Hong, and Does 1
through 100, Inclusive, Case No. BC633594 (Cal. Super. Ct.,
September 9, 2016), is an action for damages as a result of the
Defendants' discrimination, harassment, and retaliation in the
workplace against employees based upon their disability.

The Defendants operate a technology software company located at
15535 San Fernando Mission Blvd #10, Mission Hills, CA 91345.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Brian I. Vogel, Esq.
      LAW OFFICES OF BRIAN I. VOGEL
      572 E. Green Street, Suite 305
      Pasadena, CA 91101
      Telephone: (626) 796-7470
      E-mail: brian@vogellawoffices.com


UNITED STORM: Faces "Sandoval" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
----------------------------------------------------------------
Raul Sandoval, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated
v. United Storm Water, Inc. and Does 1 to 100, inclusive, Case No.
BC633652 (Cal. Super. Ct., September 12, 2016), is brought against
the Defendants for failure to pay overtime wages in violation of
the Fair Labor Standards Act.

United Storm Water, Inc. is a pioneer in storm water management
and remediation services.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Richard E. Donahoo, Esq.
      Sarah L. Kokonas, Esq.
      Judith L. Camilleri, Esq.
      DONAHOO & ASSOCIATES, PC
      440 West First Street, Suite 101
      Tustin, CA 92780
      Telephone: (714) 953-1010
      Facsimile: (714) 953-1777
      E-mail: rdonahoo@donahoo.com
              skokonas@donahoo.com
              jcamilleri@donahoo.com


UNIVERSITY MEDICAL: Reply to "Small" Suit Due Oct. 10
-----------------------------------------------------
District Judge Andrew P. Gordon granted the parties' stipulation
to extend the briefing schedule for Defendants' motion to dismiss
Plaintiffs' Fourth Amended Class Action Complaint in the case,
DANIEL SMALL, CAROLYN SMALL. WILLIAM CURTIN, DAVID COHEN, LANETTE
LAWRENCE, and LOUISE COLLARD, Individually, and on Behalf of All
Other Persons Similarly Situated, Plaintiffs, v. UNIVERSITY
MEDICAL CENTER OF SOUTHERN NEVADA; a political subdivision of
Clark County, State of Nevada, CLARK COUNTY, a political
subdivision of the State of Nevada, and JOHN ESPINOZA, an
individual. Defendants, Case No.
2-13-cv-0298-APG-PAL (D. Nev.).

Plaintiffs filed their Fourth Amended Class Action Complaint on
August 25, 2016.  The Defendants' responsive pleading was
initially due September 14, 2016.  They now have until Oct. 10,
2016, to make the filing.

The Court further ordered that the Plaintiffs shall file their
opposition to the responsive pleading no later than Wednesday,
November 9, 2016, and that the Defendants shall file their reply
no later than Wednesday, November 23, 2016.

A copy of the Court's Order dated September 2, 2016 is available
at https://goo.gl/AO8DbX from Leagle.com.

Daniel Small, Plaintiff, represented by Anthony M. Carter, Tostrud
Law Group, P.C., pro hac vice.

Daniel Small, et al., Plaintiffs, represented by Lionel Z. Glancy
-- lglancy@glancylaw.com -- Glancy Prongay & Murray LLP, pro hac
vice, Andrew L. Rempfer, Law Offices of Steven J. Parsons, Jon A.
Tostrud -- jtostrud@tostrudlaw.com -- Tostrud Law Group, P.C., pro
hac vice, Kara M. Wolke -- kwolke@glancylaw.com -- Glancy Prongay
& Murray LLP, Kevin F. Ruf -- kruf@glancylaw.com -- Glancy Binkow
& Goldberg LLP, Marc L. Godino -- mgodino@glancylaw.com -- Glancy
Prongay & Murray LLP, pro hac vice, William M. O'Mara, The O'Mara
Law Firm, PC & David C. OMara -- david@omaralaw.net -- The OMara
Law Firm, P.C..

University Medical Center of Southern Nevada, Defendant,
represented by Margaret G. Foley -- mfoley@swlaw.com -- Snell &
Wilmer LLP Law Offices, Robert W. Freeman, Jr. --
Robert.Freeman@lewisbrisbois.com -- Lewis Brisbois Bisgaard &
Smith LLP, Cayla Witty -- Cayla.Witty@lewisbrisbois.com -- Lewis
Brisbois Bisgaard & Smith & Joseph M. Ortuno, Patti Sgro Lewis &
Roger.


VALDOME INC: Faces "Reinoso" Suit in Southern Dist. of New York
---------------------------------------------------------------
A lawsuit has been filed against Valdome Inc. The case is
captioned Digna Reinoso Peralta, Jonathan Almonte, Juan Cornelio
Carabajo, and Gallegos Victor Manuel Merino, Individually and
behalf of others similarly situated, the Plaintiffs v. Valdome
Inc., doing business as I Trulli, and Domenico V. Marzovilla, the
Defendants, Case No. 1:16-cv-07237 (S.D.N.Y., Sept. 16, 2016).

Valdome Inc. is in the eating places industry in New York, New
York.

The Plaintiffs appear pro se.


VIRGINIA MEADOWS: Faces "Campbell" Class Suit in S.D. W.Va.
-----------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been commenced against Virginia
Meadows, LLC, Cornerstone Customs, Inc., Old Colony Company d/b/a
Old Colony, Realtors a/k/a Old Colony, MercyBuilt, LLC, Jordan
Garnes a/k/a Drew Garnes, Brad Garnes, Richard Garnes, Linda
Garnes, Woodland Designs, Inc., Richlin Investments, LLC, Jimmy
Calhoun d/b/a Calhoun Engineering and Surveying.

The case is captioned Danny Campbell, Sarah Campbell, Joshua
Powell, Melissa Powell, Richard Tolley, and Tana Tolley and all
others similarly situated v. Virginia Meadows, LLC, Cornerstone
Customs, Inc., Old Colony Company d/b/a Old Colony, Realtors a/k/a
Old Colony, MercyBuilt, LLC, Jordan Garnes a/k/a Drew Garnes, Brad
Garnes, Richard Garnes, Linda Garnes, Woodland Designs, Inc.,
Richlin Investments, LLC, Jimmy Calhoun d/b/a Calhoun Engineering
and Surveying, Case No. 3:16-cv-08696  (S.D. W. Va., September 12,
2016).

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Anthony J. Majestro, Esq.
      POWELL & MAJESTRO
      Suite P-1200, 405 Capitol Street
      Charleston, WV 25301
      Telephone: (304) 346-2889
      Facsimile: (304) 346-2895
      E-mail: amajestro@powellmajestro.com

         - and -

      Benjamin Sheridan, Esq.
      Daniel K. Armstrong, Esq.
      Mitchell Lee Klein, Esq.
      KLEIN & SHERIDAN
      3566 Teays Valley Road
      Hurricane, WV 25526
      Telephone: (304) 562-7111
      Facsimile: (304) 562-7115
      E-mail: bsheridan@kswvlaw.com
              daniel@kswvlaw.com
              mitch@kswvlaw.com


VIZIO INC: Illegally Collects Consumer Data, Action Claims
----------------------------------------------------------
William Delaurentis, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. Vizio, Inc.; Vizio Holdings, Inc.; Vizio
Inscape Technologies, LLC; and Vizio Inscape Services, LLC, Case
No. 8:16-cv-01700-JVS-KES (C.D. Cal. September 13, 2016), is an
action for damages as a result of the Defendants' practice of
collecting sensitive consumer data without consent and
automatically including consumers in the Inscape data collection
program.

The Defendants operate a consumer electronics company
headquartered in Irvine, California.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Eric H. Gibbs, Esq.
      Andre Mura, Esq.
      Linda Lam, Esq.
      GIRARD GIBBS LLP
      505 14th Street, Suite 1110
      Oakland, CA 94612
      Telephone: (510) 350-9700
      Facsimile: (510) 350-9701
      E-mail: ehg@classlawgroup.com
              amm@classlawgroup.com
              lpl@classlawgroup.com


VOLKSWAGEN AG: Fairfax Circuit Court Refuses to Stay Claims
-----------------------------------------------------------
Deborah Elkins, writing for Virginia Lawyers Weekly, reports that
in this suit by owners of Volkswagen diesel automobiles alleging
claims for fraud, breach of warranty and violation of consumer
protection statutes, a Fairfax Circuit Court refuses to stay
plaintiffs' state-court suits pending final approval of a
settlement in a class-action suit pending in a California federal
court.


VOLKSWAGEN AG: Faces Emissions-Cheating Claims in Ireland
---------------------------------------------------------
Gerry Braiden, writing for Herald Scotland, reports that a
David and Goliath battle in a provincial courthouse on Ireland's
Atlantic seaboard "will fire the starting pistol" on legal action
by hundreds of Scots motorists caught up in the Volkswagen
emissions scandal, it has been claimed.

Lawyers in Scotland have teamed up with Irish counterparts behind
what is believed to be the first court hearing where the global
auto giant will face calls to make public the technical evidence
at the heart of the case.

The potentially landmark hearing was set to be heard on Sept. 6 at
the tiny district court in Castlebar, County Mayo, when
Eithne Higgins, a nurse, will call for copies of Volkswagen's
original expert opinion and technical evidence it used to for the
"defeat device" software used to cheat emissions tests.

The mum-of-three and Seat Leon owner from Roscommon, who has
featured in the Wall Street Journal and German business press, is
also looking for damages in respect of motor tax for two years,
depreciation costs caused by "wrongful acts and/or omissions" on
behalf of Volkswagen as well as other damages.

So major are the worldwide ramifications that senior Volkswagen
officials are expected to jet in to the Mayo court.

On the eve of the case, Glasgow-based Thompsons Solicitors, which
is representing more than 250 motorists in Scotland, has reached
an agreement with Irish lawyer Evan O'Dwyer for the sharing of
information and assistance, with one of the firm's associates also
attending the court.

The pact also ties in Thompsons with German law firm Hausfeld,
whose Washington-based founder Michael Hausfeld, Esq. --
mhausfeld@hausfeld.com -- is one of the plaintiffs' lawyers
leading the class action against Volkswagen in the United States.

Patrick McGuire, a partner at Thompsons, said the outcome of the
Higgins hearing would likely trigger a string of test cases in the
Scottish courts.

He said: "What happens in Ireland will force Volkswagen to answer
very specific and technical questions, giving a foot up to every
other claimant throughout Europe.

"The more information pooled the better it is for our collective
claimants.  This is really the first step towards us following Mr.
O'Dwyer's lead.  While he has been pulling together his case in
Ireland we've had high-level discussions, put top QCs in place,
sorted our plan of attack sand what happens in Mayo will fire the
starting pistol on Scottish action.

"That will involve us selecting a couple of test cases, putting
them into the courts and testing the mettle or the legal arguments
over here."

In June, Volkswagen agreed a $15 billion deal with US officials
and an estimated 500,000 US car owners.

Each will receive about $20,000 per car as compensation for the
company's diesel deception with Volkswagen refusing to make
similar payments to customers in the UK and Europe.

The car maker insists it has faced "materially different"
circumstances in the US compared to Europe such as stricter
regulations on nitrogen oxide emissions.

According to the Irish Times, Volkswagen in Ireland has repeatedly
denied any wrongdoing and said that it will look for costs against
Mr. O'Dwyer's client.

On Sept. 1, it unsuccessfully sought an adjournment of the
Sept. 6 hearing to allow more time to consider the affidavits
presented on behalf of Mrs. Higgins.

Mr. O'Dwyer said he was legally prohibited from publicly
discussing the case.

No one from Volkswagen was available however in July a spokeswoman
for the company told The Herald: "Our position has not changed on
this and there is no buy back deal or compensation for drivers
outside the US.  That's because the relevant facts and complex
legal issues that have played a role in coming to these agreements
are materially different from those in Europe and other parts of
the world."


WALKER, LA: Residents Mull Class Action Over I-12 Floodwater
------------------------------------------------------------
Kevin Fambrough, writing for The Livingston Parish News, reports
that the City of Walker is asking its residents to send it any
visual examples of Interstate 12 that show floodwater on only one
side.

"Please send all photos or videos of the flood wall on I-12 that
shows the water north of the barricade and no water south," the
social media posting said.

"We need photos with location, times, and dates and who took the
picture if possible.  Our attorneys are preparing the case for the
city."

Only days after the Aug. 12 floodwaters receded, Mayor Rick Ramsey
said the city would sue the state Department of Transportation for
the damage caused to residents' homes and property.

Mr. Ramsey distributed to the news media a photo taken on top of
the Walker South Road (La. 447) overpass of interstate 12 looking
east to Hammond.

In the photo, the westbound lanes are under water, while the
eastbound lanes show no water.

Mr. Ramsey has said the concrete barrier in the middle of the
interstate acted like dam, preventing the water from draining
south.

The mayor also contends a higher layer of roadbed on I-12 and the
"crowning" between the lanes also hampered drainage.

A total of eight Walker developments were completely flooded,
Mr. Ramsey said, and some of them may join in a class-action
lawsuit.

No lawsuit has been filed yet and no date for a filing has been
mentioned.


WARNER CHILCOTT: "Margolis" Files Suit Over Waiver of ADEA Rights
-----------------------------------------------------------------
ROBERT MARGOLIS, an individual, and others similarly situated
Plaintiff, v. WARNER CHILCOTT (US), LLC, a limited Liability
company with offices in New Jersey, and ALLERGAN, PLC, Case 1:16-
cv-23891-KMW (S.D. Fla., September 12, 2016), seeks a declaration
that Plaintiff's waiver of ADEA rights in his Separation Agreement
from Warner Chilcott (US), LLC, was invalid because it was
procured as a result of fraud and insufficient information on the
part of Plaintiffs.

Warner Chilcott, LLC manufactures, markets and/or distributes more
than 104 drugs in the U.S.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Claudio Riedi, Esq.
     LEHTINEN SCHULTZ RIEDI CATALANO De la FUENTE, PLLC
     1111 Brickell Avenue, Suite 2200
     Miami, FL 33131
     Phone: 305-760-8544
     Fax: 305-356-5720
     Email: criedi@lsrcf.com


WHIRLPOOL CORP: Faces "Whitley" Suit Over Defective Ovens
---------------------------------------------------------
Reginald Whitley and Joann Whitley, individually, and on behalf of
a class of similarly situated individuals v. Whirlpool
Corporation, Case No. 8:16-cv-01704-CJC-DFM (C.D. Cal., September
13, 2016), is brought on behalf of all persons in the United
States who purchased any Whirlpool or KitchenAid wall ovens
equipped with High Temp Self-Cleaning Cycle, which contains a
design defect wherein, due to the use of inappropriate and
inadequate heat-resistant and heat-regulating internal components,
the thermostat, thermal fuses, control panel, motherboard, door
glass, door latch, and other internal components short-circuit,
overheat, or otherwise break during normal operation.

Whirlpool Corporation designs, manufactures, markets, distributes,
services, repairs, and sells household appliances.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Jordan L. Lurie, Esq.
      Robert Friedl, Esq.
      Tarek H. Zohdy, Esq.
      Cody R. Padgett, Esq.
      Karen L. Wallace, Esq.
      CAPSTONE Law APC
      1875 Century Park East, Suite 1000
      Los Angeles, CA 90067
      Telephone: (310) 556-4811
      Facsimile: (310) 943-0396
      E-mail: Jordan.Lurie@capstonelawyers.com
              Robert.Friedl@capstonelawyers.com
              Tarek.Zohdy@capstonelawyers.com
              Cody.Padgett@capstonelawyers.com
              Karen.Wallace@capstonelawyers.com


WHIRLPOOL CORP: Class Counsel Awarded Attorney's Fees, Costs
------------------------------------------------------------
In the case captioned In re: SEARS, ROEBUCK AND CO. FRONT-LOADING
WASHER PRODUCTS LIABILITY LITIGATION. This Document Relates to CCU
Claims, Case No. 06 C 7023, Consolidated with Case No. 07 C 0412,
No. 08 C 1832 (N.D. Ill.), Judge Mary M. Rowland awarded class
counsel attorney's fees totaling $4,770,834 and costs in the
amount of $167,717 plus any reasonable expenses incurred in
connection with the final approval hearing and class counsel's
duties in connection with the ongoing notice and claims process,
subject to an agreed-upon $200,000 cap.

When buyers began to experience problems with front-load washing
machines manufactured by Whirlpool and sold under the Sears brand,
they filed lawsuits against both Whirlpool and Sears, asserting
two types of defects: (1) the "biofilm defect," which caused mold
and mildew to grow inside the machines; and (2) the "CCU defect,"
which caused the machines' central control unit to malfunction.
The cases against Sears are all pending in the United States
District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, Eastern
Division.  The cases against Whirlpool were joined through
multidistrict litigation and are all pending in the Northern
District of Ohio.

In 2015, after almost 10 years of litigation, the parties in both
the Sears and Whirlpool cases settled all claims, with the parties
agreeing to a "CCU Settlement" and a "Biofilm Settlement."  The
parties filed their CCU Settlement papers in the Northern District
of Illinois district court, and filed their Biofilm Settlement
papers in the MDL Court.

On February 29, 2016, the district court for the Northern District
of Illinois entered the Final Approval Order granting final
approval to the CCU Class Action Settlement Agreement.  The
principal feature of the parties' CCU Settlement Agreement
requires the defendants to pay full monetary compensation to class
members who suffered out-of-pocket expenses related to CCU
performance problems.  The Settlement Agreement also requires the
defendants to pay: (1) attorneys' fees to class counsel, (2) class
counsels' litigation expenses, (3) incentive awards to the nine
named plaintiffs, and (4) costs of settlement administration and
class notice.  In exchange, class members who do not opt out will
release all of their CCU-based claims.  Accordingly, class counsel
moved for an award of attorney fees, reimbursement of expenses,
and incentive awards for the representative plaintiffs.

The district court: (a) ordered an incentive award of $4,000 to be
paid to each of the nine representative plaintiffs, for a total of
$36,000; and (b) took the matter of fees and costs under
advisement.

Defendants agreed to pay "reasonable attorneys' fees and costs,"
without reducing the amount of money available to pay benefits to
class members, or fees to the settlement administrator, or
incentive awards to the named plaintiffs.  While the Settlement
Agreement sets no minimum or maximum amounts within which a fee
award must fall, class counsel agreed not to request more than $6
million.  Judge Rowland concluded that class counsel's fee should
be determined based on the lodestar.

Counsel asserted that they spent 6,133.85 hours litigating the CCU
claims through February 4, 2016, the date they filed their Reply,
with a resulting lodestar of $3,249,640.  In addition, class
counsel argued that the court should award a 1.85 multiplier, for
a total fees award of $6 million.

The defendants "do not challenge Class Counsel's lodestar on the
basis of the total number of hours Class Counsel claim to have
spent on the litigation as a whole or on particular tasks," but
argued that the court should: (1) reduce the base lodestar for any
biofilm-related work; (2) disallow the single, non-
contemporaneous, cumulative billing entry of 1,047 hours totaling
$314,100; and (3) disallow Shepherd Finkelman's time because its
records are so heavily redacted.

After considering the class counsel's requested rates and the
defendants' objections, Judge Rowland held that the lodestar in
the case stands at $2,726,190.

Further, taking certain circumstances into consideration -- the
high degree of success, the vindication of a public interest, the
presence of novel and complex legal issues -- Judge Rowland found
that a multiplier would be appropriate.  Given that the most
important factor is the "results obtained,", Judge Rowland held
that class counsel is entitled to a significant lodestar
enhancement.  Thus, the judge awarded a multiplier of 1.75 which,
when applied to the lodestar figure of $2,726,191, yields
attorney's fees totaling $4,770,834.

As to the costs, the parties have largely agreed on the amount
that class counsel may claim.  They disagreed, however, as to
whether the defendants should reimburse class counsel for the
plaintiffs' portion of the CCU-related bills submitted by the
Special Master.  Class counsel contended that the Special Master's
CCU-related fees are "reasonable bills incurred as part of the
litigation," for which they should be reimbursed.   However, Judge
Rowland held that, by not raising the issue of the Special
Master's fees until three months after filing their motion for
fees and costs, class counsel should be deemed to have waived the
request.

Judge Rowland awarded class counsel costs in the amount of
$167,717, plus any reasonable expenses incurred in connection with
the final approval hearing and class counsel's duties in
connection with the ongoing notice and claims process, subject to
the agreed-upon $200,000 cap.

A full-text copy of Judge Rowland's September 13, 2016 memorandum
opinion and order is available at https://is.gd/S28pIP from
Leagle.com.

Additional information on the case is available at:

                  https://www.ccusettlement.com/

Larry Butler, Plaintiff, represented by Paul M. Weiss, Quantum
Legal LLC, Richard J. Burke, Quantum Legal LLC, Robert A. Clifford
-- rac@cliffordlaw.com -- Clifford Law Offices, P.C., Steven A.
Schwartz, Chimicles & Tikellis, Colin H. Dunn --
chd@cliffordlaw.com -- Clifford Law Offices, Eric H. Jaso --
ejaso@flemingruvoldt.com -- Seeger Weiss LLP, pro hac vice, George
K. Lang, Lang Law Office, James J. Rosemergy, Carey, Danis and
Lowe, Jason Louis Lichtman -- jlichtman@lchb.com -- Lieff Cabraser
Heimann & Bernstein LLP, Jerome Mayer-cantu, Lieff Cabraser
Heimann & Bernstein Llp, pro hac vice, John Tate Spragens --
jspragens@lchb.com -- Lieff Cabraser Heimann & Bernstein, Llp,
Jonathan D. Selbin -- jselbin@lchb.com -- Lieff, Cabraser, Heimann
& Bernstein, Llp, Jonathan Shub -- jshub@kohnswift.com -- Kohn,
Swift & Graf, P.C., Mark P. Chalos
-- mchalos@lchb.com -- Lieff, Cabraser, Heimann & Bernstein, Llp,
Michael J. Flannery -- mflannery@cuneolaw.com -- Cuneo Gilbert &
LaDuca LLP, Sarah R. London -- slondon@lchb.com -- Lieff Cabraser
Heimann & Bernstein, LLP, pro hac vice, Scott A. George --
sgeorge@seegerweiss.com -- Seeger Weiss LLC & Shannon Marie
McNulty -- smm@cliffordlaw.com -- Clifford Law Offices.

Joseph Leonard, Kevin Barnes, Victor Matos, Plaintiffs,
represented by Paul M. Weiss, Quantum Legal LLC,Richard J. Burke,
Quantum Legal LLC, Robert A. Clifford, Clifford Law Offices, P.C.,
Steven A. Schwartz, Chimicles & Tikellis, Colin H. Dunn, Clifford
Law Offices, Eric H. Jaso, Seeger Weiss LLP, pro hac vice, George
K. Lang, Lang Law Office, James J. Rosemergy, Carey, Danis and
Lowe, Jason Louis Lichtman, Lieff Cabraser Heimann & Bernstein
LLP, John Tate Spragens, Lieff Cabraser Heimann & Bernstein, Llp,
Jonathan D. Selbin, Lieff, Cabraser, Heimann & Bernstein, Llp,
Jonathan Shub, Kohn, Swift & Graf, P.C., Mark P. Chalos, Lieff,
Cabraser, Heimann & Bernstein, Llp,Michael J. Flannery, Cuneo
Gilbert & LaDuca LLP, Sarah R. London, Lieff Cabraser Heimann &
Bernstein, LLP, pro hac vice, Scott A. George, Seeger Weiss LLC &
Shannon Marie McNulty, Clifford Law Offices.

Alan Jarashow, Plaintiff, represented by Jason Louis Lichtman,
Lieff Cabraser Heimann & Bernstein LLP, Paul M. Weiss, Quantum
Legal LLC, Richard J. Burke, Quantum Legal LLC, Steven A.
Schwartz, Chimicles & Tikellis, Eric H. Jaso, Seeger Weiss LLP,
pro hac vice, George K. Lang, Lang Law Office, John Tate Spragens,
Lieff Cabraser Heimann & Bernstein, Llp,Mark S. Fistos, Farmer,
Jaffe, Weissing, Edwards, Fistos and Lehrman, Sarah R. London,
Lieff Cabraser Heimann & Bernstein, LLP, pro hac vice, Steven R.
Jaffe, Farmer Jaffe Weissing Edwards Fistos & Lehrman, Tod N.
Aronovitz, Aronovitz Trial Lawyers & James J. Rosemergy, Carey,
Danis and Lowe.

Lauren Crane, Plaintiff, represented by Jason Louis Lichtman,
Lieff Cabraser Heimann & Bernstein LLP, Paul M. Weiss, Quantum
Legal LLC, Richard J. Burke, Quantum Legal LLC, Steven A.
Schwartz, Chimicles & Tikellis, Eric H. Jaso, Seeger Weiss LLP,
pro hac vice, George K. Lang, Lang Law Office,Jerome Mayer-cantu,
Lieff Cabraser Heimann & Bernstein Llp, pro hac vice,John Tate
Spragens, Lieff Cabraser Heimann & Bernstein, Llp, Mark S. Fistos,
Farmer, Jaffe, Weissing, Edwards, Fistos and Lehrman, Sarah R.
London, Lieff Cabraser Heimann & Bernstein, LLP, pro hac vice,
Steven R. Jaffe, Farmer Jaffe Weissing Edwards Fistos & Lehrman,
Tod N. Aronovitz, Aronovitz Trial Lawyers & James J. Rosemergy,
Carey, Danis and Lowe.

Lawrence L'Hommedieu, Plaintiff, represented by Jason Louis
Lichtman, Lieff Cabraser Heimann & Bernstein LLP, Paul M. Weiss,
Quantum Legal LLC, Richard J. Burke, Quantum Legal LLC, Steven A.
Schwartz, Chimicles & Tikellis, Eric H. Jaso, Seeger Weiss LLP,
pro hac vice, George K. Lang, Lang Law Office, John Tate Spragens,
Lieff Cabraser Heimann & Bernstein, Llp,Sarah R. London, Lieff
Cabraser Heimann & Bernstein, LLP, pro hac vice,Steven R. Jaffe,
Farmer Jaffe Weissing Edwards Fistos & Lehrman, Tod N. Aronovitz,
Aronovitz Trial Lawyers & James J. Rosemergy, Carey, Danis and
Lowe.

John Bettua, Derral Howard, Plaintiffs, represented by Jason Louis
Lichtman, Lieff Cabraser Heimann & Bernstein LLP, Steven A.
Schwartz, Chimicles & Tikellis, Eric H. Jaso, Seeger Weiss LLP,
pro hac vice, George K. Lang, Lang Law Office, Glenn Edward Orr,
Shea Law Group, Jerome Mayer-cantu, Lieff Cabraser Heimann &
Bernstein Llp, pro hac vice, John Tate Spragens, Lieff Cabraser
Heimann & Bernstein, Llp, Natalie Finkelman Bennett, Shepherd
Finkelman Miller & Shah, LLC, pro hac vice, Sarah R. London, Lieff
Cabraser Heimann & Bernstein, LLP, pro hac vice & James J.
Rosemergy, Carey, Danis and Lowe.

Giuseppina P. Donia, Plaintiff, represented by Jason Louis
Lichtman, Lieff Cabraser Heimann & Bernstein LLP, Steven A.
Schwartz, Chimicles & Tikellis, Eric H. Jaso, Seeger Weiss LLP,
pro hac vice, George K. Lang, Lang Law Office, Glenn Edward Orr,
Shea Law Group, Jerome Mayer-cantu, Lieff Cabraser Heimann &
Bernstein Llp, pro hac vice, John Tate Spragens, Lieff Cabraser
Heimann & Bernstein, Llp, Ronald S. Kravitz, Law Offices of Ronald
S. Kravitz, Sarah R. London, Lieff Cabraser Heimann & Bernstein,
LLP, pro hac vice & James J. Rosemergy, Carey, Danis and Lowe.

Denise Miller, Vic Pfefer, Jeffrey A. Robinson, Sandra K.
Robinson, Plaintiffs, represented by Jason Louis Lichtman, Lieff
Cabraser Heimann & Bernstein LLP, Steven A. Schwartz, Chimicles &
Tikellis, Eric H. Jaso, Seeger Weiss LLP, pro hac vice, George K.
Lang, Lang Law Office, Glenn Edward Orr, Shea Law Group, John Tate
Spragens, Lieff Cabraser Heimann & Bernstein, Llp, Natalie
Finkelman Bennett, Shepherd Finkelman Miller & Shah, LLC, pro hac
vice, Sarah R. London, Lieff Cabraser Heimann & Bernstein, LLP,
pro hac vice & James J. Rosemergy, Carey, Danis and Lowe.

Charles Napoli, Plaintiff, represented by Jason Louis Lichtman,
Lieff Cabraser Heimann & Bernstein LLP, Steven A. Schwartz,
Chimicles & Tikellis, Douglas P. Dehler, Shepherd Finkelman Miller
& Shah, LLC, Eric H. Jaso, Seeger Weiss LLP, pro hac vice, George
K. Lang, Lang Law Office, Glenn Edward Orr, Shea Law Group, James
E. Miller, Shepherd Finkelman Miller & Shah, LLC, James C. Shah,
Shepherd Finkelman Miller & Shah, John Tate Spragens, Lieff
Cabraser Heimann & Bernstein, Llp, Joseph Patrick Shea, Law
Offices of Joseph Patrick Shea, Karen M. Leser-Grenon, Shepherd
Finkelman Miller & Shah, LLP, Natalie Finkelman Bennett, Shepherd
Finkelman Miller & Shah, LLC, pro hac vice, Sarah R. London, Lieff
Cabraser Heimann & Bernstein, LLP, pro hac vice & James J.
Rosemergy, Carey, Danis and Lowe.

Alfred Blair, Plaintiff, represented by Paul M. Weiss, Quantum
Legal LLC,Richard J. Burke, Quantum Legal LLC, Robert A. Clifford,
Clifford Law Offices, P.C., Steven A. Schwartz, Chimicles &
Tikellis, Colin H. Dunn, Clifford Law Offices, Eric C. Brunick,
Brunick LLC, Eric H. Jaso, Seeger Weiss LLP, pro hac vice, George
K. Lang, Lang Law Office, James J. Rosemergy, Carey, Danis and
Lowe, Jason Louis Lichtman, Lieff Cabraser Heimann & Bernstein
LLP, Jerome Mayer-cantu, Lieff Cabraser Heimann & Bernstein Llp,
pro hac vice, John Tate Spragens, Lieff Cabraser Heimann &
Bernstein, Llp, Jonathan D. Selbin, Lieff, Cabraser, Heimann &
Bernstein, Llp, Jonathan Shub, Kohn, Swift & Graf, P.C., Mark P.
Chalos, Lieff, Cabraser, Heimann & Bernstein, Llp, Michael J.
Flannery, Cuneo Gilbert & LaDuca LLP, Sarah R. London, Lieff
Cabraser Heimann & Bernstein, LLP, pro hac vice, Scott A. George,
Seeger Weiss LLC, Shannon Marie McNulty, Clifford Law Offices
&Steven R. Jaffe, Farmer Jaffe Weissing Edwards Fistos & Lehrman.

Martin Champion, Plaintiff, represented by Paul M. Weiss, Quantum
Legal LLC, Richard J. Burke, Quantum Legal LLC, Robert A.
Clifford, Clifford Law Offices, P.C., Steven A. Schwartz,
Chimicles & Tikellis, Colin H. Dunn, Clifford Law Offices, Eric C.
Brunick, Brunick LLC, Eric H. Jaso, Seeger Weiss LLP, pro hac
vice, George K. Lang, Lang Law Office, James J. Rosemergy, Carey,
Danis and Lowe, Jason Louis Lichtman, Lieff Cabraser Heimann &
Bernstein LLP, Jerome Mayer-cantu, Lieff Cabraser Heimann &
Bernstein Llp, pro hac vice, John Tate Spragens, Lieff Cabraser
Heimann & Bernstein, Llp, Jonathan D. Selbin, Lieff, Cabraser,
Heimann & Bernstein, Llp, Jonathan Shub, Kohn, Swift & Graf, P.C.,
Mark P. Chalos, Lieff, Cabraser, Heimann & Bernstein, Llp, Michael
J. Flannery, Cuneo Gilbert & LaDuca LLP, Sarah R. London, Lieff
Cabraser Heimann & Bernstein, LLP, pro hac vice, Scott A. George,
Seeger Weiss LLC, Shannon Marie McNulty, Clifford Law Offices
&Steven R. Jaffe, Farmer Jaffe Weissing Edwards Fistos & Lehrman.

Karen Freeman, Plaintiff, represented by Jason Louis Lichtman,
Lieff Cabraser Heimann & Bernstein LLP, Steven A. Schwartz,
Chimicles & Tikellis, John Tate Spragens, Lieff Cabraser Heimann &
Bernstein, Llp &James J. Rosemergy, Carey, Danis and Lowe.

Peggy Lemley, Plaintiff, represented by Jason Louis Lichtman,
Lieff Cabraser Heimann & Bernstein LLP, Steven A. Schwartz,
Chimicles & Tikellis, John Tate Spragens, Lieff Cabraser Heimann &
Bernstein, Llp & James J. Rosemergy, Carey, Danis and Lowe.

Victoria Poulsen, Plaintiff, represented by Jason Louis Lichtman,
Lieff Cabraser Heimann & Bernstein LLP, Paul M. Weiss, Quantum
Legal LLC,Richard J. Burke, Quantum Legal LLC, Steven A. Schwartz,
Chimicles & Tikellis & John Tate Spragens, Lieff Cabraser Heimann
& Bernstein, Llp.

Sears Roebuck & Co., Defendant, represented by Bradley B. Falkof,
Barnes & Thornburg, Evan B. Stephenson, Wheeler Trigg O'Donnell
LLP, Galen D. Bellamy, Wheeler Trigg O'Donnell LLP, Hugh Quan
Gottschalk, Wheeler Trigg O'donnell Llp, Joel Steven Neckers,
Wheeler Trigg O'Donnell LLP,Michael T. Williams, Wheeler Trigg
O'Donnell LLP, Sarah R. London, Lieff Cabraser Heimann &
Bernstein, LLP, pro hac vice & Theresa R. Wardon, Wheeler Trigg
O'donnell Llp.

Whirlpool Corporation, Intervenor Defendant, represented by
Rebecca Weinstein Bacon, Bartlit Beck Herman Palenchar & Scott
LLP, Asha L.I. Spencer, Bartlit Beck Herman Palenchar & Scott,
Eric Reuel Olson, Bartlit Beck Herman Palenchar & Scott LLP & John
C. Fitzpatrick, Bartlit Beck Herman Palenchar & Scott Llp.

Service List,, represented by David R. Cohen, David R. Cohen Co.
Lpa, pro hac vice, Mark S. Fistos, Farmer, Jaffe, Weissing,
Edwards, Fistos and Lehrman,Steven R. Jaffe, Farmer Jaffe Weissing
Edwards Fistos & Lehrman & Tod N. Aronovitz, Aronovitz Trial
Lawyers.


YIRENDAI: Faces Eight Class Actions Following New Lending Rules
---------------------------------------------------------------
JD Alois, writing for Crowdfund Insider, reports that at the most
recent count, China-based peer to peer lender Yirendai has at
least eight class-action lawsuits filed against the company
following the enactment of new regulations directed towards the
booming online lending industry in China.  The firms that have
made public proclamations are as follows:

   -- Khang & Khang
   -- Bronstein, Gewirtz & Grossman
   -- Lundin Law
   -- The Wagner Firm
   -- Goldberg Law
   -- Law Offices of Howard G. Smith
   -- Rosen Law Firm
   -- Glancy Prongay & Murray

Following the announcement by the China government, shares in YRD
tanked as investors attempted to price in the shifting regulatory
environment in the country.  Yirendai is affiliated with
CreditEase -- one of the largest and oldest online lenders in
China.  While some reports indicated that large platforms were not
overly concerned with the new rules that are being phased in over
an extended period, Crowdfund Insider Contributor Spencer Li said
the new rules created "panic" in the market.  Li explained;

"The unveiling came accompanied with a few policy curveballs that
few industry participants were expecting.  Titled as the "Interim
Guidelines" (indicating there could be more permanent policies few
years down the road), certain media has hailed the newborn
policies as the strictest ever in the history of online lending.
However, not much has changed between the draft and final versions
with one major exception: borrowers are now subject to a borrowing
limit for loans on a single platform as well as across platforms."

China News reported that Yirendai "rejected the complaints as
without merit and the company intends to defend its interest."  It
is hard to decipher how Yirendai can be faulted for the actions of
a sovereign government.

The Chinese alternative finance market is huge -- the largest in
the world, according to the Cambridge Centre for Alternative
Finance.  Growth has been spectacular -- topping 300% over the
past two years.  The majority of this growth has been in online
lending.  It will be interesting to see how Yirendai and other
platforms adjust and adapt to the updated rules in the coming
month.  But Yirendai gets to deal with one of the pitfalls of
being a US listed corporation.  The risk of persistent lawsuits
filed on behalf of ostensibly disgruntled shareholders -- even
while shares are up considerably following its IPO.


* Third-Party Funding of Class Actions Gain Traction in Ontario
---------------------------------------------------------------
Marg Bruineman, writing for Law Times, reports that third-party
funding of class actions is gaining traction in Ontario, following
a trend that began in Australia about a decade ago.

The move sees a funding organization help cover the costs of class
action litigation and indemnifies plaintiffs of any costs awarded
against them.  In exchange, the funder receives a portion or
percentage of the award in successful class actions.

A need for a funding mechanism was identified leading to the Law
Foundation of Ontario establishing the Class Proceedings Fund in
1992.  Nearly two decades later, private funding organizations
started to make their way into the Canadian market.

"It just makes good sense as class counsel to spread the risk and,
certainly from the plaintiffs' point of view, being assured that
there is somebody there that will cover off their potential cost
exposure," says Margaret Waddell -- marg.waddell@paliareroland.com
-- a Toronto-based class action lawyer and partner with Paliare
Roland Rosenberg Rothstein LLP.  "It's very reassuring and
certainly helps in providing access to justice in the sense that
one of the risks in litigating is, of course, the risk of bearing
an adverse cost award, which a representative plaintiff would
have."

A third-party funder was approved by an Ontario court for a class
action for the first time in Dugal v Manulife Financial
Corporation in 2011, and a handful have followed since.  In Dugal,
in exchange for guaranteeing the plaintiff's costs, the funder was
granted 7 per cent of any settlement, which the court capped at a
maximum of $5 million.

Class actions funding must always be approved by the court at the
outset, prior to any class proceeding, allowing the judge to vet
any deal involving a third party and weigh in on the portion or
percentage the funder receives in return.

The role of the commercial funders helps fill the gaps between
cases supported by the not-for-profit, self-perpetuating Class
Proceedings Fund, says Kevin O'Brien -- kobrien@osler.com -- a
litigation partner with Osler Hoskin & Harcourt LLP.  Applications
made to the fund are not always successful.

Both approaches were borne by an identified need.  The risk of
having to pay ever-increasing awards made against a plaintiff in a
failed class action or certification fell to the plaintiff's
lawyer.  With award sizes increasing, there was a hesitation by
lawyers to take on cases.

"And then you had real issues of access to justice because you had
people who weren't able to find plaintiff's counsel to bring their
claims forward," says Mr. O'Brien.  "Someone really needed to fill
that gap."

Outside funding offers a sort of insurance that the representative
plaintiff and their lawyers will not be responsible for damages
should a court decide against them.  The idea is that those
considering pursuing class actions will not be discouraged by the
prospect that they may face a large bill should they be
unsuccessful in their action.

"The economics of class actions is such that they involve risk,
and this type of agreement is a way of mitigating or sharing the
risk among the representative plaintiffs, the class counsel and a
third party," says Aaron Dantowitz -- aarond@stockwoods.ca -- a
Toronto partner with Stockwoods LLP.  "It takes the plaintiff's
counsel off the hook as well and doesn't put them in the position
where they are having to indemnify the representative claim.

"I think it's clear from the early cases that courts were prepared
to entertain this type of agreement and to approve them on certain
conditions."

The downside is that the class gives up a portion of the recovery
amount to the funder.

Third-party funding is also seen as a way to help make an
otherwise unaffordable case accessible to the class.

The idea of class actions is that individual rights and interests
may be vindicated collectively when litigating on an individual
basis would not be worth it from a financial standpoint, says
Arthur Zeilikman of Vaughan-based labour, employment and business
law firm Zeilikman Law.

A law firm may invest years of human resources time as well as a
great deal of money to carry a case to its ultimate conclusion.

"The funding of class actions can be extremely costly and, as
such, important developments in the law may be forgone due to
economic factors.

Accordingly, third-party litigation funding may provide access to
justice and promote development in the law," says Mr. Zeilikman.

Waddell observes that the process of having a third-party funder
involved can have some additional benefit to the plaintiffs'
lawyers.  Counsel for the prospective funder also serves as an
additional set of eyes on the case and may raise additional points
or questions.

"It gives you an opportunity to do that and assess those issues
the funder is raising and work them through hopefully before you
need to deal with them before opposing counsel.  I always find it
a very useful exercise to do a funding application if only on that
basis," she says.

Because third-party funders are seen as having a clear role in
class actions, Mr. O'Brien believes they are here to stay.  He
also sees the potential for them to take on a standard form, which
lays out what provisions need to be put in place so that the class
members are protected.

And the message to plaintiffs' lawyers involved in cases in which
third parties are providing funding is that the lawyer does not
serve two masters but continues to serve only the plaintiffs.


                            *********

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  * * *