CAR_Public/160927.mbx              C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

           Tuesday, September 27, 2016, Vol. 18, No. 193




                            Headlines


7 CALL CENTER: Class of Sales Reps Certified in "Caamano" Suit
3M CO: First Class-Action Suits Filed Over Water Contamination
ADVOCATES FOR: Appeals Court Rejects Class-Action Lawsuit
ALLERGAN PLC: Namenda Drug Antitrust Class Action Can Proceed
AMERICAN INTERCONTINENTAL: Lost Bid to Strike "Mauer" Suit Claims

ARIZONA: Legal Immigrants File Class Suit Over Licenses
ARKANSAS: Court Denied Class Certification Bid in "Elmore"
ATLAS VAN: Renewed Bid for Class Cert. in "Mervyn" Tossed
BANK OF AMERICA: Reply in "Jamison" Suit Moved to October 21
BASHAM LUMBER: Milkes Insurance Seeks Certification of Class

BRIAD RESTAURANT: Earl, et al. Seek Back Pay Under Wage Amendment
BRUMBAUGH & QUANDAHL: Oct. 6 Deadline to File Class Cert. Motion
CABELA'S WHOLESALE: Has $3.8MM Settlement in Call Recording Class
CALIFORNIA: "Hall" Case Cannot Proceed as Class
CANBERRA: ACT Builders Face Class Action Over GST Refund

CAPITAL MANAGEMENT: Faces "Nguyen" Suit in S.D. of California
CAR2GO NA: 9th Cir. Affirms Dismissal of "Aderhold" Case
CARIBBEAN CRUISE: Faces TCPA Class Action Over Robocalls
CARMAX AUTO: "Rowland" Suit Seeks Unpaid Wages and Damages
CASHCALL INC: Class & Subclasses Certified in "Inetianbor"

CELLCOM ISRAEL: Class Action Suit Over Prepaid Cards Dismissed
CENTRAL CREDIT: Faces "Sperber" Suit in Eastern Dist. of New York
CHESAPEAKE OPERATING: "Nichols" Suit Moved to W.D. of Oklahoma
CMRE FINANCIAL: Faces "Slota" Suit in District of New Jersey
COLORADO: Health Dept. Exec. Director Faces "Cunningham" Suit

COMPANIONS OF ASHLAND: Court Snobs Bid to Decertify "George" Suit
COMPANHIA BRASILEIRA: Subsidiary Faces NY Securities Action
CONCENTRIX CORPORATION: Faces "Armstrong" Suit in N.D. Cal.
CONFERENCE USA: "Johnson" Suit Has to Prove Court's Jurisdiction
CONFERENCE USA: "Harrison" Suit Has to Prove Court's Jurisdiction

CORYELL COUNTY: Class Certification Bid in "Murillo" Granted
CTI BIOPHARMA: DAFNA LifeScience Wins Lead Plaintiff Role
DESIGNED RECEIVABLE: Summary Judgment Bid in "Goodson" Granted
DIVERSIFIED ADJUSTMENT: Faces "Frankel" Suit in E.D. of New York
EARTHLINK INC: Reply in "Kleiner" Suit Moved

EMPIRE TODAY: Wielgus, et al. Seek Certification of Class
EPIC SYSTEMS: Urges High Court to Rule on Class-Action Waivers
EXPRESS COURIER: Conditional Certification Granted in "Harris"
FIDO: Quebec Court Allows Roaming Fees Class Action to Proceed
FIRST CREDIT: Faces "Weissman" Suit in Eastern Dist. of New York

FORD MOTOR: Class Plaintiffs Sue Over Exploding Sunroofs
GARDNER TRUCKING: Truck Drivers' Wage Class Action Pending
GENERAL MILLS: Faces Class Action Over Deceptive Cheerios Claims
GURPREET AHLUWALIA: Sued in Mass. Super. Ct. Over Breach of Lease
HMK LTD: "Pena" Sues Over Substandard Rental Housing

HONEST COMPANY: Faces "Hiddlestone" Suit in C.D. of California
HSBC HOLDINGS: Class Action Over Madoff Ponzi Scheme Dismissed
IHEARTMEDIA INC: Ponderosa Suit Alleges Copyright Infringement
INTERCEPT PHARMACEUTICALS: $55MM Settlement Granted Final OK
ISORAY INC: 10-Day Jury Trial Scheduled for June 18, 2018

ITT EDUCATIONAL: "Long" Suit Seeks 60 Days Pay, Benefits Recovery
J.J.F. CONSTRUCTION: Faces "Goodson" Suit in M.D. of Florida
JPMORGAN CHASE: 2nd Cir. Affirms Dismissal of "Loeza" Case
JUNO THERAPEUTICS: "Paradisco" Sues Over Share Price Drop
KAS DIRECT LLC: "Mayhew" Files Suit Over False Product Ad

KENYA COMMERCIAL: Faces Class Action Over M-Pesa-Based Loans
KERYX PHARMA: Oct. 3 Deadline to File Lead Plaintiff Motion Set
LIFEVANTAGE CORP: Securities Fraud Class Action Filed
L'OREAL: Faces Class-Action Suit Over Softsheen Carson Relaxer
LAS MERCEDES: "Sosa" Suit Moved from Cir. Ct. to S.D. Fla.

LOCK BUSTERS: "Rivera" Suit Seeks Damages Under FLSA
LOYALTYONE: Faces Class Action Over Air Miles Rewards Program
LUMBER LIQUIDATORS: "Clara" Suit Moved from Cal. to N.D. Ill.
LUMBER LIQUIDATORS: "Sesti" Suit Moved from Cal. to W.D. Tenn.
LUMBER LIQUIDATORS: "Norris" Suit Transferred to S.D. Miss.

LUMBER LIQUIDATORS: "Page" Suit Moved from C.D. Cal. to S.D. Iowa
LUMBER LIQUIDATORS: "Myers" Suit Transferred to W.D. Wisc.
LUMBER LIQUIDATORS: "Perel" Suit Moved from C.D. Cal. to E.D. Va.
LUMBER LIQUIDATORS: "Wieland" Suit Transferred to D. Neb.
MADISON COUNTY, IL: Bid Rigging Class Action Can Proceed

MADISON COUNTY, IL: Appeals Court Modifies Class in "Bueker" Suit
MANSUETO VENTURES: Class Certification Bid in "Bush" Suit Denied
MANUEL VALDIVA: "Oliveros" Suit Seeks Overtime Pay
MASTERCARD: Faces One of the UK's First Class-Action Lawsuits
MEDIVATION INC: "Klein" Action Seeks to Block Pfizer Acquisition

MEDPRO GROUP: Class Certification Bid in "Carrel" Suit Granted
MEGGITT INC: "Tully" Suit Seeks OT Compensation Under Labor Code
MIDLAND CREDIT: Faces "Fekete" Suit in Eastern Dist. of New York
MISONIX INC: Shareholders File Class Action Lawsuit
MONEYGRAM INTERNATIONAL: Labaton Sucharow LLP Files Class Action

MORTGAGE GUARANTY: 11th Cir. OKs Dismissal of "Arencibia" Suit
NATURE COAST: Torres Seeks Certification of FLSA Class
NAVY FEDERAL: Court Rules Class Certification in "Munday" Suit
NEWELL BRANDS: Hirsch Withdraws Motion to Approve Settlement
NEWELL BRANDS: "Paree" Class Action Lawsuit Remains Stayed

NIMBLE STORAGE: Motion to Dismiss Securities Action Underway
NORDIC NATURALS: Dismissal of Fish Oil Class Action Affirmed
NRA GROUP: Faces "Isaac" Suit in Eastern Dist. of New York
NRG RESIDENTIAL: Faces "Dobkin" Suit in Middle Dist. of Florida
OCEAN POWER: Nov. 14 Final Hearing on $3-Mil. Settlement

OCH-ZIFF CAPITAL: Judge Certifies Shareholders' Class Action
OFFICE DEPOT: Judge Certifies Assistant Store Managers' OT Case
OLA: Class Action Lawsuit Filed vs. Two Cab Aggregators in India
OOMA INC: Motion for Judgment on Pleadings Remains Pending
PHH CORP: Seeks Dismissal of Reinsurance Class Action

PHILIP MORRIS: Arkansas Smokers to Get $45 Million from Deal
PIPEFITTERS ASSOCIATION: Class Cert. Bid in "Porter" Granted
PJ IOWA: Court Rules Class Certification in "Tegtmeier" Suit
PNI DIGITAL: "T.A.N." Suit Moved from Super. Ct. to S.D. Ga.
POLARIS INDUSTRIES: Class Action Filed for Misleading Shareholders

POOLMAN OF WISCONSIN: Evanston Seeks Certification of Class
POSHMARK INC: Faces "Reichman" Suit in Southern Dist. of Cal.
PUBLIX SUPER: Faces "Tamayo" Suit in Middle District of Florida
PULTE HOME: Court Narrows Claims in "Gazzara" Suit
QUEENSLAND: 300 Aboriginal People Join Wage Suit

QUORUM HEALTH: Investors File Class Action Lawsuit
R&A OYSTERS: Settlement in "Cordova" Case Preliminarily Approved
RELIABLE STAFFING: "Hawkins" Seeks Unpaid Wages Under Labor Code
REWALK ROBOTICS: Sued in Super. Ct. Over Common Stock Purchases
ROCKY MOUNTAIN: "McClure" Seeks Overtime Pay

RURAL/METRO CORPORATION: Class Cert. Bid in "Garver" Suit Granted
SAFEMARK SYSTEMS: Faces Gorss Motels Suit in Middle Dist. of Fla.
SANTA FE, N.M.: Class Suit Filed Against Sheriff and Warden
SAPUTO DAIRY: "Brewer" Suit Moved from Super. Ct. to E.D. Cal.
SECURITY WATER: Class Suit Over Contaminated Wells Filed

SMX LLC: "Rwomwijhu" Suit Seeks Minimum Wages Under Labor Code
SOLIDIFI US: "Kimble" Sues Over Unpaid Overtime Pay
SOUTHWEST COLLEGE: "Guinn" Suit Seeks OT Pay Under Labor Code
SQUARE INC: Court Dismissed "White" Class Suit
STATE FARM: Judge OKs Class Action Status on Racketeering Law

STEPHENS AND MICHAELS: Faces "Oved" Suit in E.D. of New York
STERLING JEWELERS: Oct. 2017 Trial Set in Sex Discrimination Case
SUBWAY 39077: Aguiar Seeks Certification of Store Managers Class
SUPERVALU INC: Court Grants Class Certification in Antitrust MDL
SYNTHES USA: Settlement in "Lindell" Suit Has Initial OK

TARO PHARMACEUTICALS: Faces Sergeants' Suit Over Drug Prices
TEXAS EDUCATION: Marlin ISD Joins Class Suit on STAAR Test
TISCH ASIA: NYU Students File Class Action Lawsuit
TRANSWORLD SYSTEMS: Class Cert. Bid in "Frausto" Suit Denied
TRUMP UNIVERSITY: Court Won't Allow Delay of Trial

TVI INC: "Godhigh" Suit Seeks Certification of FLSA Class
TYSON FOODS: Faces Chicken Price-Fixing Class Action in Illinois
UNIFUND CCR: Faces "Stiel" Suit in Eastern District of New York
UNILEVER UNITED: Class Certification Bid in "Fleming" Withdrawn
UNITED BEHAVIORAL: Class Cert. Bid in "Alexander" Suit Granted

UNITED BEHAVIORAL: Class Certification in "Wit" Suit Granted
UNITED STATIONERS: Ill. Court Redefines Class in Alpha Tech Suit
UNITEDHEALTHCARE: Plan Members Win Class-Action Status
UTOPIA HOME: Home Health Care Companions Lose Class Action Bid
VANCOUVER: Class Suit Filed Over Tax on Foreign Property Purchases

WELLS FARGO: Faces Class-Action Suit After Accounts Scandal
WELLS FARGO: "Carroll" Suit Gets Pre-Certification Discovery
WELLNESS MEDICAL: Physicians Healthsource Seeks to Certify Class
WELSPUN INDIA: Faces Suit Over False Egyptian Cotton Labeling
WESTCHESTER MANOR: Faces "Baez" Suit in New York Supreme Court

WHITEWAVE FOODS: Plaintiffs Agree to Dismiss Class Suits
WISCONSIN: Jackson, et al. Seek Certification of 2 Inmate Classes

* 9th Cir. Invalidates Class Suit Waivers in Mandatory Arbitration


                            *********


7 CALL CENTER: Class of Sales Reps Certified in "Caamano" Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Hon. Darrin P. Gayles granted the Plaintiff's motion for
certification of a collective action and for permission to send a
court-supervised notice filed in the lawsuit titled ANA CAAMANO v.
7 CALL CENTER INC., CHABAN WELLNESS LLC, ALEJANDRO J. CHABAN, and
RONALD DAY, Case No. 16-20932-CIV-GAYLES (S.D. Fla.).

Judge Gayles denied without prejudice the Plaintiffs' motion for
corrective action and motion to invalidate arbitration agreements.

Plaintiff Ana Caamano brought the Action against the Defendants
for alleged failure to include non-discretionary commissions in
her overtime pay in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act.
She filed the Motion seeking to certify a class consisting of
"[a]ll persons who are currently, or who were, employed by 7 Call
Center, Inc., Chaban Wellness, Alejandro J. Chaban, and/or Ronald
Day from March 15, 2013 to the present as a sales employees, as
Sale Representatives, Customer Retention Specialists, or other
similarly titled positions, either directly by Defendants or
through any of their subsidiaries or affiliated companies. "

A copy of the Order is available at no charge at
https://goo.gl/q4qmeg from Leagle.com.

Plaintiffs Ana Caamano, Christopher Torres, Maria M. Garcia,
Victor Luis Rodriguez, Delfina Liscano and Edwin Guilcapi are
represented by:

          Brian Howard Pollock, Esq.
          FAIRLAW FIRM
          8603 S. Dixie Highway, Suite 408
          Miami, FL 33143
          Telephone: (305) 230-4884
          Facsimile: (305) 230-4844
          E-mail: brian@fairlawattorney.com

Defendants 7 Call Center Inc., Chaban Wellness LLC, Alejandro J.
Chaban and Ronald Day are represented by:

          Andrew J. Vargas, Esq.
          Jessica U. Fernandez, Esq.
          TRUJILLO VARGAS GONZALEZ & HEVIA, LLP
          815 Ponce De Leon Boulevard
          Coral Gables, FL 33134
          Telephone: (305) 631-2528
          Facsimile: (305) 631-2741
          E-mail: andrew@trujillovargas.com

               - and -

          Diane Patricia Perez, Esq.
          DIANE PEREZ, P.A.
          201 Alhambra Circle, Suite 1200
          Coral Gables, FL 33134
          Telephone: (305) 985-5676
          Facsimile: (305) 985-5677
          E-mail: diane@dianeperezlaw.com


3M CO: First Class-Action Suits Filed Over Water Contamination
--------------------------------------------------------------
Nat Stein, writing for CS Indy, reports that legal recourse has
begun to shape up for residents concerned with their contaminated
drinking water in the Fountain, Security, Widefield areas, though
justice is still distant.

On the night of Sept. 18, the Denver-based Hannon Law Firm filed
two class-action suits in federal court on behalf of residents
affected by dangerous levels of perfluorinated chemicals (PFCs) in
the groundwater. One of the complaints seeks medical monitoring;
the other, compensation for property damage. Crucially, the civil
action pins wrongdoing not on Peterson Air Force Base (the likely
source of contamination), but on the chemical manufacturers that
supplied the contaminant itself.

The contaminant in question is Aqueous Film-Forming Foam (AFFF) --
a suppressant used to extinguish petroleum-based fires that
contains the synthetic chemicals now linked to low birth weights,
cancer and heart disease.

As was long anticipated, in August, the U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers released preliminary findings confirmed that training
areas at Peterson where AFFF has been sprayed for decades are
"possible sources" of drinking water contamination that warrant
further inspection.

But the Air Force apparently has no obligation to abstain from the
perfectly legal, commercially available product. As such,
spokeswoman Shellie-Anne Espinosa told the Indy that Peterson
currently has 2,404 gallons of AFFF in stock, still authorized for
emergency use -- half of that having been purchased between 2013-
2014 (well after the Environmental Protection Agency began heeding
flags first raised by scientists about the hazards of PFCs.) The
base does have plans to replace the AFFF with something more
environmentally benign, she said.

So these new class-action suits leave Peterson alone. Rather, they
name the base's AFFF suppliers as defendants. 3M, Ansul and
National Foam, the complaints allege, "knew or should have known
that the inclusion of PFCs in AFFF presented an unreasonable risk
to human health and the environment."

Though the proceedings are sure to turn up more evidence in more
detail, the suit does offer some evidence for this claim out-of-
the-gate. In the mid-80s, for example, 3M (the original and
primary AFFF manufacturer) found through personnel review that the
fluorochemicals bioaccumulate. Then in 2000, when the company
announced the phase out of two types of PFCs -- PFOS and PFOA --
private and public information contradicted themselves.

As the lawsuit maintains, an internal memo from the EPA stated
that "3M data supplied to EPA indicated that these chemicals are
very persistent in the environment, have a strong tendency to
accumulate in human and animal tissues and could potentially pose
a risk to human health and the environment over the long term...
[PFOS] appears to combine Persistence, Bioaccumulation, and
Toxicity properties to an extraordinary degree" while 3M's press
release insisted that "our products are safe" while back-patting
their "principles of responsible environmental management" as
motivating the phaseout.

The defendants have yet to issue a response -- either to the court
or to the Indy's request for comment. U.S. District Court Judge
Philip A. Brimmer has been assigned the case.


ADVOCATES FOR: Appeals Court Rejects Class-Action Lawsuit
---------------------------------------------------------
Gene Johnson, writing for the Associated Press, reports that a
federal appeals court panel on Sept. 20 rejected a class-action
lawsuit brought on behalf of children who go without lawyers in
deportation proceedings, despite saying that having kids represent
themselves in such complex matters is "an extremely difficult
situation."

The lawsuit was filed two years ago in Seattle by immigrant rights
advocates, following a flood of unaccompanied minors arriving at
the U.S. border. It sought to force the government to appoint
lawyers for the children; immigration judges don't have that
authority now.

U.S. District Judge Thomas Zilly ruled that the children could
pursue their claims that being denied lawyers violated their due-
process rights, but three judges from the 9th U.S. Circuit Court
of Appeals overturned that decision. The appeals court panel said
federal immigration law precludes such claims from being filed in
U.S. District Court.

Instead, the judges said, such claims must be brought individually
and filed directly in federal appeals courts after deportations
proceedings are exhausted.

"I cannot let the occasion pass without highlighting the plight of
unrepresented children who find themselves in immigration
proceedings," Judge Mary Margaret McKeown wrote in a concurrence
to her own unanimous opinion for the panel. "I write to underscore
that the Executive and Congress have the power to address this
crisis without judicial intervention. What is missing here? Money
and resolve -- political solutions that fall outside the purview
of the courts."

Advocates for the children, including the Northwest Immigrant
Rights Project and the American Civil Liberties Union chapters of
Washington state and Southern California, said they would seek a
new hearing with more judges. They say it's unreasonable to expect
children who are ordered deported to then file an appeal, file
briefs with arguments, obtain a final order on appeal, and then
bring their case to a federal appeals court -- the point at which
they would be allowed to raise the issue that being deprived of a
lawyer violated their rights.


ALLERGAN PLC: Namenda Drug Antitrust Class Action Can Proceed
-------------------------------------------------------------
Brendan Pierson, writing for Reuters, reports that a proposed
class action lawsuit brought by a health plan and a drug
wholesaler accusing Allergan PLC of suppressing competition for
its Alzheimer's drug Namenda can move forward, a federal judge
ruled on Sept. 13.

U.S. District Judge Colleen McMahon in Manhattan denied Allergan's
motion to dismiss the lawsuit, which makes similar allegations to
a 2014 lawsuit brought by New York Attorney General Eric
Schneiderman.  That lawsuit stopped the company from forcing
patients to switch to a new version of the drug before generic
versions of the old version hit the market.


AMERICAN INTERCONTINENTAL: Lost Bid to Strike "Mauer" Suit Claims
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The Hon. Sara L. Ellis denies the AIU Defendants' motion to strike
class allegations in the Plaintiff's amended class action
complaint filed in the lawsuit captioned AMY MAUER, individually
and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. AMERICAN
INTERCONTINENTAL UNIVERSITY, INC., AIU ONLINE, LLC, EVEREST
UNIVERSITY, EVEREST UNIVERSITY ONLINE, ZENITH EDUCATION GROUP,
INC., ECMC GROUP, INC., AND JOHN DOE CORPORATION, Case No. 16 C
1473 (N.D. Ill.).

Amy Mauer brings the complaint against the Defendants asserting
they violated the Telephone Consumer Protection Act, by calling
her cellular telephone using an automatic telephone dialing system
without her express consent.  She seeks to pursue the action not
only individually but also on behalf of this class:

     All persons nationwide who, since October 16, 2013, received
     one or more telemarketing calls on their cellular telephones
     from Defendants and/or any other person or entity acting on
     behalf of Defendants, and placed using an automatic
     telephone dialing system and/or an artificial or prerecorded
     voice, where the called party did not previously provide
     express written consent to be contacted.

A copy of the Opinion and Order is available at no charge at
https://goo.gl/p3XF7l from Leagle.com.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Brian D. Brooks, Esq.
          SMITH SEGURA & RAPHAEL LLP
          Brian D. Brooks
          3600 Jackson Street, Suite 111
          Alexandria, LA 71303
          Telephone: (318) 445-4480
          Facsimile: (318) 487-1741
          E-mail: bbrooks@ssrllp.com

               - and -

          Brian Philip Murray, Esq.
          GLANCY BINKOW & GOLDBERG LLP
          122 East 42nd Street, Suite 2920
          New York, NY 10168
          Telephone: (212) 682-5340
          Facsimile: (212) 884-0988
          E-mail: bmurray@glancylaw.com

               - and -

          Norman Rifkind, Esq.
          LAW OFFICE OF NORMAN RIFKIND

Defendants American Intercontinental University, Inc., and AIU
Online, LLC, are represented by:

          Terance A. Gonsalves, Esq.
          Carrie Melissa Stickel, Esq.
          KATTEN MUCHIN ROSENMAN LLP
          525 West Monroe Street
          Chicago, IL 60661-3693
          Telephone: (312) 902-5615
          Facsimile: (312) 902-1061
          E-mail: terance.gonsalves@kattenlaw.com
                  carrie.stickel@kattenlaw.com

Defendants Everest University, Everest University Online, Zenith
Education Group, Inc., and ECMC Group, Inc., are represented by:

          David J. Kaminski, Esq.
          CARLSON AND MESSER LLP
          5959 West Century Boulevard, Suite 1214
          Los Angeles, CA 90045
          Telephone: (310) 242-2200
          Facsimile: (310) 242-2222
          E-mail: kaminskid@cmtlaw.com

               - and -

         Gordon Kenneth Walton, Esq.
         WALTON LAW GROUP LLC
         161 N. Clark Street, Suite 4700
         Chicago, IL 60601
         Telephone: (312) 523-2106
         Facsimile: (312) 523-2001
         E-mail: gkwalton@waltonlawgroupllc.com


ARIZONA: Legal Immigrants File Class Suit Over Licenses
-------------------------------------------------------
Lourdes Medrano, writing for Courthouse News Service, reported
that Arizona, forced to grant driver's licenses to young
immigrants known as "dreamers" after losing a legal battle, faces
another class action, for turning away other applicants who also
are protected from deportation.

Still being denied driver's licenses are victims of domestic
violence and human trafficking who are exempt from deportation
through deferred action, a special status the federal government
grants undocumented immigrants for humanitarian reasons.

Recipients are eligible to work and obtain driving privileges that
Arizona is illegally withholding, five named plaintiffs claim in a
federal class-action filed on September 12, in Phoenix Federal
Court.

"There are thousands of people in Arizona who are being denied
driver's licenses unjustly," said one of their attorneys, Victor
Viramontes, with the Mexican American Legal Defense and
Educational Fund in Los Angeles.

"They are people who have been granted legal authority to live and
work in the United States, and in Arizona and they're being
unfairly discriminated against."

Gov. Doug Ducey's office is reviewing the lawsuit, spokeswoman
Torunn Sinclair said.

Yuvianel Osoria et al. claim state policy of denying driver's
licenses and state identification cards is unconstitutional.
Attached as an exhibit is a 2012 executive order doing so, signed
by then-Gov. Jan Brewer.

Arizona is the only state that denies driver's licenses to these
qualifying immigrants, Viramontes said.

One plaintiff is a seriously ill woman who cannot drive herself to
medical appointments; one has a daughter with spina bifida whom
she cannot drive to appointments; all mention missed job
opportunities and other hardships.

"They should be giving licenses to everyone who is lawfully
present in the United States," Viramontes said of Arizona. "That's
what the law says and that's what they should do."

Last year, immigrant advocates warned Ducey they would sue if
Arizona's Motor Vehicle Division continued to turn away deferred-
action recipients under the ban implemented by Brewer.

Brewer issued her executive order after President Obama announced
in 2012 that undocumented immigrants who were brought to the
United States as minors would receive temporary relief from
deportation through Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals, or
DACA.

At the time, Brewer said driver's licenses might be used to obtain
public benefits illegally. She also said the decision to grant
driver's licenses should fall to states, not the federal
government.

Dreamers filed a lawsuit pointing out that the policy was illegal
because the state already granted driver's licenses to immigrants
with federal work permits. In response, Brewer expanded the ban to
include the latter group.

In December 2014, a federal judge sided with Arizona's more than
20,000 DACA recipients and barred the state from denying driver's
licenses.

Arizona spent more than $1.5 million in taxpayer money defending
Brewer's executive order.

The plaintiffs seek declaratory judgment that the state policy
violates Article VI of the Constitution, the Supremacy Clause; the
Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment; 42 USC, and an
injunction against the policy.

Co-counsel includes the National Immigration Law Center in Los
Angeles and Daniel Ortega Jr. in Phoenix.


ARKANSAS: Court Denied Class Certification Bid in "Elmore"
----------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit entitled JEFFERY C. ELMORE, the Plaintiff v. JUSTIN
PETER, et al., the Defendants, Case No 1:16-cv-00119-KGB-BD. (E.D.
Ark.), the Court entered an order denying Mr. Elmore's motion to
certify his case as a class action.

Jeffery Elmore, an Arkansas Department of Correction (ADC) inmate,
filed the lawsuit without the help of lawyer. Mr. Elmore attempts
to bring the lawsuit on behalf of himself as well as sixteen other
inmates. Mr. Elmore cannot pursue legal claims on behalf of other
inmates. Thus, the Court has severed the lawsuit into seventeen
separate lawsuits.

Mr. Elmore now has an opportunity to file an amended complaint to
pursue his individual constitutional claims. In his amended
complaint, Mr. Elmore may bring only claims that are legally
related. He cannot use the lawsuit to pursue multiple, unrelated
claims. His amended complaint is due within 30 days of the Order.

In his amended complaint, Mr. Elmore must explain how each
Defendant violated his constitutional rights and caused him
injury. He is cautioned that his failure to comply with this Order
could result in the dismissal of his claims, without prejudice.

A copy of the Order is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=Pg0LMRxR


ATLAS VAN: Renewed Bid for Class Cert. in "Mervyn" Tossed
---------------------------------------------------------
The Hon. Ronald A. Guzman entered an order in the lawsuit styled
Thomas Mervyn, Plaintiff, v. Atlas Van Lines Inc., et al. the
Defendants, Case No. 1:13-cv-03587 (N.D. Ill.), striking
Plaintiff's renewed motion for class certification.

According to the docket entry made by the Clerk on September 21,
2016, the class certification motion is stricken without prejudice
to renewal after ruling on summary judgment motion, which is
currently being briefed.

A copy of the Order is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=YgN7NWOE


BANK OF AMERICA: Reply in "Jamison" Suit Moved to October 21
------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, CYNTHIA A. JAMISON, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. BANK OF AMERICA, N.A.,
Defendant, Case No. 2:16-cv-00422-KJM-AC (E.D. Cal.), District
Judge Kimberly J. Mueller approved the parties' stipulation to
extend the time of filing and serving the Defendant's responsive
pleading in no later than October 21, 2016.

The Court likewise set that:

     (1) the Plaintiff's opposition shall be filed and served no
         later than November 18, 2016, and;

     (2) the Defendant's reply shall be filed and served no later
         than November 25, 2016.

The Court added that all other deadlines set in the court's Status
(Pretrial Scheduling) Order shall remain in effect.

A copy of the Court's Order dated September 9, 2016 is available
at https://goo.gl/YhCfAC from Leagle.com.

Cynthia A. Jamison, Plaintiff, represented by Matthew Insley-
Pruitt -- MInsley-Pruitt@wolfpopper.com -- Wolf Popper LLP, pro
hac vice.

Cynthia A. Jamison, Plaintiff, represented by Aidan Chowning
Poppler, Berman DeValerio, Patricia I. Avery, Wolf Popper LLP, pro
hac vice & Kristin J. Moody -- kmoody@bermandevalerio.com --
Berman DeValerio.

Bank of America, N.A., Defendant, represented by Amanda L. Groves
-- agroves@winston.com -- Winston and Strawn LLP & Kobi Kennedy
Brinson -- kbrinson@winston.com -- Winston & Strawn LLP, pro hac
vice.


BASHAM LUMBER: Milkes Insurance Seeks Certification of Class
------------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit captioned M. MILKES INSURANCE AGENCY, INC., on
behalf of plaintiff and the class members defined herein, the
Plaintiffs, v. BASHAM LUMBER CO., INC.; 9094250 B.C. LTD., d/b/a/
EZ LOG STRUCTURES; CHANNELCAST MEDIA CORPORATION, d/b/a PIPELINE
MEDIA; and JOHN DOES 1-10, the Defendants, Case No. 1:16-cv-06855
(N.D. Ill.), the Plaintiff asks the Court to certify a class of:

     "(a) all persons, (b) who, on or after a date four years
     prior to the filing of this action, (c) were sent faxes by
     or on behalf of Defendants Basham Lumber Co., Inc., 9094250
     B.C. Ltd., doing business as EZ Log Structures, and
     Channelcast Media Corporation, d/b/a Pipeline Media,
     promoting goods or services it sold (d) and which did not
     contain an opt out notice as described in 47 U.S.C."

The Plaintiff further asks the Court that it be appointed class
representative and that Edelman, Combs, Latturner & Goodwin, LLC
be appointed counsel for the class.

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

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Daniel A. Edelman, Esq.
          Cathleen M. Combs, Esq.
          James O. Latturner, Esq.
          Dulijaza Clark, Esq.
          EDELMAN, COMBS, LATTURNER & GOODWIN, LLC
          20 South Clark Street, Suite 1500
          Chicago, IL 60603
          Telephone: (312) 739 4200
          Facsimile: (312) 419 0379

The Defendant is represented by:

          Christopher T. Sheean, Esq.
          Joelle M. Shabat, Esq.
          SWANSON, MARTIN & BELL, LLP
          330 N. Wacker Dr.
          Chicago, IL 60611


BRIAD RESTAURANT: Earl, et al. Seek Back Pay Under Wage Amendment
-----------------------------------------------------------------
TOBY EARL, an individual; SHYHEEM SMITH, an individual; DEATRA
ENARI, an individual; MICHELLE PICKTHALL, an individual; and JAMES
SKADOWSKI, an individual, the Plaintiffs, v. BRIAD RESTAURANT
GROUP, LLC, a New Jersey limited liability company; and DOES 1
through 100, Inclusive, the Defendants, Case No. 2:16-cv-02217 (D.
Nev., Sept. 20, 2016), seeks to recover hourly minimum wage
pursuant to Nevada's Minimum Wage Amendment.

The Plaintiffs allege that they were paid less than $8.25 per hour
by Defendant during their employment with it, but that Defendant
did not qualify to pay below the upper-tier, $8.25 minimum hourly
wage level and, therefore, are liable to Plaintiffs for back pay,
damages, and reasonable attorney fees and costs as described in
the Minimum Wage Amendment.

Briad Restaurant operates casual dining and restaurant franchises.
The company was founded in 1993 and is based in Livingston, New
Jersey.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Don Springmeyer, Esq.
          Bradley Schrager, Esq.
          Daniel Hill, Esq.
          WOLF, RIFKIN, SHAPIRO,
          SCHULMAN & RABKIN, LLP
          3556 E. Russell Road, 2nd Floor
          Las Vegas, NE 89120-2234
          Telephone: (702) 341 5200
          Facsimile: (702) 341 5300
          E-mail: dspringmeyer@wrslawyers.com
                  bschrager@wrslawyers.com
                  dhill@wrslawyers.com


BRUMBAUGH & QUANDAHL: Oct. 6 Deadline to File Class Cert. Motion
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, TAMERRA F. WASHINGTON, on behalf of herself and all
others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. BRUMBAUGH & QUANDAHL,
P.C., LLO., KIRK E. BRUMBAUGH, and MARK QUANDAHL, Defendants, No.
8:15CV444 (D. Nebr.), Senior District Judge Lyle E. Strom denied
plaintiff's motion to extend deadline on motion for class
certification as moot, but granted plaintiff's unopposed amended
motion to extend deadline on motion for class certification.  The
Court said the original motion should be denied as moot, and the
amended motion granted.  Plaintiff shall have until October 6,
2016, to file a motion for class certification, brief and index in
support thereof.

A copy of the Court's Order is available at https://is.gd/nuMrCh
from Leagle.com.

Judge Strom earlier granted the Plaintiff's request to amend
complaint until September 22, 2016.  A copy of the Court's Order
dated September 9, 2016 is available at https://goo.gl/1w3IJC from
Leagle.com.

Plaintiff asserts that the Defendants' actions and "routine
practice" of serving interrogatories and requests for admission
with instructions to pro se litigants that answers be "sworn" and
"filed" violates the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA),
the Nebraska Consumer Protection Act (NCPA), and a previous court
order in the case of Birge v. Brumbaugh & Quandahl, P.C., et al.,
where the Defendants in that suit are no longer advised to send
Requests for Admission.

Plaintiff had defaulted on her car payments. The Plaintiff alleges
that defendants' discovery request on Plaintiff did not comply
with the terms of the Settlement Order in the Birge case.

In the case, the Court barred the Plaintiff from referencing Birge
in her complaint, any exhibits attached, and/or in and throughout
discovery. The Court required the plaintiff to strike any and all
references to Birge case, but will allow Plaintiff to make the
other changes provided in the amended complaint. Furthermore, the
Defendants' motion to quash notice to take deposition is denied as
moot.

Tamerra F. Washington, Plaintiff, represented by O. Randolph
Bragg, HORWITZ, HORWITZ LAW FIRM.

Tamerra F. Washington, Plaintiff, represented by Pamela A. Car,
CAR, REINBRECHT LAW FIRM & William L. Reinbrecht, CAR, REINBRECHT
LAW FIRM.

Brumbaugh & Quandahl, P.C., LLO., Defendant, represented by David
A. Houghton, HOUGHTON, BRADFORD LAW FIRM & Karl E. Von Oldenburg -
- karlvonoldenburg@bqlaw.com -- BRUMBAUGH, QUANDAHL LAW FIRM.

Kirk E. Brumbaugh, et al., Defendants, represented by Karl E. Von
Oldenburg -- karlvonoldenburg@bqlaw.com -- BRUMBAUGH, QUANDAHL LAW
FIRM.


CABELA'S WHOLESALE: Has $3.8MM Settlement in Call Recording Class
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The following statement is being issued by Keller Grover regarding
the Cabela's Call Recording Settlement.

A proposed $3,850,000 class action settlement has been reached in
the lawsuit Saunders, et al. v. Cabela's Wholesale, Inc., San
Francisco County Superior Court Case No. CGC-14-537095.  The
lawsuit claims that Cabela's Wholesale, Inc. recorded telephone
calls of persons calling its toll free customer-service lines
without telling callers that the calls may be recorded, allegedly
in violation of California law. Defendant has denied the claims.
Nonetheless, Defendant and the Class Representatives have agreed
to settle the dispute to avoid the uncertainty and costs of
further litigation and trial.

Who is a class member?

You are a class member if you are a natural person who: (1) during
the period December 12, 2012 through February 18, 2014, inclusive,
placed a call while physically located in California to one of
Cabela's toll free telephone numbers and spoke with a
representative of Cabela's; and (2) was either a California
resident at the time such call was made or used a phone number
with a California area code to place such call regardless of your
residency.  This settlement covers those calls.

What are my legal rights?

This notice is only a summary. You may obtain more complete
information by visiting www.CabelasRecordingSettlement.com and
viewing the full class notice, by writing to the address at the
bottom of this notice, or by calling the Claims Administrator at
1-844-528-0183.

To receive a settlement payment, eligible class members must
submit a timely claim.  It is expected that eligible class members
who submit a timely and valid Claim Form will receive
approximately $100 per qualified call but not more than $5,000 per
call.  The amount of each individual settlement payment will
depend on the total number of claims filed.

Unless you take steps to exclude yourself from the settlement, you
will be bound by all of the Court's orders if the Court approves
the settlement, whether or not you submit a claim.  This means you
will not be able to make any claim that is covered by the
settlement against Cabela's or other Released Parties in the
future.

If you wish to submit a claim, visit
www.CabelasRecordingSettlement.com or contact the Claims
Administrator at 1-844-528-0183 to get a claim form.  The deadline
to submit claims is December 19, 2016.

If you do not wish to be a member of the settlement class, you
must submit a letter to the Claims Administrator at the address
below postmarked by December 19, 2016.  If you opt-out you cannot
submit a claim form. Visit the settlement website for more
information.

If you wish to object to the settlement, you must do so by
submitting your objection to the Claims Administrator at the
address below postmarked by December 19, 2016.  Visit the
settlement website for more information.

A final hearing will be held on Tuesday, January 31, 2017 at
1:30 p.m. in Department 305, San Francisco Superior Court, 400
McAllister Street, San Francisco, CA 94102.  The Court will decide
whether the settlement is fair, reasonable, and adequate. The
Court will also determine attorneys' fees and costs and
plaintiffs' service awards.  The motion for attorneys' fees and
costs and plaintiffs' service awards will be posted on the
settlement website after it is filed.  You may attend the hearing,
but you do not have to.

This is only a summary regarding the settlement. For detailed
information including, the full text of the Amended Settlement
Agreement, the Class Notice and the Claim Form, visit
www.CabelasRecordingSettlement.com, call 1-844-528-0183, or write
to: Saunders v. Cabela's Settlement, c/o Heffler Claims Group,
P.O. Box 59239, Philadelphia, PA 19102-9239.


CALIFORNIA: "Hall" Case Cannot Proceed as Class
-----------------------------------------------
In the case, ALFONSO HALL, Plaintiff, v. D. SMITH, et. al.,
Defendants, Case No. 1:15-cv-00860-BAM-PC (E.D. Cal.), Magistrate
Judge Barbara A. McAuliffe dismissed the Plaintiff's motion for
reconsideration of the June 1, 2016 Order denying his appointment
of counsel and motion for class certification.

The Court denied the appointment of class counsel on the ground
that the action does not involve allegations or claims that would
ordinarily be eligible for class certification pursuant to Federal
Rule of Civil Procedure 23(a). Plaintiff, a non-attorney, may
bring his own claims, but he may not represent others.

Moreover, the Court held that the Plaintiff has not met the high
burden of coming forward with evidence of law or facts of such a
strongly convincing nature as to induce the Court to reverse the
order denying his request for class certification and the
appointment of class counsel.

A copy of the Court's Order dated September 12, 2016 is available
at https://goo.gl/S8pEhU from Leagle.com.


CANBERRA: ACT Builders Face Class Action Over GST Refund
--------------------------------------------------------
Katie Burgess, writing for The Canberra Times, reports that a
loophole in taxation law could mean thousands of Canberrans may
have been incorrectly charged GST when they bought a unit off the
plan.

A class action is being mounted against several property
developers for the refund of GST included on the purchase price of
new residential units in the ACT.

IMF Bentham confirmed that, along with law firm Corrs Chambers
Westgarth, it was investigating cases where developers charged
buyers GST-inclusive prices, despite advice from the Australian
Tax Office that no GST was chargeable because of a quirk in the
legislation.

The advice related to an obscure ruling from 2010 when the Federal
Court found that units constructed on land subject to a long-term
lease were not considered "new residences" under the law and
therefore should be input taxed.

At the time, residential premises were only considered to be "new"
if they had not been sold before as a residential premises or had
not been the subject of a long-term lease.

All land in the ACT is leasehold -- not freehold -- though,
tenured for a period of 99 years from the Crown.

That meant developers of Canberra unit blocks would buy the lease
to the land then split the lease into the unit title for each new
owner.

However because the lease had previously been held by the
developer, the premises the owners purchased weren't considered
"new" and should not have been subject to GST, according to the
Federal Court.

The loophole was closed in 2012 but still applied to developments
that were commercially committed before January 27, 2011.

IMF Bentham said developers still included a supply tax in the
price of the units they sold across the ACT and might have then
kept a 10 per cent windfall.

Investment manager Oliver Gayner estimated thousands of Canberrans
could be affected, with the bill to run into the millions.

"Our investigations are ongoing but to date we have identified
around 15 different developments which we believe qualify for the
class action. Ultimately that figure could rise to as much as 30,"
Mr Gayner said.

"At an average development size of 200 units, up to 6000 units
could be in scope. Assuming an average purchase price per unit of
$400,000, a typical claim size would be $40,000 GST plus
interest."

Anyone who bought a residential in the ACT off the plan that
settled in the past six years is urged to check their contract.


CAPITAL MANAGEMENT: Faces "Nguyen" Suit in S.D. of California
-------------------------------------------------------------
A lawsuit has been filed against Capital Management Services, L.P.
The case is captioned Khoi Nguyen, on behalf of himself and all
others similarly situated, the Plaintiff v. Capital Management
Services, L.P., the Defendant, Case No. 3:16-cv-02366-DMS-WVG
(S.D. Cal., Sept. 20, 2016). The assigned Judge is Hon. Dana M.
Sabraw.

Capital Management is a nationally licensed and recognized
collections agency, providing highest level of delinquent
receivables resolution.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


CAR2GO NA: 9th Cir. Affirms Dismissal of "Aderhold" Case
--------------------------------------------------------
The United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit, affirmed the
district court's dismissal of the Plaintiff's putative class
action under the Telephone Consumer Protection Act.

The appellate case is ERIC ADERHOLD, on his own behalf and on
behalf of other similarly situated persons, Plaintiff-Appellant,
v. CAR2GO N.A. LLC, Defendant-Appellee, No. 14-35208 (9th Cir.).

The Federal Communications Commission has determined that persons
who knowingly release their phone numbers have in effect given
their invitation or permission to be called at the number which
they have given, absent instructions to the contrary.

The Ninth Circuit affirmed the district court's ruling that the
text message in question was not a telemarketing message. Car2go's
message contains no content encouraging purchase of car2go
services. The message was directed instead in completing the
registration process initiated by the Plaintiff and in validating
his personal information.

A copy of the Court's Order dated September 9, 2016 is available
at https://goo.gl/WxrZLH from Leagle.com.


CARIBBEAN CRUISE: Faces TCPA Class Action Over Robocalls
--------------------------------------------------------
Jessica Karmasek, writing for Legal Newsline, reports that the
plaintiffs in a class action lawsuit against Caribbean Cruise Line
and a tax-exempt non-profit group, among others, for their alleged
robocalls -- which offered a free cruise for taking part in a
political opinion survey -- reportedly could get a record $76
million.

Nicole Su, an associate in Dorsey Whitney LLP's Southern
California office, reported that the parties have reached a
settlement.

Attorneys for both the plaintiffs and defendants could not
immediately be reached for comment on the proposed deal, which Su
reported is estimated to cost the defendants between $56 million
and $76 million.

If the plaintiffs are paid out the full $76 million, the deal
would be the highest Telephone Consumer Protection Act settlement
in history, she noted.

Judge Matthew Kennelly, for the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division, issued a
notification indicating that a deal has, indeed, been struck.

The news came just days before a Sept. 12 jury trial was set to
start.

In his notification, Kennelly agreed to vacate the trial on the
condition that a signed and executed settlement agreement and
motion for preliminary approval is submitted no later than Sept.
26.

The motion for preliminary approval is then to be noticed for
hearing on Sept. 28, the judge wrote.

In May 2012, the plaintiffs, Grant Birchmeir and Stephen Parkes,
filed their proposed class action lawsuit against Caribbean Cruise
Line Inc. Later, Vacation Ownership Marketing Tours Inc., the
Berkley Group Inc. and Economic Strategy Group would be added as
defendants.

The plaintiffs allege the defendants illegally contacted class
members, which include about 1 million individuals who received
calls on their cell phones or landlines from CCL and its
subsidiary marketing companies between August 2011 and August
2012.

They contend the offer of a "free" cruise package from CCL in
exchange for taking a political survey was a "scam."

"Not only is the 'free' cruise not free, the survey is simply a
marketing tool with no legitimate political basis," the plaintiffs
wrote in their complaint.

Under the TCPA, telephone solicitations, i.e. telemarketing, and
the use of automated telephone equipment are strictly prohibited.

In particular, the law limits the use of automatic dialing
systems, artificial or prerecorded voice messages, SMS text
messages and fax machines.  It also specifies several technical
requirements for fax machines, autodialers and voice messaging
systems -- principally with provisions requiring identification
and contact information of the entity using the device to be
contained in the message.

Generally, the act makes it unlawful "to initiate any telephone
call to any residential telephone line using an artificial or
prerecorded voice to deliver a message without the prior express
consent of the called party" except in emergencies or in
circumstances exempted by the Federal Communications Commission.

The law permits any "person or entity" to bring an action to
enjoin violations of the statute and/or recover actual damages or
statutory damages ranging from $500 to $1,500 per violation.

In April, Kennelly ruled that the robocalls were unlawful under
the TCPA because they were made without prior express consent.

"The evidence is uncontroverted that a prerecorded message was
played on each call; DeJongh himself testified to this effect
during his deposition," the judge wrote in his 31-page order.
"This is a violation of the TCPA, irrespective of whether the
calls were made by or on behalf of a tax-exempt nonprofit, were
made for a political or non-commercial purpose, or did not make
reference to or play long enough to mention defendants' vacation
products."

Last year, the Federal Trade Commission and 10 state attorneys
general also took action against the Florida-based cruise line
company and seven other companies that assisted the massive
telemarketing campaign.

Although the FTC's do-not-call and robocall rules do not prohibit
political survey robocalls, the commission said the robocalls
violated federal law because they incorporated a sales pitch for a
cruise to the Bahamas.

The robocalls generated millions of dollars for the cruise line,
the FTC said.

"Marketers who know the ropes understand you can't steer clear of
the do not call rules by tacking a political or survey call onto a
sales pitch," said Jessica Rich, director of the FTC's Bureau of
Consumer Protection.

She added, "Anyone who assists in making illegal calls is also on
the hook."

According to the joint complaint filed by the FTC and the states,
the robocall campaign ran from October 2011 through July 2012 and
averaged about 12 million to 15 million illegal sales calls a day.

Consumers who answered these calls typically heard a pre-recorded
message supposedly from "John from Political Opinions of America,"
who told them they had been "carefully selected" to participate in
a 30-second research survey, after which they could "press one" to
receive a two-day cruise to the Bahamas.

An attorney for the cruise line told The Washington Post last
April that a group of political action committees, or PACs, had
reached out to the company, wanting to offer the cruise packages
to increase participation in the surveys.

"After vetting the request with its attorneys, Caribbean agreed to
allow one of its cruise promotions to be offered by the PACs to
recipients of a narrow scope of specific political survey calls,"
said Jeffrey Backman, an attorney who represented CCL.

"Without Caribbean's consent, certain PACs offered the cruise
promotions to recipients of calls outside the scope of calls
specifically approved by Caribbean. The matter has been completely
closed."


CARMAX AUTO: "Rowland" Suit Seeks Unpaid Wages and Damages
----------------------------------------------------------
James Rowland on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiffs, v. Carmax Auto Superstores California, LLC,
a limited liability company, Carmax Auto Superstores West Coast,
Inc. and Does 1-100, inclusive, Defendants, Case No. 2:16-cv-02135
(E.D. Cal., September 7, 2016), seeks recovery of unpaid minimum
wages, reimbursement of work-related expenses, missed breaks
compensation, damages resulting from failure to timely furnish
accurate itemized wage statements, waiting time penalties and
violation of the California unfair competition law.

Defendants are a national automobile dealership where Plaintiff
worked as a sales consultant.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Christina A. Humphrey, Esq.
      Thomas A. Rist, Esq.
      HUMPHREY & RIST, LLP
      351 Paseo Nuevo, 2nd Floor
      Santa Barbara, CA 93101
      Telephone: (805) 618-2924
      Facsimile: (805) 618-2939
      Email: christina@humphreyrist.com
             tom@humphreyrist.com

             - and -

      James A. Clark, Esq.
      TOWER LEGAL GROUP
      1510 J St., Suite 125
      Placer, CA 95814
      Telephone: (916) 361-6009
      Facsimile: (916) 361-6019
      Email: james.clark@towerlegalgroup.com


CASHCALL INC: Class & Subclasses Certified in "Inetianbor"
----------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit styled ABRAHAM INETIANBOR, JOHNNY FRETWELL, LAUREN
BROWN, THOMAS PETERSON, VIRGINIA FRY, and NELS PATE, JR., on
behalf of themselves and a class of persons similarly situated,
the Plaintiffs, v. CASHCALL, INC., and JOHN PAUL REDDAM, the
Defendants, Case No. 0:13-cv-60066-JIC (S.D. Fla.), the Hon. Judge
James I. Cohn entered an order certifying the following class and
subclasses:

     "all individuals identified as Florida residents in Western
     Sky loan agreements dated on or after February 11, 2011";

Reddam FDUTPA Subclass:

     "all individuals identified as Florida residents in Western
     Sky loan agreements dated on or after June 30, 2011";

Reddam Usury Subclass:

     "all individuals identified as Florida residents in Western
     Sky loan agreements who made payments on their loans on or
     after June 30, 2013"; and

CashCall Usury Subclass:

     "all individuals identified as Florida residents in Western
     Sky loan agreements who made payments on their loans on or
     after February 11, 2013".

The Court appointed Plaintiffs Johnny Fretwell, Lauren Brown,
Thomas Peterson, Virginia Fry, and Nels Pate, Jr. as class
representatives, and Wallace & Graham, P.A. and Varnell & Warwick,
P.A. as class counsel.

The Class counsel shall submit a proposed schedule for providing
class members with requisite within 14 days of the date of the
Order.

A copy of the Order is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=xbat5m9B


CELLCOM ISRAEL: Class Action Suit Over Prepaid Cards Dismissed
--------------------------------------------------------------
Cellcom Israel said on September 19 that a class action filed
against the company and two other Israeli cellular operators in
December 2015, alleging that the defendants unlawfully offer
cellular pre-paid calling cards for very high prices by allegedly
coordinating such prices among them, has been dismissed. The total
amount claimed from all defendants was estimated to be about NIS13
billion ($3.45 billion), out of which an estimated NIS6.7 billion
was claimed from the company.

The stock decreased 0.80% or $0.06 on September 19, hitting $7.45.
About 15,881 shares traded hands. Cellcom Israel Ltd. (NYSE:CEL)
has risen 24.96% since February 12, 2016 and is uptrending. It has
outperformed by 10.24% the S&P500.

Cellcom Israel Ltd. is a provider of cellular communications
services. The company has a market cap of $743.17 million. The
Firm offers a range of cellular services through its second-
generation , third-generation (3G) and fourth-generation (4G)
cellular networks. It has a 17.66 P/E ratio. These services
include basic and advanced cellular telephone services, text and
multimedia messaging services, and advanced cellular content and
data services.


CENTRAL CREDIT: Faces "Sperber" Suit in Eastern Dist. of New York
-----------------------------------------------------------------
A lawsuit has been filed against Central Credit Services LLC. The
case is captioned Meyer Sperber, on behalf of himself and all
other similarly situated consumers, the Plaintiff, v. Central
Credit Services LLC, formerly known as Veldos, LLC, the Defendant,
Case No. 1:16-cv-05222 (E.D.N.Y., Sep. 19, 2016).

Central Credit is a collection agency.

The Plaintiff appears pro se.


CHESAPEAKE OPERATING: "Nichols" Suit Moved to W.D. of Oklahoma
--------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit titled Bill G. Nichols, on behalf of
himself and all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff v.
Chesapeake Operating LLC and Chesapeake Exploration LLC, the
Defendants, Case No. CJ-16-00014, was removed from the District
Court Beaver County, to the U.S. District Court for the Western
District of Oklahoma (Oklahoma City). The District Court Clerk
assigned Case No. 5:16-cv-01073-HE to the proceeding. The assigned
Judge is Hon. Joe Heaton.

Chesapeake Operating engages in exploration and drilling of
natural gas.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Rex A Sharp, Esq.
          REX A SHARP PA - KANSAS
          5301 W 75th St
          Prairie Village, KS 66208
          Telephone: (913) 901 0505
          Facsimile: (913) 901 0419
          E-mail: rsharp@midwest-law.com

The Defendants are represented by:

          Laura J Long, Esq.
          Patrick L Stein, Esq.
          Timothy J Bomhoff, Esq.
          MCAFEE & TAFT-OKC
          211 N Robinson Ave., 10th Fl
          Oklahoma City, OK 73102
          Telephone: (405) 235 9621
          Facsimile: (405) 228 7339
          E-mail: laura.long@mcafeetaft.com
                  patrick.stein@mcafeetaft.com
                  Tim.Bomhoff@mcafeetaft.com


CMRE FINANCIAL: Faces "Slota" Suit in District of New Jersey
------------------------------------------------------------
A lawsuit has been filed against CMRE Financial Services, Inc. The
case is styled STEPHEN P. SLOTA, on behalf of himself and all
others similarly situated, the Plaintiff v. CMRE FINANCIAL
SERVICES, INC. and JOHN DOES 1-25, the Defendants, Case No. 3:16-
cv-05751-MAS-TJB (D.N.J., Sep. 20, 2016). The assigned Judge is
Hon. Michael A. Shipp.

CMRE Financial provides accounts receivables management services
to healthcare organizations. It offers collection; self-pay
accounts receivables management; insurance and worker's
compensation follow-up and rebilling; electronic funds transfer;
and managed care services. The company is based in Brea,
California.

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


COLORADO: Health Dept. Exec. Director Faces "Cunningham" Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
A lawsuit has been filed against Susan E. Birch. The case is
styled Robert L. Cunningham, on behalf of himself and all others
similarly situated, the Plaintiff v. Susan E. Birch
in her official capacity only as Executive Director of the
Colorado State Department of Health Care Policy & Financing, the
Defendant, Case No. 1:16-cv-02353-NYW (D. Col., Sep. 19, 2016).
The assigned Magistrate Judge is Hon. Nina Y. Wang.

The HCPF is the principal department of the Colorado state
government responsible for administering the Medicaid and Child
Health Plan Plus programs as well as a variety of other programs
for Colorado's low-income families, the elderly and persons with
disabilities.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Mark Silverstein, Esq.
          Sara R. Neel, Esq.
          American Civil Liberties Union-Denver
          303 East 17th Street, Suite 350
          Denver, CO 80203
          Telephone: (303) 777 5482
          Facsimile: (303) 777 1773
          E-mail: msilverstein@aclu-co.org
                  sneel@aclu-co.org

               - and -

          Lawrence W. Treece, Esq.
          BROWNSTEIN HYATT FARBER
          SCHRECK, LLP-DENVER
          410 17th Street, Suite 2200
          Denver, CO 80202-4432
          Telephone: (303) 223 1257
          Facsimile: (303) 223 1111
          E-mail: ltreece@bhfs.com


COMPANIONS OF ASHLAND: Court Snobs Bid to Decertify "George" Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The Hon. James S. Gwin denies the Defendant's motion to decertify
the class in the lawsuit entitled DEE DEE GEORGE v. COMPANIONS OF
ASHLAND, INC., Case No. 1:16-CV-00429 (N.D. Ohio).

On February 24, 2016, Dee Dee George moved to certify both a Fair
Labor Standards Act collective action and a Federal Rule of Civil
Procedure 23 class action against her employer Defendant
Companions of Ashland, Inc.  The Court approved the parties'
stipulation to class certification and a collective action on June
28, 2016.  On August 15, 2016, the Defendant filed a motion to
decertify the Rule 23 class.

According to Judge Gwin's opinion & order, at bottom, the
Defendant argues that the low number of opt ins to the collective
action demonstrates a lack of numerosity for the Rule 23
collective action.  But failing to make the effort to "opt in" to
a collective action does not equate to "opting out" of the class
action, Judge Gwin says.  In fact, Judge Gwin opines, not a single
employee has chosen to opt out of the Rule 23 class.

A copy of the Opinion & Order is available at no charge at
https://goo.gl/c3WC8O from Leagle.com.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Joseph F. Scott, Esq.
          Ryan A. Winters, Esq.
          SCOTT & WINTERS LAW FIRM, LLC
          815 Superior Ave. E., Suite 1325
          Cleveland, OH 44114
          Telephone: (440) 498-9100
          E-mail: jscott@ohiowagelawyers.com
                  rwinters@ohiowagelawyers.com

The Defendant is represented by:

          Valerie A. Lang, Esq.
          LAW OFFICE OF VALERIE A. LANG
          8310 Port Jackson Ave. NW
          North Canton, OH 44720
          Telephone: (330) 685-9405
          Facsimile: (800) 880-4707


COMPANHIA BRASILEIRA: Subsidiary Faces NY Securities Action
-----------------------------------------------------------
Companhia Brasileira de Distribuicao said in its Form 20-F Report
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on September 9,
2016, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2015, that the
Company's subsidiary Cnova, certain of its current and former
officers and directors, and the underwriters of Cnova's initial
public offering, or IPO, have been named as defendants in a
securities class action lawsuit in the United States Federal
District Court for the Southern District of New York asserting
claims related to macro-economic situation in Brazil and
emphasized by the subject matter of the internal review (note
1.5), and Cnova may incur significant expenses (including, without
limitation, substantial attorneys' fees and other professional
advisor fees and obligations to indemnify certain current and
former officers or directors and the underwriters of Cnova's
initial public offering who are or may become parties to or
involved in such matters). The Company and its subsidiary Cnova
are unable at this time to predict the extent of potential
liability in these matters, including what, if any, parallel
action the SEC might take as a result of the facts at issue in
these matters or the related internal review conducted by the
Company and its subsidiary Cnova and its advisors retained by the
Cnova's board of directors.


CONCENTRIX CORPORATION: Faces "Armstrong" Suit in N.D. Cal.
-----------------------------------------------------------
A lawsuit has been filed against Concentrix Corporation. The case
is entitled Ashley Armstrong, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, the Plaintiff v. Concentrix
Corporation, a New York corporation, the Defendant, Case No. 4:16-
cv-05363-DMR (N.D. Cal., Sep. 19, 2016).

Concentrix is a high value business services company founded in
1991.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Jahan C. Sagafi, Esq.
          OUTTEN & GOLDEN LLP
          One Embarcadero Center, 38th Floor
          San Francisco, CA 94111-3339
          Telephone: (415) 638 8800
          Facsimile: (415) 638 8810
          E-mail: jsagafi@outtengolden.com


CONFERENCE USA: "Johnson" Suit Has to Prove Court's Jurisdiction
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, WILLIE JOHNSON, individually and on behalf of all
other similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. CONFERENCE USA, BIG EAST
CONFERENCE, and THE NATIONAL COLLEGIATE ATHLETIC ASSOCIATION,
Defendants, No. 1:16-cv-02341-TWP-DKL (S.D. Ind.), District Judge
Tanya Walton Pratt ordered the Plaintiff to file a Supplemental
Jurisdictional Statement that establishes the Court's
jurisdiction.

The Supplemental Jurisdictional Statement should specifically
identify the citizenship of the defendants. It shall be due 14
days from the September 8, 2016 Entry of the Court Order.

The Court held that, in a class action, the citizenship of an
entity that is not a corporation is determined by the State where
it has its principal place of business and the State under whose
laws it is organized. In the case, the allegations of the
Plaintiff fail to specify the type of business entity of
Defendants Conference USA and Big East and fail to allege the
State under whose laws they are organized. The allegations also
fail to identify the State under whose laws Defendant NCAA is
organized. The allegations are not sufficient to allow the Court
to determine whether diversity jurisdiction exists.

A copy of the Court's Order is available at https://goo.gl/M1K2Sg
from Leagle.com.

WILLIE JOHNSON, Plaintiff, represented by:

          William E. Winingham, Esq.
          WILSON KEHOE & WININGHAM
          2859 N Meridian St
          Indianapolis, IN 46208
          Tel: 317-920-6400


CONFERENCE USA: "Harrison" Suit Has to Prove Court's Jurisdiction
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, JAMES HARRISON, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. OHIO VALLEY CONFERENCE,
and THE NATIONAL COLLEGIATE ATHLETIC ASSOCIATION, Defendants, No.
1:16-cv-02337-TWP-MJD (S.D. Ind.), District Judge Tanya Walton
Pratt ordered the Plaintiff to file a Supplemental Jurisdictional
Statement that establishes the Court's jurisdiction.

The Supplemental Jurisdictional Statement should specifically
identify the citizenship of the defendants. It shall be due 14
days from the September 8, 2016 Entry of the Court Order.

The Court held that, in a class action, the citizenship of an
entity that is not a corporation is determined by the State where
it has its principal place of business and the State under whose
laws it is organized. In the case, the allegations of the
Plaintiff fail to specify the type of business entity of
Defendants Conference USA and Big East and fail to allege the
State under whose laws they are organized. The allegations also
fail to identify the State under whose laws Defendant NCAA is
organized. The allegations are not sufficient to allow the Court
to determine whether diversity jurisdiction exists.

A copy of the Court's Order is available at https://goo.gl/AYcTVl
from Leagle.com.

JAMES HARRISON, Plaintiff, represented by:

          William E. Winingham, Esq.
          WILSON KEHOE & WININGHAM
          2859 N Meridian St
          Indianapolis, IN 46208
          Tel: 317-920-6400

OHIO VALLEY CONFERENCE, Defendant, Pro Se.

THE NATIONAL COLLEGIATE ATHLETIC ASSOCIATION, Defendant, Pro Se


CORYELL COUNTY: Class Certification Bid in "Murillo" Granted
------------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit titled NANCY MURILLO, et al. v. CORYELL COUNTY
TRADESMEN, LLC, et al., Case No. 2:15-cv-03641-NJB-DEK (E.D. La.),
the Hon. Nannette Jolivette Brown granted Plaintiffs' motion for
conditional class certification of:

     "all individuals who provided labor to Coryell County
     Tradesmen or CC Labor or Ronald Franks Construction on the
     225 Baronne Street construction project in New Orleans,
     Louisiana during the previous two years and who are eligible
     for overtime pay pursuant to the Federal Labor Standards Act
     (FLSA), or minimum wages pursuant to the FLSA, and who did
     not receive full overtime or minimum wage compensation."

The Court, however, denied Plaintiffs' request for an opt-in
period of six months, because the statute of limitations on
putative plaintiffs' claims continues to run and this case has
already been pending for close to a year.  The Court finds that a
90-day opt-in period would be more appropriate in this matter.

The Court further ordered that:

     1. notice shall be sent to the Class;

     2. parties meet and confer regarding the form and content of
        the proposed notice, in keeping with the Court's ruling.

     3. the extent that any employment records of potential class
        members have not been produced, Defendants must produce
        the information to Plaintiffs; and

     4. the opt-in period for putative class members shall be
        90 days from the date that a final notice is approved by
        the Court.

The parties are ordered to submit a joint proposed notice within
10 days of the date of this Order. If the parties are unable
to agree on a proposed notice, the parties shall each submit (1)
their proposed notice and (2) their objections, with supporting
authority, to the opposing party's notice and/or consent form,
within 10 days of the Order, and request an expedited status
conference on the matter.

A copy of the Order is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=yR1wSAtA


CTI BIOPHARMA: DAFNA LifeScience Wins Lead Plaintiff Role
---------------------------------------------------------
In the case, IN RE CTI BIOPHARMA CORP. SECURITIES LITIGATION, Case
No. C16-216RSL (W.D. Wash.), District Judge Robert S. Lasnik
granted DAFNA LifeScience, LP and DAFNA LifeScience Select's
motion for their appointment as Lead Plaintiff and appointed
Bernstein Litowitz as lead counsel.

The complaint accuses Defendants of violations of the Securities
Exchange Act and the Securities Act for making false or misleading
statements about the Defendants' business, operations, and
prospects.

The two competing motions for appointment of lead plaintiff and
approval of lead counsel were filed: (1) Motion of DAFNA
LifeScience, LP and DAFNA LifeScience Select, LP for Appointment
as Lead Plaintiff and Approval of its Selection of Lead Counsel,
and (2) Renewed Motion of Medical Opportunities Fund to be
Appointed Lead Plaintiff and to Approve Proposed Lead Plaintiff's
Choice of Lead Counsel.

Under the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act (PSLRA), the
Court shall appoint as lead plaintiff the member or members of the
purported plaintiff class that the court determines to be most
capable of adequately representing the interests of class members.
The Court considered among the plaintiffs who has the largest
financial interest. In the case, it is appropriate to aggregate
the losses of DAFNA Funds, making them the presumptively most
adequate plaintiff based upon their financial interest in the
litigation and representations regarding typicality and adequacy.

The Court ruled that Medical Opportunities Fund has not presented
proof that the interests of class members who purchased preferred
stock or converted preferred stock to common stock are not aligned
with those who purchased common stock on the open market. In the
case, Medical Opportunities Fund cited the cases that address
representation issues on class certification, not appointment as
lead plaintiff.

A copy of the Court's Order dated September 2, 2016 is available
at http://goo.gl/BuuZBLfrom Leagle.com.

Marcello Zucca, Movant, represented by Lesley Frank Portnoy --
lportnoy@glancylaw.com -- Glancy Prongay & Murray LLP.

Marcello Zucca, Movant, represented by Dan Drachler --
ddrachler@zsz.com -- ZWERLING SCHACHTER & ZWERLING.

Paul Sapan, et al., Movants, represented by Lesley Frank Portnoy
-- lportnoy@glancylaw.com -- Glancy Prongay & Murray LLP & Dan
Drachler -- ddrachler@zsz.com ZWERLING SCHACHTER & ZWERLING.

ames Lessard, Movant, represented by Thomas James McKenna --
tjmckenna@gme-law.com -- Gainey McKenna & Egleston & Juli E.
Farris -- jfarris@kellerrohrback.com -- KELLER ROHRBACK.

Rebecca Lessard, Movant, represented by Juli E. Farris --
jfarris@kellerrohrback.com -- KELLER ROHRBACK.

IPConcept (Luxemburg) S.A., Movant, Pro se.

Medical Opportunities Fund, Movant, represented by Stuart W.
Emmons -- swe@federmanlaw.com -- FEDERMAN & SHERWOOD, pro hac
vice, William B. Federman -- wbf@federmanlaw.com -- FEDERMAN &
SHERWOOD, pro hac vice & Juli E. Farris --
jfarris@kellerrohrback.com -- KELLER ROHRBACK.

DAFNA Lifescience, LP, et al., Movants, represented by Avi
Josefson -- avi@blbglaw.com -- Bernstein Litowitz Berger &
Grossmann LLP, David R. Stickney -- davids@blbglaw.com --
BERNSTEIN LITOWITZ BERGER & GROSSMANN, pro hac vice, Rachel Ann
Felong -- rachel.felong@blbglaw.com -- BERNSTEIN LITOWITZ BERGER &
GROSSMANN, pro hac vice & Roger M. Townsend --
rtownsend@bjtlegal.com -- BRESKIN JOHNSON & TOWNSEND PLLC.

Camia Investment LLC, et al., Movants, represented by Jeremy Alan
Lieberman, Pomerantz LLP.

Suhua Zhang, Movant, Pro se.

Sanjivkumar Dalsania, Movant, represented by Avi Josefson --
avi@blbglaw.com -- Bernstein Litowitz Berger & Grossmann LLP.

Darron McGlothin, Plaintiff, represented by Clifford A. Cantor.

William Ahrens, et al., Consol Plaintiffs, represented by Lesley
Frank Portnoy -- lportnoy@glancylaw.com -- Glancy Prongay & Murray
LLP.

CTI BioPharma Corp, Defendant, represented by Ross Bradley Galin
-- rgalin@omm.com -- O'Melveny & Myers LLP.


DESIGNED RECEIVABLE: Summary Judgment Bid in "Goodson" Granted
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit entitled Seanna Goodson, the Plaintiff, v. Designed
Receivable Solutions, Inc., the Defendant, Case No. CV 15-003308
JVS (JPRx) (C.D. Cal.), the Hon. James V. Selna entered an order
granting Designed Receivable's motion for summary judgment.

The Court declines to adjudicate Goodson's class certification
motion. A district court has the discretion to grant a motion for
summary judgment before it decides whether to grant class
certification where it is more practicable to do so and where the
parties will not suffer significant prejudice, the Court said,
citing Leon v. Standard Ins. Co., No. 215CV07419ODWJC, 2016 WL
2595999, (C.D. Cal. May 5, 2016) (quoting Wright v. Schock, 742
F.2d 541, 543 (9th Cir. 1984)). The Court, like the Leon court,
fails to see cognizable prejudice to either party by not
adjudicating the motion. There would be no prejudice to either
[Goodson] or the putative class; indeed, the grant of summary
judgment makes denial without prejudice of the class certification
motion the least prejudicial outcome for the class members, for it
prevents them from being bound to an adverse judgment and thus
preserves their ability to bring the same claim (either
individually or as a class) in future. There is no prejudice to
Designed Receivable because it assumed the risk that summary
judgment in [its] favor will have only stare decisis effect [and
not res judicata effect].

A copy of the Order is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=58nj9hEb


DIVERSIFIED ADJUSTMENT: Faces "Frankel" Suit in E.D. of New York
----------------------------------------------------------------
A lawsuit has been filed against Diversified Adjustment Service,
Incorporated. The case is captioned Esther Frankel, on behalf of
herself and all other similarly situated consumers, the Plaintiff
v. Diversified Adjustment Service, Incorporated, the Defendant,
Case No. 1:16-cv-05223 (E.D.N.Y., Sept. 19, 2016).

The Defendant is a national accounts receivable management and
credit reporting agency. It is a fully licensed, bonded and
insured collection 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


EARTHLINK INC: Reply in "Kleiner" Suit Moved
--------------------------------------------
In the case, LINDA KLEINER, Plaintiff, v. EARTHLINK, INC.,
Defendant, Case No. 2:16-CV-01609-KJM-AC (E.D. Cal.), District
Judge Kimberly J. Mueller approved the parties' stipulation for a
second extension of the time for the Defendant's answer or
responsive pleadings to Plaintiff's Class Action Complaint in no
later than September 26, 2016.

The requested extension will provide the parties with the
opportunity to further investigate the issue and continue their
efforts to reach a resolution, without the filing of potentially
unnecessary papers and further intervention from the Court.

A copy of the Court's Order dated September 12, 2016 is available
at https://goo.gl/Mz8QfD from Leagle.com.

Linda Kleiner, Plaintiff, represented by Todd M. Friedman, Law
Offices of Todd M. Friedman, P.C..

Earthlink, Inc., Defendant, represented by William Scott Cameron
-- scameron@kslaw.com -- King & Spalding & John Whittaker --
jwhittaker@kslaw.com -- King & Spalding.


EMPIRE TODAY: Wielgus, et al. Seek Certification of Class
---------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit styled KEVIN WIELGUS, TOM RINGLESTEIN, MARK
COSTIGAN, and SHERYL PASCOE individually and on behalf of a class
of others similarly situated, the Plaintiffs, v. EMPIRE TODAY,
LLC, a Delaware limited liability company, the Defendant, Case No.
1:16-cv-09085 (N.D. Ill.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court for class
certification, and also request the Court delay ruling on the
motion pending completion of discovery and a briefing schedule on
the motion for class certification.

The Plaintiffs allege claims for unpaid wages, commissions,
bonuses, and related compensation based on contracts they had with
Defendant. The Defendant has not answered or otherwise filed a
responsive pleading to Plaintiffs' class action complaint.

A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=oT8cInGC


The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Caesar A. Tabet, Esq.
          Timothy A. Hudson, Esq.
          E. Jordan Wilkow, Esq.
          TABET DIVITO & ROTHSTEIN LLC
          209 South LaSalle Street, 7th Floor
          Chicago, IL 60604
          Telephone: (312) 762 9450
          Facsimile: (312) 762 9451
          E-mail: ctabet@tdrlawfirm.com
                  thudson@tdrlawfirm.com
                  jwilkow@tdrlawfirm.com


EPIC SYSTEMS: Urges High Court to Rule on Class-Action Waivers
--------------------------------------------------------------
The HR Specialist reports that it seems increasingly likely that
the U.S. Supreme Court will agree to decide one of the hottest
topics in employment law: Whether class-action waivers in
employment agreements are legal.

Three sets of plaintiffs -- including the National Labor Relations
Board (NLRB) -- have asked the court to hear cases that hinge on
whether employers can require employees to sign away their rights
to file class-action lawsuits to settle employment-related
disputes, sending them to be decided by an arbitrator instead.

On Sept. 6, Epic Systems, a Wisconsin software firm, asked the
Supreme Court to hear an appeal of a case the company lost earlier
this year.  In May, the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that
the company's mandatory arbitration clause violated the National
Labor Relations Act.

On Sept. 9, accounting firm Ernst & Young filed a similar petition
with the court, seeking to appeal a 9th Circuit decision that its
waiver requirement was illegal.

Then, also on Sept. 9, the NLRB filed its own Supreme Court
petition arguing that class-action waivers are illegal.  The board
first set out that position in its 2012 landmark ruling in D.R.
Horton and reaffirmed it in its 2014 Murphy Oil decision.

But the 2nd, 5th and 8th Circuit Courts have since ruled that
class-action waivers requiring arbitration are legal, even as the
7th and 9th Circuits rejected them. That split can only be
resolved by the Supreme Court.

If the Supreme Court agrees to hear one or more of the cases --
and has enough sitting justices to avoid a 4-4 stalemate -- it
could result in one of the biggest employment law decisions in
years.


EXPRESS COURIER: Conditional Certification Granted in "Harris"
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit titled JAMES HARRIS; RICK KETCHAM; and ADAM MANSKE,
Each Individually and on Behalf of Others Similarly Situated, the
Plaintiff v. EXPRESS COURIER INTERNATIONAL, INC., the Defendant,
Case No. 5:16-cv-05033-TLB (W.D. Ark.), the Hon. Judge Timothy L.
Brooks entered an order:

     1. granting Plaintiffs' motion for conditional certification
        of collective action;

     2. granting disclosure of potential opt-in Plaintiffs'
        contact Information; and

     3. approving the circulation of Court-approved notices.

The Class based on Fair Labor Standards Act is defined as:

     "each individual who (a) worked for Express Courier
     International, Inc. ("Express"), as a driver, courier, or
     owner-operator any time after February 11 , 2013, (b) never
     subcontracted any of his or her work for Express, and (c)
     contracted directly with Express under Express's standard
     Owner-Operator Agreement."

Having reviewed Plaintiffs' Motion in light of the relevant
standards and applicable factors, the Court finds that the
Plaintiffs have met their burden of demonstrating they are
similarly situated to a potential class of drivers/couriers
working for LSO. Although drivers/couriers may differ in working
part-time instead of full-time, or choosing to drive energy-
efficient Priuses over gas-guzzling box trucks, they all share a
number of similarities. They hold the same job title, work for LSO
locations throughout the Southeast, work under the same policies
and practices enforced by the company, and are or were subject to
the same alleged violations of law during the same period of time.

A copy of the Order is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=6K7VkULX


FIDO: Quebec Court Allows Roaming Fees Class Action to Proceed
--------------------------------------------------------------
Laurence Bich-Carriere, Esq. -- lbichcarriere@lavery.ca -- of
Lavery de Billy LLP, in an article for Lexology, reports that on
August 10, 2016, the Quebec Court of Appeal authorized a class
action pertaining to international roaming fees, thus reiterating,
with renewed respect for the opposing view, that meeting the
authorization threshold and the criteria respecting the
representative's interest is fairly easy under Quebec law.

The proposed class action

After having incurred "disagreeably surprising" roaming fees
during a trip to the US, Inga Sibiga, a Quebec consumer who has a
wireless telephone contract with Fido (a subsidiary of Rogers),
seeks the authorization to institute a class action against Bell,
Fido, Rogers and Telus, the four major wireless service providers
in Canada.  In essence, she claims that the international roaming
fees charged by those companies to Quebec consumers are abusive,
lesionary and so disproportionately high as to amount to
exploitation, contrary to section 8 of the Consumer Protection Act
and article 1437 of the Civil Code of Quebec.  Ms. Sibiga asks for
the reduction of the obligation of subscribers and punitive
damages.

International data roaming allows a consumer to use a mobile phone
out of the area served by his or her provider, the latter
resorting to another provider's network, at a set tariff.  Since
all defendants offer national coverage, roaming charges only
become an issue in respect of data transmission abroad.

The decision under appeal

On July 2, 2014, the honorable Michel Yergeau of the Superior
Court of Quebec dismisses the motion for authorization with costs.
The Superior Court essentially finds that Ms. Sibiga does not
appear to have satisfied the requirement of the then-applicable
article 1003(b) CCP as the facts alleged in her motion are not
sufficient to justify the conclusions sought.  Justice Yergeau
notes that the motion contains no allegation or document
establishing the framework of the contractual obligations assumed
by the petitioner and by her service provider.  Specifically, he
scolds the petitioner for having failed to produce a copy of her
contract with Fido, a contract which he characterizes as an
"essential tangible fact".  In view of this rather poor evidence,
it appears to the Court that the allegations as to the
exploitative nature of the roaming fees are mere speculations and
not facts sufficient to justify authorizing a class action.
Expressing an oft-heard concern, the Superior Court insists that
it is not its role "to embark on the equivalent of a public
inquiry" as called for by the motion. As liberal as Infineon
suggests the screening mechanism at the authorization stage should
be,"[o]ne does not launch court proceedings as expensive for the
judicial system as a class action on such a tenuous base."

Adding to this decided conclusion, the Superior Court further
expresses the view that Ms Sibiga is not in a position to
adequately represent the members of the class, as required by
article 1003(d) CCP.  This is in part because she does not have
the required standing within the meaning of article 55 CCP, at
least against Telus and Bell since she is bound by contract only
with Fido (and thus Rogers).  This is also because, having only a
minimal understanding of the class action process and no control
whatsoever over the proceedings, she appears to be no more than a
pawn of her attorneys.  Without blaming Ms. Sibiga or her lawyers,
the Superior Court insists on the independence of the
"representative" in a class action.

Ms. Sibiga's appeal would be allowed, the honorable Nicholas
Kasirer writing for the Court of Appeal.  The "social dimension"
of class actions, emphasized by the most recent Supreme Court
decisions, is the rock against which the Superior Court's decision
is quashed.

Appeal

Although concurring with the concerns expressed by the Superior
Court that "a lax approach to the standard can result in
authorization of class actions that do not deserve to go to
trial", the Court of Appeal is of the view that it erred: "while a
judge can refuse a motion for authorization that relies on an
overly liberal interpretation of the Infineon standard, it is a
mistake in law to refuse authorization by treating that standard
as overly liberal in itself."

In the Court of Appeal's opinion, "by denying authorization
[. . .] based on what he described as an imprecise and speculative
claim, the motion judge neglected to apply the prima facie case
standard relevant to this consumer class action" and thus failed
to see the threshold for authorization was met.

The unbearable lightness of the authorization filter

"The action should be allowed to proceed if the applicant has an
arguable case," "the court's role is merely to filter out
frivolous motions": article 1003 CCP sets a low threshold, despite
proposals for a more interrogative approach.  Indeed, a scintilla
of credibility suffices at this stage: it is at the trial on the
merits that allegations should be substantiated, supported by the
evidence.  The motion judge, says the Court of Appeal, should not
have asked for more.  In other respects, perhaps paradoxically,
the Court of Appeal finds that it was "imprudent and indeed
mistaken" for the Superior Court to engage with the motion and its
supporting evidence on the merits, as the authorization calls for
a consideration of the surface of the evidence.

What is more, the Court of Appeal is less convinced than the
Superior Court that it is necessary that Ms. Sibiga's contract be
filed in the court record.  Since the existence of a contractual
relation is not disputed, the Court of Appeal considers that, at
the authorization stage, the filing of the monthly statements from
the service provider and some publicly available information
documents should be considered sufficient.

The representative is neither a puppet nor a spearhead

As to the petitioner's representative capacity, in line with the
Marcotte decision of the Supreme Court (which was unavailable to
the Superior Court for it was under advisement the time), the
Court of Appeal concludes that the absence of a direct cause of
action (here, in contract) with two of the proposed defendants
should not constitute an insurmountable obstacle to a class
action.  The issue of the role and capacity of the petitioner to
work with -- rather than for -- her attorneys proves a more
delicate one: although excesses have been known to occur,
entrepreneurial lawyering is not itself a bar to finding that the
designated representative has the requisite interest in the suit.
The genuineness of a motion is not wholly discredited merely
because the proceedings bear the lawyer's scent.  Here too, the
Court of Appeal finds that the Superior Court failed to apply the
liberal standard warranted by the Supreme Court.

The class description: the burden of proof belongs to the brave

Building on a comment of the Superior Court to the effect that,
absent any detail concerning many of the countries where roaming
costs could allegedly have been incurred or the variety of the
mobile plans involved, the proposed class was unduly inclusive,
defendants Bell and Telus had asked that, should the appeal be
allowed, the class be restricted.  The Court of Appeal declines to
make such a ruling.  As tempting as it might be to bring the
proposed class to more common proportions, doing so would amount
to prejudging the ability of the applicant to conduct her case.
Again, at the authorization stage, it suffices to establish an
arguable case, and this burden was met by petitioner.  In any
event, class definition can be reviewed by the court at the trial
on common issues.

Conclusion

The decision of the Quebec Court of Appeal falls in line with the
most recent decisions of the Supreme Court of Canada relating to
class actions.  The decision is not one for jurisprudential
controversy; it rather serves to show how emphatically the highest
court in the land has diluted the threshold for authorization in
Quebec.  Authorization is, of course, not a mere formality, a call
for rubber-stamping, but it is not fatal for the evidence
presented at this preliminary stage to be incomplete or imprecise.
The criteria for authorization have been substantively untouched
by Quebec's civil procedure reform, there is every reason to
believe that there is a bright future for this liberal approach.


FIRST CREDIT: Faces "Weissman" Suit in Eastern Dist. of New York
----------------------------------------------------------------
A lawsuit has been filed against FirstCredit, Inc. The case is
styled Ethel Weissman, on behalf of herself and all other
similarly situated consumers, the Plaintiff v. FirstCredit, Inc.,
the Defendant, Case No. 1:16-cv-05193 (E.D.N.Y., Sep. 19, 2016).

Founded in 1985, First Credit is a service oriented organization
offering financing and insurance for manufactured housing.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Adam Jon Fishbein, Esq.
          ADAM J. FISHBEIN, P.C.
          735 Central Avenue
          Woodmere, NY 11598
          Telephone: (516) 668 6945
          E-mail: fishbeinadamj@gmail.com


FORD MOTOR: Class Plaintiffs Sue Over Exploding Sunroofs
--------------------------------------------------------
Amanda Bronstad, writing for The National Law Journal, reports
that a class action has been filed against Ford Motor Co. alleging
that the panoramic sunroofs in 16 of its models such as the
Explorer and the Edge spontaneously explode.

The suit, filed Sept. 15, claims that a couple in California and a
couple in Alabama were driving 60 miles per hour on a highway when
their sunroofs exploded. One couple initially thought the sound
was gunshots, while the other thought lightning had struck the car
or a tire blown out, but in both cases they maintained that
nothing hit their cars.

Ford is the latest automaker to be sued over spontaneously
exploding panoramic sunroofs. Another class action was filed on
Dec. 10 by Girard Gibbs against Hyundai Motor Co.

"These sunroofs are the newest desirable feature in that they are
two or three times as large as what we would see 10 years ago in
terms of sunroofs," said Paul Hanly, named shareholder at Simmons
Hanly Conroy in New York, who filed the Ford case. "As we set
forth in our complaint, there has been testing that suggests the
tempering of the glass is insufficient, and that's the apparent
reason for these shattering episodes."

Ford spokeswoman Kelli Felker did not respond to a request for
comment.

In 2014, the U.S. National Highway Traffic Safety Administration
began investigating several automakers, including Ford, over
exploding sunroofs. Volkswagen, Hyundai and Audi have had limited
recalls over the defect.

According to the Ford suit, more than 200 owners of vehicles with
defective sunroofs have made complaints about panoramic sunroofs
exploding, either to NHTSA or according to Ford's own internal
data.

The suit cites a 2013 study from the Korea Automobile Testing &
Research Institute that found enamel used for ceramic paint on
panoramic sunroofs "impairs the strength of the glass." The United
Nations Economic Commission for Europe reached a similar
conclusion in a June report.

The suit was filed on behalf of a potential class of tens of
thousands of Ford customers with various year models, including
several Lincoln and Mercury vehicles.


GARDNER TRUCKING: Truck Drivers' Wage Class Action Pending
----------------------------------------------------------
The Riverside employment law lawyers at Blumenthal, Nordrehaug &
Bhowmik on Sept. 15 disclosed that it filed a class action lawsuit
against Gardner Trucking, Inc., alleging the transportation
company failed to pay their employees working as Truck Drivers in
California for all their time spent working and allegedly failed
to provide all legally required meal and rest periods under
California law.  The pending class action lawsuit against Gardner
Trucking, Inc., is currently pending in the San Bernardino County
Superior Court, Case No. CIVDS1614280.

The Complaint alleges that Plaintiff and other employees working
as truck drivers for the company in California performed the
manual task of transporting goods for Gardner Trucking, Inc. and
were allegedly paid on a piece-rate basis only.  Further, the
class action lawsuit alleges that the Golden State truck drivers
were not paid minimum wages to which they were entitled to because
of Gardner's alleged failure to record all time worked.
The pending class action lawsuit against Gardner Trucking, Inc.
also alleges that the company failed to have a policy or practice
which provided a full off-duty, thirty minute uninterrupted meal
break to their California truck drivers.  The lawsuit alleges that
the company's alleged failure to provide the legally required meal
and rest breaks is evidenced by their business records which
contain no evidence of these breaks.  Consequently, truck driver
employees working for Gardner Trucking, Inc. allegedly forfeited
meal and rest breaks without additional compensation.

For more information about the class action lawsuit against
Gardner Trucking, Inc. call attorney Nicholas De Blouw at (866)
771-7099.

Blumenthal, Nordrehaug, & Bhowmik is an employment law firm with
law offices located in San Diego, San Francisco, Sacramento, Los
Angeles, and Riverside Counties.  The firm has a statewide
practice of representing employees on a contingency basis for
violations involving unpaid wages, overtime pay, discrimination,
harassment, wrongful termination and other types of illegal
workplace conduct.


GENERAL MILLS: Faces Class Action Over Deceptive Cheerios Claims
----------------------------------------------------------------
Jacob Gershman, writing for The Wall Street Journal, reports that
it may not come as a surprise to breakfast consumers that Honey
Nut Cheerios -- whose box features a gleeful cartoon bee dangling
a honey dipper over a bowl like a magic wand -- is sugary.

A lawsuit filed in federal court in California against General
Mills alleges, however, that consumers have been duped into
thinking the company's best-selling cereal brand is health food.

The complaint, which seeks class-action status, alleges that the
marketing of Honey Nut Cheerios and other sweeter Cheerios brands
such as Apple Cinnamon, camouflages the amount of sucrose, glucose
and fructose in the cereals to the point of violating consumers
laws.

The California plaintiffs' firm that brought the complaint targets
the health-related claims on the packaging and in advertising.

The cereals, like most food products, have a Nutrition Facts label
specifying the ingredients and numbers of grams of sugar per
serving.

But General Mills, the lawsuit claims, plays up the cereals's more
nutritious ingredients, like its abundance of whole grains, that
the company says can help lower cholesterol.  For years until
2013, the boxes touted a seal of approval from the American Heart
Association.

The lawsuit says the cereals, in reality, are really O's of doom.
Citing health studies, it states:

The scientific evidence is compelling: Excessive consumption of
added sugar is toxic to the human body.  Experimentally sound,
peer-reviewed studies and meta-analyses convincingly show that
consuming excessive added sugar -- any amount above approximately
5% of daily caloric intake -- greatly increases the risk of heart
disease, diabetes, liver disease, and a wide variety of other
chronic morbidity.

Despite the compelling evidence that sugar acts as a chronic liver
toxin, detrimentally affecting health, to increase the price and
sales of its products, General Mills leverages a policy and
practice of marketing high-sugar cereals, bars, other foods with
health and wellness claims.

A General Mills spokesman said the plaintiffs are the one making
misleading claims.

"This lawsuit is without merit," a company spokesman told Law
Blog.  "Cereal has long been established as a nutritious and
wholesome way to start the day, and General Mills continues to
stand behind the quality of these products and the accuracy of the
products' labels."

The lawsuit comes at a time of shifting breakfast habits and
waning demand for cereal that have pushed General Mills revenues
downward.

And it doesn't just target Cheerios but makes similar claims about
other General Mills brands -- including Cinnamon Toast Crunch,
Cocoa Puffs, Lucky Charms and Trix, and also its line of breakfast
biscuits.

The plaintiffs are asking the court to order General Mills to
change its labeling and "pay restitution to restore funds that may
have been acquired" by the company's allegedly deceptive
practices.

The Cheerios lawsuit is among a flurry of class-action-seeking
complaints filling up the dockets in recent years, a litigation
trend recently examined by the Chicago Tribune.

The paper highlighted lawsuits like ones accusing Kraft Heinz of
misrepresenting the contents of its Parmesan cheese and complaints
alleging that Quaker Oats tricked consumers into thinking its
Maple & Brown Sugar oatmeal is made with real maple syrup.  The
companies say they expect courts to dismiss the complaints.

A labeling lawsuit recently came before the Supreme Court.  That
was the false-advertising case brought by Pom Wonderful about the
marketing of Minute Maid pomegranate-blueberry juice.

The Tribune said such lawsuits can prod food companies to be more
precise and careful about their labeling, but plaintiffs can
overreach:

"You don't want to have your case to be the next Cap'n Crunch
Berries," [food-safety lawyer Bill] Marler said.

Mr. Marler referred to the 2009 lawsuit in which a California
woman sued PepsiCo, parent company of Quaker Oats, alleging she
was misled because Cap'n Crunch Berries cereal does not contain
any real fruit.  A California federal judge tossed the suit.

"This Court is not aware of, nor has Plaintiff alleged the
existence of, any actual fruit referred to as a 'crunchberry.' . .
. So far as this Court has been made aware, there is no such fruit
growing in the wild or occurring naturally in any part of the
world," U.S. District Judge Morrison England wrote in his opinion.

Correction: A previous version of this post incorrectly said that
Honey Nut Cheerios was certified under the American Heart
Association's food certification program.  The association says it
stopped certifying the cereal in the fall of 2013.


GURPREET AHLUWALIA: Sued in Mass. Super. Ct. Over Breach of Lease
-----------------------------------------------------------------
STEVEN YORMAK personally, and STEVEN YORMAK on behalf of Minors
EMILY YORMAK, SPENCER YORMAK AND GABRIEL YORMAK, the Plaintiffs,
v. GURPREET AHLUWALIA AND GAIL AHLUWALIA, the Defendants, Case No.
16-1191 (Mass. Super. Ct., Sept. 20, 2016), seeks to recover
damages which Defendants are liable for in law and pursuant to
statutory remedies by exposing the Tenants to ongoing nuisance and
negligence in regard to maintaining leased premises, in violation
of the Massachusetts Consumer Protection Act.

The Defendants, who were Landlords, allegedly committed breach of
warranty of habitability and quiet enjoyment under the terms of a
lease relating to real property located in the Town of Wellesley
in the County of Norfolk. The Defendants failed to provide
receipts of monies received from the Tenants, failed to place
security deposit in a separate account as defined in law, and
failed to immediately return the security of deposit.

Steven Yormak appears pro se.


HMK LTD: "Pena" Sues Over Substandard Rental Housing
----------------------------------------------------
Joanna Pena, Sergio Rendon, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. HMK Ltd., Kraish H.
Kraish and Hannah E. Kraish, individually, Defendants, Case No.
DC-16-11377, (S.D. Tex.., September 8, 2016), seeks damages,
statutory remedies, injunctive relief, reasonable attorney's fees,
pre and post judgment interest and such other and further relief
under the Texas Property Code.

HMK Ltd. lease hundreds of properties throughout Dallas County.
Plaintiffs have been parties to HMK standard residential lease
which violates provisions of Texas Property Code including
Sections 92.006 and 92.0563(g) meaning no plumbing, no heating,
infested by rats and other vermin, missing doors, roofs with large
holes and collapsed floors. One such property is at 827 Lomas
Street in Dallas, Dallas County, Texas, where Joanna Pena and
Sergio Rendon reside.

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Michael J. Hindman, Esq.
      HINDMAN AND BYNUM P.C.
      5000 Greenville Ave., Ste. 200
      Dallas, TX 75206
      Tel: (214) 941-4611
      Fax: (469) 906-2340
      Email: michael.hindman@hindmanbynum.com

             - and -

      Mark A. Ticer, Esq.
      LAW OFFICE OF MARK A. TICER
      Jennifer V. Johnson
      10440 N. Central Expressway, Suite 600
      Dallas, TX 75204
      Tel: (214)219-4220
      Fax: (214)219-4218
      Email: mticer@ticerlaw.com
             jjohnson@ticerlaw.com


HONEST COMPANY: Faces "Hiddlestone" Suit in C.D. of California
--------------------------------------------------------------
A lawsuit has been filed against The Honest Company, Inc. The case
is titled Candace Hiddlestone and Julie Hedges, each individually
and on behalf of all those similarly situated, the Plaintiff v.
The Honest Company, Inc., the Defendant, Case No. 2:16-cv-07054-
FMO-RAO (C.D. Cal., Sept. 20, 2016). The assigned Judge is Hon.
Fernando M. Olguin.

The Honest Company is an American consumer goods company, co-
founded by actress Jessica Alba, that emphasizes non-toxic
household products to supply the marketplace for ethical
consumerism.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Nicholas A Carlin, Esq.
          Brian Samuel Clayton Conlon, Esq.
          PHILLIPS ERLEWINE GIVEN
          AND CARLIN LLP
          39 Mesa Street, Suite 201
          San Francisco, CA 94129
          Telephone: (415) 398 0900
          Facsimile: (415) 398 0911
          E-mail: nac@phillaw.com
                  bsc@phillaw.com

               - and -

          Jon William Borderud, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF JON BORDERUD
          2028 Cliff Drive
          Santa Barbara, CA 93109
          Telephone: (310) 621 7004
          E-mail: borderudlaw@cox.net

               - and -

          Leonard B Simon, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF LEONARD SIMON PC
          655 West Broadway Suite 1900
          San Diego, CA 92101
          Telephone: (619) 338 4549
          Facsimile: (619) 231 7423
          E-mail: lsimon@rgrdlaw.com

               - and -

          Rebecca Anne Peterson, Esq.
          LOCKRIDGE GRINDAL NAUEN P.L.L.P.
          100 Washington Avenue South Suite 2200
          Minneapolis, MN 55401
          Telephone: (612) 339 6900
          Facsimile: (612) 339 0981
          E-mail: rapeterson@locklaw.com


HSBC HOLDINGS: Class Action Over Madoff Ponzi Scheme Dismissed
--------------------------------------------------------------
Jonathan Stempel, writing for Reuters, reports that HSBC Holdings
Plc on Sept. 15 won the dismissal of a lawsuit by former Bernard
Madoff customers who accused the British bank of fuelling his
massive Ponzi scheme by ignoring red flags and encouraging "feeder
funds" to invest with him.

U.S. District Judge Laura Taylor Swain in Manhattan said a federal
law governing securities fraud cases prevented the plaintiffs from
bringing their class-action claims against HSBC's U.S. unit.  She
also said she lacked jurisdiction over claims against the HSBC
parent and non-U.S. affiliates.

Jason Zweig, a lawyer for the customers, declined to comment
because he was reviewing the decision.  HSBC spokesman Rob Sherman
declined to provide immediate comment.

The customers filed the lawsuit in December 2014, after a federal
appeals court said the trustee liquidating Bernard L. Madoff
Investment Securities LLC lacked standing to sue HSBC, JPMorgan
Chase & Co and other banks he accused of aiding Madoff's fraud.

In their complaint, the customers said HSBC sold structured
financial products that resulted in hundreds of millions of
dollars flowing to Madoff through feeder funds.

They also said HSBC looked the other way when encountering signs
of fraud, to help sate its "unquenchable thirst" for fees.

The customers said their accounts with Madoff were not "covered
securities," barring them from pursuing their case, because the
con man had total discretion over their money.

But the judge said the customers expected Madoff to invest their
cash in covered securities, which are traded nationally and listed
on a regulated national exchange, to achieve the "extraordinary"
returns for which he had at the time been known.

"That plaintiffs had no control over which particular investment
strategy Madoff undertook or specific securities he purchased does
not obviate the fact that plaintiffs were seeking, directly or
indirectly, to purchase covered securities," Swain wrote.
"Accordingly, plaintiffs' claims are barred."

Mr. Madoff, 78, pleaded guilty to fraud in March 2009, three
months after his scheme was uncovered.  He is serving a 150-year
prison term.  The trustee, Irving Picard, has recouped roughly
$11.2 billion for former Madoff customers.

The case is Hill et al v HSBC Bank Plc et al, U.S. District Court,
Southern District of New York, No. 14-09745.


IHEARTMEDIA INC: Ponderosa Suit Alleges Copyright Infringement
--------------------------------------------------------------
Ponderosa Twins Plus One and Ricky Spicer, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v.
iHeartmedia, Inc., Spotify USA, Inc., Google Inc., Apple Inc.,
Pandora Media, Inc., Sony Interactive Entertainment, LLC, Deezer,
Inc. and Soundcloud, Inc., Defendants, Case No. 3:16-cv-02258,
(S.D. Cal., September 7, 2016), seeks actual damages, punitive
damages, treble damages, disgorgement of all profits earned by
Defendants from reproducing, distributing, publicly performing and
otherwise exploiting their pre-1972 recordings in internet and
terrestrial radio services, constructive trust on any money
acquired by means of Defendants' conversion including all gross
receipts attributable to Defendants' conversion of the pre-1972
recordings, prejudgment and post judgment interest on any monetary
relief, equitable relief enjoining future unauthorized use of the
pre-1972 recordings in internet and terrestrial radio services,
costs of bringing this suit, including reasonable attorneys' fees
and costs and all and any other relief resulting from
misappropriation, conversion and unfair competition and violation
of common law copyright infringement.

Plaintiffs were a singing group in the 60s who claim to own the
copyrights inherent in the sound recording of the songs "Bound,"
"Bound 2." They assert the Defendants illegally broadcasted their
songs.

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Jennifer Liakos, Esq.
      Hunter J. Shkolnik, Esq.
      Paul J. Napoli, Esq.
      Paul B. Maslo, Esq.
      Salvatore C. Badala, Esq.
      NAPOLI SHKOLNIK PLLC
      525 South Douglas Street, Suite 260
      El Segundo, CA 90245
      Telephone: (310) 331-8224
      Fax: (646) 843-7603
      Email: jliakos@napolilaw.com
             hunter@napolilaw.com
             pnapoli@napolilaw.com
             pmaslo@napolilaw.com
             sbadala@napolilaw.com

             - and -

      Brittany Weiner, Esq.
      IMBESI LAW P.C.
      450 Seventh Avenue, Suite 1408
      New York, NY 10123
      Tel: (212) 736-0007
      Email: brittany@lawicm.com



INTERCEPT PHARMACEUTICALS: $55MM Settlement Granted Final OK
------------------------------------------------------------
Intercept Pharmaceuticals, Inc. said in its Form 8-K Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on September 12, 2016,
that the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York
(the "Court") on September 8, 2016, granted final approval of the
previously announced agreement with the lead plaintiff to settle
the purported securities class action litigation, styled In re:
Intercept Pharmaceuticals, Inc. Securities Litigation, against
Intercept Pharmaceuticals, Inc. (the "Company" or "Intercept") and
certain of its officers.

The settlement included the payment of $55 million, of which $10
million was funded by the Company's insurers. The defendants do
not admit any liability as part of the settlement.

The final judgment and order of the Court included a dismissal of
the action with prejudice against all defendants.


ISORAY INC: 10-Day Jury Trial Scheduled for June 18, 2018
---------------------------------------------------------
IsoRay, Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on September 9, 2016, for the
fiscal year ended June 30, 2016, that in the case, In Re IsoRay,
Inc. Securities Litigation: U.S. District Court for the Eastern
District of Washington, filed October 16, 2015, a ten-day jury
trial is scheduled for June 18, 2018.

On May 22, 2015, the first of three lawsuits was filed against
IsoRay, Inc. and two of its officers -- Dwight Babcock (the
Company's retired CEO) and Brien Ragle, CFO -- related to a press
release on May 20, 2015 regarding a May 19 online publication of
the peer-reviewed article in the journal Brachytherapy titled
"Analysis of Stereotactic Radiation vs. Wedge Resection vs. Wedge
Resection Plus Cesium-131 Brachytherapy in Early-Stage Lung
Cancer" by Dr. Bhupesh Parashar, et al.  The lawsuits are class
actions alleging violations of the federal securities laws.

By Order dated August 17, 2015, all of the pending lawsuits were
consolidated into one case -- In re IsoRay, Inc. Securities
Litigation; Case No. 4:15-cv-05046-LRS, in the US District Court
for the Eastern District of Washington.

On October 16, 2015, an amended complaint was filed with more
detailed allegations relating to alleged violations of federal
securities laws.  On December 15, 2015, IsoRay filed a motion to
dismiss the complaint altogether.  On June 1, 2016, the court
entered an order denying IsoRay's motion to dismiss, holding that
the complaint's allegations, if accepted as true, state a
plausible claim to relief.  The order did not adjudicate the
merits of the lawsuit.  No other issues were decided in the
ruling.

On June 15, 2016, IsoRay filed their answer to the amended
complaint.  Lead Plaintiffs motion for class certification is due
to be filed no later than January 5, 2017.

As of this filing, a ten-day jury trial is scheduled for June 18,
2018 along with a timeline for pre-trial actions by both IsoRay
and the Lead Plaintiffs.  Management believes this suit is without
merit and will continue to defend against it vigorously.

"Securities litigation is a lengthy, costly and unpredictable
process.  Currently management does not believe that a loss
resulting from these claims is probable or reasonably estimable in
amount.  However, failure by IsoRay to obtain a favorable
resolution of the claims set forth in the complaint could have a
material adverse effect on our business, results of operations and
financial condition," the Company said.


ITT EDUCATIONAL: "Long" Suit Seeks 60 Days Pay, Benefits Recovery
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Christin M. Long, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. ITT Educational Services, Inc.,
Defendant, Case No. 1:16-cv-02399, (S.D. Ind., September 7, 2016),
seeks damages in the amount of sixty days' pay and benefits,
monetary damages, reasonable attorneys' fees and costs and such
other and further relief under the Worker Adjustment and
Retraining Notification Act.

ITT Educational Services abruptly closed the doors of
approximately 130 campuses in 38 states without advance warning to
its employees, immediately leaving more than 8,000 workers
unemployed. Long worked as a campus director at ITT's location in
Strongsville, Ohio that closed on September 6, 2016.

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Lynn A. Toops, Esq.
      Irwin B. Levin, Esq.
      Richard E. Shevitz, Esq.
      COHEN & MALAD, LLP
      One Indiana Square, Suite 1400
      Indianapolis, IN 46204
      Telephone: (317) 636-6481
      Facsimile: (317) 636-2593
      Email: ltoops@cohenandmalad.com
             ilevin@cohenandmalad.com
             rshevitz@cohenandmalad.com

             - and -

      Benjamin F. Johns, Esq.
      Andrew W. Ferich, Esq.
      Jessica L. Titler, Esq.
      CHIMICLES & TIKELLIS LLP
      One Haverford Centre
      361 West Lancaster Avenue
      Haverford, PA 19041
      Telephone: (610) 642-8500
      Facsimile: (610) 649-3633
      E-mail: BFJ@chimicles.com
              AWF@chimicles.com
              JT@chimicles.com



J.J.F. CONSTRUCTION: Faces "Goodson" Suit in M.D. of Florida
------------------------------------------------------------
A lawsuit has been filed against J.J.F. Construction & Property
Management, Inc. The case is captioned Bradley Goodson, for
himself and on behalf of those similarly situated, the Plaintiff
v. J.J.F. Construction & Property Management, Inc., a Florida
profit corporation; Jarek Freund, individually; Slawomir Freund,
individually; Ariel Freund, individually, the Defendant, Case No.
2:16-cv-00708-UA-MRM (M.D. Fla., Sept. 19, 2016).

JJF Construction serves quality construction remodeling.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Angeli Murthy, Esq.
          MORGAN & MORGAN, PA
          600 N Pine Island Rd., Suite 400
          Plantation, FL 33324
          Telephone: (954) 967 5377
          Facsimile: (954) 327 3016
          E-mail: amurthy@forthepeople.com


JPMORGAN CHASE: 2nd Cir. Affirms Dismissal of "Loeza" Case
----------------------------------------------------------
The United States Court of Appeals, Second Circuit, affirmed an
order dismissing the Plaintiffs-appellants' Fourth Amended
Complaint in the putative class action styled as, MARY LOEZA, MATT
WARD, CARMINA McCORMACK, Plaintiffs-Appellants, GREGORY SCRYDOFF,
Individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated,
Plaintiffs, v. JOHN DOES 1-10, JOHN DOES 1-100, BERNADETTE J.
ULISSI, DAVID C. NOVAK, STEPHEN B. BURKE, LEE R. RAYMOND, WILLIAM
WELDON, JAMES DIMON, INA R. DREW, NORMAN CORIO, SALLY DURDAN,
JPMORGAN RETIREMENT PLAN, JPMORGAN COMPENSATION 7 MANAGEMENT
DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE, JPMORGAN CHASE 401(K) SAVINGS PLAN,
SELECTION COMMITTEE, Defendants, JPMORGAN CHASE & CO., JPMORGAN
CHASE BANK, N.A., DOUGLAS L. BRAUNSTEIN, JOHN WILMOT, Defendants-
Appellees.

The Complaint alleges that the defendants, who are JPMorgan
corporate insiders and named fiduciaries of the JPMorgan Chase &
Co. 401(k) Savings Plan, were imprudent in failing to prevent the
Fund from purchasing JPMorgan stock at a price inflated by alleged
securities fraud related to certain trading activities undertaken
by the firm's Chief Investment Office.

The district court concluded that the Complaint failed to
plausibly allege that a prudent fiduciary could not conclude that
freezing purchases or disclosing the alleged securities fraud
would cause the Fund more harm than good, as is required to be
alleged as provided in Fifth Third Bancorp v. Dudenhoeffer, 134
S.Ct. 2459 (2014).

The Second Circuit found that the district court properly
dismissed the Complaint after reviewing the case and concluded
that the allegations are wholly conclusory and materially
indistinguishable from the allegations that the Supreme Court
found insufficient in Amgen Inc. v. Harris, 136 S.Ct. 758 (2016)
(per curiam).

A copy of the Court's Order dated September 8, 2016 is available
at https://goo.gl/r9KIuu from Leagle.com.

SAMUEL E. BONDEROFF (Jacob H. Zamansky, on the brief), Zamansky
LLC, New York, New York, for Plaintiffs-Appellants.

RICHARD C. PEPPERMAN, II -- peppermanr@sullcrom.com -- (M. David
Possick, Daryl A. Libow, on the brief), Sullivan & Cromwell LLP,
New York, New York, and Washington, D.C., for Defendants-
Appellees.


JUNO THERAPEUTICS: "Paradisco" Sues Over Share Price Drop
---------------------------------------------------------
Liberata Paradisco, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Juno Therapeutics, Inc., Hans E.
Bishop and Steven D. Harr, Defendants, Case No. 2:16-cv-01425
(W.D. Wash., September 7, 2016), seeks compensatory damages,
damages, reasonable costs and expenses and such other and further
relief under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.

Juno is a biopharmaceutical company that is developing cell-based
cancer immunotherapies. Its leading product candidate is JCAR015,
which is currently in clinical trials. In May 2016, a patient in
the Phase 2 trial of JCAR015 died of a cerebral edema, a form of
neurotoxicity. The following June or early July, two more patients
in the trial died of cerebral edemas. This caused the FDA to issue
a clinical hold and forced Defendants to reveal the truth, which
they finally did on July 7, 2016, after the market closed. On this
news, the Company's share price fell $13.01, or 31.87%, to close
at $27.81 on July 8, 2016.

Plaintiff acquired and held shares of the Company at artificially
inflated prices and lost substantially after this.

The Defendant is represented by:

      Duncan C. Turner, Esq.
      BADGLEY MULLINS TURNER PLLC
      19929 Ballinger Way NE, Suite 200
      Seattle, WA 98155
      Telephone: (206) 621-6566
      Facsimile: (206) 621-9686
      Email: duncanturner@badgleymullins.com

             - and -

      Lionel Z. Glancy, Esq.
      Robert V. Prongay, Esq.
      Lesley F. Portnoy, Esq.
      Charles H. Linehan, Esq.
      GLANCY PRONGAY & MURRAY LLP
      1925 Century Park East, Suite 2100
      Los Angeles, CA 90067
      Telephone: (310) 201-9150
      Facsimile: (310) 201-9160


KAS DIRECT LLC: "Mayhew" Files Suit Over False Product Ad
---------------------------------------------------------
Tanya Mayhew and Tanveer Alibhai, individually on behalf of
themselves and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. Kas
Direct, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 7:16-cv-06981, (S.D. N.Y.,
September &, 2016), seeks appropriate damages, restitution or
disgorgement of all monetary relief, enjoinment from all
fraudulent, deceptive, unlawful, and illegal conduct, equitable
remedies, attorneys' fees and costs, punitive damages, pre-
judgment and post-judgment interest and such further relief
resulting from unjust enrichment and violation of New York General
Business Laws, California's Unfair Competition Law, California
Consumer Legal Remedies Act and California's Fair Advertising Law.

KAS Direct, LLC develops, manufactures, markets, and sells a
variety of baby care, sun protection, and cleaning products for
babies which are sold under the brand name "Babyganics."

Plaintiff disputes Defendant's claim that their products are
organic in nature, alleging that they contain synthetic chemicals.

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Jason P. Sultzer, Esq.
      THE SULTZER LAW GROUP P.C.
      85 Civic Center Plaza, Suite 104
      Poughkeepsie, NY 12601
      Tel: (845) 483-7100
      Fax: (888) 749-7747
      Email: sultzerj@thesultzerlawgroup.com

             - and -

      Charles J. LaDuca, Esq.
      Katherine Van Dyck, Esq.
      CUNEO GILBERT & LADUCA, LLP
      4725 Wisconsin Avenue, NW, Suite 200
      Washington, DC 20016
      Tel: (202) 789-3960
      Fax: (202) 789-1813
      Email: charlesl@cuneolaw.com
             kvandyck@cuneolaw.com

             - and -

      Melissa W. Wolchansky, Esq.
      Amy E. Boyle, Esq.
      HALUNEN LAW
      1650 IDS Center
      80 South Eight Street
      Minneapolis, MN 55402
      Telephone: (612) 605-4098
      Facsimile: (612) 605-4099
      Email: wolchansky@halunenlaw.com
             boyle@halunenlaw.com


KENYA COMMERCIAL: Faces Class Action Over M-Pesa-Based Loans
------------------------------------------------------------
TVC News reports that KCB and Commercial Bank of Africa face
consumer class-action intended to compel the lenders to cut their
M-Pesa based loans in line with the new interest rate caps which
have taken effect.

The two banks have insisted that their M-Pesa-linked mobile loans
are not subject to the new law, which limits maximum interest
chargeable on loans to not more than four per cent above the
Central Bank Rate.

The Consumers Federation of Kenya (Cofek) has given the two
lenders a 48-hour notice to cut the interest rate payable on KCB
M-Pesa and M-Shwari loans to a maximum of 14.5 per cent per annum
or face court action.

Privately-owned CBA, which offers M-Shwari microloans, says it
will continue levying a one-off 7.5 per cent fee on the loan
amount; while KCB argues that mobile-based loans fall under the
realm of micro-finance.


KERYX PHARMA: Oct. 3 Deadline to File Lead Plaintiff Motion Set
---------------------------------------------------------------
Glancy Prongay & Murray LLP reminds investors of the October 3,
2016 deadline to file a lead plaintiff motion in the class action
lawsuit filed on behalf of investors who purchased or otherwise
acquired Keryx Pharmaceuticals, Inc., (NASDAQ: KERX) securities
between September 2, 2013, and August 1, 2016, inclusive. Keryx
investors have October 3, 2016 to file a lead plaintiff motion.

The complaint filed in this lawsuit alleges that throughout the
Class Period, Defendants made materially false and/or misleading
statements, and/or failed to disclose: (1) that the Company was
experiencing production-related difficulties in converting API to
finished drug product; (2) that the issue was resulting in
decreased production yields of finished drug product; (3) that, as
a result, the Company would, and did exhaust its reserve of
finished drug product; and (4) that, as a result of the foregoing,
Defendants' statements about Keryx's business, operations, and
prospects, were false and misleading and/or lacked a reasonable
basis.

If you purchased or otherwise acquired Keryx shares during the
Class Period, you may move the Court no later than October 3, 2016
to request appointment as lead plaintiff. To be a member of the
class you need not take any action at this time; you may retain
counsel of your choice or take no action and remain an absent
member of the Class. If you wish to learn more about this action,
or if you have any questions concerning this announcement or your
rights or interests with respect to these matters, please contact
Lesley Portnoy, Esquire, of GPM, 1925 Century Park East, Suite
2100, Los Angeles, California 90067 at 310-201-9150, Toll-Free at
888-773-9224, by email to shareholders@glancylaw.com, or visit our
website at http://www.glancylaw.com.If you inquire by email
please include your mailing address, telephone number and number
of shares purchased.


LIFEVANTAGE CORP: Securities Fraud Class Action Filed
-----------------------------------------------------
Rigrodsky & Long, P.A., announced on September 20, 2016, that a
complaint has been filed in the United States District Court for
the District of Utah on behalf of all persons or entities that
purchased the common stock of LifeVantage Corporation
(NASDAQ:LFVN) between November 4, 2015 and September 13, 2016,
inclusive (the "Class Period"), alleging violations of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 against the Company and certain of
its officers.

If you purchased shares of LifeVantage during the Class Period, or
purchased shares prior to the Class Period and still hold
LifeVantage, and wish to discuss this action or have any questions
concerning this notice or your rights or interests, please contact
Timothy J. MacFall, Esquire or Peter Allocco of Rigrodsky & Long,
P.A., 2 Righter Parkway, Suite 120, Wilmington, DE 19803 at (888)
969-4242; by e-mail to info@rl-legal.com; or at:
http://rigrodskylong.com/investigations/lifevantage-corporation-
lfvn.

The Complaint alleges that throughout the Class Period, defendants
made materially false and misleading statements, and omitted
materially adverse facts, about the Company's business, operations
and prospects.  Specifically, the Complaint alleges that the
defendants concealed from the investing public that: (1)
LifeVantage lacked effective internal financial controls; (2) as a
result, the Company had improperly accounted for sales in certain
international markets, along with associated revenue and income
tax accruals; and (3) as a result of the foregoing, LifeVantage's
public statements were materially false and misleading at all
relevant times.  As a result of defendants' alleged false and
misleading statements, the Company's stock traded at artificially
inflated prices during the Class Period.

According to the Complaint, on September 13, 2016, post-market,
LifeVantage issued a press release and filed a Current Report on
Form 8-K with the SEC, announcing a delay in the release of the
Company's fourth quarter and fiscal year 2016 financial results.
In the release, the Company indicated that it was "in the process
of reviewing its sales into certain international markets and the
revenue and income tax accruals associated with such sales. . . .
The review relates to sales of the Company's products in certain
international markets and the determination of revenue and the
deductibility of commission and incentive expenses associated with
such sales, as well as the policies and procedures related to
sales in those specific markets."

On this news, shares of LifeVantage dropped over 12%, closing at
$9.08 per share on September 14, 2016, on heavy trading volume.

If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no
later than November 14, 2016.  A lead plaintiff is a
representative party acting on behalf of other class members in
directing the litigation.  Any member of the proposed class may
move the court to serve as lead plaintiff through counsel of their
choice, or may choose to do nothing and remain an absent class
member.


L'OREAL: Faces Class-Action Suit Over Softsheen Carson Relaxer
--------------------------------------------------------------
Georgina Caldwell, writing for Global Cosmetics News, reports that
L'Oreal is facing a class action suit after two users of its
Softsheen Carson Optimum Amla Legend Relaxer Kit alleged that it
caused bald spots to develop, according to a report published by
Yahoo Beauty.

The suit, which was filed in a Los Angeles district court, seeks
damages for the alleged scalp irritation, burns and hair loss
suffered by the two plaintiffs and charges L'Oreal with false
advertising, fraud and negligence. Several further plaintiffs are
expected to join. If successful, damages could reach up to US$100
million, according to law firm Geragos & Geragos.

A L'Oreal spokesperson told Buzzfeed, "We do not believe the
allegations in this lawsuit have merit. For more than 100 years,
L'Oreal has been committed to the safety of its consumers."


LAS MERCEDES: "Sosa" Suit Moved from Cir. Ct. to S.D. Fla.
----------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit titled IRAINI SOSA, and other similarly
situated individuals, the Plaintiff, v. LAS MERCEDES PHARMACY,
INC., a Florida profit corporation; JORGE RAAD, individually; and
MARLON MUNOZ, individually, the Defendants, Case No. 16-019881 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 Southern District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:16-cv-23971-
UU to the proceeding. The assigned Judge is Hon. Ursula Ungaro.

Las Mercedes Pharmacy is a community/retail pharmacy in Miami,
Florida.

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:

          Debra M. Leder, Esq.
          Sarah Marie DeFranco, Esq.
          AKERMAN SENTERFITT & EIDSON
          Las Olas Centre
          350 E Las Olas Boulevard, Suite 1600
          Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301-0006
          Telephone: (954) 463 2700
          Facsimile: (954) 463 2224
          E-mail: debra.leder@akerman.com
                  sarah.defranco@akerman.com


LOCK BUSTERS: "Rivera" Suit Seeks Damages Under FLSA
----------------------------------------------------
ROBERT RIVERA, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated,
the Plaintiff, v. LOCK BUSTERS, INC, dba POP-A-LOCK, a Florida for
Profit Corporation, and LOCK BUSTERS OF SOUTHWEST FLORIDA, INC
d/b/a POP-A-LOCK, a Florida for Profit Corporation, the
Defendants, Case No. 6:16-cv-01644-PGB-GJK (Fla. Cir. Ct., Sep.
20, 2016), seeks damages in excess of $15,000.00 against
Defendants for failure to pay overtime as required by the Fair
Labor Standards Act (FLSA).

The Plaintiff alleges that Defendant routinely failed to pay
overtime compensation for hours work in a week in excess of 40
hours. The Plaintiff worked as Technician for the Defendants
during the 3-year period prior to the filing of his complaint.

Lock Busters is a 24-hour complete locksmith service, providing
everything from car door unlocking to residential and commercial
locksmith services.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Mary E. Lytie, Esq.
          David V. Barszcz, Esq.
          Robert N. Sutton, Esq.
          LYTIE & BARSZCZM PA
          543 N. Wymore Road, Ste 103
          Maitland, FL 32751
          Telephone: (407) 622 6544
          Facsimile: (407) 622 6545
          E-mail: mlytle@lblaw.attorney
                  dbarszcz@lblaw.attorney
                  rsutton@lblaw.attorney


LOYALTYONE: Faces Class Action Over Air Miles Rewards Program
-------------------------------------------------------------
Sophia Harris, writing for CBC News, reports that a Calgary law
firm has filed a class-action lawsuit against LoyaltyOne, the
company that owns and operates the Air Miles rewards program in
Canada.

The proposed lawsuit claims that its aim is to "remedy harm caused
by the Air Miles program to its users."

JSS Barristers filed the suit on Sept. 14 at the Court of Queen's
Bench of Alberta on behalf of all Canadian Air Miles members who
possessed any "Dream" reward miles on or after Dec. 28, 2011.

The case must be certified in court before it can proceed.

The lawsuit's statement of claim alleges that Air Miles "engaged
in unfair practices" that include introducing an expiry policy
without adequate notice and making it "increasingly difficult" for
members to redeem miles that start expiring on Jan. 1.

"The net result is that Air Miles' conduct will result in a large
number of the class [action] members' miles expiring, resulting in
a significant loss to the class, and a corresponding large
windfall for Air Miles," claims the court document.

Difficult redemption?

In late 2011, Air Miles quietly announced a new five-year expiry
rule for miles, effective Dec. 31 of that year.  That means that
on Jan.1, 2017, any unused miles collected before 2012 will
disappear and become worthless.  The popular rewards program
launched in Canada in 1992 and boasts about 11 million members.

Your Air Miles could expire soon: What you need to know
After CBC News ran a story in July about the looming expiry date,
we heard from many frustrated members who said they were having
difficulties redeeming their miles before they vanished.

The class action's statement of claim alleges that hurdles
customers have faced trying to cash in their miles include:

Long waits to speak to Air Miles customer service by phone.
Not allowing members to redeem soon-to-expire miles for cash
rewards.

Being blocked from some rewards when members actually have enough
miles to buy them.

The suit also claims that Air Miles promoted its loyalty program
with the "promise to bring you the best in service," and that
customers reasonably expected fair treatment from the program.

It also states that Air Miles benefits financially from its
members when they shop at specified retailers to earn miles.

"Primarily the members, the class members are alleging that
they've not been treated fairly and are seeking redress for that,"
said Andrew Wilson, one of the lawyers who filed the suit.

Damages for class-action members have not yet been specified.

LoyaltyOne told CBC News that it is reviewing the statement of
claim and has no comment at this time.  LoyaltyOne is
headquartered in Toronto and its parent company, Alliance Data, is
based in Texas.

'Junk' rewards?

The representative plaintiff in the lawsuit is David Helm from Red
Deer, Alta.  He has been collecting Air Miles since the 1990s.

Mr. Helm told CBC News he found out about the new expiry rule in
2014 from his neighbor.

Since then, Mr. Helm said, he's been struggling to find ways to
redeem his soon-to-expire miles and is still stuck with about
1,700 of them.

"The only stuff that's available to me is junk that I don't want."

Mr. Helm recently set his sights on two flights to Texas, but said
that when he attempted to book the trip, the flights had
disappeared.

Mr. Helms said he also tried to get a TV that his girlfriend can
find available when she logs in using her Air Miles membership.
However, she doesn't have enough points to buy the product.
Mr. Helm does, but claimed Air Miles won't give him access to it.

Other Air Miles members have complained to CBC News that they've
had a similar experience of being blocked from some rewards once
they have enough miles to buy them.

Air Miles told CBC that members who are more active in the program
get access to more rewards.

Mr. Helms said he doesn't buy it.  Instead, his experience has led
him to conclude that the rewards program wants to make it
difficult for members to redeem all their miles that will expire
in the new year.

"They're trying to let as many Air Miles expire as possible,
because it's money in their pocket."


LUMBER LIQUIDATORS: "Clara" Suit Moved from Cal. to N.D. Ill.
-------------------------------------------- ----------------
The class action lawsuit titled Clara Coleman, an individual, on
behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff
v. Lumber Liquidators, Inc., a Delaware corporation, the
Defendant, Case No. 2:16-cv-06681, was transferred from the U.S.
District Court for the Central District of California, to the U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of Illinois - (Chicago).
The Northern District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:16-cv-09095
to the proceeding. The assigned Judge is Hon. Milton I. Shadur.

Lumber Liquidators is specialty retailer of hardwood flooring.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

               - and -

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


LUMBER LIQUIDATORS: "Sesti" Suit Moved from Cal. to W.D. Tenn.
--------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit titled Jeremy Sesti and Brittney Sesti,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, the
Plaintiffs v. Lumber Liquidators, Inc., a Delaware corporation,
the Defendant, Case No. 2:16-cv-06702, was transferred from the
U.S. District Court for the Central District of California, to the
U.S. District Court for the Western District of Tennessee
(Memphis). The Western District Court Clerk assigned Case No.
2:16-cv-02752-JPM-dkv to the proceeding. The assigned Judge is
Hon. Jon Phipps McCalla.

Lumber Liquidators is a specialty retailer of hardwood flooring.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

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

               - and -

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


LUMBER LIQUIDATORS: "Norris" Suit Transferred to S.D. Miss.
-----------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit titled Richard Norris, an individual, on
behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, the
Plaintiff, v. Lumber Liquidators, Inc., a Delaware corporation,
the Defendant, Case No. 2:16-cv-06688, was transferred from the
U.S. District Court for the Central District of California, to the
U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Mississippi
(Hattiesburg). The Southern District Court Clerk assigned Case No.
2:16-cv-00144-KS-MTP to the proceeding. The assigned District
Judge is Hon. Keith Starrett.

Lumber Liquidators is a specialty retailer of hardwood flooring.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

               - and -

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


LUMBER LIQUIDATORS: "Page" Suit Moved from C.D. Cal. to S.D. Iowa
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit titled Gary Page, an individual, on
behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, the
Plaintiff, v. Lumber Liquidators Inc., a Delaware corporation, the
Defendant, Case No. 2:16-cv-06565, was transferred from the
the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California, to
the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Iowa
(Central). The Southern District Court Clerk assigned Case No.
4:16-cv-00503 to the proceeding.

Lumber Liquidators is a specialty retailer of hardwood flooring.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

               - and -

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


LUMBER LIQUIDATORS: "Myers" Suit Transferred to W.D. Wisc.
----------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit titled Allen Myers, an individual, on
behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff
v. Lumber Liquidators Inc., a Delaware corporation, the Defendant,
Case No., 2:16-cv-06698, was transferred from the U.S. District
Court for the Central District of California, to the U.S. District
Court for the Western District of Wisconsin (Madison). The Western
District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 3:16-cv-00628 to the
proceeding.

Lumber Liquidators is a specialty retailer of hardwood flooring.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

               - and -

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


LUMBER LIQUIDATORS: "Perel" Suit Moved from C.D. Cal. to E.D. Va.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit titled Logan Perel, an individual, on
behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, the
Plaintiff, v. Lumber Liquidators, Inc., a Delaware corporation,
Case No. 2:16-cv-06685, was transferred from the U.S. District
Court for the Central District of California, to the U.S. District
Court for the Eastern District of Virginia - (Alexandria). The
Eastern District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:16-cv-02789-AJT-
TRJ to the proceeding. The assigned District Judge is Hon. Anthony
J Trenga.

Lumber Liquidators is a specialty retailer of hardwood flooring.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

               - and -

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


LUMBER LIQUIDATORS: "Wieland" Suit Transferred to D. Neb.
---------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit titled Alex Wieland, an individual, on
behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff
v. Lumber Liquidators, Inc., a Delaware corporation, Case No.
2:16-cv-06704, was transferred from the U.S. District Court for
the Central District of California, to the U.S. District Court for
the District of Nebraska (Omaha). The Nebraska District Court
Clerk assigned Case No. 8:16-cv-00431-RFR-TDT to the proceeding.
The assigned Judge is Hon. Robert F. Rossiter, Jr.

Lumber Liquidators is a specialty retailer of hardwood flooring.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

               - and -

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


MADISON COUNTY, IL: Bid Rigging Class Action Can Proceed
--------------------------------------------------------
Taryn Phaneuf, writing for Madison-St. Clair Record, reports that
an attorney representing distressed property owners in a proposed
bid rigging class action reacted positively to the ruling that
allows the case to proceed.

"From the plaintiff's side, we were pretty happy with it," said
Steven C. Giacoletto -- sgiacoletto@scglawoffice.com -- of
Giacoletto Law Office.

Federal prosecutors, who brought down former Madison County
treasurer Fred Bathon and tax buyers, say that between 2005 and
2009, tax buyers engaged in price fixing by only bidding the
statutory maximum interest rate of 18 percent.  The rigging was so
pervasive that distressed homeowners were charged the maximum rate
on nearly every property tax lien sold during that period.

While the Fifth District panel agreed with visiting Judge William
Becker's certification of a class on liability, the appellate
judges found that each case would have to be reviewed to determine
individual damages.

"Without a methodology to calculate damages on a class-wide basis
and given the unique characteristics of real property as well as
the subjective nature of the bidding process, we conclude that the
calculation of actual damages would be too individualized to be
handled as part of the class action," the ruling states.

The court's conclusion doesn't slam the door on certifying a class
for damages, though, Mr. Giacoletto said.  Instead, the decision
points to a possibility of the circuit court certifying subclasses
on damages once liability is proven.

"At some point, we're going to have to get more specific on the
damage formula," he said.

Plaintiffs attorneys will continue to review the decision before
deciding whether any aspect is worth an appeal, he added.  He
thinks summary judgment could settle the liability claims ahead of
a trial.

An attorney representing Madison County declined to comment.


MADISON COUNTY, IL: Appeals Court Modifies Class in "Bueker" Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The Appellate Court of Illinois, Fifth District, affirms in part
as modified, and vacates in part the motion for class
certification filed in the lawsuit styled BUEKER v. MADISON
COUNTY, Case No. 2016 IL App (5th) 150282.

Plaintiffs Scott Bueker, Virgil Straeter, and Richeson Real
Estate, LLC, filed a motion for class certification.  They sought
to recover damages for alleged losses resulting from the manner in
which former Madison County Treasurer Fred Bathon conducted
property tax sale auctions from 2005 through 2008.  Following a
hearing, the Circuit Court of Madison County granted class
certification.  For the reasons stated in the opinion, the
Appellate Court affirms in part as modified, vacates in part, and
remand for further proceedings.

Justice Welch delivered the judgment of the Appellate Court, with
opinion.  Presiding Justice Schwarm and Justice Chapman concurred
in the judgment and opinion.

The Appellate Court concludes that, whereas a class certified for
liability purposes would not be an abuse of the Circuit Court's
discretion, a class certified for liability as well as damages
would be, as the individualized damage determinations will
predominate over the common issues of establishing liability.
Thus, the class certification remains as to liability, but the
Appellate Court partially decertify the class for the individual
damages determination in light of the need for individualized
proof.

In addition, the Appellate Court opines that the Circuit Court
abused its discretion in certifying a class that included the sale
in error claim against Madison County and Kurt Prenzler (County
Treasurer) and money had and received claim against Madison
County.  Accordingly, the Appellate Court vacates the Circuit
Court's certification order as it applies to the sale in error
claim alleged against Madison County as well as Prenzler and the
money had and received claim alleged against Madison County, as
these claims should be dismissed.  The cause is remanded to the
Circuit Court for further proceedings in accordance with the views
expressed.

The original case is titled SCOTT BUEKER, VIRGIL STRAETER, and
RICHESON REAL ESTATE, LLC, Plaintiffs-Respondents, v. MADISON
COUNTY, ILLINOIS; FRED BATHON; KURT PRENZLER, in His Official
Capacity as Madison County Treasurer; JIM FOLEY; ALAN J. DUNSTAN;
MARK VON NIDA; BARRETT ROCHMAN; KENNETH ROCHMAN; BLUE SKY
VINEYARDS, LLC; CDBR, LLC; SABRE GROUP, LLC; SI SECURITIES, LLC;
DENNIS BALLINGER, JR.; EMPIRE TAX CORPORATION; VISTA SECURITIES,
INC.; JOHN VASSEN; JOSEPH VASSEN; V.I. INC.; SCOTT McLEAN; LAND OF
LINCOLN SECURITIES, LLC; PRAIRIE STATE SECURITIES, LLC; ROBERT
LUKEN; LUKEN INVESTMENT CO.; SCOTT SIERON; RAVEN SECURITIES, INC.;
ILLINOIS MOBILE HOMES, LLC; ILLINOIS REALTY GROUP HOLDINGS, LLC;
ILLINOIS REALTY GROUP, LLC; JOHN W. SCOTT; EDWARD BEASLEY; RLI
INSURANCE CO.; and WESTERN SURETY COMPANY, Defendants, (Madison
County, Illinois; Jim Foley; Barrett Rochman; Kenneth Rochman;
Blue Sky Vineyards, LLC; CDBR, LLC; Sabre Group, LLC; SI
Securities, LLC; Dennis Ballinger, Jr.; Empire Tax Corporation;
Vista Securities, Inc.; John Vassen; Joseph Vassen; V.I. Inc.;
Scott Sieron; Raven Securities, Inc.; Illinois Mobile Homes, LLC;
Illinois Realty Group Holdings, LLC; and Illinois Realty Group,
LLC, Defendants-Petitioners), Case No. 5-13-0554, in the Circuit
Court of Madison County.

A copy of the Opinion is available at no charge at
https://goo.gl/3Bb6Hq from Leagle.com.

Plaintiffs-Appellees Scott Bueker, Richeson Real Estate, LLC, and
Virgil Straeter are represented by:

          Steven C. Giacoletto, Esq.
          GIACOLETTO LAW OFFICE, P.C.
          30 Summer Tree Lane
          Collinsville, IL 62234
          Telephone: (618) 346-8841
          E-mail: sgiacoletto@scglawoffice.com

               - and -

          Aaron G. Weishaar, Esq.
          Boris A. Kaupp, Esq.
          REINERT, WEISHAAR & ASSOCIATES, P.C.
          812 North Collins, Laclede's Landing
          St. Louis, MO 63102
          Telephone: (314) 621-5743
          Facsimile: (314) 621-8071
          E-mail: aweishaar@rwalawfirm.com
                  bkaupp@rwalawfirm.com

               - and -

          Nelson L. Mitten, Esq.
          Paul A. Grote, Esq.
          RIEZMAN BERGER P.C.
          7700 Bonhomme Avenue, Seventh Floor
          St. Louis, MO 63105
          Telephone: (314) 727-0101
          E-mail: mitten@riezmanberger.com
                  grote@riezmanberger.com

Defendants Blue Sky Vineyards, LLC, CDBR, LLC, Barrett Rochman,
Kenneth Rochman, Sabre Group, LLC, and SI Securities, LLC, are
represented by:

          Andrew R. Kasnetz, Esq.
          Timothy C. Sansone, Esq.
          Natalie J. Kussart, Esq.
          Michele L. Parrish, Esq.
          SANDBERG, PHOENIX & VON GONTARD, P.C.
          600 Washington Avenue, 15th Floor
          St. Louis, MO 63101-1313
          Telephone: (314) 446-4251
          E-mail: akasnetz@sandbergphoenix.com
                  tsansone@sandbergphoenix.com
                  nkussart@sandbergphoenix.com

Defendants Dennis Ballinger, Jr., Empire Tax Corporation, Vista
Securities, Inc., are represented by:

          Gordon B. Nash, Esq.
          Daniel J. Delaney, Esq.
          DRINKER BIDDLE & REATH LLP
          191 North Wacker Drive, Suite 1698
          Chicago, IL 60606
          Telephone: (312) 569-1384
          Facsimile: (312) 569-3384
          E-mail: gordon.nash@dbr.com
                  daniel.delaney@dbr.com

Defendants V.I. Inc., John Vassen and Joseph Vassen are
represented by:

          Paul T. Slocomb, Esq.
          HOFFMAN & SLOCOMB
          1115 Locust Street, Suite 400
          St. Louis, MO 63101
          Telephone: (314) 436-7800
          Telephone: (314) 231-0323
          E-mail: paulslocomb@yahoo.com

Defendants Illinois Mobile Homes, LLC, Illinois Realty Group
Holdings, LLC, Illinois Realty Group, LLC, Raven Securities, Inc.,
and Scott Sieron are represented by:

          Alvin C. Paulson, Esq.
          PAULSON LAW FIRM
          5111 West Main Street
          Belleville, IL 62226
          Telephone: (618) 235-0020
          Facsimile: (618) 235-8558
          E-mail: acp@acplawfirm.com

Defendants-Appellants James Foley and Madison County, Illinois,
are represented by:

          Craig L. Unrath, Esq.
          HEYL, ROYSTER, VOELKER & ALLEN
          300 Hamilton Blvd.
          P.O. Box 6199
          Peoria, IL 61601-6199
          Telephone: (312) 853-8700
          E-mail: cunrath@heylroyster.com

               - and -

          Michael D. Schag, Esq.
          Patrick D. Cloud, Esq.
          Ann C. Barron, Esq.
          HEYL, ROYSTER, VOELKER & ALLEN
          105 West Vandalia, Suite 100
          P.O. Box 467
          Edwardsville, IL 62025
          Telephone: (618) 656-4646
          Telephone: (618) 656-7940
          E-mail: mschag@heylroyster.com
                  pcloud@heylroyster.com
                  abarron@heylroyster.com


MANSUETO VENTURES: Class Certification Bid in "Bush" Suit Denied
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Hon. District Judge Paul D. Borman entered an order in the
lawsuit captioned JULIE BUSH, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. MANSUETO VENTURES
LLC, a Delaware limited liability company, the Defendant, Case No.
2:15-cv-13716-PDB-EAS (E.D. Mich.), denying without prejudice
Plaintiff's motion for class certification.

On October 20, 2015, simultaneous with the filing of the
Complaint, the Plaintiff filed a motion to certify Class. The
Plaintiff explained that the motion was being filed as a
precautionary measure to thwart any effort by Defendant to "pick
off" Plaintiff's claim in an effort to moot her representative
claim.

Since the filing of the motion, the Supreme Court has issued its
opinion in Campbell-Ewald Co. v. Gomez, 136 S. Ct. 663 (2016), the
parties have submitted a joint discovery plan, and the Court has
set a cut-off date of October 24, 2016, for the filing of
Plaintiff's motion for class certification.

The Court determines that there is no need to leave the
placeholder motion pending and will therefore deny without
prejudice Plaintiff's motion for class certification.

A copy of the Order is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=hRR7Wb7p


MANUEL VALDIVA: "Oliveros" Suit Seeks Overtime Pay
--------------------------------------------------
Jose Oliveros, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. Manuel Valdiva, Defendant, Case No. 6:16-
cv-01148, (E.D. Tex., September 7, 2016), seeks unpaid overtime,
liquidated damages, all available equitable relief, attorney fees,
and litigation expenses and costs, including expert witness fees
and expenses under the Fair Labor Standards Act.

Manuel Valdiva owns Kayla's Furniture located in Lindale, Texas
where Plaintiff worked as a carpenter. He claims to be denied
overtime pay.

Plaintiff is represented by:

      William S. Hommel, Jr., Esq.
      HOMMEL LAW FIRM
      1404 Rice Road, Suite 200
      Tyler, TX 75703
      Tel: (903) 596-7100
      Fax: (469) 533-1618


MASTERCARD: Faces One of the UK's First Class-Action Lawsuits
-------------------------------------------------------------
Chris Webber -- chris.webber@squirepb.com -- and Helen Cain --
helen.cain@squirepb.com -- of Squire Patton Boggs Law Firm, in an
article for National Law Review, report that class actions have
long been a feature of the US legal landscape. But until October
2015 there was no genuine "class action" procedure in the UK. Then
the Consumer Rights Act 2015 ("CRA") introduced collective
proceedings that can be brought in the Competition Appeal Tribunal
("CAT") by representatives of consumers or businesses.

While previously the UK had "opt-in" group litigation orders,
these were really just a means of organising litigation where
large numbers of claimants were actively pursuing similar claims.
The CRA permitted "opt-out" collective actions for the first time.
In "opt-out" cases anyone resident in the UK who is within the
defined class is automatically included in the action unless they
opt out. There is no need for the representatives to identify all
of the members or specify their losses. If the claim succeeds,
aggregate damages will be awarded to the group of claimants (as
opposed to an individualised assessment for each claimant).

Initially, the Government's intention was to exclude funders, law
firms and special purpose vehicles from acting as representatives
for either consumers or businesses in collective proceedings. But
no such provision was incorporated into the legislation or the CAT
rules.

The new CRA regime will apply retrospectively. Collective
proceedings are to be expected in respect of competition law
infringements which have historically been identified by the UK
and/or EU competition authorities.

The consumer class action against MasterCard
MasterCard now finds itself faced with a legal challenge brought
by a representative under the CRA on behalf of consumers, on an
"opt-out" basis.

Multilateral Interchange Fees ("MIFs")

The action relates to a previous finding by the EU Commission that
MasterCard's MIFs were kept unfairly high. Interchange fees are
paid by a retailer's card acceptance provider to a consumer's card
issuer (such as MasterCard) every time a card transaction takes
place.  The retailer's bank pays the retailer the cost of the
goods/services, less a service charge that is largely determined
by the level of MIF.  Retailers then pass on the cost of accepting
card payments to their customers, by way of increased retail
prices.  Interchange fees can be bilaterally agreed between the
issuing bank and the retailers bank, or, the default fee
established multilaterally by MasterCard (the MIF) will apply.
The MIF should be limited to no more than 0.3% on credit cards and
0.2% on debit cards.

European Commission decision

In 2007, the European Commission issued a decision against
MasterCard which was applicable to cross-border transactions using
MasterCard and Maestro credit and debit cards in the European
Economic Area. It found that MasterCard's MIF breached Article 101
of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union ("TFEU"),
because they restricted competition between retailers' banks and
inflated the cost of card acceptance by retailers. The Article
101(3) exemptions were not satisfied.   MasterCard failed in an
appeal and in September 2014 the European Court of Justice
confirmed that MasterCard's MIF restricted competition.

Current collective proceedings

The representative of the consumer proceedings is Walter Merricks
CBE, who was previously the Chief Financial Services Ombudsman and
is a non-practising solicitor. Mr Merricks has instructed a law
firm to file the claim.  This includes a plan for managing the
claim -- it is said that "the proposed class of 46 million
consumers will be communicated with through a claims website,
newspapers, magazines and social media". It is reported that the
claim has been quantified at GBP14 billion worth of charges borne
by consumers.  The claim relates to MasterCard's MIF to 2008, as
following the European Commission judgment referred to above,
MasterCard undertook to reduce its cross-border MIF to the
recommended level. A litigation funder will provide funding of up
to GBP40 million to Mr Merricks and his legal advisers.

The Sainsbury's Supermarkets Ltd v MasterCard decision

The recent judgment in Sainsbury's Supermarkets Ltd v MasterCard
Incorporated and others is likely to have an impact on this
consumer action.  In 2012, Sainsbury's filed a claim against
MasterCard UK seeking damages for loss suffered by Sainsbury's due
to MasterCard's infringement of competition law, through its
setting of the UK MIF.   On 14 July 2016, the CAT awarded
Sainsbury's GBP68.5 million plus interest, ruling that MasterCard
had restricted competition by setting fees on card transactions in
the UK.


MEDIVATION INC: "Klein" Action Seeks to Block Pfizer Acquisition
----------------------------------------------------------------
David Klein, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, plaintiff, v. Medivation, Inc., David T. Hung, Kim D.
Blickenstaff, Kathryn E. Falberg, Michael L. King, Patrick
Machado, Dawn Svoronos, W. Anthony Vernon, and Wendy L. Yarno,
Defendants, Case No. 3:16-cv-05154, (N.D. Cal., September 7,
2016), seeks enjoinment of the Defendants from proceeding with,
consummating or closing the proposed acquisition of Medivation by
Pfizer, Inc..

The suit seeks damages, reasonable attorneys and experts fees and
such other and further relief under the Securities Exchange Act of
1934.

The Medivation shareholders stand to receive $81.50 per share in
cash via a tender offer by Montreal, Inc., a wholly-owned
subsidiary of Pfizer Inc. Plaintiff alleges that the deal is
inadequate and is the result of a rushed sale process during which
the Board caved to pressure from larger pharmaceutical companies
that were eager to acquire Medivation at a discount to its
intrinsic value and long-term prospects.

Medivation is a biopharmaceutical company based in San Francisco,
California providing drugs used in the treatment of various
cancers.

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Barbara A. Rohr, Esq.
      Benjamin Heikali, Esq.
      FARUQI & FARUQI LLP
      10866 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 1470
      Los Angeles, CA 90024
      Telephone: (424) 256-2884
      Facsimile: (424) 256-2885
      Email: brohr@faruqilaw.com
             bheikali@faruqilaw.com


MEDPRO GROUP: Class Certification Bid in "Carrel" Suit Granted
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit titled GRETCHEN B. CARREL, on behalf of herself and
all other similarly-situated persons, the Plaintiff, v. MEDPRO
GROUP, INC., the Defendant, Case No. 1:16-cv-00130-TLS-SLC (N.D.
Ind.), the Hon. Judge Theresa L. Springmann entered an order
granting a motion for conditional class certification on Fair
Labor Standards Act (FLSA) claims.

The class is defined as:

     "all of the Defendant's current and former non-exempt
     employees who received Long Term Incentive Plan (Long Term
     Incentive Plan) bonuses in any year since 2013,
     and who also worked overtime in that same year."

The notice as edited by the parties and modified by the Order, and
the Consent to Join Lawsuit are approved. The Defendant is ordered
to produce to the Plaintiff's counsel, within 5 business days of
the date of the Order, a document in useable electronic form that
discloses the names, last known addresses, and last known personal
email addresses of all potential plaintiffs. The opt-in period is
60 days, beginning 10 business days after the Defendant produces
the contact information.

The Plaintiff alleges that the Defendant failed to properly
calculate her regular rate of pay for overtime purposes when it
did not include in her regular rate of pay the bonus payments she
received under the Defendant's LTIP.

A copy of the Order is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=EDsOqHF3


MEGGITT INC: "Tully" Suit Seeks OT Compensation Under Labor Code
----------------------------------------------------------------
GEORGANA TULLY, Individually and on behalf of other members of the
general public similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v.
MEGGITT (NORTH HOLLYWOOD) INC, a California Corporation; MEGGITT-
USA, INC., a Delaware Corporation; and DOES 1-10, inclusive, the
Defendants, Case No. BC634241 (Cal. Super. Ct., Sep. 19, 2016),
seeks to recover accurate compensation, including overtime
compensation under the Labor Code.

The Plaintiff and the other aggrieved employees were and are
allegedly denied meal and rest periods and meal and rest period
payments. Moreover, the Defendant failed to furnish accurate
itemized wage statements and failed to reimburse Plaintiff and
other aggrieved employees for necessary business expenditures. The
Defendant also failed to provide all compensation due at
termination of employment.

Meggitt provides flow control equipment. The Company offers
manufacturing fans, pumps, pressure compressors, electric motors,
regenerative drives, controllers, and energy dissipators to
defense, marine, and aerospace sectors.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          William B. Sullivan, Esq.
          Eric K. Yaeckel, Esq.
          Clint S. Engleson, Esq.
          SULLIVAN LAW GROUP APC
          2330 Third Avenue
          San Diego, CA 92101
          Telephone: (619) 702 6760
          Facsimile: (619) 702 6761
          E-mail: Helen@sullivanlawgroupllp.com
                  yaeckel@sullivanlawgroupllp.com
                  cengleson@sullivanlawgroupllp.com


MIDLAND CREDIT: Faces "Fekete" Suit in Eastern Dist. of New York
----------------------------------------------------------------
A lawsuit has been filed against Encore Capital Group, Inc. The
case is styled Feige Pearl Fekete, on behalf of herself and all
other similarly situated consumers, the Plaintiff, Midland Credit
Management, Inc., Midland Funding, LLC, and Encore Capital Group,
Inc., the Defendants, Case No. 1:16-cv-05229 (E.D.N.Y., Sep. 20,
2016).

Encore Capital, and subsidiaries form the largest publicly traded
debt buyer by revenue in the United States. They purchase
"portfolios of defaulted consumer receivables from major banks,
credit unions, and utility providers," and recover collectable
debt from these accounts.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Adam Jon Fishbein, Esq.
          ADAM J. FISHBEIN, P.C.
          735 Central Avenue
          Woodmere, NY 11598
          Telephone: (516) 668 6945
          E-mail: fishbeinadamj@gmail.com


MISONIX INC: Shareholders File Class Action Lawsuit
---------------------------------------------------
Bronstein, Gewirtz & Grossman, LLC notified on September 20, 2016,
investors that a class action lawsuit has been filed against
Misonix, Inc., and certain of its officers. The class action is on
behalf of a class consisting of all persons or entities who
purchased Misonix securities between November 5, 2015 through
September 14, 2016, both dates inclusive (the "Class Period").

This class action seeks to recover damages against Defendants for
alleged violations of the federal securities laws under the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the "Exchange Act").

On September 14, 2016, Misonix revealed that it will delay its
Annual Report filing on Form 10-K for the fiscal year ended June
30, 2016 due to the pending investigation by Misonix's Audit
Committee in connection to its defects in internal control over
financial reporting at June 30, 2016. Following this news, Misonix
stock dropped during intraday trading on September 15, 2016.

According to the Compaint, Defendants made false and/or misleading
statements and/or failed to disclose that: (1) insufficiencies
existed in Misonix's internal controls over financial reporting;
and (2) consequently, Defendants' statements about Misonix's
business, operations and prospects were materially false and
misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis at all relevant times.

A class action lawsuit has already been filed. If you wish to
review a copy of the Complaint you can visit the firm's site:
http://www.bgandg.com/msonor you may contact Peretz Bronstein,
Esq. or his Investor Relations Analyst, Yael Hurwitz of Bronstein,
Gewirtz & Grossman, LLC at 212-697-6484 or via email
info@bgandg.com. Those who inquire by e-mail are encouraged to
include their mailing address and telephone number.  If you
suffered a loss in Misonix you have until November 18, 2016 to
request that the Court appoint you as lead plaintiff.  Your
ability to share in any recovery doesn't require that you serve as
a lead plaintiff.


MONEYGRAM INTERNATIONAL: Labaton Sucharow LLP Files Class Action
----------------------------------------------------------------
Labaton Sucharow LLP ("Labaton Sucharow") on Sept. 15 disclosed
that it filed a securities class action lawsuit on behalf of its
client Iron Workers District Counsel of New England Pension Fund
against MoneyGram International, Inc. ("MoneyGram" or the
"Company"), its controlling shareholder, certain of its senior
executives, principal shareholders, and the underwriters of
MoneyGram's secondary public offering completed on or around April
2, 2014 (the "Offering").  The action, which is captioned Iron
Workers District Counsel of New England Pension Fund v. MoneyGram
International Inc., No. 15-cv-00402-LPS (D. Del.), was filed on
behalf of all persons or entities who purchased the common stock
of MoneyGram pursuant and/or traceable to the Offering.

MoneyGram provides money transfer and payment services, and earns
most of its revenues through a network of sending and receiving
retail agents, of whom Walmart is the largest such agent.

The complaint alleges that MoneyGram, its controlling shareholder,
certain of its officers and directors, and underwriters of the
Offering, violated Sections 11, 12(a)(2), and 15 of the Securities
Act of 1933 by making false and misleading statements and failing
to disclose material adverse information in offering documents
filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission regarding
Walmart's possible entry into the money transfer business and the
potential effect it would have on MoneyGram.

The true state of Walmart's entry into the money transfer business
was revealed on April 17, 2014, just over two weeks after the
Offering closed, when Walmart announced that it would launch its
own money transfer product beginning on April 24, 2014.  In
response to this news, MoneyGram's stock price fell by nearly 30
percent.

If you purchased or acquired MoneyGram common stock pursuant
and/or traceable to the Offering, you are a member of the "Class"
and may be able to seek appointment as Lead Plaintiff.  Lead
Plaintiff motion papers must be filed with the U.S. District Court
for the District of Delaware no later than November 14, 2016.  A
lead plaintiff is a court-appointed representative for absent
members of the Class.  You do not need to seek appointment as Lead
Plaintiff to share in any Class recovery in this action.  If you
are a Class member and there is a recovery for the Class, you can
share in that recovery as an absent Class member.  You may retain
counsel of your choice to represent you in this action.

If you would like to consider serving as Lead Plaintiff or have
any questions about this lawsuit, you may contact Francis P.
McConville, Esq. of Labaton Sucharow, at (800) 321-0476, or via
email at fmcconville@labaton.com.  You can view a copy of the
complaint online at
http://www.labaton.com/en/cases/Newly-Filed-Cases.cfm

The Iron Workers District Counsel of New England Pension Fund is
represented by Labaton Sucharow, which represents many of the
largest pension funds in the United States and internationally
with collective assets under management of more than $2 trillion.
Labaton Sucharow's litigation reputation is built on its half
century of securities litigation experience, more than 60 full-
time attorneys, and in-house team of investigators, financial
analysts, and forensic accountants.  Labaton Sucharow has been
recognized for its excellence by the courts and peers, and it is
consistently ranked in leading industry publications.  Offices are
located in New York, NY and Wilmington, DE.  More information
about Labaton Sucharow is available at www.labaton.com.


MORTGAGE GUARANTY: 11th Cir. OKs Dismissal of "Arencibia" Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
The United States Court of Appeals, Eleventh Circuit, affirmed the
district court's order granting summary judgment in favor of the
Defendant, dismissing the Plaintiff's class-action lawsuit under
the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA), in the case, ARIEL
ARENCIBIA, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiffs-Appellants, JOSE AYALA, on behalf of
themselves and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v.
MORTGAGE GUARANTY INSURANCE CORPORATION, a Wisconsin corporation,
Defendant-Appellee, No. 15-15387 (11th Cir.).

The Plaintiff attempted to qualify the Defendant as a "debt
collector" under the second definition of the FDCPA, which refers
to any person who regularly collects or attempts to collect,
directly or indirectly, debts owed or due or asserted to be owed
or due another. In the case, the Defendant moved for summary
judgment, arguing that it was not a "debt collector" because, at
the time of collection, it was collecting on debts it owned and
not collecting a debt owed or due another.

The Eleventh Circuit finds that the case is bound to observe the
ruling in the case, Davidson v. Capital One Bank (USA), N.A., 797
F.3d 1309 (11th Cir. 2015) -- which settled the dispute in
Mortgage Guaranty's favor -- under the prior panel precedent rule.
The Court went on to affirm the dismissal of Davidson's complaint
because it made no factual allegations from which the Court could
plausibly infer that the defendant regularly collects or attempts
to collect debts owed or due to someone other than the defendant.

The Eleventh Circuit then ruled that there is no evidence that the
Defendant regularly collected or attempted to collect on debts for
others. Accordingly, the Defendant does not qualify as a "debt
collector" under the second definition of that term in the FDCPA.

A copy of the Court's Order dated September 12, 2016 is available
at https://goo.gl/ASVOPz from Leagle.com.

Dale Thomas Golden -- dgolden@gsgfirm.com -- for Defendant-
Appellee.

Christopher Dale Donovan -- cdonovan@ralaw.com -- for Plaintiff-
Appellant.

David W. Fineman -- SDFineman@finemanlawfirm.com -- for Plaintiff-
Appellant.

Carmen Dellutri -- cdellutri@dellutrilawgroup.com -- for
Plaintiff-Appellant.

Brian Melendez -- bmelendez@dykema.com -- for Defendant-Appellee.

Benjamin W. Raslavich -- ben@raslavichlaw.com -- for Defendant-
Appellee.


NATURE COAST: Torres Seeks Certification of FLSA Class
------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit captioned ROXANE TORRES, individually and on behalf
of all similarly situated individuals, the Plaintiffs, v.
NATURE COAST HOME CARE LLC, the Defendant, Case No. 8:16-cv-01970-
JSM-MAP (M.D. Fla.), the Plaintiff asks the Court to conditionally
certify a class pursuant to Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA):

     "all current and former home health aides employed by Nature
     Coast Home Care LLC at any time after July 5, 2013 who were:
     (1) at any time not paid the FLSA's overtime premium for any
     hours worked over 40 in a workweek and (2) not exempt from
     the FLSA's coverage".

The Plaintiff further asks the Court to:

     1. require Nature Coast to produce, within ten days of the
        Court's ruling on this motion: the full name, job title,
        last known address, last known e-mail address, and dates
        of employment, of each current or former employee whose
        job title was "home health aide" or any similar title, or
        whose duties included those described by Torres and
        Castro; and

     2. approve and authorize notice of this action to be sent to
        each class member, in the form proposed by the Plaintiff.

The Plaintiff's counsel contacted Defendant's counsel on September
16 regarding the motion and asked for consent to class
certification. No response was received.

A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=rwTVP2Ih

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          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
          Telephone: (850) 435 7059
          E-mail: bcash@levinlaw.com
                  bbogle@levinlaw.com

               - and -

          David H. Grounds, Esq.
          Jacob R. Rusch, Esq.
          JOHNSON BECKER, PLLC
          444 Cedar Street, Suite 1800
          St. Paul, MN 55101
          Telephone: (612) 436 1800
          E-mail: dgrounds@johnsonbecker.com
                  jrusch@johnsonbecker.com


NAVY FEDERAL: Court Rules Class Certification in "Munday" Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit entitled RONALD MUNDAY, on behalf of himself and
all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. NAVY FEDERAL
CREDIT UNION, the Defendant, Case No. 8:15-cv-01629-JLS-KES (C.D.
Cal.), the Hon. Judge Josephine L. Staton entered an order:

     (1) preliminary certifying the Settlement Class for
         settlement purposes only;

     (2) preliminarily approving the class action settlement;

     (3) appointing Ronald Munday as Class Representative and
         names Sergei Lemberg and Stephen Taylor as Class
         Counsel;

     (4) approving A.B. Data as Class Administrator; and

     (5) approving the form and method of settlement notice,
         subject to the changes identified above.

The Settlement Class is defined as:

     "owners of the 90,726 unique cellular telephone numbers
     called by Navy Federal with an [automatic telephone dialing
     system] during the class period which Navy Federal coded as
     a wrong number call."

No portion of the settlement fund will revert back to Navy
Federal. The settlement fund, less certain administrative costs,
attorney's fees, and incentive payments, will be distributed pro
rata to each Settlement Class member who submits a valid claim
form. However, no individual claimant will receive in excess of
$1,500.

According to Class Counsel, assuming a 5% claim rate, each
claimant will recover approximately $430, or very close to the
$500 per violation statutory recovery sought under the Complaint
(Statutory damages of $500.00 for each and every call in violation
of the TCPA).

The Court ordered the parties to file a revised version of the
full notice within 10 days of the entry of the Order. The Court
sets a fairness hearing for Friday, February 17, 2017, at 2:30
p.m. to determine whether the settlement should be finally
approved as fair, reasonable, and adequate to Settlement Class
members. Munday shall file his motion for final approval no
later than Friday, February 3, 2017. Class Counsel and the Class
Representative shall file a supplemental brief, if any, in support
of their application for fees, costs, and incentive payments no
later than January 4, 2017. The Court reserves the right to
continue the date of the fairness hearing without further notice
to class members.

A copy of the Order is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=REnZ8tjm


NEWELL BRANDS: Hirsch Withdraws Motion to Approve Settlement
------------------------------------------------------------
Newell Brands Inc. said in an exhibit to its Form 8-K Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on September 9, 2016,
that Vincent A. Hirsch has filed a Notice of Withdrawal of the
Unopposed Motion for Preliminary Approval of Proposed Class Action
Settlement and Memorandum of Law in Support Thereof.

A putative class action lawsuit (Vincent A. Hirsch v. James E.
Lillie, Martin E. Franklin, Ian G.H. Ashken, Michael S. Gross,
Robert L. Wood, Irwin D. Simon, William P. Lauder, Ros
L'esperance, Peter A. Hochfelder, Newell Rubbermaid Inc., NCPF
Acquisition Corp. I and NCPF Acquisition Corp. II, Case No. 9:16-
CV-80258 (United States District Court for the Southern District
of Florida)) was filed on February 24, 2016, purportedly on behalf
of Jarden shareholders against the individually named director
defendants, who are directors of Jarden. Newell Brands and its
subsidiaries NCPF Acquisition Corp. I and NCPF Acquisition Corp.
II are also named as defendants. The complaint alleges claims
under Sec. 14(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the
"Exchange Act"); SEC Rule 14a-9 against all defendants; and
Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act against the individual director
defendants. Plaintiff alleges that the joint proxy/prospectus of
Newell Brands and Jarden concerning the proposed merger
contemplated by the merger agreement omitted certain information.

In March 2016, the parties entered into a settlement term sheet
and, in July 2016, the parties entered into a fully-executed
Stipulation of Settlement. On July 19, 2016, the plaintiff filed,
among other things, an Unopposed Motion for Preliminary Approval
of Proposed Class Action Settlement and Memorandum of Law in
Support Thereof.

On or about August 26, 2016, the plaintiff filed a Notice of
Withdrawal of the foregoing motion. The Newell Brands' defendants
and Jarden directors intend to vigorously defend their interests
in the case.


NEWELL BRANDS: "Paree" Class Action Lawsuit Remains Stayed
----------------------------------------------------------
Newell Brands Inc. said in an exhibit to its Form 8-K Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on September 9, 2016,
that the class action lawsuit by Jessica Paree remains stayed.

A putative class action lawsuit (Jessica Paree v. Martin E.
Franklin, et al (Circuit Court of the Fifteenth Judicial District
in and for Palm Beach County, Florida)) was filed on March 10,
2016, purportedly on behalf of Jarden stockholders, against the
individually named director defendants, all of whom are directors
of Jarden. Newell Brands and two of its subsidiaries are also
named as defendants. The complaint generally alleges that the
director defendants breached their fiduciary duties owed to Jarden
stockholders regarding the merger consideration agreed to and the
process undertaken by the director defendants in connection with
the acquisition of Jarden by Newell Brands, and that Newell Brands
and two of its subsidiaries aided and abetted such breaches.

Plaintiff further alleges that defendants have (i) solicited
stockholder action pursuant to a materially false and misleading
joint proxy statement/prospectus, (ii) failed to include all
material information concerning the unfair sales process that
resulted in the merger and (iii) materially omitted certain
information related to the financial analyses performed by
Jarden's financial advisor. Plaintiff seeks, among other things,
preliminary and permanent injunctive relief enjoining the merger,
rescission or rescissory damages in the event the acquisition of
Jarden is consummated, an award of attorneys' and experts' fees
and costs, and a direction from the court that Jarden's individual
board members account for all damages allegedly suffered as a
result of their alleged wrongdoing.

On March 28, 2016, the parties filed an Agreed Joint Motion to
Stay Proceedings, seeking a stay of the litigation, pending the
outcome of the Hirsch v. Lillie action. The court entered an order
staying the proceedings on March 31, 2016.

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


NIMBLE STORAGE: Motion to Dismiss Securities Action Underway
------------------------------------------------------------
Nimble Storage, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on September 9, 2016, for the
quarterly period ended July 31, 2016, that a motion to dismiss the
Nimble Storage, Inc. Securities Litigation remains pending.

On December 17, 2015, a purported securities class action entitled
Vikramkumar v. Nimble Storage, Inc., et al. was filed in the
United States District Court for the Northern District of
California, against the Company and certain of its officers and
directors. A second purported securities class action entitled
Guardino v. Nimble Storage, Inc., et al. was filed on December 23,
2015, and a third purported class action entitled Madhani v.
Nimble Storage, Inc., et al. was filed on February 5, 2016, also
in the Northern District of California against the same parties.

The complaints in the three actions allege claims under Sections
10(b) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act based on allegedly misleading
statements regarding the Company's business and financial results.
On March 28, 2016, the Court ordered that the three actions be
consolidated under the caption In re Nimble Storage, Inc.
Securities Litigation, or In re Nimble Sec. Lit. A consolidated
amended complaint was filed in the In re Nimble Sec. Lit. matter
on June 10, 2016.

The Company filed a motion to dismiss the consolidated amended
complaint on July 25, 2016.

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


NORDIC NATURALS: Dismissal of Fish Oil Class Action Affirmed
------------------------------------------------------------
Charles Toutant, writing for New Jersey Law Journal, reports that
the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit has rejected an
attempt by a lawyer it called a "serial class action litigant" to
defeat federal jurisdiction in a class action suit against a
company selling fish oil capsules.

The appeals court affirmed dismissal of a suit by Englewood lawyer
Harold Hoffman, who has brought nearly 100 consumer fraud actions
as a pro se litigant in the past four years.

The court sanctioned Mr. Hoffman for filing a frivolous appeal,
and asked the defendant to submit an accounting of its costs and
expenses for the appeal.

Judge Julio Fuentes of the U.S Court of Appeals for the Third
Circuit said Mr. Hoffman "is an attorney who as made a habit of
filing class actions in which he serves as both the sole class
representative and the sole class counsel."

The suit alleges that Nordic Naturals Inc. makes unsupported
claims about health benefits of its Ultimate Omega supplements.
Hoffman claimed on appeal that the U.S. district court judge who
dismissed his suit lacked subject matter jurisdiction.  But the
appeals court said the judge below did not need to establish
jurisdiction because she was dismissing the case as procedurally
barred, rather than on the merits.

Before filing the suit in Hoffman v. Nordic Naturals, Mr. Hoffman
filed a nearly identical putative class suit in New Jersey state
court against the same defendant, based on the same facts.  The
defendant removed that suit to federal court under the Class
Action Fairness Act (CAFA), and dismissed it for failure to state
a claim.  Mr. Hoffman was given 30 days to amend his complaint.
But instead he filed a second complaint in state court, with a
smaller putative class.

"The purpose of this change was, it seems, to reduce the amount
recoverable and therefore defeat federal jurisdiction," Judge
Fuentes wrote.  Judge Fuentes was joined by Judges Cheryl Ann
Krause and Jane Roth.

Nordic removed the second suit to federal court and moved to
dismiss it under the entire controversy doctrine.  U.S. District
Judge Susan Wigenton for the District of New Jersey granted the
motion, calling Hoffman's narrowing of the putative class a
"poorly disguised attempt" to dodge CAFA jurisdiction.

On appeal, Mr. Hoffman argued that Judge Wigenton lacked
jurisdiction under the CAFA to dismiss the case.  But the appeals
panel said a court is not required to ascertain whether it has
jurisdiction before dismissing a case on non-merits grounds.
Because it dismissed the case on claim preclusion grounds, the
district court "was therefore permitted to bypass the
jurisdictional inquiry in favor of a non-merits dismissal," Judge
Fuentes wrote.

Mr. Hoffman said the requirement that jurisdiction be established
before a judge can take action has been a primary rule of the
federal system but "this opinion indicates that the court can make
a conclusive determination without establishing jurisdiction."

Mr. Hoffman also cited a Third Circuit blog by attorney
Matthew Stiegler that said the 2007 Supreme Court case the panel
relied on in the Nordic Naturals decision, Sinochem International
v. Malaysia International Shipping was a "night and day different"
from the present case and was "just about forum selection and
efficiency, not about courts nuking cases they don't have the
power to hear."

McDonald said the "sad history of this litigation is one of
reckless, unsupported allegations and extraordinary abuse of
process, and we are pleased that [the] district court has twice
recognized this and the Third Circuit has agreed by granting
Nordic Natural's motion for sanctions on appeal."


NRA GROUP: Faces "Isaac" Suit in Eastern Dist. of New York
----------------------------------------------------------
A lawsuit has been filed against NRA Group, LLC. The case is
titled Aldean Isaac and Julissa Ortiz, individually and on behalf
of all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. NRA Group,
LLC, doing business as National Recovery Agency, and Steven C.
Kusic, Case No. 2:16-cv-05210-JFB-SIL (E.D.N.Y., Sept. 19, 2016).
The assigned Judge is Joseph F. Bianco.

NRA is an accounts receivable management company providing debt
collection service, skip tracing and credit bureau reporting.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Craig B. Sanders, Esq.
          BARSHAY SANDERS, PLLC
          100 Garden City Plaza, Suite 500
          Garden City, NY 11530
          Telephone: (516) 203 7600
          Facsimile: (516) 706 5055
          E-mail: csanders@sanderslawpllc.com


NRG RESIDENTIAL: Faces "Dobkin" Suit in Middle Dist. of Florida
---------------------------------------------------------------
A lawsuit has been filed against NRG Residential Solar Solutions
LLC. The case is captioned Michael Dobkin and Erica Gennarini,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, the
Plaintiff v. NRG Residential Solar Solutions LLC, a Delaware
limited liability company, the Defendant, Case No. 2:16-mc-00027-
SPC-MRM (M.D. Fla., Sept. 19, 2016). The assigned Judge is Hon.
Sheri Polster Chappell.

NRG provides solar systems on lease for homeowners. It offers its
services through dealers in the United States.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Eve-Lynn J. Rapp, Esq.
          Rafey S. Balabanian, Esq.
          Stewart R. Pollock, Esq.
          EDELSON P.C.
          350 N. LaSalle, Suite 1300
          Chicago, IL 60654-5125
          Telephone: (312) 589 6370
          Facsimile: (312) 589 6378
          E-mail: erapp@edelson.com
                  rbalabanian@edelson.com
                  spollock@edelson.com

               - and -

          Scott David Owens, Esq.
          SCOTT D. OWENS, P.A.
          3800 S Ocean Dr Ste 235
          Hollywood, FL 33019-2930
          Telephone: (954) 589 0588
          Facsimile: (954) 337 0666
          E-mail: scott@scottdowens.com

               - and -

          Stefan Coleman, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF
          STEFAN COLEMAN, PLLC
          201 S Biscayne Blvd., 28th Floor
          Miami, FL 33131
          Telephone: (877) 333 9427
          Facsimile: (888) 498 9827
          E-mail: law@stefancoleman.com


OCEAN POWER: Nov. 14 Final Hearing on $3-Mil. Settlement
--------------------------------------------------------
Ocean Power Technologies, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on September 12, 2016,
for the quarterly period ended July 31, 2016, that a Court has
scheduled a hearing for November 14, 2016 to determine, among
other things, whether to grant final approval of a class action
settlement.

The Company and its former Chief Executive Officer Charles
Dunleavy are defendants in consolidated securities class action
lawsuits pending in the United States District Court for the
District of New Jersey captioned In Re: Ocean Power Technologies,
Inc. Securities Litigation, Civil Action No. 14-3799 (FLW) (LHG).
The consolidated actions are Roby v. Ocean Power Technologies,
Inc., et al., Case No. 3:14-cv-03799-FLW-LHG (filed June 13,
2014); Chew, et al. v. Ocean Power Technologies, Inc. et. al.,
Case No 3:14-cv-03815 (filed June 13, 2014); Konstantinidis v.
Ocean Power Technologies, Inc., et al., Case No. 3:14-cv-04015
(filed June 23, 2014); and Turner v. Ocean Power Technologies,
Inc., et al., Case No. 3:14-cv-04592 (filed July 22, 2014). On
March 17, 2015, the court entered an order appointing Five More
Special Situation Fund Ltd. as the lead plaintiff.

On October 9, 2015, the lead plaintiff filed a third amended class
action complaint which alleges claims for violations of sections
12(a) (2) and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933 and for violations
of Sec.10(b) and Sec.20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
arising out of public statements relating to the Company's
technology and a now terminated agreement between Victorian Wave
Partners Pty. Ltd. (VWP) and the Australian Renewable Energy
Agency (ARENA) for the development of a wave power station (the
"VWP Project"). The third amended class action complaint seeks
unspecified monetary damages and other relief. On November 5,
2015, defendants filed a motion to dismiss the third amended class
action complaint. The lead plaintiff filed a brief in opposition
to the motion on December 7, 2015, and defendants filed a reply in
support of the motion on December 21, 2015. The Court has not yet
ruled on the motion.

On May 5, 2016, the parties entered into a Stipulation and
Agreement of Class Settlement ("Stipulation") in which they agreed
to a settlement of the consolidated securities class action
lawsuits, subject to Court approval. The Stipulation provides,
among other things, for a settlement payment by or on behalf of
the Company of $3,000,000 in cash, of which the Company was to pay
$500,000 and the Company's insurer will pay $2,500,000, and the
issuance by the Company of 380,000 shares (valued at $596,000 on
the date the Stipulation was signed by the parties) of its Common
Stock to the class members. In connection with the settlement, the
parties have agreed to execute mutually agreeable releases.

On June 7, 2016, the Court entered an Order Granting Preliminary
Approval of Settlement. The Court has scheduled a hearing for
November 14, 2016 to determine, among other things, whether to
grant final approval of the settlement.

The amounts agreed in the Stipulation agreement, including the
amount to be contributed by our insurance carrier, have been
reflected in the Company's Consolidated Financial Statements as of
July 31, 2016 and April 30, 2016. In July 2016, the Company paid
the $500,000 portion of the settlement and the remaining balance
of $2,500,000 was paid by the Company's insurer in August 2016.


OCH-ZIFF CAPITAL: Judge Certifies Shareholders' Class Action
------------------------------------------------------------
Jonathan Stempel, writing for Reuters, reports that lawyers for
Och-Ziff Capital Management Group LLC said a federal judge ignored
his own deadline by certifying a class-action lawsuit tied to a
bribery probe on Sept. 14 without giving the largest publicly
traded U.S. hedge fund company a chance to object.

U.S. District Judge Paul Oetken in Manhattan said Och-Ziff
shareholders from February 2012 to August 2014 can sue as a group
over allegations that the company misled them about U.S.
Department of Justice and U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
probes into its investments in Africa.

The judge called the class certification bid "unopposed" because
the defendants Och-Ziff, Chief Executive Daniel Och and Chief
Financial Officer Joel Frank had not responded.

But less than two hours later, lawyers for the defendants told
Judge Oetken in a letter that he ruled too quickly, having given
them until Oct. 11 to respond, in accordance with a scheduling
order he issued in May.

The lawyers said Och-Ziff, Och and Mr. Frank intend to oppose
class certification, and urged Judge Oetken to vacate his order.

Judge Oetken's chambers declined to comment.  Jeremy Lieberman, a
lawyer for the Och-Ziff shareholders, also declined to comment.

Even if he vacated the order, Judge Oetken signaled he might look
favorably on class certification, which could lead to higher
recoveries at lower cost than if plaintiffs sued individually.

He said claims such as those made by the plaintiffs' "are
generally suited to class action litigation," and that the lawsuit
"satisfies all the requirements for class certification."

U.S. authorities have been investigating whether Och-Ziff bribed
Libyan officials to win business from that country's sovereign
wealth fund, and whether Och-Ziff loans funded illegal payments to
the government in the Democratic Republic of Congo.

The New York-based company has earmarked $414 million for a
possible settlement with the U.S. government relating to the
investigation.

The case is Menaldi v Och-Ziff Capital Management Group LLC et al,
U.S. District Court, Southern District of New York, No. 14-03251.


OFFICE DEPOT: Judge Certifies Assistant Store Managers' OT Case
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Locks Law Firm on Sept. 15 disclosed that a federal judge
granted final certification to a collective action by assistant
store managers seeking claims for unpaid overtime wages they say
are due from their employer Office Depot.

The plaintiffs are represented by Michael Galpern, Andrew Bell and
Neel Bhuta of Locks Law Firm, Cherry Hill, NJ; as well as
attorneys from Klafter Olsen & Lesser, LLP; Berger & Montague,
P.C., and Whitfield Bryson & Mason LLP. Judge William Martini
ruled on the case, Rivet v. Office Depot, Inc., on Tuesday,
Sept. 13, in the United States Court for the District of
New Jersey.

Judge Martini's opinion will allow the plaintiffs' claims to
continue as a group, both as a Fair Labor Standards Act collective
action and a Rule 23 class action in Colorado, Maryland and
Washington.

Plaintiffs in the case, who number more than 300, worked as
assistant store managers for Office Depot during a period ranging
from early 2000 to July 2013.  Their claims arise out of an
overtime pay policy that Office Depot had in place from late 2005
to 2012.  While assistant store managers were entitled to overtime
pay, Office Depot only paid overtime, incorrectly, pursuant to the
company's "fluctuating workweek" plan.

The plaintiffs alleged that Office Depot's method for paying
overtime violated state and federal wage and hour laws.

"The fact that the court granted certification under the Fair
Labor Standards Act and under the state law claims assures that
the aggrieved assistant store managers will have the opportunity
to present the court with their substantive claims for unpaid
overtime wages," said Michael Galpern, a partner in the Cherry
Hill, NJ, office of Locks Law Firm.

"It's unconscionable that big corporations and other major
employers are willing to take advantage of their employees, many
of whom are struggling every day just to make ends meet," said Mr.
Galpern.

Mr. Galpern said he and the other lawyers at the Locks Law Firm
are firmly dedicated to protecting the rights of workers who seek
to recover unpaid wages to which they are entitled.

With offices in Cherry Hill and Roseland, NJ; Philadelphia and New
York City, the Locks Law Firm is known for protecting the rights
of consumers throughout the country as well as individuals and
families who have suffered injuries or death as a result of the
recklessness or negligence of another party.  For additional
information, contact Thomas Derr of Simon PR, (215) 545-4715, ext.
29, or cell: (215) 620-7723.


OLA: Class Action Lawsuit Filed vs. Two Cab Aggregators in India
----------------------------------------------------------------
Shreeja Sen, writing for Livemint, reports that two non-government
organizations and two individuals filed a class action suit before
the national consumer forum against app-based taxi aggregators Ola
and Uber. The complainants have asked for a refund of INR9,239
crore from the two companies for the surge-prices charged by them.

The development was first reported by legal news website Bar and
Bench on Sept. 20.

The case against the two cab aggregators was filed on September
19, according to information available on the national consumer
disputes redressal commission (NCDRC) website. The complaint has
been filed by NGOs Nyayabhoomi and Pariwar Unity Road Safety Life
Safety and Delhi-based individuals Anu Jain and Manisha Pandey. It
is scheduled to be heard on 5 October.

The two cab companies, that now may likely have to counter this
fresh salvo, have faced litigation for charging higher prices
based on demand -- also called surge pricing.

The situation is not unlike Nestle India's Maggi, which was also
taken to the NCDRC by the union government asking for a
compensation of INR640 crore, even as it faced bans on sales in
several states.

India now also has the option of class action suits in its company
laws, a provision notified earlier this year.

The Consumer Protection Act permits individual consumers to file
complaints on behalf of or for the benefit of others who have
similar interests or are affected by the same wrong.

There haven't been too many judicial precedents where such class
actions have been brought in the past, says Ashish Bhan, counsel
at Trilegal, a law firm.

"Such collective action enhances the accountability and ensures
that the consumers are protected at all times," he said. "Class
action is the need of the hour given that a larger consumer base
is affected by these acts. More so, in the new age of e-commerce,
one individual complaint of a faulty product or service could be
treated as that of a larger group of people, or 'class', in
similar circumstances."

He also added that the government introduced the Consumer
Protection Bill, 2015 to strengthen the laws for better protection
of the consumers with the changing trends.

So are class action suits to protect consumer interests the new
norm?


OOMA INC: Motion for Judgment on Pleadings Remains Pending
----------------------------------------------------------
Ooma, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on September 9, 2016, for the quarterly
period ended July 31, 2016, that the Company's motion for judgment
on the pleadings in the securities litigation remains pending.

The Company said, "On January 14, 2016, Michael Barnett filed a
purported stockholder class action in the San Mateo County
Superior Court of the State of California (Case No. CIV536959)
against Ooma, certain of its officers and directors, and certain
of the underwriters of our Initial Public Offering on July 17,
2015 (the "IPO"). Since that time two additional purported class
actions making substantially the same allegations against the same
defendants were filed, and on May 18, 2016 all three complaints
were combined into a "consolidated complaint" filed in the same
court (the "Securities Litigation"). The consolidated complaint
purports to be brought on behalf of all persons who purchased
shares of common stock in our IPO in reliance upon the
Registration Statement and Prospectus we filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission (the "SEC"). The consolidated complaint
alleges that Ooma and the other defendants violated the Securities
Act of 1933, as amended (the "Securities Act") by issuing the
Registration Statement and Prospectus, which the plaintiffs allege
contained material misstatements and omissions in violation of
Sections 11, 12(a)(2) and 15 of the Securities Act. The plaintiffs
seek class certification, compensatory damages, attorneys' fees
and costs, rescission or a rescissory measure of damages,
equitable and/or injunctive relief, and such other relief as the
court may deem proper."

"On July 1, 2016 Ooma filed its answer to the complaint, and on
August 26, 2016 Ooma filed a motion for judgment on the
pleadings."

"Ooma believes that the plaintiffs' claims are without merit and
we are vigorously defending against the Securities Litigation and
will continue to do so. However, litigation is unpredictable and
there can be no assurances that we will obtain a favorable final
outcome or that we will be able to avoid unfavorable preliminary
or interim rulings in the course of litigation that may
significantly add to the expense of our defense and could result
in substantial costs and diversion of resources.  Based on our
current knowledge, we have determined that the amount of any
material loss or range of any losses that is reasonably possible
to result from the Securities Litigation is not reasonably
estimable."


PHH CORP: Seeks Dismissal of Reinsurance Class Action
-----------------------------------------------------
RESPA reports that as it awaits the results from the D.C. Circuit
Court of Appeals for PHH Corp. v. CFPB, financial services
provider PHH Corp. has called on the U.S. District Court for the
Eastern District of California to dismiss a class-action lawsuit
alleging kickback schemes through its reinsurance agreements.
Counsel for PHH drew on the recent Supreme Court decision in
Spokeo, Inc. v. Robins, its interpretation of RESPA Section 8 and
the filed rate doctrine to support its argument for dismissal.
Find out how the industry giant articulated its case.


PHILIP MORRIS: Arkansas Smokers to Get $45 Million from Deal
------------------------------------------------------------
Dustin Hodges, writing for KY3, reports that Arkansas is the first
state to successfully settle a class action lawsuit against Philip
Morris; now some smokers could get their hands on some of the
$45 million settlement.

Glenda Wills started smoking back in the 1980's; before the
dangers of cigarettes were fully understood.

"When I was 16 you could go to the store, you were never I-D'd,"
says Wills.

In her nearly three decades of smoking Wills has seen a lot of
changes in the way cigarettes are marketed and sold.

"I've seeen it grow tremendously, there's like ten different
Marlboro's," says Wills. "I like the Marlborou Black's 100,
special blend; it says its lower in tar, that's what the
advertisements say."

This isn't the first time Marlboro has made a cigarette it said
was healthier than its originals. Philip Morris's marketing of
Marlboro lights and ultra-lights led to a class action lawsuit
against the company in 2003.

"Phillip Morris had marketed Marlboro lights as a safer, healthier
and less addictive cigarette; it was an alternative for people to
quit smoking and gave them an opportunity to quit because of the
lower nicotine and healthier characteristics and all of that was
false," says Thomas Thrash, the attorney who brought the
settlement against Philip Morris.

Phillip Morris settled that lawsuit this summer for $45 million;
which could mean a payday for smokers who purchased Marlboro
lights or ultra-lights in the Natural State.

"The settlement provides for payment of 10 cents per pack from
1971 through 1998 and from 1998 to 2003 it's 25 cents a pack; and
from 2003 to 2010 its 10 cents a pack," says Thrash.

Which, if you're still a smoker; could buy you some products which
can help you quit.

If you live in Missouri but purchased those types of cigarettes in
Arkansas you are still eligible for a settlement. Class members
need to file a proof of claim by December 1.  To submit a claim
form, open the link to the right of the page.


PIPEFITTERS ASSOCIATION: Class Cert. Bid in "Porter" Granted
------------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit styled Porter et al, the Plaintiff(s), v.
Pipefitters Association Local Union 597, the Defendant(s), Case
No. 1:12-cv-09844 (N.D. Ill.), the Hon. Sara L. Ellis entered an
opinion and order granting in part Plaintiffs' motion for class
certification and reserving ruling on certification request.

The Court certifies a class of:

     "all African American persons who were members of Local 597
     at any time from November 14, 2003 to the present date".

The Court appoints Duane Porter, Kenneth Black, Ronald Bouie,
Ricky Brown, Samuel Clark, Frank Craddieth, Donald Gayles, and
Steve Wilson as class representatives of the class. The Court
appoints Adam Goodman, Wesley Johnson, Jamie S. Franklin, and
Randall D. Schmidt as class counsel.

Plaintiffs are African American journeyman pipefitters who
belonged to Local 597.  They claim that they and other African
American pipefitters worked comparatively fewer hours than their
non-African American counterparts due to Local 597's inequitable
job assignment systems. They filed this suit against Local 597,
alleging intentional and disparate impact discrimination in
violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 ("Title
VII"), 42 U.S.C. Sec. 2000e et seq., and 42 U.S.C. Sec. 1981, and
breach of Local 597's duty of fair representation under the Labor
Management Relations Act of 1947 ("LMRA"), 29 U.S.C. Sec. 158(b),
for failing to represent the interests of all its members.

The Court finds Plaintiffs have met the requirements for
certification of a Rule 23(b)(3) class but reserves ruling on the
request for certification of a Rule 23(b)(2) class pending
clarification of the named Plaintiffs' current union membership
status or the addition of a current union member as a class
representative.

A copy of the Order is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=dPWNxfI0

A copy of the Court's Opinion is available at no charge at
https://is.gd/TYlTMC from Leagle.com.


PJ IOWA: Court Rules Class Certification in "Tegtmeier" Suit
------------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit captioned BRANDON TEGTMEIER, on behalf of himself
and others similarly situated, the Plaintiffs, v. PJ Iowa, L.C.,
the Defendant, Case No. 3:15-cv-00110-JEG-HCA (S.D. Iowa), the
Hon. James E. Grirtzner entered an order that:

     1. Tegtmeier's Motion for conditional collective action
        certification is granted consistent with the provisions
        of this Order;

     2. notice of pendency of this action shall be sent to all
        individuals who worked for PJ Iowa as a delivery driver
        between October 13, 2012, and the present;

     3. the Notice and Consent Form, as set forth in exhibits to
        the motion are approved, with the exception of the
        changes ordered above;

     4. PJ Iowa shall have until 14 days following this Order to
        provide Plaintiff's counsel the names, last known
        addresses, dates of employment, and the location and
        store number of the store at which each potential
        collective action member works or worked;

     5. Plaintiff's counsel shall have 10 days from receipt of
        the information listed above to circulate the Notice and
        Consent Form via U.S. Mail;

     6. Putative opt-in plaintiffs shall have 60 days from the
        circulation of the Notice and Consent Form in which to
        opt in to this action; and

     7. the statute of limitations will be equitably tolled for
        potential opt-in plaintiffs from March 23, 2016, until
        the 60-day notice period begins to run.

A copy of the Order is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=Qrtb8vjj


PNI DIGITAL: "T.A.N." Suit Moved from Super. Ct. to S.D. Ga.
------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit titled T.A.N., as individual, and on
behalf of all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff v. PNI
Digital Media, Inc., the Defendant, Case No. 16-00906-063, was
removed from the Superior Court of Glynn County, Georgia, to the
U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Georgia
(Brunswick). The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:16-cv-
00132-LGW-RSB to the proceeding. The assigned Chief Judge is Hon.
Lisa G. Wood.

PNI Digital is an Internet infrastructure company providing web
based applications for the photography industry.

The Plaintiff appears pro se.

The Defendant is represented by:

          Kevin Daniel Bradberry, Esq.
          BAKER & HOSTETLER LLP
1170 chtree Street, NE, Suite 2400
          Atlanta, GA 30309-7676
          Telephone: (404) 256 8783
          Facsimile: (404) 459 5734
          E-mail: kbradberry@bakerlaw.com


POLARIS INDUSTRIES: Class Action Filed for Misleading Shareholders
------------------------------------------------------------------
Shareholder rights law firm Robbins Arroyo LLP announced on
September 20, 2016, that a class action complaint was filed
against Polaris Industries, Inc., in the U.S. District Court for
the District of Minnesota. The complaint is brought on behalf of
all purchasers of Polaris securities between January 26, 2016 and
September 11, 2016, for alleged violations of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 by Polaris's officers and directors. Polaris,
together with its subsidiaries, designs, engineers, manufactures,
and markets off-road vehicles, snowmobiles, motorcycles, and on-
road vehicles in the United States, Canada, Western Europe,
Australia, and Mexico. Polaris markets its products under the
RANGER, RZR, RANGER Crew, and Polaris RUSH brand names, among
others.

View this information on the law firm's Shareholder Rights Blog:
www.robbinsarroyo.com/shareholders-rights-blog/polaris-industries-
inc

Polaris Accused of Downplaying the Effects of Its Recalls

According to the complaint, on July 23, 2015, Polaris issued a
recall for one of the company's RZR vehicles, followed by three
more recalls in October 2015, December 2015, and April 2016,
affecting more than 160,000 RZR vehicles of various model years.
Nevertheless, Polaris issued a series of press releases and
filings with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission touting
positive financial and operating results and predicting solid
guidance. For example, on January 26, 2016, and again on April 21,
2016, Polaris reported full-year guidance in the range of $6.20 to
$6.80 per diluted share. Then, on April 19, 2016, Polaris
announced that it was again voluntarily recalling certain RZR off-
road vehicles due to reports of thermal-related incidents, and
subsequently only slightly lowered and narrowed its guidance range
to $6.00 to $6.30 per diluted share on July 20, 2016.

The complaint alleges that Polaris officials failed to disclose
that: (i) the company was unable to sufficiently validate the
initially identified repair for certain of its recalled RZR
vehicles; (ii) as a result, the company would need to implement a
more complex and expensive repair solution; (iii) the financial
impact of RZR vehicle recalls was therefore greater than the
company had disclosed to investors; and (iv) consequently, the
company had overstated its full-year 2016 guidance. On September
12, 2016, Polaris issued a press release announcing that as a
result of "RZR thermal-related issues," the company was
drastically lowering its earnings guidance for the full year 2016
to the range of $3.30 to $3.80 per diluted share, $2.50 to $2.70
per diluted share lower than previously expected. On this news,
Polaris stock fell $4.05 per share, or approximately 5%, to close
at $76.79 per share on September 12, 2016.

Polaris Shareholders Have Legal Options

Concerned shareholders who would like more information about their
rights and potential remedies can contact attorney Darnell R.
Donahue at (800) 350-6003, DDonahue@robbinsarroyo.com, or via the
shareholder information form on the firm's website.

Robbins Arroyo LLP is a nationally recognized leader in
shareholder rights law. The firm represents individual and
institutional investors in shareholder derivative and securities
class action lawsuits, and has helped its clients realize more
than $1 billion of value for themselves and the companies in which
they have invested.


POOLMAN OF WISCONSIN: Evanston Seeks Certification of Class
-----------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit styled EVANSTON NORTHSHORE HOTEL PARTNERS, LLC, an
Illinois limited liability company, individually and as the
representative of a class of similarly-situated persons, the
Plaintiff, v. POOLMAN OF WISCONSIN, INC. and WESLEY E. WIEDENBECK,
the Defendants, Case No. 1:15-cv-00422 (N.D. Ill.), the Plaintiff
asks the Court to certify a class:

     "all persons who were sent one or more facsimiles in
     December 2006 advertising the commercial availability of
     goods or services at PacFabDirect.com,
     HaywardPartsDirect.com or AquaFloDirect.com."

Excluded from the Class is any Judge assigned to this action, and
his or her family.

The Plaintiff further asks the Court to appoint itself as class
representative, and to appoint Plaintiff's attorneys as class
counsel.

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

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Phillip A. Bock, Esq.
          Jonathan B. Piper, Esq.
          Julia L. Titolo, Esq.
          BOCK, HATCH, LEWIS &
          OPPENHEIM LLC
          134 N. La Salle St., Suite 1000
          Chicago, IL 60602
          Telephone: (312) 658 5500
          Facsimile: (312) 658 5555


POSHMARK INC: Faces "Reichman" Suit in Southern Dist. of Cal.
-------------------------------------------------------------
A lawsuit has been filed against Poshmark, Inc. The case is styled
Christopher J. Reichman, individually and on Behalf of All Others
Similarly Situated, the Plaintiff v. Poshmark, Inc., a Delaware
Corporation, the Defendant, Case No. 3:16-cv-02359-DMS-JLB (S.D.
Cal., Sept. 19, 2016). The assigned Judge is Hon. Dana M. Sabraw.

Poshmark operates a platform where women come together to buy and
sell clothing and accessories from each other's closets.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          David C. Beavans, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF DAVID C. BEAVANS
          4542 Ruffner St., Suite 150
          San Diego, CA 92111
          Telephone: (619) 234 7848
          Facsimile: (619) 234 7849
          E-mail: dbeavans@theSDlawyers.com


PUBLIX SUPER: Faces "Tamayo" Suit in Middle District of Florida
---------------------------------------------------------------
A lawsuit has been filed against Publix Super Markets, Inc. The
case is captioned Eric Tamayo, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, the Plaintiff v. Publix Super Markets,
Inc., the Defendant, Case No. 6:16-cv-01646-GAP-KRS (M.D. Fla.,
Sept. 20, 2016). The assigned Judge is Hon. Gregory A. Presnell.

Publix Super Markets, commonly known as Publix, is an employee-
owned, American supermarket chain based in Lakeland, Florida.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Nathan Zipperian, Esq.
          SHEPHERD, FINKELMAN,
          MILLER & SHAH, LLC
          1625 North Commerce Parkway Suite 320
          Fort Lauderdale, FL 33326
          Telephone: (954) 515 0123
          Facsimile: (954) 515 0124
          E-mail: nzipperian@sfmslaw.com


PULTE HOME: Court Narrows Claims in "Gazzara" Suit
--------------------------------------------------
In the case, SHAUN PARKER GAZZARA, ANA PAULA GAZZARA, HARRY JAMES
WHITMAN and MARCIA FAYE WHITMAN, Plaintiffs, v. PULTE HOME
CORPORATION, Defendant, Case No. 6:16-cv-657-Orl-31TBS (M.D.
Fla.), District Judge Gregory A. Presnell granted in part and
denied in part the Defendant's Motion to Dismiss and Motion to
Stay.  Count I and Count III are dismissed with prejudice. Count
II is dismissed without prejudice.

The Plaintiffs seek to represent a class comprised of all
individuals, corporations, associations, trusts or other entities
that currently own homes constructed by Pulte in Florida between
May 1, 2006 and April 15, 2016 with a Drainage Plane Exterior
Stucco Wall System over Wood Frame and Wood Sheathing which Pulte
wrongfully constructed in violation of the Florida Building Code
resulting in the stucco siding failing.

The Plaintiffs assert these claims:

     Count I   - Negligence
     Count II  - Violations of Florida Building Code
     Count III - Intentional Construction of Defective
                 Stucco Siding

The Court held that it would be premature to assess the class
action issues where the amended complaint has been dismissed for
its conclusory allegations. The Plaintiffs' claims against the
Defendant's negligence was barred by the economic loss rule and
was dismissed with prejudice, while the Defendant's alleged
violations of the Florida Building Code was dismissed without
prejudice due to the Plaintiffs' lack of explanation as to how the
stucco siding violated the Code or how it failed. The Court also
dismissed the allegation of the Plaintiffs, with prejudice, that
the Defendant intentionally constructed the defective stucco
siding.

The Court noted that should the Plaintiffs wish to file an amended
pleading, they must do so on or before September 23, 2016.

A copy of the Court's Order dated September 8, 2016 is available
at https://goo.gl/RjDM4U from Leagle.com.

Shaun Parker Gazzara, Plaintiff, represented by David Fuller
Tegeler, Michael C. Sasso, PA.

Shaun Parker Gazzara, Plaintiff, represented by Gordon H. Harris,
Harris Harris Bauerle Ziegler Lopez, John Wesley Frost, II, Frost,
Van den Boom, PA, Lydia Sturgis Zbrzeznj -- lzbrzeznj@fvdblaw.com
-- Frost, Van den Boom, PA, Michael Adam Sasso, Michael C. Sasso,
PA & Michael Cornelius Sasso, Michael C. Sasso, PA.


QUEENSLAND: 300 Aboriginal People Join Wage Suit
------------------------------------------------
Kerry Smith, writing for greenleft, reports that about 300
Aboriginal people have joined a class action filed in the Federal
Court on September 12 to recover wages they say were stolen by the
Queensland government more than half a century ago.

The claim is for unpaid wages held in government trust accounts
under Queensland's Aboriginal Protection and Preservation Act
1939, which allowed the government to control the earnings of
Aboriginal people until 1972.  Much of the money was lost or
stolen.

Cairns solicitor John Bottoms, who is representing the claimants,
said: "It's an action for breach of trust.

"The Queensland government held itself up via its legislation as
the protector of Aboriginals, as holding the funds in trust to
look after it for them [because] it was said that they couldn't
manage on their own.

"We've already got 300 claimants.  We're intending to take the
matter to court and let the court decide what they're entitled
to."

Jan Saddler, a partner with Shine Lawyers who is assisting with
the class action, said the government's conduct around its so-
called welfare fund "left thousands of Indigenous people
effectively working as slaves because they never received their
wages".

"It's a story told over and over again about Indigenous
Australians who were denied the opportunity to get a leg up in
society because of a very harsh and unfair world that they lived
in.  It's quite heartbreaking."

Ms. Saddler said she was looking into possible future claims in
NSW, WA and the NT, where similar legislation to Queensland's had
existed from the 1890s.

Ms. Saddler said there were "very good records" to back the claims
in Queensland government archives, including of "various trust
accounts that were held, the retention of particular Aboriginal
people's wages, records of particular communities that may have
been affected or particular employers who may have been part of
this program."

The Queensland government set up a reparations scheme in 2002 that
paid claimants, including the lead claimant, 77-year-old Hans
Pearson, between $2000 and $4000 in return for waiving their legal
rights.

But Mr. Bottoms argues that Mr. Pearson was conned into signing
up. "We don't think that the discharge and release that he was
forced to sign is valid or binding," he said.  "We think that the
way it was imposed was unconscionable. He was never told what he
was actually owed, he was just simply told if he didn't sign this,
he'd get nothing."

Mr. Pearson became a drover in far north Queensland at the age of
15. Aboriginal station workers at the time were paid two-thirds of
a white worker's wage.  During his first decade of work, Pearson
earned about GBP14 a week: GBP6 was held by the government and œ8
given to him as "pocket money".

He believes he earned up to GBP7000 during the 1950s and '60s and
was planning on buying a house in North Queensland for his young
family.  But, when he went to collect his money, he received a
tiny fraction of that amount.

"When the police called me up to the police station, me and the
wife went up and he had a cheque waiting for me for GBP28 pounds,"
Mr. Pearson said.  "I said: 'Is this all I'm getting?' and he
said: 'Well, that's all you have after 10 years of working'."

Historian Dr. Ros Kidd, a consultant to the class action, said
there was substantial documentary evidence to support the claim.

"There were internal inquiries, there were investigations and
there were audit reports every year and I've got every one of them
from 1940 to 1990.  Time after time they say this money is going
missing and you need for people to see a record of their accounts
to stop this type of fraud," she said.

Kidd estimated the actual amount owed to Aboriginal workers was in
the region of $500 million.

Last year the Queensland government set up the Stolen Wages
Reparations Taskforce led by Mick Gooda.  It recommended in its
report Reconciling Past Injustice that the $21 million made
available by the government to be distributed to Aboriginal
claimants be capped at $9200 for each individual.  The Queensland
government has, to date, paid out $5.8 million to more than 3000
claimants.

Mr. Pearson said he hoped the legal action would result in his
dream of being able to buy a house, but he expects a fight from
the Queensland government.

"We will just keep fighting, they've got the money to fight us,
but I hope that justice will be done, that they'll be
compassionate with us and just give us what they owe us," he said.


QUORUM HEALTH: Investors File Class Action Lawsuit
--------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit was filed against Quorum Health Corporation
(NYSE: QHC) and certain of its officers and directors alleging
violations of the federal securities laws.  The case is pending in
the United States District Court for the Middle District of
Tennessee on behalf of investors who purchased or otherwise
acquired Quorum securities between May 2, 2016 and August 10,
2016.

On August 10, Quorum disclosed in a press release and SEC filings
that it experienced a substantial net loss, as well as an
operating loss, for the quarter ended June 30, 2016, its first
quarter as an independently traded public company.  These losses
were linked to over $250 million in impairment charges the Company
took in the quarter, including hundreds of millions of dollars in
goodwill adjustments.  These adjustments represented more than
half of Quorum's value, as represented by its market cap as of
August 9, 2016.  In response to the Company reporting the sizeable
loss, Quorum's stock price fell nearly 50%, representing
approximately $150 million in lost investor value.

The lawsuit alleges that defendants failed to disclose that
Quorum's hospitals were underperforming at the time it was spun
off from Community Health Systems, Inc. in April 2016; and that
the company failed to adequately inform investors of issues
affecting its true value, causing them to overpay for its
securities.

If you purchased Quorum securities, you have until November 8,
2016 to file a motion to serve as lead plaintiff.  As a member of
the class, you may seek to serve as a lead plaintiff or take no
action and remain an absent class member. If have questions about
the litigation, becoming a lead plaintiff or possess information
relevant to this case, please contact attorney Steven Harte at
(617) 398-5600, via email at Steven@blockesq.com, or visit
www.blockesq.com/quorum.  Confidentiality to whistleblowers or
others with relevant information is assured.

Block & Leviton represents investors affected by violations of
securities laws as well as whistleblowing individuals. The firm's
lawyers have collectively been prosecuting securities cases for
over 70 years, have recovered billions of dollars for investors
and represent some of the nation's largest institutional
investors.


R&A OYSTERS: Settlement in "Cordova" Case Preliminarily Approved
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, MIGUEL ANGEL FUENTES CORDOVA, et al., etc.,
Plaintiffs, v. R & A OYSTERS, INC., et al., Defendants, Civil
Action No. 14-0462-WS-M (S.D. Ala.), Chief District Judge William
H. Steele granted the parties' joint motion for preliminary
approval of class action settlement agreement and notice to class
members.

The settlement agreement provides a pot of $86,500.00, with
$42,654.86 allocated to settle the class members' contract claims
and the balance allocated to settle the Fair Labor Standards Act
(FLSA) retaliation claims of seven individuals. Three class
members, who separately settled with the defendants in December
2015 for $500 each, will receive the amount to which they then
agreed. The remaining 48 class members will split the remaining
$41,654.86. Each such class member will receive approximately half
the full remaining value of his or her contract claim.

Pursuant to the agreement, class counsel is to complete mailing of
the class notice and claim form to all class members on or before
September 26, 2016. Class counsel is to file and serve a notice
confirming accomplishment of the task on or before September 27,
2016 and shall begin contacting class members by the other means
identified in the order no later than October 10, 2016.

To be timely, objections and exclusion requests must be mailed to
the Court and postmarked no later than November 25, 2016. To be
timely, claim forms must be mailed to class counsel and postmarked
no later than November 25, 2016 or telefaxed or
e-mailed to class counsel and received no later than November 25,
2016. The deadline may be extended by the Court as to any class
member who, according to class counsel's November 7, 2016 report,
has not received the class notice and claim form.

A hearing on the fairness and reasonableness of the settlement and
whether final approval will be held on December 6, 2016.

A copy of the Court's Order dated September 12, 2016 is available
at https://goo.gl/rq9B44 from Leagle.com.

Miguel Angel Fuentes Cordova, Plaintiff, represented by Daniel
Werner, Southern Poverty Law Center, pro hac vice.

Miguel Angel Fuentes Cordova, Plaintiff, represented by Eunice
Cho, pro hac vice, James Melvin Knoepp, pro hac vice, Meredith
Blake Stewart, pro hac vice & Samuel Jacob Brooke, SOUTHERN
POVERTY LAW CENTER.

R&A Oysters, Inc., et al., Defendants, represented by Rick Andrew
LaTrace, Johnstone, Adams, Bailey, Gordon & Harris, L.L.C., Alan
C. Christian -- acc@johnstoneadams.com -- Johnstone Adams, LLC,
Celia J. Collins -- cjc@johnstoneadams.com -- Johnstone, Adams,
Bailey, Gordon & Harris & Spencer Harrison Larche.


RELIABLE STAFFING: "Hawkins" Seeks Unpaid Wages Under Labor Code
----------------------------------------------------------------
JENNIFER HAWKINS, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated, and on behalf of the general public, the Plaintiff, v.
RELIABLE STAFFING CORPORATION, a Texas corporation, and DOES 1
through 10, inclusive, the Defendants, Case No. BC634455 (Cal.
Super. Ct., Sept. 20, 2016), seeks to recover compensatory damages
and amount of all unpaid wages pursuant to the Labor Code.

The Plaintiff also seeks injunctive relief, restitution, and
disgorgement of all benefits Defendants enjoyed from their failure
to pay all wages to employees and their failure to pay wages by
instruments payable on demand, without discount.

According to the complaint, the Defendants have had a consistent
policy of failing to compensate their non-exempt California
employees placed to work at Los Angeles International Airport
(LAX) with all wages earned during the course of employment
including but not limited to, all living wages and overtime wages,
failing to provide them with accurately itemized wage statements,
failing to compensate them with all premium wages for missed,
denied and unauthorized meal periods, and failing to pay them all
wages due and owing upon separation of employment.

Reliable Staffing is a fully blended company and has recruiting
specialists in office, administrative, engineering, sales,
marketing, accounting, finance, information technology, and
skilled labor.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Kenneth S. Gaines, Esq.
          Daniel F. Gaines, Esq.
          Alex P. Katofsky, Esq.
          Sepideh Ardestani, Esq.
          GAINES & GAINES, APLC
          27200 Agoura Road, Suite 101
          Calabasas, CA 91301
          Telephone: (818) 703 8985
          Facsimile: (818) 703 8984
          E-mail: ken@gaineslawfinn.com
                  daniel@gaineslawfirm.com
                  alex@gaineslawfirm.com
                  sepideh@gaineslawfirm.com


REWALK ROBOTICS: Sued in Super. Ct. Over Common Stock Purchases
---------------------------------------------------------------
JACKIE888, INC., on behalf of itself and all others similarly
situated, the Plaintiff, v. REWALK ROBOTICS LTD., LARRY
JASINSKI, AMI KRAFT, AMIT GOFFER, JEFF DYKAN, HADAR RON, ASAF
SHINA, WAYNE B. WEISMAN, YASUSI-II ICHIKI, ARYEH DAN, GLENN MUIR,
BARCLAYS CAPITAL INC., JEFFERIES LLC, and CANACCORD GENUITY INC.,
the Defendants, Case No. 16CIV01454 (Cal. Super. Ct., Sep. 20,
2016), seeks to recover damages against the Defendants in
connection with the purchases of ReWalk common stock in violation
of the Securities Act.

On July 10, 2014, ReWalk filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission (SEC) its registration statement on Form F-1, which was
followed by several amendments the last of which was filed with
the SEC on August 26, 2014, which became effective on September
11, 2014, and which later issued to the public in connection with
the IPO (the Registration Statement). On September 15, 2014, the
Company filed with the SEC the final prospectus for the IPO
(Prospectus), dated September 1, 2014, which forms part of the
Registration Statement.

However, the Company's Registration Statement contained untrue
statements of material facts, omitted to state other facts
necessary to make the statements made not misleading and/or was
not prepared in accordance with the rules and regulations
governing its preparation. Specifically, the Registration
Statement failed to disclose that despite the regulatory
requirements to comply with "special controls" and provide the FDA
with a postmarket surveillance study of the ReWalk product, the
Company was woefully unprepared and/or unable to do so. Plaintiff
and the class who purchased the Company's IPO stock have been
damaged by the falsity of the Registration Statement in an amount
to be determined at trial.

ReWalk is a medical device company that designs, develops and
markets wearable robotic exoskeletons for individuals with spinal
cord injury.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Lionel Z. Glaney, Esq.
          Robert V. Prongay, Esq.
          Lesley F. Portnoy, Esq.
          Charles H. Linehan, Esq.
          GLANCY PRON GAY & MURRAY LLP
          1925 Century Park East, Suite 2100
          Los Angeles, CA 90067
          Telephone: (310)201 9150
          Facsimile: (310)201 9160
          E-mail: clinehan@glancylaw.com

               - and -

          Ronen Sarraf, Esq.
          Joseph Gentile, Esq.
          SARRAF GENTILE LLP
          14 Bond Street, Suite 212
          Great Neck, NY
          Telephone: (516) 699-8890

               - and -

          Kenneth J. Vianale, Esq.
          VIANALE & VIANALE LLP
          5550 Glades Road, Suite 500
          Boca Raton, FL 33


ROCKY MOUNTAIN: "McClure" Seeks Overtime Pay
--------------------------------------------
Joseph McClure, and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v.
Rocky Mountain Casing Crews, Inc. & Gerald Lapp, individually,
Defendants, Case No. 1:16-cv-00322 (D.N.D., September 7, 2016),
seeks to recover overtime compensation, prejudgment interest and
penalties, all costs incurred prosecuting this claim and such
other and further relief under the Fair Labor Standards Act.

Rocky Mountain Casing Crews, Inc. is a Wyoming Corporation that
operates in Williston, North Dakota. It provides oilfield casing
services in oilfields throughout the Williston Basin where McLure
worked as a casing employee. He claims to have been denied
overtime pay.

Plaintiff is represented by:

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

           - and -

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


RURAL/METRO CORPORATION: Class Cert. Bid in "Garver" Suit Granted
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit styled ROGER GARVER, et al., on behalf of
themselves and all others similarly situated, the Plaintiffs, v.
RURAL/METRO CORPORATION, et al, the Defendants, Case No. 2:15-cv-
03129-EAS-KAJ (S.D. Ohio), the Court granted a joint motion for
class certification and certified a class of consisting of:

     "all current and former employees of Defendants who worked
     as Security Officers at the Port Columbus Airport, as
     identified on documents produced by Defendants, Garver 00388
     - 00405."

The lawsuit arose under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA), for
Defendants' alleged failure to properly compensate Plaintiffs and
other similarly-situated employees for all hours worked. The
Defendants have denied all liability relating thereto.

The Defendants do not oppose certification of a Class action of
Plaintiffs' Ohio claims, and certification of a collective action
for Plaintiffs' FLSA claims, relating only to Security Officers
who worked or are working at the Port Columbus Airport for either
Defendant since December 31, 2012.

The Parties further stipulate, for purposes of this litigation
only and for no other purposes whatsoever, that the Defendants
Rural/Metro Corporation and Rural Metro Fire Department, Inc. are
joint employers of the Security Officers who have worked or are
working at the Port Columbus Airport for either Defendant since on
or after December 31, 2012. The Defendants stipulate that they are
joint employers of these security officers solely for the dates
listed and solely for purposes of existing claims made pursuant to
the Fair Labor Standards Act, the Ohio Minimum Fair Wages
Standards Act, and the Ohio Revised Code.

The time period governed by the presumptive Class includes
individuals employed by Defendants from December 31, 2012 to the
present. The class shall not include Alan Ward, Thomas Rogers,
Carl Morrow, Darby Smith, Timothy Larson, or Ben Wilson, or any
other Corporal or supervisor.

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

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Andrew Kimble, Esq.
          Robert J. Beggs, Esq.
          BEGGS LAW OFFICES CO., LPA
          1675 Old Henderson Road
          Columbus, Ohio 43220
          Telephone: (614) 457 7800
          E-mail: John.Beggs@BeggsLawOffices.com

               - and -

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

The Defendant is represented by:

          John Barr, Esq.
          LAW OFFICE OF
          JOHN M. BARR, P.C.
          4105 Stuart Ave
          Richmond, VA 23221
          Telephone: 804-269-5078
          E-mail: John.barr@jmblawoffice.com

               - and -

          Gretchen M. Treherne, Esq.
          JACKSON LEWIS P.C.
          70 Birch Alley, Suite 240
          Dayton, OH 45440
          Telephone: (937) 306 6397
          E-mail: Gretchen.treherne@jacksonlewis.com

                           *     *     *

The Hon. Chief Judge Edmund A. Sargus, Jr.'s order provides that,
by October 15, 2016, the Defendants have agreed to provide
Plaintiff's counsel with contact information for each member of
the presumptive class as well as documents and information
regarding pay rates, wages paid, and hours worked for each
presumptive class member.

Within 7 days after the issuance of the order, the Plaintiffs
shall submit a proposed Court-authorized notice, accompanied by a
supporting memorandum and points of authority.

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


SAFEMARK SYSTEMS: Faces Gorss Motels Suit in Middle Dist. of Fla.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
A lawsuit has been filed against Safemark Systems, LP. The case is
titled Gorss Motels, Inc., a Connecticut corporation, individually
and as the representative of a class of similarly-situated
persons, the Plaintiff, v. Safemark Systems, LP, and John Does 1-5
the Defendant, Case No. 6:16-cv-01638-GAP-DAB (M.D. Fla., Sept.
19, 2016). The assigned Judge is Hon. Gregory A. Presnell.

Safemark Systems provides customer service.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

SANTA FE, N.M.: Class Suit Filed Against Sheriff and Warden
-----------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reported that Santa Fe County, its sheriff
and warden jail pretrial and pre-indictment detainees far longer
than the 15 days permitted by state law, a class action claims in
Albuquerque Federal Court.


SAPUTO DAIRY: "Brewer" Suit Moved from Super. Ct. to E.D. Cal.
-------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit titled Brandy Brewer, on behalf of
herself and on behalf of all other similarly situated individuals,
the Plaintiff, v. Saputo Dairy Foods USA, LLC, a Delaware
Corporation; and Saputo Cheese USA, Inc., a Delaware Corporation,
Case No. VCU266443, was removed from the Tulare County Superior
Court, to the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of
California - (Fresno). The District Court Clerk assigned Case No.
1:16-cv-01373-DAD-EPG to the proceeding. The assigned District
Judge is Hon. Dale A. Drozd.

Saputo is a Montreal-based Canadian dairy company.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Stuart Rowe Chandler, Esq.
          LAW OFFICE OF STUART R. CHANDLER
          761 East Locust Avenue, Suite 101
          Fresno, CA 93720
          Telephone: (559) 431 7770
          Facsimile: (559) 431 7778
          E-mail: stuart@chandlerlaw.com

The Defendants are represented by:

          Jared Hague, Esq.
          Joseph Vidal Macias, Esq.
          S. Brett Sutton, Esq.
          Wesley Lawrence Carlson, Esq.
          SUTTON HAGUE LAW CORPORATION, PC
          6715 N. Palm Ave., Suite 216
          Fresno, CA 93704
          Telephone: (559) 325 0500
          Facsimile: (559) 981 1217
          E-mail: jared@suttonhague.com
                  joseph@suttonhague.com
                  brett@suttonhague.com
                  wesley@suttonhague.com


SECURITY WATER: Class Suit Over Contaminated Wells Filed
--------------------------------------------------------
Tom Roeder and Jakob Rodgers, writing for The Gazette, reports
that three Security Water District customers have filed a federal
class-action lawsuit against companies that manufactured a
military firefighting foam that's thought tied to contaminated
wells in Widefield, Security and Fountain.

The foam was used for decades at Peterson Air Force Base and
contains a chemical found in public and private wells at levels
that exceed Environmental Protection Agency standards issued in
May. The contamination was revealed after testing this year, and
thousands of residents in the area have been drinking bottled
water to avoid the perfluorinated compounds detected in wells.

The suit, which names Minnesota-based chemical company 3M, Ansul
Foam of Wisconsin and National Foam of Pennsylvania as defendants,
claims the contamination poses health risks and cuts property
values. The suit seeks an unspecified amount of money to establish
a medical monitoring program and punitive damages "in an amount
sufficient to deter defendants' similar wrongful conduct in the
future."

In a statement, a 3M representative said the company would
"vigorously" defend its production and sale of the foam, which is
also known as Aqueous Film-Forming Foam, or AFFF.

The company also pointed to its record in defending itself against
similar cases in the past.

The foam "is a product that was used by the U.S. military and
departments of defense around the world because it saves lives --
which likely explains why this product remains in use
approximately a decade after 3M exited the sale of it," said
William A. Brewer III, a partner at Brewer, Attorneys & Counselor
and counsel for 3M, in a statement emailed to The Gazette. "In any
event, we believe these claims against 3M in connection with AFFF
lack merit. 3M sold these products with instructions regarding
their safe use and disposal."

The Hannon Law Firm of Denver, which filed the suit, declined to
comment Tuesday.

The Air Force has banned use of the foam except in emergencies and
has awarded a contract for a replacement that officials say is
less toxic.

Across the nation, hundreds of sites have been identified where
the military used the foam.

Class-action suits have been used in recent years against chemical
manufacturers that made perfluorinated compounds alleging
contamination around their plants.

The new suit blames the Air Force for contaminating the wells, but
blames the manufacturers for knowingly building a toxic product.
The suit also claims manufacturers didn't warn the military about
the dangers of the foam.

"Upon information and belief, defendants had known of these health
and environmental hazards for years," the lawsuit maintains. "For
example, by the mid-1980s, 3M began a major program to review
personnel handling of fluorochemicals and determined that
fluorochemicals could bioaccumulate," meaning that they could
build up in human blood over time.

In 2000, 3M reached an agreement with the EPA to phase out the
foam, stopping manufacture in 2002.

The military is largely immune from lawsuits for actions taken on
behalf of national defense.

"In general, the concept is that the government, as sovereign, is
immune to suit by private parties -- that's the basic principal,"
said Kevin Lynch, an assistant law professor at the University of
Denver.

The chemical compound remains unregulated, and the EPA has only
issued health advisories -- as opposed to hard limits -- on the
chemical in drinking water.

The McDivitt Law Firm in the Springs has run TV ads seeking toxic
water plaintiffs.

A judge will later rule on whether the lawsuit can move forward
and whether it will be allowed as a class action.


SMX LLC: "Rwomwijhu" Suit Seeks Minimum Wages Under Labor Code
--------------------------------------------------------------
ANGELA RWOMWIJHU, on behalf of herself, all others similarly
situated, and the general public, the Plaintiff, v. SMX, LLC, an
Illinois limited liability company; AMAZON.COM, LLC, a Delaware
limited liability company; and DOES 1 through 20, inclusive, the
Defendants, Case No. BC634518 (Cal. Super. Ct., Sep. 20, 2016),
seeks to recover regular pay and minimum wages, damages,
restitution, disgorgement, injunctive relief, statutory penalties,
attorneys' fees, costs, and equitable relief pursuant to, among
other provisions pursuant to California Labor Code.

The Defendants allegedly denied Plaintiff and Class Members
regular pay and minimum wages for regular hours worked; proper
overtime premium pay for overtime hours worked; off-duty
uninterrupted thirty-minute meal periods when the nature of work
performed did not prevent off-duty meal periods, or where the
nature of work that prevented off-duty meal periods was
attributable solely to Defendants' own insufficient staffing
models; uninterrupted ten-minute rest periods; premium pay for
denied off-duty meal and rest periods; reimbursement for necessary
expenditures incurred; timely payment of wages earned each pay
period and upon cessation of employment; and accurate itemized
wage statements, thereby allowing Defendants, and each of them, to
jointly gain an unjust competitive advantage from their uniform
course of unlawful, unfair, and/or fraudulent employment
practices, all at the expense of Plaintiff and Class Members.

SMX offers comprehensive staffing and contingent workforce
solutions.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Ronald A. Marron, Esq.
          William B. Richards, Jr, Esq.
          Skye Resendes, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF
          RONALD A. MARRON, APLC
          651 Arroyo Drive
          San Diego, CA 92103
          Telephone: (619) 696 9006
          Facsimile: (619) 564 6665
          E-mail: ron@consumersadvocates.com
                  bill@consumersadvocates.com
                  skye@consumersadvocates.com


SOLIDIFI US: "Kimble" Sues Over Unpaid Overtime Pay
---------------------------------------------------
Scott Kimble, individually, and on behalf of others similarly
situated, Plaintiffs, v. Solidifi U.S. Inc. and Kirchmeyer &
Associates, Inc., Defendants, Case No. 6:16-cv-06614, (W.D. N.Y.,
September 7, 2016), seeks declaratory and injunctive relief,
unpaid overtime wages, liquidated damages and attorneys' fees
pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act and the New York Labor
Laws.

Solidifi is a Delaware corporation that provides real estate
appraisal services throughout the United States where Plaintiff
worked as an appraiser. He claims to have been denied overtime
pay.

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Jason J. Rozger, Esq.
      Bruce E. Menken, Esq.
      BERANBAUM MENKEN LLP
      80 Pine Street, 33rd Floor
      New York, NY 10005
      Tel: (212) 509-1616
      Fax: (212) 509-8088
      Email: jrozger@nyemployeelaw.com


SOUTHWEST COLLEGE: "Guinn" Suit Seeks OT Pay Under Labor Code
-------------------------------------------------------------
THEA GUINN and KERRY MERRILL, individually, on behalf of all
persons similarly situated, and as representatives of other
aggrieved employees, the Plaintiff, v. SOUTHWEST COLLEGE OF
MEDICALDENTAL ASSISTANTS & PRACTICAL NURSES, a California
corporation dba NORTH-WEST COLLEGE and SUCCESS EDUCATION COLLEGE;
and DOES 1 through 100, inclusive, the Defendants, Case No.
BC634756 (Cal. Super. Ct., Sept. 20, 2016), seeks to recover
overtime compensation according to proof, interest, attorney's
fees and costs pursuant to California Labor Code.

The Defendants have allegedly refused to compensate Plaintiffs and
Class members for all wages earned, and all hours worked, at the
required minimum wage. As a direct result, Plaintiffs and Class
members have suffered and continue to suffer, substantial losses
related to the use and enjoyment of such compensation and wages;
lost interest on such monies and expenses; and attorney's fees in
seeking to compel Defendants to fully perform their obligation
under state law, all to their respective damage in amounts
according to proof at trial and within the jurisdiction of the
Court.

Founded in 1951, Southwest College of Medical-Dental Assistants
and Practical Nurses is a small organization in the colleges and
universities industry located Las Vegas, Nevada.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Christian J. Petronelli, Esq.
          Dean S. Ho, Esq.
          PETRONELLI & HO LLP
          295 Redondo Avenue, Suite 201
          Long Beach, CA 90803
          Telephone: (888) 855 3670
          Facsimile: (888) 449 9675

               - and -

          Brandon A. Block, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF BRANDON A. BLOCK
          433 N. Camden Drive, Suite 600
          Beverly Hills, CA 90210
          Telephone: (310) 887 1440
          Facsimile: (310) 496 1420


SQUARE INC: Court Dismissed "White" Class Suit
----------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reported that federal judge in San
Francisco dismissed with prejudice Robert E. White's amended
putative class action accusing Square Inc. of misconduct in its
electronic payment services.


STATE FARM: Judge OKs Class Action Status on Racketeering Law
-------------------------------------------------------------
Edith Brady-Lunny, writing for Pantagraph, reports that a federal
judge in southern Illinois has approved class action status for a
lawsuit accusing State Farm of violating federal racketeering laws
by directing money into the election campaign of a state Supreme
Court justice in hopes of influencing a ruling.

About 4.7 million policyholders with the Bloomington-based
insurance giant could benefit from an estimated $7.6 billion
payout, according to Clifford Law Offices, the Chicago-based law
firm representing the policyholders.

The alleged "scheme," claims the lawsuit before U.S. District
Court Judge David Herndon, is a violation of the Racketeering
Influence and Corruption Act, more commonly referred to as RICO.
The lawsuit is related to an alleged, complex plot to influence a
decision by the Illinois Supreme Court on an appeal of a $1.05
billion verdict against State Farm in a 1997 lawsuit, Avery vs.
State Farm.

That judgement was based on a contention that State Farm
authorized non-factory parts for repairs on cars involved in
accident claims between between 1987 and 1998.

In a response on Sept. 20, State Farm spokesman Justin Tomczak
said the company was "disappointed in the court's decision on the
class certification question, and respectfully disagree with it.

"We intend to ask the appellate court to review this ruling in the
very near future. Plaintiffs have unsuccessfully asserted and
reasserted these allegations for many years and should not be
permitted to do so any longer."

The alleged scheme to defraud policyholders involved State Farm
creating a pipeline of campaign contributions that ended up in the
coffers of the committee to elect Justice Lloyd A. Karmeier to the
Illinois Supreme Court.

State Farm funneled millions of so-called "dark money" through
donations to the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, which then sent the
money onto a political action committee and the Illinois
Republican Party for use in Karmeier's 2004 campaign, according to
the lawsuit.

After he was elected in November 2004, Karmeier cast the deciding
vote in favor of overturning the appellate court ruling that
upheld the billion-dollar verdict in the Avery case, contends the
lawsuit.

Karmeier, who is not a defendant in the case, was named by the
Illinois Supreme Court to serve as its next chief justice.

State Farm was accused in a 2012 lawsuit filed by two Texas men of
hiding the alleged donations and its intent to influence the
Supreme Court decision.

With the new ruling giving that lawsuit class action status, the
estimated settlement could now exceed $7.6 billion, according to
Clifford.

As part of his ruling on Friday, Herndon noted that the initial
complaint said State Farm "recruited Karmeier, directed his
campaign, had developed a vast network of contributors and
funneled as much as $4 million to the campaign."

State Farm concealed its connection to Karmeier's campaign after
he was elected and the appeal of its case was pending, said the
complaint.

A hearing to review the status of the case is set for Oct. 15.


STEPHENS AND MICHAELS: Faces "Oved" Suit in E.D. of New York
------------------------------------------------------------
A lawsuit has been filed against Stephens and Michaels Associates,
Inc. The case is captioned Shlomo Oved, on behalf of himself and
all other similarly situated consumers, the Plaintiff, v. Stephens
and Michaels Associates, Inc., Pinnacle Credit Services, LLC, LVNV
Funding LLC, and Resurgent Capital Services, L.P., the Defendants,
Case No. 1:16-cv-05192 (E.D.N.Y., Sept. 19, 2016).

Stephens and Michaels Associates is a nationally licensed
collection agency.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Adam Jon Fishbein, Esq.
          ADAM J. FISHBEIN, P.C.
          735 Central Avenue
          Woodmere, NY 11598
          Telephone: (516) 668 6945
          E-mail: fishbeinadamj@gmail.com


STERLING JEWELERS: Oct. 2017 Trial Set in Sex Discrimination Case
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Linette Lopez, writing for Business Insider, reports that in 2008,
a dozen women employed by Sterling Jewelers sued the company.
They're alleging sexual discrimination at the highest levels.

The matter, once argued in contractually mandated private
arbitration proceedings, has now evolved into a class-action
lawsuit, with the trial beginning in October 2017.

Sterling is a division of Signet Jewelers, which owns Zales,
Kay Jewelers, and Jared's Galleria. Class members can include
women who were sales associates, department managers, assistant
managers, or store managers at a Sterling retail store in the 13
years since October 16, 2003.  It's a potential class of about
44,000, filings related to the case show; already, more than
10,000 have joined.

That's not all.  The US Equal Employment Opportunity Commission
separately filed a gender-discrimination suit against Sterling a
few months after the initial complaint.  An aspect of that case
-- whether the EEOC conducted enough of an investigation before
suing -- has made its way to the US Supreme Court.

In its annual report, the company can't say how much it'll have to
pay if it loses, but it has told shareholders that if it loses, it
will be "required to pay substantial damages."

It's another headache for Signet, which over the past year has
fought off accusations of diamond switching and deceptive sales
practices.  The company's share price has fallen by half in less
than a year.

In a statement to Business Insider, the company said that it has
created opportunities for "many thousands of women" and that it
"stands by its core values of fairness, opportunity, integrity,
and respect."

"We have taken the allegations of pay and promotions
discrimination raised in this case seriously and investigated them
thoroughly; they are not substantiated by the facts and do not
reflect the culture of our company," a representative wrote in an
email.  "We will continue to defend the company against these
unjustified legal claims, which misrepresent our deep commitment
to, and history of, equal opportunity."

The claim
The plaintiffs claim they were paid and promoted less than their
male colleagues.  They also accuse executives of regarding "women
at Sterling as little more than sexual opportunities to exploit,"
according to redacted arbitration documents.

The claim, however, does not include sexual harassment.

Here's a bit from the claimants' motion for a class action:

"As the substantial record plainly reveals, this evidence of
conduct demeaning toward women originates with the CEO, DVPs, and
VPROs and is perpetuated by similar conduct exhibited by DMs
throughout the company. . . .

"The conduct has occurred in settings that are public and private,
ranging from banter in hallways and elevators to interactions
within Sterling stores and at the mandatory annual meeting of all
company managers held in Orlando, Florida.

"This behavior includes frequent references to women in sexual and
vulgar ways; groping and grabbing women; soliciting sexual
relations with women, sometimes as a quid pro quo for employment
benefits; creating an environment at often mandatory company
events in which women are expected to undress publicly, accede to
sexual overtures and refrain from complaining about the abusive
treatment to which they have been subjected.  It has even included
sexual assault and rape."

Arbitration documents describe a situation in which women in
various states of undress entertained members of senior management
poolside at a company meeting.  They say they were subject to
comments about their clothes and bodies.  In one specific case, a
woman who complained says she was told she was "rehashing old
news" and ignored.

In response, the company has argued that the claimants have not
sufficiently proved they worked in a hostile environment, filings
show.

This is contrary to what James Outtz found.  He was the president
of Outtz and Associates, a consulting firm brought on to do a
report on Sterling's culture ahead of the arbitration proceedings.

Mr. Outtz wrote that sexual advancements created a "climate and
culture at Sterling in which female employees and their work are
devalued when compared to male employees."

In a response sent to Business Insider after the publication of
this story, the company said Outtz testimony was rejected by the
arbitrator and that the harassment allegations were only included
to "paint a negative and false picture of the company."

It also said:

"The fact is, many of the allegations were brought to Sterling's
attention for the first time during the current litigation, and
some appear to date back more than 25 years.  The company has
processes in place for receiving and investigating such
allegations, and we wish that anyone who had a workplace concern
back then had used those processes, so that we could have
investigated their concerns and responded appropriately."

Some allegations have been investigated and addressed, the company
said, while others related to consensual relationships among
people who never raised concerns with the company.

'Highly protected'
In arbitration documents, one claimant said she was fired in 2006
after refusing to dance with a manager during a 2005 managers'
meeting.

When she wanted to discuss the incident, as well as her
termination, she said the manager had words for her (from the
motion for class action):

"He said: '[Y]ou will not win a sexual harassment or wrongful
termination case against Sterling.'

"He said, 'Sterling is highly protected [. . .] we have our own
resolution program, which means you cannot hire an attorney.'

"He continued to tell her: 'You're not going to win.'"

That remains to be seen.  But 10 years later, she's about to have
her day in court.


SUBWAY 39077: Aguiar Seeks Certification of Store Managers Class
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit titled YIRANDI AGUIAR and other similarly situated
individuals, the Plaintiff(s), v. SUBWAY 39077, INC., a Florida
Profit Corporation, and Timothy E. Johnson, individually, the
Defendants, Case No. 1:16-cv-23399-RNS (S.D. Fla.), the Plaintiff
asks the Court to issue and order:

     1. conditionally certifying a class of current and former
        "Store Managers" who worked for Defendants in the last 3
        years and who are not paid overtime compensation or their
        hours worked over 40 each week;

     2. expiditing discovery production by Defendant, within 15
        days of the Court order, of a list of each and every
        person -- an their last known home address and telephone
        number, email address and social security numbers -- who
        was ever employed as a "Store Manager" as Subway stores
        at any time between June 24, 2013 and the present;

     3. requiring Defendants to format and produce on an expited
        basis a list, both in hard copy and electronically in an
        Excel spreadsheet; and

     4. permitting Plaintiff's counsel to mail a Court-approved
        notice to all such persons about their opt into the
        collective action.

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

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


SUPERVALU INC: Court Grants Class Certification in Antitrust MDL
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Hon. Ann D. Montgomery entered a memorandum opinion and order
granting in part and denying in part the Plaintiffs' motion for
class certification filed in the multidistrict litigation styled
In re Wholesale Grocery Products Antitrust Litigation, MDL No. 09-
MD-2090 ADM/TNL, in the U.S. District Court for the District of
Minnesota.

The MDL consolidates the antitrust lawsuits of retail grocers
against SuperValu, Inc., and C&S Wholesale Grocers, Inc., the two
largest full-line grocery wholesalers in the United States.  The
Plaintiffs allege that the Defendants conspired to allocate
customers and territories through an Asset Exchange Agreement, and
that the Defendants used the allocations to charge retailers
supra-competitive prices, in violation of the Sherman Act.

The Motion is granted to the extent that five DC-based Classes are
certified.  The Motion is denied to the extent that the proposed
Champaign Classes include retailers in Missouri.

The five certified Classes are defined as:

     The Champaign DC Non-Arbitration Class: All customers that
     paid ABS fees on wholesale grocery products in all four
     SuperValu ABS product categories (grocery, dairy, frozen,
     and general merchandise/health and beauty care) purchased
     directly from SuperValu's Champaign, Illinois DC from
     December 31, 2004 through September 13, 2008 (the Class
     Period), are located in the relevant geographic market, and
     did not have an arbitration agreement with SuperValu during
     the Class Period.  This class brings claims against both
     Defendants;

     The Champaign DC Arbitration Class: All customers that paid
     ABS fees on wholesale grocery products in all four SuperValu
     ABS product categories (grocery, dairy, frozen, and general
     merchandise/health and beauty care) purchased directly from
     SuperValu's Champaign, Illinois DC from December 31, 2004
     through September 13, 2008, are located in the relevant
     geographic market, and had an arbitration agreement with
     SuperValu during the Class Period. This class brings claims
     against C&S only;

     The Green Bay DC Class: All customers that paid ABS fees on
     wholesale grocery products in all four SuperValu ABS product
     categories (grocery, dairy, frozen, and general
     merchandise/health and beauty care) purchased directly from
     SuperValu's Green Bay, Wisconsin DC from December 31, 2004
     through September 13, 2008, and are located in the relevant
     geographic market. This class brings claims against C&S
     only;

     The Hopkins DC Class: All customers that paid ABS fees on
     wholesale grocery products in all four SuperValu ABS product
     categories (grocery, dairy, frozen, and general
     merchandise/health and beauty care) purchased directly from
     SuperValu's Hopkins, Minnesota DC from December 31, 2004
     through September 13, 2008, and are located in the relevant
     geographic market. This class brings claims against C&S
     only; and

     The Pleasant Prairie DC Class: All customers that paid ABS
     fees on wholesale grocery products in all four SuperValu ABS
     product categories (grocery, dairy, frozen, and general
     merchandise/health and beauty care) purchased directly from
     SuperValu's Pleasant Prairie, Wisconsin DC from December 31,
     2004 through September 13, 2008, and are located in the
     relevant geographic market. This class brings claims against
     C&S only;

     Excluded from each of the five Classes are:

     a. the Court and its officers, employees, and relatives;

     b. Defendants and their parents, subsidiaries, affiliates,
        shareholders, employees, and co-conspirators;

     c. government entities;

     d. any customer of either Defendant who, prior to C&S and
        SuperValu's September 6, 2003 AEA, entered into a
        contract with either Defendant that established the
        prices (including upcharges) the customer would pay for
        wholesale grocery products and related services
        throughout the entire Class Period and who did not amend
        or renegotiate the prices set in such contract during the
        Class Period; and

     e. Tops Friendly Markets, LLC and The Great Atlantic &
        Pacific Tea Company, Inc. (also known as A&P).

The Court appoints D&G, Inc. d/b/a Gary's Foods as the
representative of the Champaign DC Non-Arbitration Class; Blue
Goose Super Market, Inc. as the representative of the Champaign DC
Arbitration Class; Nemecek Markets, Inc. as the representative of
the Green Bay DC Class; Millennium Operations, Inc. d/b/a R.C.
Dick's Market as the representative of the Hopkins DC Class; and
Elkhorn-Lueptows, Inc., Jefferson Lueptow's, Inc., and East Troy
Lueptows, Inc. as the representatives of the Pleasant Prairie
Class.

The law firms of Boies, Schiller & Flexner LLP, Kotchen & Low LLP
and Lockridge Grindal Nauen PLLP are designated as Co-lead counsel
for the five Classes.  Lockridge Grindal Nauen PLLP is designated
as liaison counsel for the five Classes.

A copy of the Memorandum Opinion and Order is available at no
charge at https://goo.gl/gkGb8r from Leagle.com.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Anne M. Nardacci, Esq.
          Matthew J. Henken, Esq.
          Richard B. Drubel, Esq.
          BOIES, SCHILLER & FLEXNER, LLP
          30 South Pearl Street, 11th Floor
          Albany, NY 12207
          Telephone: (518) 694-4261
          Facsimile: (518) 434-0665
          E-mail: anardacci@bsfllp.com
                  mhenken@bsfllp.com
                  rdrubel@bsfllp.com

               - and -

          Daniel B. Allanoff, Esq.
          Steven J. Greenfogel, Esq.
          Joel C. Meredith, Esq.
          MEREDITH COHEN GREENFOGEL & SKIRNICK, PC
          Architects Bldg., 22nd Floor
          117 S 17th St.
          Philadelphia, PA 19103
          Telephone: (215) 564-5182
          E-mail: dallanoff@mcgslaw.com
                  sgreenfogel@mcgslaw.com
                  jmeredith@mcgslaw.com

               - and -

          Daniel Kotchen, Esq.
          Daniel Low, Esq.
          KOTCHEN & LOW LLP
          2300 M Street, NW, Suite 800
          Washington, DC 20037
          Telephone: (202) 416-1848
          Facsimile: (202) 280-1128
          E-mail: dkotchen@kotchen.com
                  dlow@kotchen.com

               - and -

          Edward T. Dangel, III, Esq.
          DANGEL & MATTCHEN, LLP
          10 Derne Street
          Boston, MA 02114
          Telephone: (617) 557-4800
          E-mail: tdangel@danmatllp.com

               - and -

          Elizabeth R. Odette, Esq.
          Kate M. Baxter-Kauf, Esq.
          W. Joseph Bruckner, Esq.
          Kristen G. Marttila, Esq.
          LOCKRIDGE GRINDAL NAUEN PLLP
          100 Washington Avenue South, Suite 2200
          Minneapolis, MN 55401-2159
          Telephone: (612) 596-4030
          E-mail: erodette@locklaw.com
                  kmbaxter-kauf@locklaw.com
                  wjbruckner@locklaw.com
                  kgmarttila@locklaw.com

Defendant Supervalu, Inc., is represented by:

          Gordon J. MacDonald, Esq.
          NIXON PEABODY LLP
          900 Elm Street
          Manchester, NH 03101-2031
          Telephone: (603) 628-4068
          Facsimile: (646) 792-3816
          E-mail: gmacdonald@nixonpeabody.com

               - and -

          James S. Harrington, Esq.
          Jeffrey Sullivan Gleason, Esq.
          K. Craig Wildfang, Esq.
          Martin R. Lueck, Esq.
          Natalie I. Uhlemann, Esq.
          Stephen P. Safranski, Esq.
          ROBINS KAPLAN LLP
          800 LaSalle Avenue, Suite 2800
          Minneapolis, MN 55402
          Telephone: (612) 349-8500
          Facsimile: (612) 339-4181
          E-mail: JGleason@RobinsKaplan.com
                  JHarrington@RobinsKaplan.com
                  KCWildfang@RobinsKaplan.com
                  MLueck@RobinsKaplan.com
                  NUhlemann@RobinsKaplan.com
                  SSafranski@RobinsKaplan.com

Defendant C&S Wholesale Grocers, Inc., is represented by:

          Christopher J. MacAvoy, Esq.
          Erik Koons, Esq.
          Hugh M. Hollman, Esq.
          BAKER BOTTS L.L.P.
          The Warner
          1299 Pennsylvania Ave., NW
          Washington, DC 20004-2400
          Telephone: (202) 639-7709
          Facsimile: (202) 585-1006
          E-mail: christopher.macavoy@bakerbotts.com
                  erik.koons@bakerbotts.com
                  hugh.hollman@bakerbotts.com

               - and -

          Heather M. McElroy, Esq.
          CIRESI CONLIN LLP
          225 S. 6th St., Suite 4600
          Minneapolis, MN 55402
          Telephone: (612) 361-8213
          E-mail: HMM@CiresiConlin.com

               - and -

          Nicole M. Moen, Esq.
          Todd A. Wind, Esq.
          FREDRIKSON & BYRON, PA
          200 South Sixth Street, Suite 4000
          Minneapolis, MN 55402-1425
          Telephone: (612) 492-7000
          Facsimile: (612) 492-7077
          E-mail: nmoen@fredlaw.com
                  twind@fredlaw.com

               - and -

          Stephen P. Safranski, Esq.
          ROBINS KAPLAN LLP
          800 LaSalle Avenue, Suite 2800
          Minneapolis, MN 55402
          Telephone: (612) 349-8500
          Facsimile: (612) 339-4181
          E-mail: SSafranski@RobinsKaplan.com


SYNTHES USA: Settlement in "Lindell" Suit Has Initial OK
--------------------------------------------------------
In the case, TROY M. LINDELL, ON BEHALF OF HIMSELF AND ALL OTHERS
SIMILARLY SITUATED, Plaintiff, v. SYNTHES USA, SYNTHES USA SALES
LLC, SYNTHES SPINE COMPANY LP, Defendants, Case No. 1:11-CV-02053-
LJO-BAM (E.D. Cal.), District Judge Lawrence J. O'Neill adopted in
full the Findings and Recommendations dated September 13, 2016, by
Magistrate Judge Barbara A. McAuliffe.

The Magistrate Judge entered Findings and Recommendations granting
the unopposed Plaintiff's Motion for Preliminary Approval of Class
Action Settlement.

The amended definition of these Classes is approved:

     a. An Expense Class of all former and current sales
        consultants who were employed by Synthes in California
        from four years prior to the filing of this action
        (December 13, 2007) to July 14, 2016, and who were
        subject to the following straight commission compensation
        policies: i. The policy that sales consultants from the
        Trauma and Spine Sales Divisions who receive straight
        commission are not eligible for an automobile allowance
        or in-territory business expense reimbursement; and
        ii. The policy that sales consultants from the CMF Sales
        Division receive a predetermined base salary of $30,000,
        plus a higher level of commission with no expenses; and

     b. A Deductions Class of all former and current Sales
        Consultants who were employed by Synthes in California
        from four years prior to the filing of this action
        (December 13, 2007) to July 14, 2016, who at some time
        during Synthes' employ had a deduction assessed against
        them.

Pursuant to the stipulation, Plaintiff will move for attorneys'
fees not to exceed 30% of the Settlement Amount, plus
reimbursement of litigation expenses not to exceed $200,000, not
including the Settlement Administrator's fees and expenses.
Defendants will issue to each Class Counsel firm a Form 1099 with
respect to their awarded attorneys' fees and costs.

Concurrent with the Final Approval and attorneys' fees motion,
Plaintiff will move for a service award of up to $10,000 for the
Class Representative, to be paid out of the Settlement Amount.
Defendants will not oppose Plaintiff's application to the Court
for a service award of up to $10,000 to the Class Representative
to be paid out of the Settlement Amount, in addition to the Class
Representative's Settlement Award payment as a Settlement Class
Member.

The fairness hearing of the motions will be held on December 16,
2016.

A copy of Judge O'Neill's Sept. 20 Order is available at
https://is.gd/ld66Yq from Leagle.com.

A copy of the Magistrate Judge's Order dated September 12, 2016 is
available at https://goo.gl/P9AVja from Leagle.com.

Troy M. Lindell, Plaintiff, represented by Charles Trudrung Taylor
-- ctt@lrplaw.net -- Lang, Richert & Patch.

Troy M. Lindell, Plaintiff, represented by Darin Daniel Ranahan,
Feinberg, Jackson, Worthman & Wasow LLP, Michael Victor Caesar,
Lewis, Feinberg, Lee & Jackson, Ana de Alba, Lang, Richert &
Patch, Catha Worthman, Feinberg Jackson Worthman & Wasow LLP &
Todd Franklin Jackson, Feinberg, Jackson, Worthman & Wasow LLP.

Mark Pope, Plaintiff, represented by Ana de Alba -- ada@lrplaw.net
-- Lang, Richert & Patch & Michael Victor Caesar, Lewis, Feinberg,
Lee & Jackson.

Synthes USA, et al., Defendants, represented by Harrison Lee,
Blank Rome LLP, pro hac vice, Howard M. Knee -- Knee@BlankRome.com
-- Blank Rome LLP, Michael S. Helsley -- mhelsley@wjhattorneys.com
-- Wanger Jones Helsley PC, Michael Lester Ludwig --
Ludwig@BlankRome.com -- Blank Rome LLP, Oliver W. Wanger --
owanger@wjhattorneys.com -- Wanger Jones Helsley PC, Anthony B.
Haller -- Haller@BlankRome.com -- Blank Rome LLP, pro hac vice,
Colleen A. Carolan, DaVita & Larry R. Wood, Blank Rome LLP, pro
hac vice.


TARO PHARMACEUTICALS: Faces Sergeants' Suit Over Drug Prices
------------------------------------------------------------
Adam Klasfeld, writing for Courthouse News Service, reported that
in the latest clampdown on pharmaceutical price hikes, a police
sergeant's union collared the makers of the eczema ointment
Clobetasol to bring the companies downtown to Manhattan federal
court.

On Sept. 8, filings released by the Securities and Exchange
Commission revealed that Taro Pharmaceuticals and two of their
senior officers received grand jury subpoenas from the Department
of Justice's antitrust division.

On September 15, the New York-based Sergeants Benevolent
Association Health & Well Being Fund -- representing 4,700 active
and 7,600 retired NYPD sergeants -- filed a class-action lawsuit
against Taro and five other corporations.

Clobetasol, a drug prescribed for eczema, dermatitis, psoriasis
and vitiligo, is among the four generic drugs that experienced the
largest price increases across the U.S. pharmaceutical industry in
the past two years, according to the sergeants' 33-page complaint.

Between June and September 2014, Clobetasol's prices shot up
roughly 1,140 percent, and the price tag went up again by 950
percent during the yearlong window between August 2014 and 2015,
the sergeants say.

"Whereas, in 2013, a 60-gram tube of Clobetasol cream cost $15.60,
as of 2015, the cost was nearly $250," the complaint states.

The sergeants say that these dramatic hikes followed a meeting
between the top manufacturers of the drug: Hi-Tech Permacal Co.,
Perrigo Company, Sandoz, Taro USA, and Wockhardt USA.

Fougera, which acquired Sandoz in 2013, is the lead defendant in
the complaint.

The lawsuit notes that these hikes happened "at a time during
which congress and regulators are focusing intense scrutiny on
generic manufacturers' anticompetitive pricing practices,"
scrutiny that continues to grow in public backlash against so-
called "Pharma Bro" Martin Shkreli and the makers of EpiPen, the
life-saving allergy injections.

Shkreli currently faces possible prison time, not for jacking up
the price of AIDS drug Daraprim, but for charges that he rolled
investors into an $11 million securities fraud. Those allegations
continue to await trial in Brooklyn.

The sergeants say the Clobetasol hikes mirror a rash of similar
behavior by pharmaceutical companies. The Office of the Inspector
General, the internal watchdog for the U.S. Department of Health
and Human Services, found that price increases in 22 percent of
the top 200 generic drugs exceeded the cost of inflation.

Represented by attorney Peter Safirstein, the sergeants union
wants damages against Clobetasol's makers to be tripled under the
Sherman Act, the law that governs anti-competitive business
practices.

Taro Pharmaceuticals did not immediately respond to an emailed
request for comment.


TEXAS EDUCATION: Marlin ISD Joins Class Suit on STAAR Test
----------------------------------------------------------
Kurtis Quillin, writing for KCEN, reports that Marlin ISD said
it's the first school district in the state to join a class-action
lawsuit against the Texas Education Agency on the STAAR Test.

The school board unanimously voted to do so in its regular meeting
on Sept. 20.

The Lawsuit, Lewis, et al v. Morath, stems from STAAR Test results
for the 2015-16 school year and asks a judge to prevent the TEA
from using those results against schools and students.

The suit and Marlin ISD Superintendent Mike Seabolt claim the test
is illegal, that it doesn't allow students enough time to finish.

House Bill 743 says for the state to adopt a test, 85 percent of
3rd-5th grade students have to be able to finish in two hours,
three hours for 6th-8th grades.

The lawsuit says that isn't the case and shows surveys to that
point.

Marlin ISD is currently not accredited by the TEA.  In fact, the
district operated in 2015-16 on an agreement with the state that
if they didn't meet standards by the end of last school year, the
TEA could take over Marlin ISD.

"Marlin has had some academic troubles for a very long time,"
Seabolt said.  "We have an agreement with the TEA that was in
place, an abatement agreement, to keep Marlin ISD open.  You know,
we look at the test the same way the parents do.  The test
violated state law and Marlin should not be held accountable for a
test that violates state law."

The school board also allowed Seabolt to file an appeal of the
test results.

He said the district is looking at all of its options to keep the
school open, adding, "Someone forgot there are kids here."

Accreditation for the 2016-17 school year will be released at the
end of February.


TISCH ASIA: NYU Students File Class Action Lawsuit
--------------------------------------------------
Lia Eustachewich, writing for New York Post, reports that three
New York University students claim they got ripped off for
hundreds of thousands of dollars attending the school's now
defunct offshoot, Tisch Asia, according to a lawsuit filed on
Sept. 19.

The trio, including two Master's degree graduates, plunked down at
least $100,000 each in tuition to study at the school in Singapore
-- which never lived up to the hype, the Manhattan federal court
complaint says.

After opening in 2007, Tisch Asia offered degrees in animation and
digital arts, dramatic writing, international media producing and
film -- with a "promise that it offers the same degree as in New
York," the suit says.

"However, except for the cost of tuition, Tisch Asia never lived
up to the level of Tisch New York," the suit alleges.

Tisch Asia promised big-name faculty, including Academy Award-
winning director Oliver Stone and "famous" Singaporean playwright
Haresh Sharma, and "meticulously selected" professors with "strong
ties to the industry."

"In reality, many faculty members at Tisch Asia had either subpar
experience and/or knowledge to the faculty in New York, did not
have strong ties to the industry and/or had not been active in the
industry for a long period of time. At least one teacher was a
fresh graduate of Tisch Asia," the suit says.

The "Platoon" director, the complaint says, hadn't visited the
campus in Malysia since at least 2011.

Tisch Asia students also allegedly weren't eligible for certain
grants and fellowships afforded to those in New York.

The suit, which seeks class-action status, says the "majority" of
Tisch Asia students were rejects who couldn't get into the Tisch
New York Master of Fine Arts program.

In 2012, NYU announced it was closing the Asia offshoot, which
officially shuttered in 2015, the suit says.

NYU spokesman John Beckman denied the allegations, saying Tisch
Asia students received a top-notch education even though it didn't
work out "financially and operated at a steep deficit precisely
because NYU was providing the students with an excellent education
that cost more than tuition dollars brought in."

He said the school worked to keep the school open until each
student had a chance to graduate.

"It was a robust, graduate level program in the arts, and
artistically the school was a success, with a number of students
winning awards," he said. "This suit is wholly without merit, and
we expect to prevail in court."


TRANSWORLD SYSTEMS: Class Cert. Bid in "Frausto" Suit Denied
------------------------------------------------------------
The Hon. Amy J. St. Eve entered an order in the lawsuit entitled
Diego Frausto, the Plaintiff, v. Transworld Systems, Inc., the
Defendant, Case No. 1:16-cv-09016 (E.D. Ill.), denying Plaintiff's
motion for class certification without prejudice as premature.

According to the docket entry made by the Clerk on September 19,
2016, initial status hearing is set for Nov. 3, 2016 at 8:30 a.m.
in courtroom 1241. Parties shall refer to Judge St. Eve's web page
at www.ilnd.uscourts.gov and file a joint status report by Oct.
31, 2016 as set forth in the Initial Status Conferences procedure.

If the Defendant has not been served as of Oct. 31, 2016, the
Court will continue the filing date for the joint status report
until the defendant is served.

If the Defendant files a motion to dismiss prior to the filing of
the joint status report, the Court will continue the filing date
for the joint status report until after the Court rules on the
pending motion. Defendant is on notice that this is a putative
class action.

A copy of the Order is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=279JcNpu


TRUMP UNIVERSITY: Court Won't Allow Delay of Trial
--------------------------------------------------
Bianca Bruno, writing for Courthouse News Service, reported that
a federal court judge in San Diego, only needed a few pages on
September 15, to tell Donald Trump why he won't allow the first
trial against his now-defunct Trump University to be delayed any
longer.

U.S. District Judge Gonzalo Curiel denied Trump's request to delay
the Nov. 28 trial set for Low v. Trump University in a brief
three-page order made available on September 15, afternoon.

Trump's attorney Daniel Petrocelli asked Curiel in a filing on
September 12, to delay the looming trial and reset it to either
Dec. 12 or Jan. 2, 2017. Petrocelli cited a conflicting trial in
another California court just days before the first Trump
University trial is set to begin.

Lead plaintiff Sonny Low and other Trump University Students sued
Trump in 2010 -- long before his bid for president -- on claims
they were duped into paying upwards of $35,000 to learn real-
estate secrets from instructors "handpicked" by Trump himself.
They are represented by attorney Jason Forge.

In his order, Curiel found Trump did not prove good cause for
moving back the trial date, which was set by the judge four months
ago.

Curiel pointed out the case is 6 « years old -- one of his oldest,
if not the oldest, cases on his docket -- and he has accommodated
multiple requests by Trump to move potential trial dates around
his campaign schedule.

Trump's attorney never mentioned a potential scheduling conflict
despite, as the class pointed out, having at least four
opportunities to do so. Petrocelli did not bring up the conflict
until a hearing held late last month.

Petrocelli is Trump's fourth attorney to represent him in the Low
case. He knew for months there could be a potential conflict
between the Low trial and another class action where he is
representing satellite radio giant Sirius XM.

Petrocelli recently asked the judge in Flo & Eddie Inc. v. Sirius
XM Radio to move that trial date to make way for the Trump
University case but U.S. District Judge Philip Gutierrez denied
his request.

If the Sirius trial lasts the estimated seven days, that means
Petrocelli would finish that trial on Nov. 23 -- the day before
Thanksgiving -- only to start the Trump University trial the
Monday after the holiday.

Trump's attorney said he would be prejudiced if Curiel did not
postpone the Low trial because he would not have adequate time to
prepare and conduct pretrial work. But Low and the other
plaintiffs strongly disputed that, saying the "convenience" of one
attorney should not delay the years-old case from getting its day
in court.

The class even took it a step further, pointing out Petrocelli is
the fourth attorney to represent Trump and therefore far from
indispensable.

"With all due respect to defense counsel, he was not Trump's
first, second or third choice to represent him in this case, so it
cannot be credibly asserted that he is somehow indispensable," the
class said.

But Low and the others did offer somewhat of an olive branch when
they suggested Curiel move up jury selection to Oct. 31 to provide
a two-day "cushion" at the front-end of the Low trial and avoid
the possibility of Petrocelli's Sirius trial butting into their
case.

Curiel moved up the Nov. 18 hearing on jury instructions to Nov.
10, as Petrocelli will be in the middle of the Sirius trial which
is set to begin on Nov. 15.

The next pretrial hearing in Low v. Trump University is scheduled
for Nov. 10 at 1:30 p.m.

The case is captioned, SONNY LOW, J.R. EVERETT and JOHN BROWN, on
Behalf of Themselves and All Others Similarly Situated,
Plaintiffs, v. TRUMP UNIVERSITY, LLC, a New York Limited Liability
Company, and DONALD J. TRUMP, Defendants.,
Case No. 3:10-cv-00940-GPC-WVG (S.D.Cal.)


TVI INC: "Godhigh" Suit Seeks Certification of FLSA Class
---------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit entitled EARL GODHIGH, and ANGELA OSGOOD,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, the
Plaintiffs, v. TVI, INC. D/B/A SAVERS and VALUE VILLAGE; and
SAVERS, LLC., the Defendants, Case No. 3:16-cv-02874-WHO (N.D.
Cal.), the Plaintiffs asks the Court to:

     1. conditionally certify a class pursuant to the Fair Labor
        Standards:

        "of a nationwide group of TVI, Inc. and Savers LLC.
        (collectively Savers or Defendants) employees asserting
        overtime misclassification claims";

     2. order Savers to produce to Plaintiffs' counsel a class
        list containing collective members' full names,
        addresses, non-work phone numbers, social security
        numbers, email addresses, and the dates and store
        locations where they worked;

     3. direct the dissemination of notice of the pendency of the
        action by mail and email using the proposed Notice;

     4. permit potential Collective Members to file Consent to
        Join Forms, by mail, fax, e-mail, or website submission,
        until 90 days after Plaintiffs' mailing of notice to the
        class; and

     5. permit the dissemination of a reminder postcard by mail
        and e-mail.

A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=MUupkE7h

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Jahan C. Sagafi, Esq.
          OUTTEN & GOLDEN LLP
          One Embarcadero Center, 38th Floor
          San Francisco, CA 94111
          Telephone: (415) 638 8800
          Facsimile: (415) 638 8810
          E-mail: jsagafi@outtengolden.com

               - and -

          Gregg I. Shavitz, Esq.
          Camar R. Jones, Esq.
          SHAVITZ LAW GROUP, P.A.
          1515 S. Federal Hwy., Suite 404
          Boca Raton, FL 33432
          Telephone: (561) 447-8888
          Facsimile: (561) 447-8831
          E-mail: gshavitz@shavitzlaw.com
                  cjones@shavitzlaw.com


TYSON FOODS: Faces Chicken Price-Fixing Class Action in Illinois
----------------------------------------------------------------
Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP on Sept. 15 disclosed that a new
class-action lawsuit has unveiled an eight-year-long antitrust,
price-fixing scheme brought by major food conglomerates, including
Tyson and Perdue Farms, alleging they killed hens, flocks and
destroyed eggs to limit production and raise the price of 98
percent of the chicken sold in the U.S. by nearly 50 percent,
according to Hagens Berman.

The suit calls the industry's means of destroying its livestock
"unparalleled."

The lawsuit, filed Sept. 14, 2016, in the U.S. District Court for
the Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division states that
the laundry list of defendants control 90 percent of the wholesale
broiler chicken market -- an industry with more than $30 billion
in annual revenue.

If you purchased chicken from any of the following suppliers, you
may be entitled to your money back: Tyson, Perdue Farms, Pilgrim's
Pride, Sanderson Farms, Simmons Foods, Koch Meats, JCG Foods, Koch
Meats, Wayne Farms, Mountaire Farms, Peco Foods, Foster Farms,
House of Raeford Farms, Fieldale Farms, George's Farms or O.K.
Foods.  Find out your rights to compensation.

"For years, these major food corporations sought to take full
control of the market to squeeze every penny they could from hard
working consumers, and they broke federal laws and killed
thousands of chickens to do so," said Steve Berman, managing
partner of Hagens Berman.  "Instead of honest competition, these
agribusinesses chose to cheat the system, killing off flocks and
destroying eggs to limit the amount of production and pass the
buck to millions of Americans."

"Call to Arms" to Limit Production

The lawsuit describes in detail how the chicken industry conspired
together to raise prices, stating that in 2007, Pilgrim's and
Tyson attempted to cut production levels enough to cause industry
prices to rise, but failed to impact the market due to their
market share.

"In January 2008 Pilgrim's and Tyson changed tactics and concluded
that only through broader cooperation among major producers in the
Broiler industry could supply be cut enough to force prices to
increase," the suit states.

Pilgrim's and Tyson publicly told the industry that neither
company would continue to cut production while their competitors
used the opportunity to take away Pilgrim's and Tyson's market
share.  But a few days after an industry event in late January
2008, things changed.  The suit says that "other Defendant
Producers followed Pilgrim's and Tyson's call to arms and made
substantial cuts to their own production."

"One by one, there was a domino effect," Mr. Berman said. "They
all fell in line, colluding to nix competition and raise prices by
actively destroying their means of production -- the animals --
all the while making profit hand over fist."

After attending the industry event, Tyson's CEO announced Tyson
would be raising prices because "we have no choice."  A day later,
a Pilgrim's executive announced publicly that Pilgrim's would be
cutting its production and "the rest of the market is going to
have to pick-up a fair share in order for the production to come
out of the system."

According to the suit, unlike Pilgrim's and Tyson's prior
production cuts, in 2008 the defendant chicken producers did not
rely solely on ordinary mechanisms to temporarily reduce
production, which would have permitted production to be quickly
ramped up if prices rose.

"Instead, Defendant Producers cut their ability to ramp up
production for 18 months or more by destroying Broiler breeder
hens in their Broiler breeder flocks responsible for supplying the
eggs Defendant Producers raise into Broilers.  This destruction of
the Broiler breeder flock was unparalleled," the lawsuit states.

The industry kingpins continued to make coordinated cuts to their
production in 2011 and 2012, which included further substantial
destruction of industry breeder flocks, even going as far as to
ship breeder flocks to Mexico.

                    About Hagens Berman

Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP -- http://www.hbsslaw.com-- is a
consumer-rights class-action law firm with offices in 10 cities.
The firm has been named to the National Law Journal's Plaintiffs'
Hot List eight times.


UNIFUND CCR: Faces "Stiel" Suit in Eastern District of New York
----------------------------------------------------------------
A lawsuit has been filed against Unifund CCR, LLC. The case is
captioned Chaim E. Stiel, on behalf of himself and all other
similarly situated consumers, the Plaintiff v. Mullooly, Rooney,
Jeffrey & Flynn, and Unifund CCR, LLC, the Defendants, Case No.
1:16-cv-05213 (E.D.N.Y., Sep. 19, 2016).

Unifund CCR purchases, sells, and manages under-performing and
distressed consumer receivables in the United States.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Adam Jon Fishbein, Esq.
          ADAM J. FISHBEIN, P.C.
          735 Central Avenue
          Woodmere, NY 11598
          Telephone: (516) 668 6945
          E-mail: fishbeinadamj@gmail.com


UNILEVER UNITED: Class Certification Bid in "Fleming" Withdrawn
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Hon. Sharon Johnson Coleman entered an order in the lawsuit
styled Virgil Fleming, et al., the Plaintiffs, v. Unilever United
States, Inc., et al., the Defendants, Case No. 1:14-cv-06117 (N.D.
Ill.), withdrawing Plaintiff's amended motion to certify class
without prejudice.

According to the docket entry made by the Clerk on September 19,
2016, status hearing was held on Sep. 19, 2016. Another status
hearing is set for Sep. 30, 2016 at 9:00 AM. If a stipulation is
filed prior to the next date, the status will be stricken. The
parties shall contact the court if more time is needed and a
continuance may be allowed.

A copy of the Order is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=29em8Dl1


UNITED BEHAVIORAL: Class Cert. Bid in "Alexander" Suit Granted
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Hon. Chief Magistrate Judge Joseph C. Spero in the lawsuit
captioned GARY ALEXANDER, et al., the Plaintiffs, v. UNITED
BEHAVIORAL HEALTH, the Defendant, Case No. 3:14-cv-05337-JCS (N.D.
Cal.), granting Plaintiffs motion for a class certification of:

The Alexander Guideline Class:

     "any member of a health benefit plan governed by ERISA whose
     request for coverage of outpatient or intensive outpatient
     services for a mental illness or substance use disorder was
     denied by UBH, in whole or in part, on or after May 22,
     2011, based upon UBH's Level of Care Guidelines or UBH's
     Coverage Determination Guidelines".

The Alexander Guideline Class excludes any member of a fully
insured plan governed by both ERISA and the state law of
Connecticut, Illinois, Rhode Island or Texas, whose request for
coverage of intensive outpatient treatment or outpatient treatment
related to a substance use disorder.

The Plaintiffs asked the Court to consider certifying issues
classes under Rule 23(c)(4) if it finds that the proposed classes
may not be certified under Rule 23(b). Because the Court concludes
that Plaintiffs have met the requirements for class certification
under Rule 23(b) it does not need to reach this issue.

A copy of the Order is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=tlBBC6Nh

UNITED BEHAVIORAL: Class Certification in "Wit" Suit Granted
------------------------------------------------------------
The Hon. Chief Magistrate Judge Joseph C. Spero in the lawsuit in
the lawsuit captioned DAVID WIT, et al., the Plaintiffs, v.
UNITED BEHAVIORAL HEALTH, the Defendant, Case No. 3:14-cv-02346-
JCS (N.D. Cal.), granting Plaintiffs motion to certify 2 classes:

The Wit Guideline Class:

     "any member of a health benefit plan governed by ERISA whose
     request for coverage of residential treatment services for a
     mental illness or substance use disorder was denied by UBH,
     in whole or in part, on or after May 22, 2011, based upon
     UBH's Level of Care Guidelines or UBH's Coverage
     Determination Guidelines.

The Wit Guideline Class excludes members of the Wit State Mandate
Class, as defined below.

The Wit State Mandate Class:

     "any member of a fully-insured health benefit plan governed
     by both ERISA and the state law of Connecticut, Illinois,
     Rhode Island or Texas, whose request for coverage of
     residential treatment services for a substance use disorder
     was denied by UBH, in whole or in part, on or after May 22,
     2011, based upon UBH's Level of Care Guidelines or UBH's
     Coverage Determination Guidelines and not upon the level-of-
    care criteria mandated by the applicable state law.

The Wit State Mandate Class shall only include denials governed by
Illinois law that occurred on or after August 18, 2011, denials
governed by Connecticut law that occurred on or after October 1,
2013, and denials governed by Rhode Island law that occurred on or
after July 10, 2015. The Wit State Mandate Class excludes members
of the Wit Guideline Class, as defined above.

The Plaintiffs asked the Court to consider certifying classes
under Rule 23(c)(4) if it finds that the proposed classes may not
be certified under Rule 23(b). Because the Court concludes that
Plaintiffs have met the requirements for class certification under
Rule 23(b) it does not need to reach this issue.

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



UNITED STATIONERS: Ill. Court Redefines Class in Alpha Tech Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Hon. Thomas M. Durkin ruled that the Plaintiff's motion for
class certification is entered and continued until a more
appropriate point in the proceedings in the lawsuit titled ALPHA
TECH PET, INC. v. LAGASSE, LLC; ESSENDANT MANAGEMENT SERVICES LLC;
ESSENDANT CO.; UNITED STATIONERS INC.; and JOHN DOES 1-10, Case
No. 16 C 513 (N.D. Ill.).  The Court redefines the class
definition as:

     All persons who (1) on or after four years prior to the
     filing of this action (2) were sent any of the telephone
     facsimile messages attached to this complaint, or (3) were
     sent a telephone facsimile message that included the
     message, If you have received this fax in error, please
     accept our apologies and call toll free 877-385-4440 to be
     removed from our list.

Alpha Tech alleges that the Defendants sent Alpha Tech eight
unsolicited facsimile advertisements in violation of the Telephone
Consumer Protection Act of 1991, as amended by the Junk Fax
Protection Act of 2005.

In his memorandum opinion and order, Judge Durkin denied the
Defendants' motion to dismiss and strike.  The Court also rejects
the Defendants' argument that Alpha Tech's motion for class
certification should be denied as premature.

Despite the Seventh Circuit's decision in Chapman v. First Index,
Inc., 796 F.3d 783, 787 (7th Cir. 2015), which overruled the
reasoning in Damasco v. Clearwire Corp., 662 F.3d 891, 895 (7th
Cir. 2011), requiring placeholder motions for class certification,
the Supreme Court's decision in Campbell-Ewald Co. v. Gomez has
revived the potential need for place holder motions in this
circuit. 136 S.Ct. 663, 672 (2016) ("We need not, and do not, now
decide whether the result would be different if a defendant
deposits the full amount of the plaintiff's individual claim in an
account payable to the plaintiff, and the court then enters
judgment for the plaintiff in that amount."), according to the
Memorandum.

A copy of the Memorandum Opinion and Order is available at no
charge at https://goo.gl/lRyWlP from Leagle.com.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Brian J. Wanca, Esq.
          Glenn L. Hara, Esq.
          Ryan M. Kelly, Esq.
          Ross Michael Good, Esq.
          ANDERSON + WANCA
          3701 Algonquin Road, Suite 500
          Rolling Meadows, IL 60008
          Telephone: (847) 368-1500
          Facsimile: (847) 368-1501
          E-mail: bwanca@andersonwanca.com
                  GHara@andersonwanca.com
                  RKelly@andersonwanca.com
                  rgood@andersonwanca.com

Defendants Lagasse, LLC, Essendant Management Services LLC,
Essendant Co. and United Stationers Inc. are represented by:

          Henry T. Kelly, Esq.
          Lauri Mazzuchetti, Esq.
          Givonna St. Clair Long, Esq.
          KELLEY, DRYE & WARREN LLP
          333 West Wacker Drive, 26th Floor
          Telephone: (312) 857-7070
          Facsimile: (312) 857-7095
          E-mail: hkelly@kelleydrye.com
                  lmazzuchetti@kelleydrye.com
                  glong@kelleydrye.com




UNITEDHEALTHCARE: Plan Members Win Class-Action Status
------------------------------------------------------
Erica Teichert, writing for Modern Healthcare, reports that
hundreds of UnitedHealthcare beneficiaries can sue the insurer as
a class over its mental health coverage, a California federal
judge ruled on September 19.

Chief Magistrate Judge Joseph Spero certified three different
classes of individuals in two class actions against
UnitedHealthcare and its subsidiary United Behavioral Health,
which allege the insurer improperly denied coverage for
residential and outpatient treatment of mental health and
substance abuse disorder issues.

Although as many as 3,000 health plans could be involved in the
lawsuits, the judge determined the variations in those plans
weren't enough to thwart class certification. Spero acknowledged
that the beneficiaries weren't asking the court to determine
whether or not their claims should have been covered. Rather, they
have challenged whether United Behavioral Health's guidelines for
coverage are overly restrictive and violate federal and state law.

"The harm alleged by plaintiffs -- the promulgation and
application of defective guidelines to the putative class members
-- is common to all of the putative class members," the judge said
in his opinion. "Similarly, whether plaintiffs are entitled to the
requested remedy -- adoption of new guidelines that are consistent
with generally accepted standards and/or state law and
reprocessing of claims that were denied under the allegedly
defective guidelines -- can be addressed on a common basis."

The plaintiffs sued UnitedHealthcare in 2014 over treatments that
were denied coverage from 2011 to 2015 under their Employee
Retirement Income Security Act-governed health plans. While the
insurer can deny care based on medical necessity evaluations, the
classes allege United Behavioral Health came up with guidelines
that downplayed chronic and complex mental health and substance
abuse issues and treatment for them.

UnitedHealthcare created the allegedly restrictive coverage
guidelines in the wake of a federal mental health parity law that
required insurers to offer mental health coverage equal to
treatments for physical problems. The company was a defendant in a
2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals case in August 2015 that
determined third-party administrators could be sued over alleged
violations of the law. The law firm Zuckerman Spaeder represented
the plaintiffs in that case and is one of the firms serving as
class counsel in the California suits.

In the current suits, two classes will cover residential treatment
claims and one class encompasses outpatient and intensive
outpatient treatments that weren't covered.

The certification "is an important victory in the fight for mental
health parity," said Meiram Bendat, president of Psych-Appeal and
co-counsel for the plaintiffs. "It signals that health insurers
can be held responsible, on a classwide basis, for denying
insurance coverage for mental health treatment to those
desperately in need. Without class certification, few, if any,
patients will have the financial or emotional resources necessary
to challenge this type of misconduct individually."

United Behavioral Health is the largest managed behavioral
healthcare organization in the U.S., with more than 60 million
members on its plans.


UTOPIA HOME: Home Health Care Companions Lose Class Action Bid
--------------------------------------------------------------
The HR Specialist reports that class-action attorneys love the
Fair Labor Standards Act because it makes it easy for them to take
small individual claims for unpaid overtime and turn them into
mass litigation cases.  That way, a single lawyer or law firm can
represent thousands of similarly situated workers.

That can lead to big paychecks for workers -- and lots of revenue
for the lawyer.

But employers aren't powerless.  They can prepare for possible
collective-action litigation by keeping careful records of exactly
what each employee does.

Doing so may help employers show that the employees' claims aren't
substantially similar because their jobs are different.

The lesson is simple: The bigger the workforce, the more valuable
are accurate job descriptions.

Recent case: Shenitia, a home health care companion, was
classified as exempt from overtime.

She sued, alleging that she provided little "companionship" and
instead spent considerable time providing house cleaning and
maintenance services for her clients.  Shenitia claimed that she
spent more than 20% of her work time doing housekeeping tasks.

She sought to represent more than 5,000 other home health care
companions who worked for the same company.

The employer argued that it could show that each companion had a
different mix of duties based on an individualized care plan each
client received.

That was enough for the court to deny class-action status.  And
that made the case far less valuable to the lawyers bringing it
and the stakes much lower for the employer. (Cowell v. Utopia Home
Care, No. 14-CV-736, ED NY, 2016)


VANCOUVER: Class Suit Filed Over Tax on Foreign Property Purchases
------------------------------------------------------------------
Ashifa Kassam, writing for The Guardian, reports that a class
action lawsuit has been filed in the Canadian city of Vancouver
over a tax on foreign home ownership, just weeks after the measure
was introduced by officials hoping to cool a housing market that
ranks among the world's least affordable.
The provincial government of British Columbia ushered in the 15%
tax some six weeks ago amid growing pressure to curb home prices
in Vancouver. Low interest rates and growing demand from foreign
investors -- many of them from China -- had helped push the cost
of a detached home in Vancouver to C$1.56m in June, a 39% jump
from a year earlier.

The tax, which echoes measures imposed on foreign buyers in
Hong Kong and Singapore, applies to all property purchases in
metro Vancouver by those who are not Canadian or permanent
residents as well as those by corporations that are not registered
in Canada or which are controlled by foreigners.

As many as 4,000 real estate deals were thought to be immediately
affected by the tax. Those caught by surprise by the tax included
Jing Li, a 29-year-old university student from the People's
Republic of China who moved to Canada three years ago and has yet
to obtain permanent residency.

In July, with help from her parents and friends, she put down a
10% deposit on a C$560,000 townhouse in metro Vancouver. The new
tax came into effect soon after, adding C$84,000 to the overall
price of the property. Reneging on the deal will cost her a non-
refundable deposit of C$56,000.

Jing is now the lead plaintiff on the lawsuit, which argues that
the tax violates more than 30 international treaties signed by
Canada. These treaties, entered into with countries ranging from
China to the United States, include provisions to ensure that
Canada treats citizens of these countries as equal to its own
citizens, said Luciana Brasil, a partner with Branch MacMaster
LLP, the law firm that filed the class action suit on behalf of
Jing.

"When I go and buy the same property that Ms Li bought and I don't
have to pay the tax because I happen to have permanent residency
or Canadian citizenship, then she's being treated less
favourably," said Brasil. "It is discrimination based on
commitments that Canada has made not to treat them differently."

The lawsuit, filed on behalf of foreign buyers from more than 30
countries, seeks to overturn the legislation behind the tax as
well as force the province to refund foreign buyers for any tax
paid to date.

In its efforts to address a critical issue, the tax wrongly
targets many foreigners who are legally living and working in
Canada, said Brasil, penalising many of them as they make their
way through the years-long process of obtaining permanent
residency. "We say they used the wrong tool for the job. It's like
trying to use a screwdriver to put a nail in the wall. It just
doesn't work."

A judge will now decide whether the class action suit can proceed,
a process that could take up to a year. The provincial government
has yet to file a response to the lawsuit.

In September, the Real Estate Board of Greater Vancouver linked
the new tax to a 26% drop in home sales in August in the Vancouver
region. The average price of detached properties dropped to
C$1.47m in August, a decrease of 17% from one month earlier.


WELLS FARGO: Faces Class-Action Suit After Accounts Scandal
-----------------------------------------------------------
Paul Blake, writing for Good Morning America, reports that three
Utah residents have filed what may be the first class-action
lawsuit brought by customers against Wells Fargo in the ongoing
fallout over allegations that more than 2 million bank accounts or
credit cards were opened or applied for without customers'
knowledge or permission.

Wells Fargo declined to comment on the suit which was filed in
U.S. District Court in Utah.

The plaintiffs are seeking class-action status on behalf of up to
a million people who may have been affected and damages. The suit
accuses Wells Fargo of "knowing theft, engagement in a continuous
pattern of fraud, [and] conspiracy to commit fraud."

Wells Fargo was slapped with a $100 million fine from the Consumer
Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB), on Sept. 8. It was also hit
with fines from the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency for
$35 million and the County and City of Los Angeles for another $50
million.

About 5,300 Wells Fargo employees were fired in connection to the
allegations.

The bank said in a statement at the time that it takes
responsibility "for any instances where customers may have
received a product that they did not request." Bank officials have
also said that they believe all affected customers have been
refunded, and sought to downplay the terminations, saying that
they represented only about one percent of their workforce. Total
refunds, the bank said earlier this month, amounted to about $2.6
million.

A portion of the banks' unauthorized deposit accounts generated
about $2 million in fees, while a chunk of the credit card
accounts generated about $400,000 in fees, according to a CFPB
document reviewed by ABC News.

Wells Fargo spokeswoman Aimee Worsley told ABC News previously
that the bank believes it has identified and refunded all affected
customers, though it encourages customers who think they may have
been affected to come forward.

Since the announcement of the fines against the bank, the FBI and
federal prosecutors have opened an investigation, a U.S. House of
Representatives committee has said it's launching an investigation
and the Senate has scheduled a hearing for Sept. 20.

The bank did not comment on the announcement of a federal
investigation. Regarding the House investigation, Wells Fargo said
that it welcomed "the opportunity to provide the Committee with
information on this matter and to discuss steps we have taken to
affirm our commitment to customers." A Wells Fargo official said
CEO John Stumpf would attend the Senate hearing.


WELLS FARGO: "Carroll" Suit Gets Pre-Certification Discovery
------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, KELLY CARROLL, Plaintiff, v. WELLS FARGO & COMPANY,
et al., Defendants, Case No. 15-cv-02321-EMC (KAW), (N.D. Cal.),
Magistrate Judge Kandis A. Westmore recognized the Plaintiff's
right to obtain pre-certification discovery.

The Plaintiff alleges various violations of California wage and
hour law against the Defendants and brings the action on behalf of
all Wells Fargo non-exempt employees in California from April 7,
2011 to present.

The United States Supreme Court has recognized the importance of
permitting class counsel to communicate with potential class
members for the purpose of gathering information, even prior to
class certification.

In connection with two joint discovery letters regarding
Plaintiff's ability to obtain information pertaining to the
putative class members prior to class certification, the Court
directed Defendants to produce the information sought for a 25%
sample of the 43,000 putative class members without regard to
position classification, service or platform side, or geographic
area.

The Court held that the Defendants have not claimed that there is
an undue burden in producing information on their proposal of a
statewide basis, and, presumably, there is none, because they are
willing to provide a 10% statewide sample. Thus, Defendant Wells
Fargo is ordered to produce the names, last known addresses, phone
numbers, email addresses, and employee IDs. Notwithstanding,
Defendants are only required to produce email addresses if they
are ordinarily maintained in the database. They need not scour
personnel files to locate email addresses.

The Court further ordered that the information shall be provided
within 21 days from the September 8, 2016 Order. A copy of the
Court's Order is available at https://goo.gl/tJFfSV from
Leagle.com.

Kelly Carroll, Plaintiff, represented by John Manuel Padilla --
jpadilla@pandrlaw.com -- Padilla & Rodriguez, L.L.P..

Kelly Carroll, Plaintiff, represented by Genevieve Estrada , pro
hac vice, Jose Moises Cedillos , pro hac vice, Peggy J. Reali --
preali@markham-law.com -- The Markham Law Firm & Rhonda Kaye
Hunter Wills , Wills Law Firm, PLLC, pro hac vice.

Michael Devito, et al., Intervenors Pla, represented by Peggy J.
Reali -- preali@markham-law.com -- The Markham Law Firm.

Wells Fargo & Company, Defendant, represented by Christian Joseph
Rowley -- crowley@seyfarth.com -- Seyfarth Shaw LLP, Andrew More
McNaught -- amcnaught@seyfarth.com -- Seyfarth Shaw LLP, Rachel
Megan Hoffer , Seyfarth Shaw LLP, pro hac vice, Richard Lee
Alfred, Seyfarth Shaw LLP, pro hac vice, Scott Edward Atkinson
-- satkinson@seyfarth.com -- Seyfarth Shaw LLP & Timothy Mitchell
Watson , Seyfarth Shaw LLP, pro hac vice.


WELLNESS MEDICAL: Physicians Healthsource Seeks to Certify Class
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit styled PHYSICIANS HEALTHSOURCE, INC., an Ohio
corporation, individually and as the representative of a class of
similarly-situated persons, the Plaintiff, v. WELLNESS MEDICAL
PROTECTION GROUP, PLLC, a Michigan professional limited liability
company, R.X.N.B., INC., a Nevada corporation, RXNBI LLC, a Nevada
limited liability company, and JOHN DOES 1-5, the Defendant, Case
No. 1:16-cv-07474 (N.D. Ill.), the Plaintiff asks the Court to
certify a class, appoint Plaintiff as the class representative,
and appoint Plaintiff's attorneys as class counsel.

To avoid the risk of a defendant mooting a putative class
representative's individual stake in the litigation, the Seventh
Circuit in Damasco instructed plaintiffs to file a certification
motion with the complaint, along with a motion to stay briefing on
the certification motion until discovery could commence. Damasco
v. Clearwire Corp., 662 F.3d 891 (7th Cir. 2011), overruled,
Chapman v. First Index, Inc., 796 F.3d 783, 787 (7th Cir. 2015).

As this motion to certify a class is a placeholder motion as
described in Damasco, the parties and the Court should not be
burdened with unnecessary paperwork and the resulting expense when
a one paragraph, single page motion to certify and stay should
suffice until an amended motion is filed, the Plaintiffs contend.

The Plaintiff will file its memorandum after Rule 23 discovery has
been completed. The parties need to meet and confer and propose a
Rule 23 discovery schedule to this Court and Plaintiff requests a
status conference with the Court as soon as practicable.

A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=ULeDFcS6

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Brian J. Wanca, Esq.
          ANDERSON & WANCA
          3701 Algonquin Road, Suite 500
          Rolling Meadows, IL 60008
          Telephone: (847) 368 1500
          Facsimile: (847) 368 1501
          E-mail: bwanca@andersonwanca.com


WELSPUN INDIA: Faces Suit Over False Egyptian Cotton Labeling
-------------------------------------------------------------
Sarah D. Young, writing for Consumer Affairs, reports that
textiles supplier Welspun India Ltd. has landed itself in hot
water recently.  Consumer groups say sheets and towels being
passed off as 100% Egyptian cotton are actually made from much
cheaper cotton.

In August, Target severed ties with Welspun over the
misrepresentation.  Now, two class action lawsuits have been filed
against the supplier.

"Consumers who have purchased Welspun bed linens have overpaid for
an inferior product," a plaintiff alleged in the first lawsuit,
which was filed by Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP.  On Aug 31, a
second class action case was filed in a Missouri federal court.

'Widespread fraud'

Welspun, India's largest textiles manufacturer, supplies home
goods to a number of U.S. retailers including Wal-Mart, Macy's,
and Bed Bath & Beyond.

Wal-Mart recently ousted Welspun sheets from its stores, but
Target was the first retailer to completely end its relationship
with the supplier.  Target is considering filling the void left by
Welspun with linens made by Trident Ltd., another Indian textiles
supplier.

Other retailers who stock Welspun home goods have begun to
investigate the matter further.  Since the fallout, Welspun shares
have fallen 2.2% to 56.6 rupees, Bloomberg reports.

In an effort to make amends, Welspun has hired Ernst & Young LLP
to audit its supply processes.  The supplier says it will also
adopt new labeling practices.

What to do
If you purchased Fieldcrest sheets from Target between Aug 2014
and July 2016, you may be entitled to a refund.

Target has begun letting consumers know that they will get a
refund on certain products (two lines of Egyptian cotton bedding)
under the Fieldcrest label, as they may not be made of Egyptian
cotton as stated.  To request a refund, consumers can submit a web
form.

If you purchased the Better Homes and Gardens brand or Canopy
brand 400 thread count damask striped sheet sets and pillowcases
marked as "100% Egyptian cotton" from Wal-Mart, you may return
them for a refund.


WESTCHESTER MANOR: Faces "Baez" Suit in New York Supreme Court
--------------------------------------------------------------
A lawsuit has been filed against WESTCHESTER MANOR CORP.  The case
is titled BAEZ, GLORIMAR INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF OTHERS
SIMILARLY SITUATED, the Plaintiff v. WESTCHESTER MANOR CORP., DBA
WESTCHESTER MANOR, JOHN GRESIA, ENRICO MARESCHI, the Defendant,
Case No. 55431/2016 (N.Y. Sup. Ct., Sep. 20, 2016).

Westchester Manor offers banquet facilities and catering to
accommodate any special occasion.

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 Defendants are represented by:

          11 Broadway, 6th Floor
          New York, NY 10004
          LAW OFFICE OF ELI FREEDBERG
          Telephone: (347) 651 0044


WHITEWAVE FOODS: Plaintiffs Agree to Dismiss Class Suits
--------------------------------------------------------
The WhiteWave Foods Company  said in its Form 8-K Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on September 9, 2016,
that class action plaintiffs have agreed to dismiss each lawsuit
related to a merger agreement.

The WhiteWave Foods Company (the "Company") entered into an
Agreement and Plan of Merger, dated as of July 6, 2016 (the
"Merger Agreement"), by and among the Company, Danone S.A.
("Parent") and July Merger Sub Inc. ("Merger Sub"), pursuant to
which, among other things, it is proposed that Danone will acquire
WhiteWave for $56.25 per share in an all-cash transaction in which
the Company will merge with Merger Sub (the "Merger").

As disclosed on pages 53-54 of the definitive proxy statement
related to the Merger dated August 30, 2016 (the "Definitive Proxy
Statement") under the heading "Litigation Relating to the Merger,"
as of August 26, 2016, five (5) putative class action lawsuits
have been filed in the United States District Court for the
District of Colorado (the "Court"), each asserting a claim for
violations of Section 14(a) of the Exchange Act and SEC Rule 14a-9
against the Company and its directors and a claim for violations
of Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act against the Company's board
of directors (Malkoff v. Engles, et al., Vanden Berge v. Engles,
et al., McDonald v. The WhiteWave Foods Company, et al., Gilhousen
v. Engles, et al. and Louie v. The WhiteWave Foods Company, et
al.). One lawsuit asserts a claim under Section 20(a) against
Parent and Merger Sub (Louie v. The WhiteWave Foods Company, et
al.). The complaints allege, among other things, that the Company
and its board of directors disseminated a materially misleading
proxy statement.

On August 23, 2016, the Court ordered that four of the then-
pending actions be consolidated, but held in abeyance plaintiff's
request to appoint interim lead counsel and liaison counsel.

In addition, on July 12, 2016, Kenneth Bottesi, a purported
stockholder of WhiteWave, filed a putative class action lawsuit in
the District Court for the City and County of Denver, Colorado,
against the Company, its directors, Parent and Merger Sub,
challenging the proposed merger between the Company and Parent
(Bottesi v. The WhiteWave Foods Company, et al.). The Company
believes that each of the lawsuits is without merit.

On August 18, 2016, the plaintiff in the lawsuit captioned Malkoff
v. Engles, et al., filed a motion for preliminary injunction
pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 65(a), seeking to
enjoin the special meeting of Company stockholders to vote on the
Merger, scheduled for October 4, 2016, unless and until the
Company publicly disclosed certain information plaintiff alleged
was omitted from the Definitive Proxy Statement.

The defendants believe that no further disclosure is required
under applicable laws; however, to avoid the risk of the
litigation delaying or adversely affecting the Merger and to
minimize the expense of defending the litigation related to the
Merger, the defendants have agreed to make the supplemental
disclosures related to the Merger. As a result of the supplemental
disclosures, the named plaintiffs in each of the pending lawsuits
(Bottesi v. The WhiteWave Foods Company, et al., Malkoff v.
Engles, et al., Vanden Berge v. Engles, et al., McDonald v. The
WhiteWave Foods Company, et al., Gilhousen v. Engles, et al. and
Louie v. The WhiteWave Foods Company, et al.) have concluded that
the claims in each of the lawsuits have been mooted, have
determined not to seek to enjoin the special meeting of Company
stockholders to vote on the Merger, and will dismiss each lawsuit
with prejudice on or before September 8, 2016. Nothing in this
Current Report on Form 8-K shall be deemed an admission of the
legal necessity or materiality under applicable laws of any of the
supplemental disclosures set forth herein.


WISCONSIN: Jackson, et al. Seek Certification of 2 Inmate Classes
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit titled SYLVESTER JACKSON, DOUGLAS BALSEWICZ, and
TERRENCE TATUM, on behalf of themselves and all other similarly
situated, the Plaintiffs, v. SCOTT WALKER, JON E. LITSCHER, JAMES
GREER, PAUL KEMPER, STEVEN JOHNSON, LAURA FRAZIER. LORA BLASIUS,
AMY EPPERG. LISA BAKER, AMANDY MORE, MS. KATHY, MS. JENIFFER, JANE
DOE, R.N., BRENDA LABELLE, JAMES LABELLE, a. HILTUNEN, OFFICER
MARTIN, AND DR. CASTILLO, the Defendants, Case No. 16-C-1253 (E.D.
Wisc.), the Plaintiffs move the Court to certify two classes:

RCI class (on whose behalf representative plaintiffs being
constitutional claims in the action):

     "all prisoners who are now or in the future will be
     confined at RCI";

ADA class (on whose behalf representative plaintiffs being
constitutional claims in the action)

     "all individuals with disabilities who are now or in the
     future will be confined at RCI".

A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=j2xCaKa7


* 9th Cir. Invalidates Class Suit Waivers in Mandatory Arbitration
------------------------------------------------------------------
Stephen Franz -- sfranz@lathropgage.com -- and Beth Schroeder --
bschroeder@lathropgage.com -- of Lathrop & Gage LLP in an article
for JDSupra report that at the end of 2015, Governor Jerry Brown
vetoed AB 465, which would have banned mandatory arbitration
agreements in the employment setting, including arbitration
agreements with class action waivers. As many employers know,
including a class action waiver in an arbitration agreement or
clause has been a great deterrent to class action lawsuits over
the past several years since the California courts have blessed
their viability. What Jerry Brown and the California state courts
have given, the Ninth Circuit and the federal courts are trying to
take away.

On August, 22, 2016, a three-judge panel of the Ninth Circuit
Court of Appeals found that class action waivers in mandatory
employee arbitration agreements are unlawful, holding that a class
action waiver contained in an arbitration agreement signed as a
condition of employment violated employees' rights under the
National Labor Relations Act (NLRA). (Morris v. Ernst & Young LLP
(9th Cir. August 22, 2016).) The Morris decision came on the heels
of a May 2016 Seventh Circuit opinion, which ruled the same way.
In contrast, both the Fifth and the Eighth Circuits have found in
favor of employers, holding that such class action waivers are
lawful and do not violate the NLRA. (Note that the victorious
employer in the Eighth Circuit case was represented by Lathrop &
Gage's Kansas City office.)  This creates a "split in the
circuits," or a divide amongst the federal courts interpreting the
NLRA. Unfortunately, for California employers, the state resides
squarely in the Ninth Circuit, and any federal cases brought here
would be governed by the Morris decision.

In Morris, the plaintiff and other accounting employees were
required to sign an arbitration agreement. The agreement mandated
the employees: 1) could only pursue legal claims against Ernst &
Young through arbitration; and (2) could arbitrate only as
individuals and in "separate proceedings" -- effectively, a class
action waiver.  Despite signing these agreements, the employees
brought a class action against Ernst & Young in federal court,
alleging they were misclassified and denied overtime wages. After
Ernst & Young moved to compel arbitration pursuant to the signed
agreements, the trial court ordered the employees to individual
arbitration and dismissed the case. The employees appealed.

In a majority opinion authored by Chief Judge Sidney R. Thomas,
the Ninth Circuit panel concluded that the class action waiver was
unlawful and vacated the trial court's decision to compel
individual arbitration. According to the court, the NLRA provides
employees with the "essential" right to pursue work-related legal
claims together. Because Ernst & Young's mandatory class action
waiver prevented employees from bringing a concerted legal action
(by making them resolve all their work-related legal claims in
"separate proceedings"), the waiver was unlawful and
unenforceable.

Tremendous uncertainty over the future of class action waivers
remains, since as recently as September 8, 2016, Ernst & Young
asked the United States Supreme Court (SCOTUS) to take on the
question of whether class action waivers clash with the NLRA.
However, it is not clear if SCOTUS will agree to hear this case
or, if so, when. This ambiguity is further compounded by
uncertainty over the potential makeup of the Supreme Court if/when
it decides the issue, after the death of Justice Antonin Scalia.

For now, however, employers doing business in the Ninth Circuit,
and California in particular, should be prepared for employees to
challenge class action waivers in mandatory arbitration agreements
in federal court and to deal with this unfavorable precedent.


                            *********

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  * * *