CAR_Public/160928.mbx              C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

           Wednesday, September 28, 2016, Vol. 18, No. 194




                            Headlines


21ST CENTURY: "Delucchi" Sues Over Data Breach
21ST CENTURY: Data Breach Class Actions in Early Stages
A&M CONTRACTORS: Leyva's Bid for Class Cert. Moot, Court Rules
A TOP STAR: Faces "Zauderer" Suit in District of Massachusetts
ADVANCED DRAINAGE: Motion to Dismiss "Wyche" Underway

AIRBNB: Racial Discrimination Class Action Pending
ALCON LABORATORIES: America's Health Agrees to Withdraw Cert. Bid
ALLY FINANCIAL: Final Approval of Class Action Settlement Upheld
ALTA-DENA CERTIFIED: Perez Seeks Cert. of Class and 11 Subclasses
AMERICAN AIRLINES: Faces "Huddleston" Suit in Illinois

AMERICAN WATER: Motions to Remand, File Sur-Reply Denied
AMERICAN RENAL: Wolf Popper Files Securities Class Action
ANGIODYNAMICS INC: Purcell Investigates Potential Fiduciary Claim
ARCHDIOCESE OF AGANA: Sex Abuse Victims Urged to Join Class Suit
ARTHROSCOPIC & LASER: Settles Class Action for $5 Million

ASCENA RETAIL: Mediation Scheduled for September 20 in "Linares"
AXIALL CORP: Faces Class Action Over Chlorine Gas Leak
BARNES AND NOBLE: Faces "Brown" Suit Under FLSA, Ill. Wage Law
BLS LIMOUSINE: "Andujar" Seeks Judicial Intervention in Labor Case
BLUENRGY GROUP: Rosen Law Firm Files Securities Class Action

CELADON GROUP: Appeal in "Wilmoth" Class Action Pending
CHARIOT TRANSIT: Faces "Love" Suit in California Superior Court
CHC GROUP: Awaits Hearing Date on Motion to Dismiss Class Suit
CHESTER COUNTY: Faces "Slivak" Suit in E.D. of Pennsylvania
CHIPOTLE: To Go on Hiring Spree Amid Wage Theft Suit

COLONIAL FREIGHT: Faces "Davis" Lawsuit Alleging FLSA Violation
DELAWARE: DOC Settles Solitary Confinement Class Action
DUKE ENERGY: Ind. App. Revives Bellwether Properties Suit
EPIQ SYSTEMS: Settled Class Action Related to Merger Deal
EXECUTIVE CLEANING: Faces "Acosta" Suit in E.D. of New York

EZ DOCTORS: Faces "Ramos" Suit in S.D. of California
EZ RX BONITA: Faces Class Suit in Middle District of Florida
FACEBOOK INC: Obtains Favorable Ruling in Privacy Class Action
FARMER BROS: Court Set Oct. 18 Case Management Conference
FENTON & MCGARVEY: Tetik Amends Bid for Certification of Class

FIDELITY NATIONAL: 3rd Cir. OKs Bipolar Arbitration in "Chassen"
FORD MOTOR: Class Certification in "Agrawal" Reversed
FREEPORT-MCMORAN OIL: Class Certification Sought in "Garcia" Suit
GANNETT: Loses Bid to Dismiss Privacy Class Action
GOLDEN ENTERPRISES: "Goss" Sues BOD Over Sale to Utz Quality

GREAT PLAINS ENERGY: Plaintiff Agree to Withdraw Injunction Bid
HSBC BANK: NY Court Dismisses "Hill" Amended Complaint
HUTCHINSON CITY, KS: Class Action Mulled Over Storm Water Fees
ITT EDUCATIONAL: Faces Class Action Over Sudden Mass Layoff
JEFFERSON COUNTY PUBLIC: Court Certifies Class in "Cochran" Suit

JL INVESTMENT: "Ricardo" Suit Moved from Cir. Ct. to S.D. Fla.
JOSHUA BLACKMAN: Files Appeal in "Gascho" Class Action
JPMORGAN CHASE: Maine Court Revives "Sabina" Action
JUNO THERAPEUTICS: Faces Securities Class Action in Washington
KINDRED HEALTHCARE: Agreed to Pay Plaintiffs' Counsel Fee

L'OREAL: Faces Class Action Over Amla Legend Hair Relaxer
LIFE PROTECT: Parties Agree to Terminate "Primack" Class Suit
LINCOLN HERITAGE: Faces "Mckenzie" Suit in E.D. of Pennsylvania
LINCOLN PARK, MI: Residents File Class Action Over Flood Damage
LINN COUNTY: Class Action v. Forestry Dep't Steps Closer to Trial

LOUISIANA: Faces Class Action Over Solar Tax Credit Cap
LUMBER LIQUIDATORS: "Frazier" Suit Moved to Dist. S. Carolina
MAJOR LEAGUE: Judge Reconsiders Class Certification Motion
MARCOAH GROUP: Byer Clinic's Bid to Certify to Be Heard on Oct. 4
MCKEE FOODS: "Martin" Seeks to Certify Class of Cal. Distributors

MDL 2646: Settlement Order in Justice Pricing Suits Under Appeal
MIAMI, FL: Suit Over Red-Light Camera Fines Ongoing
MONTEREY FINANCIAL: Jurisdictional Discovery Held in "Brinkley"
NATIONAL MILK: December 16 Settlement Approval Hearing Set
NATIONAL RECOVERY: Judge Allows Fee Class Action to Proceed

NATIONWIDE MUTUAL: 6th Cir. Says Data Breach Suit Can Proceed
NBTY INC: Court Narrows Claims in "Muir" Mislabeling Complaint
NETSOL TECHNOLOGIES: Court Granted Final Approval to Settlement
NEW YORK: Five Families Mull Class Action Against OPDD
NORDIC NATURALS: CA Affirms Dismissal of "Hoffman" Complaint

OGEMAW COUNTY: Defendants Win Summary Judgment in Inmates' Suit
ONTARIO: Lakefront Owners File $900MM Civil Action v. MNRF
PATHEON N.V.: Oral Contraceptive Class Action Pending
PERCHERON ENERGY: Landmen File Class Action Over Unpaid OT Wages
PERNIX THERAPEUTICS: Bankr. Trustee's Bid to Settle Denied

PETRO RIVER: Motion to Alter Judgment in Donelson-Friend Pending
PIZZA HUT: Franchise Owner to Appeal Class Action Dismissal
POLARIS INDUSTRIES: "Orr" Suit Claims Violation of Securities Act
PORTFOLIO RECOVERY: Wins Summary Judgment in "Panico" Case
PRECISION OPINION: Faces "Wilber" Suit in District of Arizona

PRIME HEALTHCARE: Cal. App. Reverses Dismissal of "Moran" Case
PTZ INSURANCE: Pethealth Can't Escape Robocalls Suit
QUORUM HEALTH: "Rao" Sues Over Shady Spinoff Deal
RADIANT LOGISTICS: Status Conference Continued Until Oct. 31
SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS: Sued Over Exploding Galaxy Note 7 Smartphone

SCHWABE NORTH: "Sonner" Seeks Certification of Multi-State Class
SLATER & GORDON: Faces Class Action Over Quindell Purchase
SN SERVICING: Faces "Tran" Suit in Eastern District of Penn.
SQUARE INC: Court Dismisses "White" Amended Complaint
STANDARD INNOVATION: Faces Class Action Over We-Vibe Vibrator

SWITRONIX INC: Faces "Klein" Suit in New York Supreme Court
SYNGENTA AG: Status Hearing in MIR162 Corn MDL Set for October 4
TH HEALTHCARE: Nurse Files Class Action Over Unpaid OT Wages
TIME WARNER: Court Upholds Set-Top Box Class Action Dismissal
TRANSWORLD SYSTEMS: Faces "Orzel" Suit in E.D. of New York

TROPICAL SMOOTHIE: 66 Hepatitis Cases Linked to Virginia Cafes
UNITED AUTO: Vinny's Landscaping Suit Survives Dismissal Bid
UNITED HEALTHCARE: Faces "Frisk" Suit Seeking OT Pay Under FLSA
UNITED STATES: 9th Cir. Reverses Atty. Fees Ruling in "Wood" Case
USA TECHNOLOGIES: Expects Appeals Court to Remand Suit

UTOPIA HOME: Worker Appeals Class Certification Denial
VCA ANTECH: Wins Bid for Summary Judgment in "Graham" Suit
VIOLIN MEMORY: Court Granted Final Approval to $7.5MM Settlement
VIRGIN AMERICA: "Bernstein" Seeks to Certify Class of Attendants
VOLKSWAGEN AG: Lawyer Challenges Irish Court Jurisdiction

WARDEN MONMOUTH: 3rd Cir. Vacates Prior Orders in "Gayle" Case
WELLS FARGO: Faces "Mitchell" Suit in Utah for Unfair Competition
WELSPUN INDIA: Faces Class Actions Over Alleged Fraud
WELSPUN INDIA: Faces "Brower" Suit Over Bed Linen Mislabeling
WHIRLPOOL: Oct. 11 Washer Settlement Claims Filing Deadline Set

WHITESTONE BAGEL: Faces "Arriola" Suit Alleging FLSA Violation
ZAIS FINANCIAL: "Dexter" Action Resolved, Except Attorneys' Fees

* 2nd Circuit May Reverse Class-Action Waiver Ruling
* Evolution of Summary Judgment Seen in Canadian Class-Actions
* Municipalities Face Class Actions Over Water, Sewer Fees
* Report Reveals Banks with Most Number of Customer Complaints


                            *********


21ST CENTURY: "Delucchi" Sues Over Data Breach
----------------------------------------------
Veneta Delucchi and Bradley Bernius, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. 21st Century
Oncology Holdings, Inc., Defendants, Case No. 2:16-cv-00695, (Cal.
Super., September 9, 2016), seeks actual and statutory damages,
restitution and disgorgement, equitable, injunctive and
declaratory relief, all costs, including experts' fees and
attorneys' fees and pre-judgment and post-judgment interest
resulting from negligence, breach of implied covenant of good
faith and fair dealing, unjust enrichment and violation of the
Florida Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act, California
Confidentiality of Medical Information Act and Customer Records
Act.

Cyber thieves hacked into 21st Century Oncology's provider
database around October 3, 2015, compromising 2.2 million members'
database including that of the Plaintiffs' Social Security numbers
and highly sensitive medical information, physician's names,
medical diagnoses, treatment information and insurance
information.

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Robert C. Gilbert, Esq.
      KOPELOWITZ OSTROW FERGUSON WElSELBERG GILBERT
      2800 Ponce de Leon Blvd., Suite 1100
      Coral Gables, FL 33134
      Telephone: (305) 529-8858
      Facsimile: (954) 525-4300
      Email: gilbert@kolawyers.com

             - and -

      Gretchen Freeman Cappio, Esq.
      Cari Campen Laufenberg, Esq.
      Amy N. L. Hanson, Esq.
      KELLER ROHRBACK L.L.P.
      1201 Third Avenue, Suite 3200
      Seattle, WA 98101
      Telephone: (206) 623-1900
      Facsimile: (206) 623-3384
      Email: gcappio@kellerrohrback.com
             claufenberg@kellerrohrback.com
             ahanson@kellerrohrback.com

             - and -

      Daniel C. Girard, Esq.
      Jordan Elias, Esq.
      Esfand Y. Nalisi, Esq.
      Linh G. Vuong, Esq.
      GIRARD CIBBS LLP
      601 California Street, l4th Floor
      San Francisco, CA 94108
      Telephone: (415) 981-4800
      Facsimile: (415) 981-4866
      Email: dcg@girardgibbs.com
             je@girardgibbs.com
             eyn@girardgibbs.com
             lgv@girardgibbs.com


21ST CENTURY: Data Breach Class Actions in Early Stages
-------------------------------------------------------
21st Century Oncology Holdings, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on September 20,
2016, for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2016, that the class
action complaints related to the data breach isare in the early
stages.

On November 13, 2015, the Company advised by the Federal Bureau of
Investigation (the "FBI") that patient information was illegally
obtained by an unauthorized third party who may have gained access
to a company database. The Company immediately hired a leading
forensic firm to support its investigation, assess its system and
bolster its security. Based on its investigation, the Company
determined that the intruder may have accessed the database on
October 3, 2015. The Company notified approximately 2.2 million
current and former patients that certain information may have been
copied and transferred.

Following the data breach, the Company received notice that class
action complaints had been filed against the Company and certain
of its affiliates in Florida and California. The complaints
allege, among other things, that the Company failed to take the
necessary security precautions to protect patient information and
prevent the data breach.

"We expect certain, if not all, of the claims to be consolidated
to the extent permitted by the courts. Because of the early stages
of these matters and the uncertainties of litigation, we cannot
predict the ultimate resolution of these matters or estimate the
amounts of, or ranges of, potential loss, if any, with respect to
these proceedings," the Company said.

In addition, the Company has received a request for information
regarding the data breach and the Company?s response from the
Office for Civil Rights as well as additional inquiries from State
Attorneys General. The Company has responded to each of those
inquiries and provided the information requested. The Company
could face fines or penalties as a result of these inquiries.
However, due to the early stages of these matters, we cannot
predict the ultimate resolution or estimate the amounts of, or
ranges of, potential loss, if any.

The Company has insurance coverage and contingency plans for
certain potential liabilities relating to the data breach.
Nevertheless, the coverage may be insufficient to satisfy all
claims and liabilities related thereto and the Company will be
responsible for deductibles and any other expenses that may be
incurred in excess of insurance coverage.


A&M CONTRACTORS: Leyva's Bid for Class Cert. Moot, Court Rules
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Plaintiff's opposed motion to certify class is moot, according
to Judge Melinda Harmon's order entered in the lawsuit titled
SANTIAGO LEYVA v. A&M CONTRACTORS, INC., et al, Case No. 4:16-cv-
00631 (S.D. Tex.).

According to the Order, since the filing of the Motion, the
parties came to an agreement and filed a joint motion for
conditional collective action certification and notice, which the
Court granted.  Therefore, the Court orders that the Motion is
moot.

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


A TOP STAR: Faces "Zauderer" Suit in District of Massachusetts
--------------------------------------------------------------
A lawsuit has been filed against A Top Star Inc. The case is
captioned MARC J ZAUDERER, a Massachusetts resident, individually
and as the representative of a class of similarly-situated
persons, the Plaintiff, v. A Top Star Inc., doing business as
Optimus Dental Supply, John Doe, 1, John Doe, 2, John Doe, 3, John
Doe, 4, and John Doe, 5, the Defendants, Case No. 1:16-cv-11913-
WGY (D. Mass., Sept. 21, 2016). The assigned Judge is Hon. William
G. Young.

Optimus Dental offers full line of dental supplies including
gloves, sanitization pouches, disposables, anesthetics, burs, and
endo products.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Alan L. Cantor, Esq.
          SWARTZ & SWARTZ
          Ten Marshall Street
          Boston, MA 02108
          Telephone: (617) 742 1900
          Facsimile: (617) 367 7193
          E-mail: acantor@swartzlaw.com


ADVANCED DRAINAGE: Motion to Dismiss "Wyche" Underway
-----------------------------------------------------
Advanced Drainage Systems, Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on September 15, 2016,
for the fiscal year ended March 31, 2016, that the Company will
defend against allegations in the stockholder class action by
Christopher Wyche.

On July 29, 2015, a putative stockholder class action, Christopher
Wyche, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated
v. Advanced Drainage Systems, Inc., et al. (Case No. 1:15-cv-
05955-KPF), was commenced in the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of New York, naming the Company, along with
Joseph A. Chlapaty, the Company's Chief Executive Officer, and
Mark B. Sturgeon, the Company's former Chief Financial Officer, as
defendants and alleging violations of the federal securities laws.

An amended complaint was filed on April 28, 2016. The amended
complaint alleges that the Company made material
misrepresentations and/or omissions of material fact in its public
disclosures during the period from July 25, 2014 through March 29,
2016, in violation of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and Rule 10b-5 promulgated
thereunder. Plaintiffs seek an unspecified amount of monetary
damages on behalf of the putative class and an award of costs and
expenses, including counsel fees and expert fees.

The Company believes that it has valid and meritorious defenses
and will vigorously defend against these allegations, but
litigation is subject to many uncertainties and the outcome of
this matter is not predictable with assurance. While it is
reasonably possible that this matter ultimately could be decided
unfavorably to the Company, the Company is currently unable to
estimate the range of the possible losses, but they could be
material.

                           *     *     *

The Defendant has filed a motion to dismiss an Amended Complaint
and on Sept. 22, 2016, Wyche, on behalf of all others similarly
situated, filed a Memorandum of Law in Opposition to Defendant's
Motion to Dismiss Amended Class Action Complaint.


AIRBNB: Racial Discrimination Class Action Pending
--------------------------------------------------
Marissa Melton, writing for VOA, reports that Rohan Gilkes, an
African-American entrepreneur, tried to book lodging for his
summer vacation this July through Airbnb, a popular worldwide
home-sharing company that allows people to rent their rooms,
apartments or entire homes on a short-term basis to travelers,
through one-on-one transactions.  When an Airbnb host declined his
request for a reservation, Mr. Gilkes was surprised.

"I had heard about #AirbnbWhileBlack," he says, mentioning a
Twitter hashtag that circulated widely after African-American
users complained publicly about racial discrimination by Airbnb
hosts.  "So I got one of my [white] friends to apply, and they
were approved right away."

Airbnb transactions are confirmed using photographs and personal
profiles to identify prospective renters and connect them with
apartment hosts.

Mr. Gilkes was surprised and dismayed by his experience.  What was
more upsetting, however, was that when he contacted Airbnb about
what he saw as discrimination, he said the firm offered little in
the way of support.  So he wrote down his story and put it online.
It went viral.

"I woke up to 2,000 emails," he said, from other people who had
experienced the same thing.  "That's when I realized it was a
systemic problem."

And no small one.  Airbnb says it serves 60 million clients and
has more than two million listings in 191 countries.

#AirbnbWhileBlack came to national attention several months ago
when a lawsuit was filed by Gregory Selden, an African-American
man in his 20s from Washington, D.C., who tried to book
accommodation last year in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania.
Mr. Selden was told by a property owner that the space he wanted
to rent was unavailable, but when he altered his Airbnb profile
using pictures of a white man's face, his rental was accepted for
the same dates.

Like Gilkes, Selden complained to Airbnb and was dissatisfied with
the result.  He initiated a class-action lawsuit, citing
complaints from other Airbnb users of color who had had difficulty
finding a host who would accept them.  Airbnb users must sign a
class-action waiver in order to use the service, which could
negate the legal action; the case is still pending.

Airbnb has been hit by discrimination complaints in the past.  A
working paper published by Harvard University this month found
that not only was it harder for black people to find accommodation
through Airbnb, but even black Airbnb hosts were more likely to
refuse a black person than white hosts.  The finding held true not
only for people who were obviously black in their profile
photographs, but also people with names that are more common to
black people than whites.

"The difference persists whether the host is African-American or
white, male or female.  The difference also persists whether the
host shares the property with the guest or not, and whether the
property is cheap or expensive," according to the Harvard study,
prepared by Benjamin Edelman, Michael Luca and Dan Svirsky.

The experts also noted that discrimination costs hosts money: they
found that hosts who rejected black guests were only able to find
replacement guests 35 percent of the time.

Enter Airbnb's new anti-discrimination policy, promised in June
and delivered, as promised, in September.  Critics say it doesn't
go far enough.

Many people familiar with the AirbnbWhileBlack phenomenon say user
profile pictures are a major source of the discrimination problem.

Airbnb has not promised to eliminate use of profile photos, as
some of its critics have proposed, but instead says it will work
on "reducing the prominence of guest photos in the booking
process."  The company said photographs are an important element
in building trust between hosts and guests.

The home-sharing company also says it will encourage customers to
use its "instant book" listings, an automatic service that makes
reservations without prior host approval of specific guests, based
on a pre-approved calendar.  And it says it is improving the
diversity of its own staff and putting better customer-service
policies in place for discrimination complaints.

Airbnb's policy statement issued this month promises, "If a guest
is not able to book a listing because they have been discriminated
against, Airbnb will ensure the guest finds a place to stay."  In
addition, Airbnb says it recognizes the need to expand its host
opportunities in communities of color.

But the new policy has its limits. "You can't pass a law or policy
to change somebody's mind," says Reid Breitman of Kuzyk Law in Los
Angeles.  "You can't make somebody trust somebody."

Real estate analyst Emile L'Eplattenier of Fit Small Business in
New York says Airbnb hosts have good reason to be choosy about
their renters.  "There have been many stories in the news of
Airbnb guests trashing their hosts' apartments, having wild
parties, or using them for drug-fueled trysts.  Every single one
of those guests technically was vetted by Airbnb.  Why shouldn't
hosts be able to use their own judgment when renting their homes
to strangers from the internet?"

Meanwhile, Mr. Gilkes says, people of color remain underserved. He
and a business partner, Zakkiyah Myers, are about four weeks away
from opening their own business designed to provide a more
welcoming experience to people of color.  Their website,
Innclusive, looks very similar to Airbnb's, but Mr. Gilkes says
there are some important differences.  For one, hosts and guests
won't see pictures of each other until after the booking is made.

"If you show photographs before the person accepts the guests,
you're introducing bias into the platform," Mr. Gilkes says.
"People are making decisions based on how they look . . . not
whether they'd be good potential guests."  Another thing they'll
do, something Airbnb has picked up as well, is to close dates to
subsequent requests if a host rejects a guest for a particular set
of dates.

In addition, Mr. Gilkes says, Innclusive is working on a platform
that will cooperate with Airbnb's booking system so hosts can list
their properties on both sites without fear of double-booking.

Innclusive will also pick up one of Airbnb's strong trust-building
features, reviews of both guests and hosts.  Those reviews, and
not racial profiling, Mr. Gilkes says, are the right place to go
for information on whether guests and hosts have the same
standards of behavior.


ALCON LABORATORIES: America's Health Agrees to Withdraw Cert. Bid
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The Hon. Thomas M. Durkin signed the parties' stipulation and
order withdrawing motion for class certification filed in the
lawsuit captioned AMERICA'S HEALTH & RESOURCE CENTER, LTD., an
Illinois Corporation, individually and as the representative of a
class of similarly-situated persons v. ALCON LABORATORIES, INC.,
NOVARTIS PHARMACEUTICALS CORPORATION, and JOHN DOES 1-12, Case No.
1:16-cv-04539 (N.D. Ill.).

The Stipulation and Order provides that Defendants Alcon
Laboratories, Inc., and Novartis Pharmaceuticals Corporation
stipulate that they will not make any offer or tender to the
Plaintiff, including but not limited to an offer pursuant to Rule
68 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, or a deposit of the
full amount of the Plaintiff's individual claim in an account
payable to the Plaintiff.

However, the Stipulation does not preclude the Defendants from
serving an offer or tender to the Plaintiff in these
circumstances: (1) If the Defendants send all counsel of record
for the Plaintiff an e-mail notifying it that the Defendants
intend to serve an offer or tender on an individual basis, then
the Defendants may serve such tender or offer beginning on the
tenth (10th) day after the e-mail notification was sent (but not
before such time); (2) the Defendants may serve an offer or tender
on a class-wide basis at any time.

In consideration of the foregoing, the Plaintiff stipulates to
withdraw the pending motion for class certification without
prejudice.

A copy of the Stipulation and Order is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=bIbD7wi5

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Francis A. Citera, Esq.
          Gregory E. Ostfeld, Esq.
          Kyle L. Flynn, Esq.
          GREENBERG TRAURIG, LLP
          777 W. Wacker Drive, Suite 3100
          Chicago, IL 60601
          Telephone: (312) 456-8400
          Facsimile: (312) 456-8435
          E-mail: ostfeldg@gtlaw.com
                  citeraf@gtlaw.com
                  flynnk@gtlaw.com

The Defendants are represented by:

          Phillip A. Bock, Esq.
          Tod A. Lewis, Esq.
          David M. Oppenheim, 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
          E-mail: phil@classlawyers.com
                  tod@classlawyers.com
                  david@classlawyers.com
                  julia@classlawyers.com


ALLY FINANCIAL: Final Approval of Class Action Settlement Upheld
----------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Patricia Bamattre-Manoukian of the California Court of
Appeals affirmed trial court's April 29, 2014 final order and
judgment approving and incorporating a class action settlement in
which respondent Ally Financial Inc. resolved the claims of a
class of persons, including appellants Patricia Trujillo and
Joseph Riley, who had defaulted on their auto loans and had their
automobiles repossessed by Ally.

The appellate case is captioned, ALLY FINANCIAL INC., Plaintiff,
Cross-defendant and Respondent, v. ANGELA C. LAZROVICH et al.,
Defendants and Cross-complainants; PATRICIA TRUJILLO et al.,
Objectors and Appellants, Case No. H041197 (Cal. App.).

In March 2011 Ally filed a complaint against Angela C. Lazrovich
alleging that she had defaulted on her auto loan. Ally further
alleged that Lazrovich owed a deficiency balance of $28,400.98,
which was the loan balance that remained after Ally had
repossessed and sold her automobile. Ally sought a judgment in the
amount of the deficiency balance plus attorney's fees and costs.

Lazrovich responded by filing a class action cross-complaint
against Ally in April 2011. In the first amended cross-complaint
Lazrovich and two other named cross-complainants, Bobby Jackson
and Pamela Jackson, asserted that they did not owe a deficiency
balance because Ally's notice of intent to dispose of a
repossessed motor vehicle (NOI) was defective. Specifically, they
claimed that the NOI was defective because it did not include all
of the disclosures mandated by the Automobile Sales Finance Act
(Rees-Levering Act).

The causes of action in the cross-complaint included (1) violation
of the Rees-Levering Act, section 2981; (2) violation of Business
and Professions Code section 17200; and (3) conversion. The
remedies sought included class certification, declaratory relief,
injunctive relief, damages, and attorney's fees. In addition,
cross-complaints sought an order requiring Ally to "send a letter
to each of the credit reporting agencies instructing them to
delete all references to the trade lines3 of class members,
including, but not limited to any reference to repossessions,
deficiency balances allegedly owed, and/or charge-offs of such
balances."

The parties entered into a proposed class action settlement that
defined the settlement class as "all persons: (a) who purchased a
Motor Vehicle in California under a Conditional Sale Contract and
whose contract was assigned to Ally; (b) whose Motor Vehicle was
repossessed or voluntarily surrendered to Ally; (c) who were
issued an NOI by Ally between March 4, 2007 and August 2, 2011;
and (d) against whose account a Deficiency Balance was assessed."

The trial court's June 18, 2013 order certified the settlement
class; preliminarily approved the class action settlement;
approved the notice of proposed class action settlement and the
claim form that were attached to the settlement agreement. Ally
affirms that as of August 1, 2012, there are approximately 16,943
members of the Settlement Class, whose deficiency balances total
approximately $173,353.175. However, as part of this settlement,
Ally will forgive and stop all efforts to collect the remaining
deficiency balances. Ally agrees not to pursue collection of any
deficiency balance remaining after the sale of the repossessed
vehicles which are the subject of the Action.

In January 2014, class counsel filed a motion for final approval
of the class action settlement, contending that all of the
relevant factors weighed in favor of final approval. Among other
factors, class counsel argued that "the class has achieved nearly
all the relief it could have obtained had it gone to trial and
prevailed on the merits."

On March 6, 2014, Trujillo filed a memorandum of points and
authorities in opposition to the motion for final approval of the
class action settlement. Class counsel filed a reply to Trujillo's
opposition, arguing that the opposition was procedurally barred
since it was filed more than five months after the September 2013
deadline for filing an objection to the settlement.

On March 24, 2014, the day before the hearing on the motion for
final approval of class action settlement, Riley filed a request
"for opt out and exclusion from final approval of class action
settlement." The trial court denied Riley's request for opt out
and exclusion during the hearing on the motion for final approval
of class action settlement that was held on March 25, 2014.

The trial court granted final approval finding that the settlement
agreement to be "fair, adequate, and reasonable" and provides that
the final judgment incorporates the settlement agreement. The
court also found that class counsel and the named plaintiffs had
adequately represented the interests of the class; the class was
appropriate for certification for settlement purposes; and the
class notice constituted the best notice practicable and was in
full compliance with due process and the California Rules of
Court.

The Appeals Court noted that on appeal, Trujillo and Riley contend
that the judgment should be reversed because the class action
settlement is unfair and unreasonable due to the failure of the
defective class notice to disclose to the class members that they
would incur federal income tax liability as a result of Ally's
debt cancellation and debt forgiveness. They also contend that
class members should not have been required to give a "full
Section 1542 release" without Ally admitting that its NOIs were
defective.

In her Opinion dated September 13, 2016 available at
https://is.gd/cWLygD from Leagle.com, Judge Bamattre-Manoukian
determined that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in
(1) denying Riley's request for opt out and exclusion from the
class action settlement because he failed to provide a convincing
reason for his failure to file his request for opt out and
exclusion at any time sooner than the day before the March 25,
2014 hearing on the motion for final approval of the class action
settlement; (2) finding that the class notice in the case
adequately informed the class members of the potential tax
consequences of accepting the settlement benefits.


ALTA-DENA CERTIFIED: Perez Seeks Cert. of Class and 11 Subclasses
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The Plaintiff in the lawsuit entitled JUAN PEREZ, on behalf of
himself and those similarly situated v. ALTA-DENA CERTIFIED DAIRY,
LLC, a Delaware Limited Liability Company; and DOES 1 through 10,
inclusive, Case No. 2:13-cv-07741-R-FFM (C.D. Cal.), asks the
Court to certify these class and subclasses:

     Plaintiff Class: All persons who were employed by Defendant
     as a "Driver" in California for as long as the statutory
     period will allow (the "putative class").


     Subclass 1 ("Meal Period Subclass"): All Plaintiff Class
     Members who worked a shift of five hours or more for
     Defendant from [February 7, 2008] [May 15, 2009]1 to May 31,
     2011.

     Subclass 2 ("Meal Period Subclass 2008-2011 A")
     (*alternative to Subclass 1): All Plaintiff Class Members
     who worked a shift of five hours or more for Defendant from
     [February 7, 2008] [May 15, 2009] through December 31, 2010.

     Subclass 3 ("Meal Period Subclass 2008-2011 B")
     (*alternative to Subclass 1): All Plaintiff Class Members
     who worked a shift of ten or more for Defendant from
     [February 7, 2008] [May 15, 2009] through December 31, 2010.

     Subclass 4 ("Rest Period Subclass"): All Plaintiff Class
     Members who worked a shift of eight hours or more for
     Defendant from [February 7, 2008] [May 15, 2009] through
     December 31, 2010.

     Subclass 5 ("30 Minute Deduction Subclass - Regular Rate or
     Minimum Wage"): All Plaintiff Class Members who worked a
     shift of five hours or more for Defendant from [February 7,
     2008] [May 15, 2009] through the date of the Certification
     Order.

     Subclass 6 ("30 Minute Deduction Subclass - Overtime"): All
     Plaintiff Class Members who worked hours eligible for
     overtime compensation (inclusive of the 30 minute credit for
     each day such time was automatically deducted) for Defendant
     from [February 7, 2008] [May 15, 2009] through May 31, 2011.

     Subclass 7 ("30 Minute Deduction Subclass - Regular Rate or
     Minimum Wage Based on Defendant's Records") (*alternative to
     Subclass 4): All Plaintiff Class Members who worked a shift
     of five hours or more for Defendant from [February 7, 2008]
     [May 15, 2009] through the date of the Certification Order
     without recording 30 minutes of off-duty time, but who had
     30 minutes of hourly wages automatically deducted by
     Defendant's auto-deduct policy as shown by Defendant's
     corporate business and payroll records.

     Subclass 8 ("30 Minute Deduction Subclass - Overtime")
     (*alternative to Subclass 5): All Plaintiff Class Members
     who worked a shift of five hours or more for Defendant from
     [February 7, 2008] [May 15, 2009] through May 31, 2011
     without recording 30 minutes of off-duty time, but who had
     30 minutes of hourly wages automatically deducted by
     Defendant's auto-deduct policy - and who worked hours
     eligible for overtime compensation, but whose overtime pay
     was unpaid and/or reduced as a result of Defendant's
     auto-deduct policy - as shown by Defendant's corporate
     business and payroll records.

     Subclass 9 ("Paystub Subclass"): All Plaintiff Class Members
     who worked for Defendant from [February 7, 2011] [May 15,
     2012] to the date established by the Certification Order.

     Subclass 10 ("The Termination Pay Subclass"): All Plaintiff
     Class Members whose employment was separated from
     [February 7, 2009] [May 15, 2010] to the date established by
     the Certification Order.

     Subclass 11 ("UCL Subclass"): All Plaintiff Class members
     who worked for Defendant from [February 7, 2008] [May 15,
     2009] through the date of the Certification Order and are
     owed restitution for "hours worked" without pay [because of
     Defendant's route restriction policy] or [as shown by
     Defendant's corporate business and payroll records].

A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=3JVcD3JV

The Court will commence a hearing on October 17, 2016, at 10:00
a.m., to consider the Motion.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Timothy B. McCaffrey, Jr., Esq.
          Natasha Chesler, Esq.
          THE LAW OFFICES OF TIMOTHY B. McCAFFREY, JR.
          A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION
          11377 West Olympic Boulevard, Suite 500
          Los Angeles, CA 90064-1683
          Telephone: (310) 882-6407
          Facsimile: (310) 882-6359
          E-mail: tmccaffrey@tbmlaw.net
                  nchesler@tbmlaw.net


AMERICAN AIRLINES: Faces "Huddleston" Suit in Illinois
------------------------------------------------------
LUCAS HUDDLESTON, on Behalf of Himself and All Others Similarly
Situated, Plaintiff, v. AMERICAN AIRLINES, INC., Defendant, Case
No. 1:16-cv-09100 (N.D. Ill., September 20, 2016), alleges that
American Airlines unilaterally imposes on its passengers a set of
rules and requirements called an International General Tariff and
yet systematically bars passengers from traveling when they
attempt to check in within arbitrary time limits that are not
mentioned in, and are not a part of, their Contract.

American Airlines, Inc. -- https://www.aa.com/ -- operates as a
passenger and cargo air carrier.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Daniel Lynch, Esq.
     James Thompson, Esq.
     LYNCH THOMPSON LLP
     150 S Wacker Drive, Suite 2600
     Chicago, IL 60606
     Phone: (312) 346-1600
     Fax: (312) 896-5883
     E-mail: dlynch@lynchthompson.com
             jthompson@lynchthompson.com

        - and -

     Michael J. Boni, Esq.
     Joshua D. Snyder, Esq.
     John E. Sindoni, Esq.
     BONI & ZACK LLC
     15 St. Asaphs Rd.
     Bala Cynwyd, PA 1900
     Phone: 610-822-0200
     E-mail: mboni@bonizack.com
             jsnyder@bonizack.com
             jsindoni@bonizack.com

       - and -

     Benjamin Edelman, Esq.
     169 Walnut Street
     Brookline, MA 02445
     Phone: (617) 359-3360
     E-mail: ben@benedelman.org

        - and -

     Oren S. Giskan, Esq.
     GISKAN SOLOTAROFF & ANDERSON LLP
     11 Broadway, #2150
     New York, NY 10004
     Phone: (212) 847-8315
     E-mail: ogiskan@gslawny.com


AMERICAN WATER: Motions to Remand, File Sur-Reply Denied
--------------------------------------------------------
District Judge Robert B. Kugler of the United States District
Court for the District of New Jersey denied Plaintiff's renewed
motion to remand and Defendants' motion to request leave to file a
sur-reply in the case captioned, SOVANARRA NOP, INDIVIDUALLY AND
AS A CLASS REPRESENTATIVE ON BEHALF OF OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED,
Plaintiffs, v. AMERICAN WATER RESOURCES, INC. et al., Defendants,
Case No. 15-1691 (RBK/AMD) (D.N.J.).

Plaintiff Sovanarra Nop, class representative of others similarly
situated, originally filed the action in Superior Court of New
Jersey, Camden County on or about January 13, 2015.  Plaintiff
alleges that she purchased a contract from Defendants for
protection against unexpected repair costs to her residential
property's water and sewage lines.  She contends that she paid
monthly fees on the contract but that Defendants have refused to
repair her broken sewer line, the damage from which has rendered
her property's bathrooms unusable.  Plaintiff raises her claim
under multiple New Jersey state laws and alleges a class action on
behalf of "all persons who received the contracts in the state of
New Jersey from a period six years prior to the filing of the
complaint."

On March 6, 2015, Defendants removed this case to the District
Court on the basis that there is minimal diversity in satisfaction
of the Class Action Fairness Act (CAFA). Specifically, Defendants
assert that the class includes "numerous customers" who were
domiciled in other states but received the contract on vacation
properties, and others who received the contracts at their
domiciles in New Jersey but have since established domiciles in
other states.

Plaintiff originally argued that the Court should decline
jurisdiction over the proposed class action because either of two
exceptions to CAFA applies in this instance: (1) the "local
controversy" exception, 29 U.S.C. Section 1332(d)(2)(A) and (2)
the "home state exception,"  Section 1332(d)(4)(B). Defendants
contended, however, that Plaintiff had not satisfied her burden of
establishing by a preponderance of the evidence that either CAFA
exception applied because Plaintiff did not offer any evidence of
the citizenship of the proposed class.

Plaintiff then filed the Renewed Motion for Remand. Plaintiff
argues that, because 36.7% of Defendants' New Jersey property
customer list that had a "service address or current and/or last
known mailing address corresponding with a voter name and voter
address on a current New Jersey voter registry," at least one-
third of the putative class is New Jersey citizens. Further,
Plaintiff points to the fact that 97% of the putative class has a
current or last known mailing address in New Jersey as further
support for the contention that at least one-third of its members
are New Jersey citizens.

In response, Defendant asserts that this evidence is insufficient
to satisfy the home-state exception and the Court should maintain
jurisdiction over the case. Defendant has also filed a Motion to
Request Leave to file a Sur-Reply.

In his Opinion dated September 14, 2016 available at
https://is.gd/iV5td1 from Leagle.com, Judge Kugler held that
although the evidence does establish that there are members of the
putative class that have residences in New Jersey, it does little
to confirm the customers are citizens of New Jersey. The
Plaintiff's Renewed Motion for Remand cannot be granted without
more definitive evidence that would keep the Court from having to
infer or guess the state citizenship of individuals in the
putative class. Plaintiff failed to conduct any investigation or
produce any evidence other than the facts produced by the
Defendant. As such, Plaintiff has not met their burden of proof to
establish that the home-state exception should apply to the
instant case.

Sovannara Nop is represented by Lewis G. Adler, Esq. --
lewisadler@verizon.net  -- LAW OFFICE OF LEWIS ADLER

American Water Resources, Inc, et al. are represented by Michael
P. Daly, Esq. -- mdalylaw@gmail.com -- and Daniel Elliot Brewer,
Esq. -- daniel.brewer@dbr.com -- DRINKER BIDDLE & REATH


AMERICAN RENAL: Wolf Popper Files Securities Class Action
---------------------------------------------------------
Wolf Popper LLP on Sept. 6 disclosed that it has filed a class
action lawsuit against American Renal Associates Holdings, Inc.
("American Renal") (ARA), and certain of its officers, in the
United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts, on
behalf of all persons who purchased American Renal securities on
the open market and/or pursuant to its April 20, 2016 Registration
Statement, during the period April 20, 2016 through August 18,
2016, and were damaged thereby.  This action alleges claims for
violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange
Act of 1934.

If you are a member of the Class, you may file a motion no later
than October 31, 2016 to be appointed lead plaintiff.  A lead
plaintiff is a representative party acting on behalf of other
class members in directing the litigation.  Investors who
purchased American Renal securities during the Class Period and
suffered losses are urged to contact Wolf Popper to discuss their
rights.

American Renal is a provider of dialysis services.  The Complaint
charges that prior to and during the Class Period, the company, in
order to obtain higher reimbursement rates, conspired to convince
Medicare and Medicaid-eligible patients to enroll in private
health insurance plans by referring them to an industry-funded
not-for-profit, which would pay for their premiums.

During the Class Period, defendants issued a series of false and
misleading statements, including that American Renal maintained
robust compliance, that it followed a disciplined approach to
payor interaction and billing matters, and that dialysis patients
were increasingly opting for private insurers.  Defendants failed
to disclose that certain of American Renal's revenue was derived
from enticing patients into the private market.

On July 1, 2016, following the close of the market, news broke
that three affiliates of the insurer UnitedHealth Group Inc. had
sued American Renal for a "fraudulent and illegal scheme," in
violation of various state anti-kickback and insurance fraud
statutes for steering dialysis patients into its health plans.  On
the next day of trading, the company's shares declined $2.82 per
share or nearly 9.88%, to close at $25.71 per share.

On August 18, 2016, following the close of the market, it was
revealed that the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services had
launched a probe into whether dialysis centers were improperly
steering patients "to an individual market plan for the purpose of
obtaining higher payment rates."  On this news, American Renal
shares declined an additional $2.31 per share or nearly 10.44%, to
close at $19.81 per share on August 19, 2016.


ANGIODYNAMICS INC: Purcell Investigates Potential Fiduciary Claim
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Purcell Julie & Lefkowitz LLP, a class action law firm dedicated
to representing shareholders nationwide, is investigating a
potential breach of fiduciary duty claim involving the board of
directors of AngioDynamics, Inc.

If you are a shareholder of AngioDynamics and are interested in
obtaining additional information regarding this investigation,
free of charge, please visit us at:

http://pjlfirm.com/angiodynamics-inc/

You may also contact Robert H. Lefkowitz, Esq. either via email at
rl@pjlfirm.com or by telephone at 212-725-1000.  One of our
attorneys will personally speak with you about the case at no cost
or obligation.

Purcell Julie & Lefkowitz LLP -- http://pjlfirm.com-- is a law
firm exclusively committed to representing shareholders nationwide
who are victims of securities fraud, breaches of fiduciary duty
and other types of corporate misconduct.


ARCHDIOCESE OF AGANA: Sex Abuse Victims Urged to Join Class Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Mar-Vic Cagurangan, writing for Marianas Variety, reports that the
passage of a bill that would lift the statute of limitation for
sex-abuse cases, if signed into law, would open the floodgates for
lawsuits against the Archdiocese of Agana and drive the Guam
church into financial bankruptcy, Archbishop Savio Hon Tai Fai
said Sept. 18.

"In other states where similar laws were enacted, the results have
been school closures and cessation of vital services," the
apostolic administrator said in a message addressed to the
faithful and read at Sunday Mass.

Hon is now back in Rome to ask Pope Francis to remove Archbishop
Anthony S. Apuron as head of the Archdiocese, citing the "gravely
serious allegations" that the church will continue to deal with
during a canonical trial at the Congregation of the Doctrine of
the Faith.

The Archdiocese is facing mounting allegations of sex abuse
against Apuron, who is accused of molesting altar boys when he was
a priest at the Mount Carmel Parish in Agat in the 1970s.  At
least four former altar boys, the mother of a deceased altar boy
and a third-party witness have come out with claims against
Apuron, revealing secrets kept for almost five decades.

"On behalf of the church, I want to apologize personally to the
survivors of sexual abuse everywhere who have suffered so much at
the hands of clergy," Hon said.  "We cannot undo the betrayal of
trust and faith and the horrendous acts that the clergy have
committed against the youngest and the most innocent amongst us."

Guam is a predominantly Catholic community, and rumors about sex
in the pulpit are nothing new, but in earlier years they were just
passed around in guilty whispers, if not muffled by the church's
policy of simply transferring accused priests to other parishes.

In recent years, however, activism against church abuses has been
emerging in the mainstream, triggering open discussions in a
manner as rabid as politics.

The Guam Legislature unanimously passed Bill 326-33 that would
allow retroactive sex-abuse cases from decades ago to be brought
to court.

"We know that time restrictions have been a particularly pressing
problem in light of the delicate nature of child-sex crimes as
victims often need many years to overcome the pain of their abuse
and time to obtain the courage needed to speak out about the abuse
that they have suffered," said Sen. Frank Blas, the bill's author.
"As the national trend moves toward loosening past restrictions
and statutes of limitations, we are now doing the same with the
passage of Bill 326-33."

Hon is seeking to discourage Guam Gov. Eddie Calvo from signing
the bill into law, noting its "damaging unintended consequences."

The archbishop warned that retroactive lawsuits would jeopardize
the church mission on Guam.

"In permitting lawsuits to be revived from decades ago, the
Archdiocese will be exposed to unlimited financial liability," Hon
said.

He said bankruptcy will result in forced sale of church property
that currently houses Catholic schools and social services, hence
a "devastating effect on education and charitable work."

Hon said the possible church shutdown on Guam would affect "good
lay people, members of religious orders and devoted clergy who
have never done anything wrong."

Roy Taitague Quintanilla, 52, was the first to publicly emerge
since local advocates launched the "Silent No More" campaign in
early May.  Mr. Quintanilla accused Apuron of molesting him when
he was a 12-year-old altar server at Our Lady of Mt. Carmel Parish
in the village of Agat.

Walter Denton, Roland Sondia and Doris Concepcion -- for her late
son, Joseph "Sonny" Quinata -- followed suit.

When the bill was first introduced at the Legislature earlier this
year, a group called Concerned Catholics of Guam ran a
full-page ad in local print media, urging victims to come forward
to sign up for a possible class action.  The group is a local arm
of Survivors Network of those Abused by Priests or, a national
support group for sex-abuse victims.  Concerned Catholics of Guam
organizers said the newspaper ad has motivated a number of victims
to come out.

The ad solicited victims of incidents that occurred during
specific dates from 1974 to 1984.

Former altar boy Ramon Afaisen De Plata, 62, made a public
allegation against Apuron, claiming that in March 1964 he
witnessed Apuron -- a seminarian at the time -- engaging in sexual
activity with a 10-year-old altar boy.


ARTHROSCOPIC & LASER: Settles Class Action for $5 Million
---------------------------------------------------------
A proposed settlement has been reached in a class action lawsuit
involving Arthroscopic & Laser Surgery of San Diego and
HealthSouth Corporation.  The proposed settlement provides
compensation to certain patients of these medical institutions.

On May 6, 2016, San Diego Superior Court Judge Ronald L. Styn
preliminarily approved a settlement resolving the case Carroll v.
HealthSouth Arthroscopic & Laser Surgery Center of San Diego, L.P.
The plaintiffs allege that the settling defendants violated
California law by concealing certain details about a member of the
practice and their fitness to perform surgery.  The settling
defendants deny that they violated the law in any way as alleged
in the lawsuit.  The case was settled by the parties without any
finding of wrongdoing.

Class members are those people who were patients who treated at
Arthroscopic & Laser Surgery Center of San Diego, L.P. (and all
affiliated entities operating under fictitious business names
related thereto); SHC San Diego, Inc.; or HealthSouth Corporation
at the HealthSouth Sports Medicine and Rehabilitation Center
formerly located at or about 5471 Kearny Villa Road, Suite 202,
San Diego, California; and/or who received any surgery or
treatment from Defendant Gary Losse, M.D. at Arthroscopic & Laser
Surgery of San Diego, L.P. or the Kearny Villa location, at any
time from January 1, 1996 through December 15, 2000.

Class members may have their legal rights affected by this
settlement and are advised to learn more about the proposed
settlement and their options.

A settlement fund of $5 million is being set up to pay claims to
eligible class members, attorneys' fees and costs, incentive award
to the named plaintiffs, and the notice and claims administration
costs.

Class members wishing to be included in this settlement and
receive a settlement payment must submit a Claim Form by
October 25, 2016.  Those wishing to exclude themselves from the
settlement, comment or object to the settlement, must do so by
October 25, 2016.  Class members who do nothing will not receive a
share of the settlement and will be bound by the Court's decision
(if approved).

This press release is only a summary of the full class action
settlement.  Detailed information on the terms of the settlement,
how to file a claim, how to object or exclude yourself from the
settlement, and other important information can be found by
visiting www.HealthSouthClassAction.com
(http://www.HealthSouthClassAction.com),calling toll-free 1-888-
272-1245, or writing to: HealthSouth Claims Administrator, c/o
Classaura Class Action Administration, 1718 Peachtree Street NW,
Suite 1080, Atlanta, GA 30309.


ASCENA RETAIL: Mediation Scheduled for September 20 in "Linares"
----------------------------------------------------------------
Ascena Retail Group, Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on September 19, 2016, for
the fiscal year ended July 30, 2016, that mediation was scheduled
for September 20, 2016, in the case, Steven Linares v. ANN INC.

On December 29, 2015, plaintiff, Steven Linares, a former sales
associate, filed a class action complaint on behalf of all sales
leads, sales associates and stock associates working in California
from December 29, 2011 through the present, in Los Angeles County
Superior Court. Plaintiff alleges on behalf of the class that ANN
did not properly provide overtime pay, minimum wage pay, meal and
rest breaks, and waiting time pay, among other claims under the
California Business and Professions Code and California Labor
Code. The case is in its early stages and formal fact discovery
has not yet begun, therefore, we are not able to estimate a range
of reasonably possible losses.


AXIALL CORP: Faces Class Action Over Chlorine Gas Leak
------------------------------------------------------
Kyla Asbury, writing for West Virginia Record, reports that four
residents filed a class action lawsuit against Axiall Corporation
after they claim chlorine gas leaked traveled from inside the
facility to the surrounding community.

On Aug. 27, a rail tanker that was inside Axiall's Proctor plant
leaked a substantial amount of liquid chlorine, according to a
complaint filed Aug. 30 in Marshall Circuit Court.

Tim Bohrer, Ronda Bohrer, Roy Yoho and Darlene Yoho claim as a
result of the leak, a large chemical cloud was created that caused
the toxic substance to travel from the Proctor plant to the
surrounding communities, including properties they owned.

Individuals living in the communities near the plant were forced
to evacuate their homes and leave the area to avoid exposure to
the toxic chemical, according to the suit.

The plaintiffs claim the chemical cloud and/or chemical exposure
damaged their personal and real properties, including their roofs,
cars, homes, plants, gardens, grass and trees.

Axiall was negligent in allowing the liquid chlorine to leak from
the space where it was contained and in failing to control, manage
and/or contain the liquid chlorine at the plant in a safe manner,
according to the suit.

The plaintiffs claim Axiall was also negligent in failing to take
actions to limit the spreading of the chemical cloud, in failing
to protect the surrounding communities from the hazardous chemical
and in failing to exercise due care generally in controlling the
liquid chlorine.

Axiall's negligent and/or reckless acts and/or omissions directly
and proximately caused liquid chlorine to leak from the plant,
which caused the hazardous chemical to enter onto the plaintiffs'
properties and the result of the defendants' trespass caused the
plaintiffs damages, according to the suit.

The plaintiffs are seeking compensatory and punitive damages. They
are being represented by James G. Bordas Jr., Jeremy M. McGraw and
Bryan D. Pasciak of Bordas & Bordas.

Marshall Circuit Court case number: 16-C-158


BARNES AND NOBLE: Faces "Brown" Suit Under FLSA, Ill. Wage Law
--------------------------------------------------------------
KELLY BROWN, Individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, as COLLECTIVE AND CLASS Plaintiff, v. BARNES AND NOBLE,
INC., Defendant, Case No. 1:16-cv-07333 (S.D.N.Y., September 20,
2016), alleges that the Defendant has violated the rights of its
Cafe Managers under the Fair Labor Standards Act, and the Illinois
Minimum Wage Law.

BARNES AND NOBLE, INC. is an American bookseller.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Michael J. Palitz, Esq.
     SHAVITZ LAW GROUP, P.A.
     830 3rd Avenue, 5th Floor
     New York, NY 10022
     Phone: (800) 616-4000
     Fax: (561) 447-8831

        - and -

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


BLS LIMOUSINE: "Andujar" Seeks Judicial Intervention in Labor Case
------------------------------------------------------------------
Felix Andujar, Individually, and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. BLS Limousine Service of New York, Inc.,
Defendant, Case No. 707432/2016, (N.Y. Sup., June 23, 2016), seeks
judicial intervention over his labor case on September 9, 2016.

Andujar claims unpaid overtime compensation, maximum liquidated
damages, reasonable attorneys' fees and costs under the Fair Labor
Standards Act, New York Minimum Wage Act and New York Labor Law.

Defendant operates a limousine service in Queens County, New York,
at 1820 Stein way Street, Astoria, NY 11105, where Plaintiff was
employed as a driver.

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Abdul K. Hassan, Esq.
      215-28 Hillside Avenue
      Queens Village, NY 11427
      Tel: 718-740-1000
      Fax: 718-740-2000
      Email: abdul@abdulhassan.com


BLUENRGY GROUP: Rosen Law Firm Files Securities Class Action
------------------------------------------------------------
Rosen Law Firm on Sept. 6 disclosed that it has filed a class
action lawsuit on behalf of purchasers of BlueNRGY Group Limited,
f/k/a CBD Energy Limited stock from June 13, 2014 through October
24, 2014 (the "Class Period").  The lawsuit seeks to recover
damages for BlueNRGY investors under the federal securities laws.

To join the BlueNRGY class action, go to the website at
http://www.rosenlegal.com/cases-411.htmlor call Phillip Kim, Esq.
or Kevin Chan, Esq. toll-free at 866-767-3653 or email
pkim@rosenlegal.com or kchan@rosenlegal.com for information on the
class action. The suit is pending in U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of Texas.

NO CLASS HAS YET BEEN CERTIFIED IN THE ABOVE ACTION. UNTIL A CLASS
IS CERTIFIED, YOU ARE NOT REPRESENTED BY COUNSEL UNLESS YOU RETAIN
ONE. YOU MAY ALSO REMAIN AN ABSENT CLASS MEMBER AND DO NOTHING AT
THIS POINT. YOU MAY RETAIN COUNSEL OF YOUR CHOICE.

According to the lawsuit, BlueNRGY issued materially false
financial statements during the Class Period.  On October 24,
2014, BlueNRGY announced that its previously issued audited
financial statements for the fiscal years 2012 and 2013 and
interim financial statements for the six months ended
December 31, 2013 cannot be relied upon by investors.  According
to BlueNRGY, certain related party transactions involving its
former Executive Chairman and Managing Director, Gerard McGowan,
were not accurately disclosed in its financial statements. The
failure to disclose and properly account for Mr. McGowan's related
party transactions rendered BlueNRGY's financial statements for
the fiscal years 2012 and 2013 false and misleading.  On this
news, shares of BlueNRGY fell sharply on October 24, 2014,
damaging investors.

A class action lawsuit has already been filed. If you wish to
serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no later than
November 7, 2016.  If you wish to join the litigation go
http://www.rosenlegal.com/cases-411.htmlor to discuss your rights
or interests regarding this class action, please contact, Phillip
Kim, Esq. or Kevin Chan, Esq. of The Rosen Law Firm toll free at
866-767-3653 or via e-mail at pkim@rosenlegal.com or
kchan@rosenlegal.com.

The Rosen Law Firm represents investors throughout the globe,
concentrating its practice in securities class actions and
shareholder derivative litigation.


CELADON GROUP: Appeal in "Wilmoth" Class Action Pending
-------------------------------------------------------
Celadon Group, Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on September 13, 2016, for the
fiscal year ended June 30, 2016, that the Company's appeal in a
class action lawsuit remains pending.

The Company's subsidiary has been named as the defendant in
Wilmoth et al. v. Celadon Trucking Services, Inc., a class action
proceeding. A summary judgment was granted in favor of the
plaintiffs.

"We have appealed this judgment. We believe that we will be
successful on appeal, but it is also reasonably possible the
judgment will be upheld. We estimate the possible range of
financial exposure associated with this claim to be between $0 and
approximately $5.9 million. We currently do not have a contingency
reserved for this claim, but will continue to monitor its progress
to determine if a reserve is necessary in the future," the Company
said.

"We had also been named as the defendant in in Day et al. v.
Celadon Trucking Services, Inc., a second class action proceeding.
A judgment was granted in favor of the plaintiffs. We appealed
this judgment, but the judgment was subsequently upheld. The
estimated damages of $2.4 million were fully reserved at June 30,
2016."


CHARIOT TRANSIT: Faces "Love" Suit in California Superior Court
---------------------------------------------------------------
A lawsuit has been filed against Chariot Transit, Inc. The case is
titled LOVE, TYRELL AND BROOKS, DAVINA ON BEHALF OF THEMSELLVES
AND ALL OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED, the Plaintiff, v. DOES 1 TO 10,
INCLUSIVE, and CHARIOT TRANSIT, INC. A CALIFORNIA CORPORATION, the
Defendants, Case No. CGC 16 554398 (Cal. Super. Ct., Sept. 21,
2016).

Chariot Transit provides crowd-sourced transit services in San
Francisco. The company offers services through a fleet of vans.


CHC GROUP: Awaits Hearing Date on Motion to Dismiss Class Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
CHC Group Ltd. (Debtor-in-Possession) said in its Form 10-Q Report
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on September 13,
2016, for the Quarterly Period Ended July 31, 2016, that CHC is
awaiting a hearing date on its motion to dismiss a class action
lawsuit.

The two securities class action lawsuits that were previously
filed against the Company were consolidated into a single action,
Rudman et al. v. CHC Group et al., which is pending in federal
district court for the Southern District of New York.  A
consolidated amended complaint was filed on November 6, 2015.

The Company said, "The amended complaint alleges that the Company
and others failed to disclose in our IPO materials that one of our
major customers, Petrobras, had suspended payments on certain
contracts due to the global stand-down of Airbus H225 aircraft.
The amended complaint seeks class treatment and unspecified
damages. CHC has filed a motion to dismiss and is awaiting a
hearing date on that motion. The Company maintains adequate
insurance to respond to these complaints.  Moreover, the Company
disputes the allegations in the complaints and will vigorously
defend against them."


CHESTER COUNTY: Faces "Slivak" Suit in E.D. of Pennsylvania
-----------------------------------------------------------
A lawsuit has been filed against Chester County Area Airport
Authority. The case is entitled JESSICA SLIVAK, INDIVIDUALLY AND
ON BEHALF OF ALL OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED, the Plaintiff, v.
CHESTER COUNTY AREA AIRPORT AUTHORITY, the Defendant, Case No.
2:16-cv-05050-JHS (E.D. Penn., Sept. 21, 2016). The assigned Judge
is Hon. Joel H. Slomsky.

The Chester County Area Airport Authority owns Chester County G.
O. Carlson Airport, a public airport two miles west of
Coatesville, in Chester County, Pennsylvania.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


CHIPOTLE: To Go on Hiring Spree Amid Wage Theft Suit
----------------------------------------------------
Fox31 Denver reports that Chipotle is setting aside its problems
and going on a hiring spree.

The company, which has struggled in recent months with an E. coli
outbreak and a lawsuit accusing it of mistreating workers, plans
to offer jobs to 5,000 people across the country on Sept. 28.

A spokesman said Chipotle needs the staff as it opens more than
200 of its Mexican-style restaurants this year.

Chipotle calls it National Career Day.  The first was a year ago,
when the chain hired more than 4,000 workers.  More than 65,000
registered for interviews.

This year, Chipotle plans to interview up to 100 applicants at
each of its roughly 2,000 U.S. restaurants.  Applicants can
register online.

Chipotle employs about 60,000 people nationwide.  It typically
hires for entry-level jobs making burritos and promotes almost all
its managers from within.

The company reported its first quarterly loss in April and has
been besieged by other bad news.

Thousands of current and former employees are suing Chipotle,
accusing it of making them work without pay after they were
clocked out.  The company denies wrongdoing.

Starting in 2015, hundreds of customers across the country were
sickened with E. coli, norovirus and salmonella after eating at
Chipotle restaurants.

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention declared the
outbreak over in January, but federal authorities have opened a
criminal investigation.

And in July, a top Chipotle executive was charged with seven
counts of cocaine position.

The stock has plunged 42 percent over the last year.  But there
are people who still believe in Chipotle, including Bill Ackman of
the hedge fund Pershing Square, who just bought a 9.9 percent
stake.

In a public filing, Pershing called the company "undervalued" and
"an attractive investment."


COLONIAL FREIGHT: Faces "Davis" Lawsuit Alleging FLSA Violation
---------------------------------------------------------------
THEODUS DAVIS, on behalf of himself and those similarly situated,
4100 White Hall Rd. Pattison, MI 39144 Plaintiff, v. COLONIAL
FREIGHT SYSTEMS, INC., 19 Probasco Rd, East Windsor, NJ 08520 and
PHOENIX LEASING OF TENNESSEE, INC., C/O COLONIAL FREIGHT SYSTEMS,
INC. 19 Probasco Rd, East Windsor, NJ 08520 and RUBY MCBRIDE c/o
COLONIAL FREIGHT SYSTEMS, INC. 19 Probasco Rd, East Windsor, NJ
08520 and JOHN DOES 1-10, Defendants, Case No. 3:16-cv-05739-MAS-
LHG (D.N.J., September 20, 2016), alleges violations of the Fair
Labor Standards Act.

COLONIAL FREIGHT SYSTEMS, INC. is a truckload carrier operating
throughout the United States.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Joshua S. Boyette, Esq.
     Justin L. Swidler, Esq.
     Travis Martindale-Jarvis, Esq.
     SWARTZ SWIDLER, LLC
     1101 Kings Highway North, Suite 402
     Cherry Hill, NJ 08034
     Phone: (856) 685-7420
     Fax: (856) 685-7417


DELAWARE: DOC Settles Solitary Confinement Class Action
-------------------------------------------------------
Open Minds reports that on August 6, 2016, the Delaware Department
of Correction (DOC) agreed to a settlement calling for improvement
in how the DOC handles solitary confinement of offenders with
mental illness.  Specifically, the DOC significantly limit the
length of time that can be served in disciplinary housing at all
DOC prisons.  Further, the agreement includes language to support
increased behavioral health, additional security staffing, and the
creation of a new treatment center at James T. Vaughn Correctional
Center in Smyrna.

The settlement resolves a class-action lawsuit, Community Legal
Aid Society, Inc. v. Coupe & Delaware Department Of Corrections.


DUKE ENERGY: Ind. App. Revives Bellwether Properties Suit
---------------------------------------------------------
Judge Bailey Brown of the Indiana Court of Appeals reversed a
trial court's order granting a motion to dismiss in favor of Duke
Energy Indiana, Inc. and remanded the case for further
proceedings.

The case is captioned, Bellwether Properties, LLC, Appellant-
Plaintiff, v. Duke Energy Indiana, LLC, Appellee-Defendant, Case
No. 53A04-1511-CT-1880 (Ind. App.).

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


EPIQ SYSTEMS: Settled Class Action Related to Merger Deal
---------------------------------------------------------
Epiq Systems, Inc. said in its Form 8-K Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on September 20, 2016, that a
settlement has been reached with the plaintiffs in a consolidated
class action related to a merger agreement.

This Form 8-K is being filed in connection with an agreement
pertaining to certain litigation concerning, among other things,
the Agreement and Plan of Merger, dated July 26, 2016, by and
among Epiq Systems, Inc., a Missouri corporation (the "Company"),
Document Technologies, LLC, a Georgia limited liability company
("Parent"), and DTI Merger Sub, Inc., a Missouri corporation and
wholly owned subsidiary of Parent ("Merger Sub") relating to the
proposed acquisition of the Company (through Parent) by OMERS
Private Equity, the private equity arm of the OMERS pension plan,
and funds managed by Harvest Partners, L.P., a leading middle-
market private equity fund. Pursuant to the merger agreement,
Merger Sub will be merged with and into the Company with the
Company being the surviving corporation as a wholly-owned
subsidiary of Parent.

As previously disclosed in the definitive proxy statement filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the "SEC") by the
Company on August 24, 2016 (the "Proxy Statement"), putative class
action lawsuits challenging the proposed merger have been filed on
behalf of Company shareholders in the Circuit Court of Jackson
County, Missouri. The consolidated action is captioned Daniel
Soffer et al. v. Tom W. Olofson et al., Case No. 1616-CV-18720.

The plaintiffs in the consolidated action allege, among other
claims, that the Company failed to disclose to shareholders all
material information related to the merger. In connection with a
settlement with the plaintiffs under the consolidated action, the
Company agreed to make the supplemental disclosures contained
herein (the "settlement"). The settlement will not affect the
merger consideration to be paid to shareholders of the Company in
connection with the proposed merger or the timing of the special
meeting of shareholders of the Company scheduled for Tuesday,
September 27, 2016, beginning at 10:00 a.m., local time, at the
Westin Crown Center Hotel, 1 East Pershing Road, Kansas City,
Missouri 64108 to vote upon a proposal to approve the merger
agreement.


EXECUTIVE CLEANING: Faces "Acosta" Suit in E.D. of New York
-----------------------------------------------------------
A lawsuit has been filed against Executive Cleaning Services of
Long Island LTD. The case is captioned Andres Acosta and Cristian
Castaneda, On behalf of himself and others similarly situated, the
Plaintiff, v. Executive Cleaning Services of Long Island LTD, St.
John's University, and Angel Cardenas, In his individual and
professional capacity, the Defendants, Case No. 1:16-cv-05249
(E.D.N.Y., Sept 21, 2016).

Executive Cleaning was founded in 1976 by Ayxsa Moss and offers
professional, thorough cleaning services.

The Plaintiffs appears pro se.


EZ DOCTORS: Faces "Ramos" Suit in S.D. of California
----------------------------------------------------
A lawsuit has been filed against EZ Doctors. The case is styled
Ron Ramos, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, the Plaintiff, v. EZ Doctors, New Benefits, Ltd., and
Does 1-10 inclusive and each of them, the Defendants, Case No.
3:16-cv-02378-L-NLS (S.D. Cal., Sept. 21, 2016). The assigned
Judge is Hon. M. James Lorenz.

EZ Doctor is a service based in Fort Lauderdale that provides
patient scheduling and video chats with physicians.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


EZ RX BONITA: Faces Class Suit in Middle District of Florida
------------------------------------------------------------
A lawsuit has been filed against EZ RX Bonita Springs LLC. The
case is captioned Medical & Chiropractic Clinic, Inc., a Florida
Corporation, individually and as the representative of a class
similarly-situated persons, the Plaintiff, v. EZ RX Bonita Springs
LLC, EZ RX Boynton Beach LLC, EZ RX Hallandale, LLC, and John Does
1-5, the Defendants, Case No. 8:16-cv-02709-VMC-AEP (M.D. Fla.,
Sept. 21, 2016). The assigned Judge is Hon. Virginia M. Hernandez
Covington.

Ez Rx Bonita Springs is a doctors of medicine offices and clinics.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


FACEBOOK INC: Obtains Favorable Ruling in Privacy Class Action
--------------------------------------------------------------
Zacks Equity Research reports that per Bloomberg news, Facebook
Inc. has crushed a bid for a class action lawsuit that accused the
social media company of "automatically and surreptitiously" giving
advertisers access to personal information of its users.

Users claimed that Facebook gave away details like usage of
website to advertisers when they clicked on the ads, undermining
Facebook's own "explicit privacy promises."

The judge cited that plaintiffs "didn't have enough in common to
pursue a class action."  The lawsuit was first dismissed in 2011
by San Jose Court judge Ronald M. Whyte, only to be overturned by
an Appeals Court later on.

The report further adds that in June this year, Judge Whyte had
dismissed Facebook's petition to reject the case as he ruled that
the last plaintiff might be able to prove that "she didn't receive
the confidentiality Facebook promised."   However, back then,
Whyte had also highlighted that the lawsuit had too many
individual questions to continue as a class action lawsuit.

Facebook has been under constant scrutiny owing to the huge amount
of personal data it hosts.  This huge database is its primary
asset for attracting advertisers.  Advertising is the mainstay of
Facebook's revenues and comprises nearly 95% of the company's
revenues.  As a result, the company has been criticized for
allegedly selling this personal data to advertisers in order to
boost its top line.

While Facebook is accused of leaking data to advertisers on the
one hand, it is also accused by regulatory bodies in various
countries for not divulging information on sensitive matters.
Facebook continues to be at loggerheads with Brazilian law
enforcement agencies for not disclosing information pertaining to
those accused in drug trafficking rackets.


FARMER BROS: Court Set Oct. 18 Case Management Conference
---------------------------------------------------------
Farmer Bros. Co. said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on September 13, 2016, for the
fiscal year ended June 30, 2016, that a California Court has set a
case management conference for October 18, 2016, in the case
captioned, Steve Hernandez vs. Farmer Bros. Co., Superior Court of
State of California, County of Los Angeles.

On July 24, 2015, former Company employee Hernandez filed a
putative class action complaint for damages alleging a single
cause of action for unfair competition under the California
Business & Professions Code. The claim purports to seek
disgorgement of profits for alleged violations of various
provisions of the California Labor Code relating to: failing to
pay overtime, failing to provide meal breaks, failing to pay
minimum wage, failing to pay wages timely during employment and
upon termination, failing to provide accurate and complete wage
statements, and failing to reimburse business-related expenses.
Hernandez's complaint seeks restitution in an unspecified amount
and injunctive relief, in addition to attorneys' fees and
expenses. Hernandez alleges that the putative class is all
"current and former hourly-paid or non-exempt individuals" for the
four (4) years preceding the filing of the complaint through final
judgment, and Hernandez also purports to reserve the right to
establish sub-classes as appropriate.

On November 12, 2015, a separate putative class representative,
Monica Zuno, filed claim under the same class action; the Court
has related this case to the Hernandez case. On November 17, 2015,
the unified case was assigned to a judge, and this judge ordered
the stay on discovery to remain intact until after a decision on
the Company's demurrer action. The plaintiff filed an Opposition
to the Demurrer and, in response, on January 5, 2016, the Company
filed a reply to this Opposition to the Demurrer.

On February 2, 2016, the Court held a hearing on the demurrer and
found in the Company's favor, sustaining the demurrer in its
entirety without leave to amend as to the plaintiff Hernandez, and
so dismissing Hernandez's claims and the related putative class.
Claims on behalf of the plaintiff Zuno remain at this time,
pending the filing of an amended complaint on behalf of this
remaining plaintiff and reduced putative class. The Company
provided responses to discovery following a lift by the Court of
the stay on discovery. The Court has set a case management
conference for October 18, 2016 to give Plaintiff's counsel time
to review the discovery documents the Company produced and
determine whether Plaintiff intends to proceed with the case as a
putative class action or on an individual basis only.

"At this time, we are not able to predict the probability of the
outcome or estimate of loss, if any, related to this matter.
The Company is a party to various other pending legal and
administrative proceedings. It is management's opinion that the
outcome of such proceedings will not have a material impact on the
Company's financial position, results of operations, or cash
flows," the Company said.


FENTON & MCGARVEY: Tetik Amends Bid for Certification of Class
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Plaintiff in the lawsuit entitled Lisa Tetik, individually and
on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Fenton & McGarvey
Law Firm, P.S.C., a Kentucky corporation, and Jefferson Capital
Systems, LLC, a Georgia limited liability company, Case No. 1:16-
cv-04802 (N.D. Ill.), files a second amended motion for class
certification.

Since she received an identical letter seeking to collect on an
account originally owed to Victoria's Secret, Ms. Tetik tells the
Court she now seeks to represent a class of all persons, who
received an identical collection letter seeking to collect on a
debt originally owed to either Dress Barn or Victoria's Secret,
for a total putative class of 121 (18 for Dress Barn/103 for
Victoria's Secret).

The proposed change in the class definition will not cause any
undue delay in this matter, since a briefing schedule on the
Amended Motion for Class Certification has not been set, Ms. Tetik
asserts.

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

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          David J. Philipps, Esq.
          Mary E. Philipps, Esq.
          Angie K. Robertson, Esq.
          PHILIPPS & PHILIPPS, LTD.
          9760 S. Roberts Road, Suite One
          Palos Hills, IL 60465
          Telephone: (708) 974-2900
          Facsimile: (708) 974-2907
          E-mail: davephilipps@aol.com
                  mephilipps@aol.com
                  angiekrobertson@aol.com


FIDELITY NATIONAL: 3rd Cir. OKs Bipolar Arbitration in "Chassen"
----------------------------------------------------------------
Circuit Judge D. Brooks Smith of the Court of Appeals, Third
Circuit, remanded a class action lawsuit by New Jersey real estate
purchasers and refinancers, with instructions that the District
Court compel bipolar arbitration of all Plaintiffs' arbitrable
claims in accordance with its May 14, 2015, order and the opinion.

The appellate case is captioned, ARTHUR CHASSEN; DEBORAH MEREDITH;
JOEL OSTER; DENNIS SCRIMER; GLEN J. DALAKIAN; JACK HOFFMAN;
DEBORAH HOFFMAN; KATHLEEN COOPER; RICHARD MURPHY, individually and
on behalf of others similarly situated; AMI FELLER, Appellants, v.
FIDELITY NATIONAL FINANCIAL, INC., a Delaware corporation;
FIDELITY NATIONAL TITLE INSURANCE COMPANY, a California
corporation; CHICAGO TITLE INSURANCE COMPANY, a Missouri
corporation; THE FIRST AMERICAN CORPORATION, a California
corporation; FIRST AMERICAN TITLE INSURANCE COMPANY, a California
corporation; LANDAMERICA FINANCIAL GROUP, INC., a Virginia
corporation; TRANSNATION TITLE INSURANCE COMPANY, a Nebraska
corporation; LAWYERS TITLE INSURANCE CORPORATION, a Nebraska
corporation; STEWART INFORMATION SERVICES CORPORATION, a Delaware
corporation; STEWART TITLE GUARANTY COMPANY, a Texas corporation;
OLD REPUBLIC INTERNATIONAL CORPORATION, a Delaware corporation;
OLD REPUBLIC TITLE INSURANCE GROUP, INC., a Delaware corporation;
OLD REPUBLIC NATIONAL TITLE INSURANCE COMPANY, a Minnesota
corporation; WEICHERT TITLE AGENCY, Civil No. 15-3789 (3rd Cir.)

Plaintiffs represent a putative class of New Jersey real estate
purchasers and refinancers who were overcharged between $70 and
$350 in fees stemming from the recording of their deeds and
mortgage instruments. Plaintiffs allege that the settlement agents
-- title agents and attorneys who were, in turn, agents of the
Defendants -- intentionally charged Plaintiffs more than the
county clerk charged for recording these documents and pocketed
the difference. Plaintiffs further allege that the class claims
add up to over $50 million, exclusive of treble damages and
interest.

On January 22, 2009, Plaintiffs filed a complaint in the U.S.
District Court for the District of New Jersey alleging both breach
of contract and violation of New Jersey law. In response,
Defendants sought to dismiss a number of these claims and raised
several affirmative defenses. They did not, however, seek to
compel arbitration based on the arbitration clauses present in
their contracts with Plaintiffs. Because arbitration was not
sought, the case was litigated for two and a half years with the
focus primarily on class certification. In that time, both sides
conducted broad discovery and contested several substantive
motions on their merits. Plaintiffs have also extensively
documented their efforts in this case and served over 130 non-
party subpoenas and spent over $50,000 on experts before
Defendants sought bipolar arbitration.

Defendants filed a motion in the District Court to compel bipolar
arbitration on August 1, 2011. The District Court concluded that
any attempt to compel bipolar arbitration prior to AT&T Mobility
LLC v. Concepcion, 563 U.S. 333 (2011) would have been futile. In
Concepcion, the Supreme Court held that the Federal Arbitration
Act (FAA) preempted state laws that had previously prohibited a
party from compelling bipolar arbitration in certain situations
even when it was specifically agreed to by contract.  Accordingly,
the District Court granted the motion, stayed the case, and
ordered bipolar arbitration.

The decision, however, led to a barrage of motions for
reconsideration that, as the District Court observed, "has come to
resemble a ping pong match between the parties." The District
Court conducted an evidentiary hearing and found that all but two
Plaintiffs had agreed to bipolar arbitration and it again
compelled bipolar arbitration of the remaining claims.

Three issues relating to the ruling were certified for
interlocutory appeal pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Sec. 1292(b):

     (a) Whether the District Court's decision to allow Defendants
to assert the affirmative defense of arbitration due to a change
in law even though a substantial period of time elapsed between
Defendants' answer and filing of the motion to assert the defense
was in error;

     (b) Whether Plaintiffs' claims against Defendants alleging a
violation of the New Jersey Consumer Fraud Act, N.J.S.A. Sections
56:8-1 et seq., are barred; and

     (c) any other issues arising out of the District Court's
decision concerning the arbitration of the claims.

In his Opinion dated September 8, 2016 available at
https://is.gd/mMNzl2 from Leagle.com, Judge Smith concluded that
the District Court did not err in compelling bipolar arbitration
and the futility exception  applies so that the New Jersey
Consumer Fraud Act (NJCFA) claims raised are subject to
arbitration. He cited in the 1992 ruling of the 3rd Circuit in
Hoxworth v. Blinder, Robinson & Co., Inc., 980 F.2d 912 which
recognized prejudice as the relevant factor in determining whether
or not the right to arbitration has been waived. Here, the
Plaintiffs were prejudiced such that the Defendants waived their
right to arbitrate.


FORD MOTOR: Class Certification in "Agrawal" Reversed
-----------------------------------------------------
District Judge Kathleen Ann Keough of the Ohio Court of Appeals
reversed a trial court's judgment granting the motion of
defendant/counter-plaintiff, Sudesh Agrawal, for class
certification of a nationwide class and an Ohio subclass under
Civ.R. 23(B)(2) and (3) and remanded action for further
proceedings in the case captioned, FORD MOTOR CREDIT COMPANY,
Plaintiff-Appellant/Counter-Defendant, v. SUDESH AGRAWAL,
Defendant-Appellee/Counter-Plaintiff, Case No. 103667 (Ohio App.).

In her Journal Entry and Opinion dated September 22, 2016
available at https://is.gd/6FOmfL from Leagle.com, Judge Keough
found that the trial court erred in finding that Agrawal had
satisfied the requirements of Civ.R. 23(B)(2) because some class
members might benefit from declaratory relief does not fulfill
Civ.R. 23(B)(2)'s requirement, as unambiguously stated in Cullen,
that Agrawal must demonstrate that all class members will benefit
from such relief.

The controversy arises from defendant/counter-plaintiff, Sudesh
Agrawal's lease of a Windstar minivan from a Ford dealer under
Ford Credit's Red Carpet Lease (RCL) program in 2000. Lease
provisions under the RCL program specify that lessees may be
charged for excessive wear based on our standards for normal use
and that the lessee is responsible for repairs of All Damages
which are not a result of normal wear and use.

In May 2003, Agrawal returned his vehicle to the Ford dealership
in May 2003, after making all monthly payments on his lease. Upon
inspecting his vehicle, the Ford dealer estimated EWU charges of
$2,658. Following the First Inspection, and unbeknownst to
Agrawal, a Second Inspection found EWU charges in the amount of
$194. However, Ford Credit, utilizing the initial estimate, billed
Agrawal $2,658.Agrawal disputed the charges and, on March 11,
2004, Ford Credit filed the action in the Shaker Heights Municipal
Court, seeking $2,658 in unpaid EWU charges. Agrawal filed a
counterclaim against Ford Credit on June 7, 2004. The case was
transferred to the Cuyahoga County Court of Common Please based on
Agrawal's request for damages in excess of the municipal court's
jurisdiction.

On February 16, 2006, Agrawal amended his original counterclaim,
asserting eight claims against Ford Credit based on Ford Credit's
assessment of EWU charges: (1) a class claim for unconscionable
leasing practices; (2) a class claim for violation of public
policy; (3) a class claim for breach of contract; (4) a class
claim for violation of the federal Consumer Leasing Act (CLA), 15
U.S.C. Section 1667a; (5) a class claim for fraud; (6) a class
claim for unfair and deceptive trade practices; (7) a claim for
unlawful tax, which later was dismissed voluntarily; and (8) an
individual claim for violation of the Ohio Consumer Sales
Practices Act, R.C. 1345.01. Agrawal argues that Ford Credit
misrepresents the applicable standard in the lease and
correspondingly fails to conduct an inspection in accordance with
the standard stated in the lease.

In 2011, the trial court granted class certification of Agrawal's
claims, certifying a nationwide class and an Ohio subclass under
Civ.R. 23(B)(2) and (3). In Agrawal I, this court affirmed the
trial court's judgment granting class certification of a
nationwide class and Ohio subclass but reversed class
certification of Agrawal's claim for actual damages under the CLA.

On appeal, Ford Credit argues that the trial court erred in
granting class certification because Agrawal's claims and Ford
Credit's defenses require individualized inquiries that preclude
classwide adjudication.

After the Ohio Supreme Court reversed the judgment of the trial
court granting class certification and remanded the action for
further proceedings in light of Cullen v. State Farm Mut. Auto.
Ins. Co., 137 Ohio St.3d 373, 2013-Ohio-4733, 999 N.E.2d 614. Upon
remand, Ford Credit expanded the record by producing a large
sample of VCRs that were prepared by dealers when lessees returned
their vehicles. Ford Credit also produced an expert report
describing the variations in the conditions of individual. Agrawal
did not produce any additional discovery material or expand the
class record. He filed a renewed motion to certify the same
proposed classes that had been previously certified by the trial
court. Upon re-examining the issue of class certification in light
of Cullen, the trial court again granted Agrawal's motion for
class certification.

Ford Motor Credit Company is represented by Brett K. Bacon, Esq.
-- bbacon@frantzward.com -- Gregory R. Farkas, Esq. --
gfarkas@frantzward.com -- and Colleen C. Murnane, Esq. --
cmurnane@frantzward.com -- FRANTZ WARD, L.L.P. -- Brian D. Boyle,
Esq. -- bboyle@omm.com -- O'MELVENY & MYERS, L.L.P. -- Warren E.
Platt, Esq. -- wplatt@swlaw.com -- SNELL & WILMER

Sudesh Agrawal is represented by Patrick J. Perotti, Esq. --
pperotti@dworkenlaw.com -- DWORKEN & BERNSTEIN CO., L.P.A. --
Anand N. Misra, Esq. -- misraan@misralaw.com --- THE MISRA LAW
FIRM, L.L.C.


FREEPORT-MCMORAN OIL: Class Certification Sought in "Garcia" Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
David A. Garcia asks the Court to certify that the action styled
DAVID A. GARCIA, an individual v. FREEPORT-MCMORAN OIL AND GAS,
LLC, a Delaware limited liability company; and DOES 1 through 100,
inclusive, Case No. 2:16-cv-04320-R-AJW (C.D. Cal.), is
maintainable as a class action under Rule 23(b)(3) of the Federal
Rules of Civil Procedure.

Mr. Garcia seeks class certification of this putative class:

     All hourly and otherwise non-exempt employees of Defendants,
     who, at any time within four years from the date of filing
     of this lawsuit, worked on oil platforms off of the
     California coast for periods of 24 hours or more.

The Plaintiff also asks the Court to certify him as class
representative and his counsel of record as counsel for the class.

The Court will commence a hearing on October 17, 2016, at 10:00
a.m., to consider the Motion.

A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=rXoI0dxu

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Anthony R. Strauss, Esq.
          Aris E. Karakalos, Esq.
          STRAUSS LAW GROUP, APC
          121 N. Fir St., Suite F
          Ventura, CA 93001
          Telephone: (805) 641-9992
          Facsimile: (805) 641-9993
          E-mail: ars@strausslawgroup.com
                  aek@strausslawgroup.com

               - and -

          Paul R. Huff, Esq.
          JONES & LESTER, LLP
          300 E. Esplanade Drive, # 1200
          Oxnard, CA 93036
          Telephone: (805) 288-6260
          Facsimile: (805) 604-2656
          E-mail: phuff@nielsonhuff.com


GANNETT: Loses Bid to Dismiss Privacy Class Action
--------------------------------------------------
Wendy Davis, writing for MediaPost, reports that Gannett has lost
another round in a battle over whether it violated a video privacy
law by allegedly sending Adobe information about people who
downloaded USA Today's app.

A federal judge in Boston rejected Gannett's argument that the
potential class-action should be dismissed because Massachusetts
resident Alexander Yershov wasn't injured by any alleged violation
of the privacy law.

U.S. District Court Judge F. Dennis Saylor IV ruled that even
though Mr. Yershov's alleged harm was "intangible," he could still
proceed in court.  "The intangible harm allegedly suffered by
Yershov . . . is a concrete injury," Saylor wrote in a 19-page
ruling.

The decision marks the latest setback for Gannett in a high-
profile battle over whether USA Today's app runs afoul of the
Video Privacy Protection Act -- a 26-year-old law that prohibits
video providers from disclosing personally identifiable data about
consumers' video-watching history without their consent.

Mr. Yershov alleged in a 2014 lawsuit that Gannett violated that
law by sharing information about Android users -- including device
identifiers, geolocation data and video viewing history -- with
Adobe.

Gannett previously argued the case should be dismissed at an early
stage for several reasons.  The company contended that Android
device identifiers -- a string of numbers unique to each device --
are not personally identifiable information. The company also says
people who download a free app aren't "subscribers."

Judge Saylor initially agreed with Gannett and dismissed the
lawsuit.  But Mr. Yershov appealed to the 1st Circuit Court of
Appeals, which revived the case and sent it back to the trial
court.  The appellate judges wrote in a decision issued in May
that device identifiers combined with geolocation data could be
personally identifiable.

Gannett unsuccessfully asked the appellate court to reconsider
that order.  The news publisher's efforts were supported by a host
of outside companies and organizations, including the Interactive
Advertising Bureau, The New York Times and Huffington Post.  The
groups argued in a friend-of-the-court brief that the appellate
court's decision "risks exposing companies to broad class action
liability for routine digital transactions that are essential to
online content distribution."

Earlier this summer, Gannett asked Saylor to throw out the case on
the grounds that Mr. Yershov wasn't injured.  The company argued
that the Supreme Court's recent decision in a matter involving
online data broker Spokeo required dismissal of Yershov's lawsuit.

The Supreme Court ruled that Spokeo would only have to face a
lawsuit for allegedly displaying incorrect information about
consumers if the they can first show the errors caused a
"concrete" injury.

The Spokeo matter was centered on the Fair Credit Reporting Act,
as opposed to the video privacy law.  But Gannett argued that the
Supreme Court's rationale also applies to privacy cases.

"Yershov does not identify any concrete injury that he suffered
from Gannett's alleged disclosures," Gannett wrote in legal papers
filed in late June. "And any injury he can conjure up would
require a lengthy chain of assumptions and speculation about what
a third-party might do."

Mr. Yershov successfully countered that Gannett "concretely
harmed" him by allegedly disclosing his video-viewing data.

Gannett and Mr. Yershof are expected back in court later this
month for further proceedings.


GOLDEN ENTERPRISES: "Goss" Sues BOD Over Sale to Utz Quality
------------------------------------------------------------
William M. Goss, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. Mark W. McCutcheon, J. Wallace Nall, John
P. McKleroy, Randy Paul Bates, David A. Jones, Joann F. Bashinsky,
F. Wayne Pate, William Barry Morton, John S. Stein III, John S. P.
Samford and Edward R. Pascoe, Defendants, Case No. 59537520, (Del.
Ch., September 9, 2016), seeks preliminary and permanent
enjoinment from consummating the acquisition of Golden Enterprises
by Utz Quality Foods, Inc.  The suit further seeks rescissory
damages, damages sustained, costs and disbursements of this
action, including reasonable attorney, accountant and expert fees
and such other and further relief under the Securities and
Exchange Act.

The Golden Enterprises Board decided to sell the company to Utz
Quality Foods for $12.00 per share in cash for a total of
approximately $135.5 million. Such transaction was allegedly not
fair dealing and does not provide minority stockholders with an
acceptable price for the Golden common shares. Defendants are
members of its board of directors.

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Brian D. Long, Esq.
      Seth D. Rigrodsky, Esq.
      Gina M. Serra,  Esq
      Jeremy J. Riley, Esq.
      RIGRODSKY & LONG, P.A.
      2 Righter Parkway, Suite 120
      Wilmington, DE 19803
      Tel: (302) 295-531

            - and -

      Shannon L. Hopkins, Esq.
      Stephanie A. Bartone, Esq.
      733 Summer Street, Suite 304
      Stamford, CT 06901
      Tel: (203) 992-452


GREAT PLAINS ENERGY: Plaintiff Agree to Withdraw Injunction Bid
---------------------------------------------------------------
Great Plains Energy Incorporated said in its Form 8-K Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on September 19, 2016,
that the parties in the Missouri class action have agreed that in
exchange for the plaintiff agreeing to withdraw the Injunction
Motion, Great Plains Energy would make additional supplemental
disclosures to the Joint Proxy Statement/Prospectus.

As previously disclosed in the definitive joint proxy
statement/prospectus (the "Joint Proxy Statement/Prospectus")
filed by each of Great Plains Energy Incorporated ("Great Plains
Energy") and Westar Energy, Inc. ("Westar") on August 25, 2016,
Great Plains Energy and the members of its board of directors (the
"Great Plains Energy Board") have been named as defendants in a
putative class action complaint filed in Jackson County, Missouri
on July 19, 2016. That case is captioned Kolstad v. Bassham et
al., Cause No. 1616-CV17525 (the "Missouri Action").

The complaint in the Missouri Action asserts that the members of
the Great Plains Energy Board breached their fiduciary duties of
candor in connection with the proposed merger between Great Plains
Energy and Westar. The complaint alleges, among other things, that
Great Plains Energy's Form S-4 filed on July 14, 2016 (File No.
333-212513) failed to disclose certain material information. The
complaint seeks, among other things, injunctive relief enjoining
the shareholder vote on the merger and an award for costs,
including attorneys' fees and experts' fees. A motion for a
preliminary injunction enjoining the shareholder vote was filed
with the complaint on July 19, 2016 (the "Injunction Motion").

The defendants believe that the claims asserted against them are
without merit. To reduce certain burdens, expenses and
uncertainties caused by the Missouri Action and the Injunction
Motion, however, Great Plains Energy mooted certain of the alleged
omissions described in the complaint by disclosing certain
additional information in the Joint Proxy Statement/Prospectus
regarding operating efficiencies projected to result from the
merger and information regarding compensation received by Great
Plains Energy's financial advisor.

On September 13, 2016, the parties in the Missouri Action agreed
that in exchange for the plaintiff agreeing to withdraw the
Injunction Motion, Great Plains Energy would make additional
supplemental disclosures to the Joint Proxy Statement/Prospectus
to eliminate certain burdens, expenses and uncertainties caused by
the Injunction Motion. This agreement does not release or
otherwise prejudice any potential claims of any member of the
putative class and does not constitute any admission by any of the
defendants as to the merits of any claims.


HSBC BANK: NY Court Dismisses "Hill" Amended Complaint
------------------------------------------------------
District Judge Laura Taylor Swain of the United States District
Court for the Southern District of New York granted Defendants'
motion to dismiss the Amended Complaint in the case captioned,
STEPHEN HILL et al., Plaintiffs, v. HSBC BANK PLC et al.,
Defendants, Case No. 14CV09745-LTS (S.D.N.Y.).

Plaintiffs brought a class action against the various HSBC-
affiliated Defendants (HSBC or HSBC Defendants), who served as
custodians and administrators to certain "feeder" funds that
invested in Bernie Madoff's Ponzi scheme, alleging four claims:
aiding and abetting breach of fiduciary duty (Count Three); aiding
and abetting conversion (Count Four); aiding and abetting fraud
(Count Five), and unjust enrichment (Count Six).

Plaintiffs are individuals who maintained discretionary accounts
at Bernard L. Madoff Investment Securities LLC (BLMIS), which gave
Madoff and BLMIS complete discretion over which investments they
would purportedly make for Plaintiffs. Plaintiffs allege that they
never had an expectation that Madoff and/or BLMIS would be
purchasing specific securities or other assets for their accounts,
or that Madoff would adhere to any specific investment strategy.

HSBC moves to dismiss the Amended Complaint as against all
Defendants other than HSBC Bank USA, N.A. (Foreign Defendants) for
lack of personal jurisdiction. Defendants argue that Securities
Litigation Uniform Standard Act of 1998 bars all of the claims in
the Amended Complaint because the instant suit is a "covered class
action" under the meaning of that statute which provides that "No
covered class action based upon the statutory or common law of any
State or subdivision thereof may be maintained in any State or
Federal court by any private party alleging -- (A) a
misrepresentation or omission of a material fact in connection
with the purchase or sale of a covered security; or(B) that the
defendant used or employed any manipulative or deceptive device or
contrivance in connection with the purchase or sale of a covered
security."

In her Memorandum Opinion and Order dated September 15, 2016
available at https://is.gd/BBsv5R from Leagle.com, Judge Swain
found that Plaintiffs have failed to demonstrate that Foreign
Defendants have transacted business sufficient under Section
302(a)(1) to confer personal jurisdiction over them in New York
and that Plaintiffs have failed to demonstrate a basis for
personal jurisdiction over the Foreign Defendants, and
accordingly, the Court dismisses the Amended Complaint against the
Foreign Defendants.

As to SLUSA claims, the Court found 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," which the Second Circuit in Herald, 753 F.3d
at 113; Kingate, 784 F.3d at 142 has squarely held satisfies the
"in connection with" the purchase or sale of a security
requirement under SLUSA.

Stephen Hill, et al. are represented by Andrew J. Entwistle, Esq.
-- aentwistle@entwistle-law.com -- Arthur V. Nealon, Esq. --
anealon@entwistle-law.com -- Robert N. Cappucci, Esq. --
rcappucci@entwistle-law.com -- and Vincent Roger Cappucci, Esq.
-- vcappucci@entwistle-law.com -- ENTWISTLE & CAPPUCCI LLP --
Jason Allen Zweig, Esq. -- jason@hbsslaw.com -- Reed R. Kathrein,
Esq. -- reed@hbsslaw.com -- and Steve W. Berman, Esq. --
steve@hbsslaw.com -- HAGENS BERMAN SOBOL SHAPIRO LLP

HSBC Bank PLC, et al. are represented by Thomas J. Moloney, Esq.
-- tmoloney@cgsh.com -- and Joaquin Pablo Terceno, III, Esq. --
jterceno@cgsh.com -- CLEARY GOTTLIEB


HUTCHINSON CITY, KS: Class Action Mulled Over Storm Water Fees
--------------------------------------------------------------
Adam Stewart, writing for The Hutchinson News, reports that
Greg Dovel, owner of Dovel's Plumbing, Heating & Air Conditioning,
told the Hutchinson City Council on Sept. 6 that if the city
doesn't renegotiate storm water utility fees, which increased this
year, he and more than 350 other businesses would file a class-
action lawsuit against the city, although he declined to specify
what businesses those were.

"Mark my word, it will happen," Mr. Dovel said.

If it comes to that, Mr. Dovel said he would try to get the Kansas
Bureau of Investigation involved to audit city departments.

After the meeting, he told The News he planned to hire an attorney
for the case.  He added that he would seek an injunction to stop
the city from collecting the fees and would spearhead a recall
effort against all five sitting council members.

He said lots of businesses were looking at leaving Hutchinson
because of the higher fees.

"You guys have turned property values in South Hutch way up," he
said.

Rates increase in January.  The monthly rate for a residential
property rose from $2 to $4.75.  Businesses are charged on a scale
based on the area of impervious surfaces -- parking lots or
driveways of asphalt, concrete or compacted materials, as well as
building roofs -- they have.

That fee is $4.75 a month per 3,120 square feet -- the average
impervious area of a residential property -- of impervious
surface, but there is no upper limit to that amount.  Previously,
businesses paid $4 to $128 per month, depending on size.

The city council approved the fee structure in January 2015 but
delayed implementation until 2016 after the Kansas State Fair --
one of the entities hit hardest by the rate hike -- said its
budget for the year already was set without money for increased
storm water fees.  Fair Manager Susan Sankey wrote in an email to
The News that the fair board has not discussed legal action over
the fees, but that Mr. Dovel has made several unscheduled visits
to the fair offices.

Mr. Dovel said he didn't have a problem with the fees being
proportional based on size, but he protested the amount. He said
if the city had maintained storm water infrastructure all along,
the city wouldn't be in the position it's in.

Council member Jade Piros de Carvalho said she thought previous
councils hadn't raised the fee because they knew it would be
unpopular -- as it has proven this year -- but it was something
that had to be done.

When the council approved the rates, it was told there were about
$56 million in storm-water projects that were needed, but the
previous fee only generated about $530,000 per year, meaning it
would take more than a century to accomplish those projects.

A task force that considered the city's direction for storm-water
issues determined there were three options to fund projects:
property tax, sales tax or a storm-water fee.

The new fee generates around $2 million per year, Director of
Public Works Brian Clennan said.

Mr. Dovel asked for an answer from the council within five days,
but council members said they wouldn't vote on anything before
then, so he asked when he could expect an answer.

Council member Steve Dechant said that if the council doesn't take
action, that will be the answer.

Mr. Dechant said he wasn't inclined to change a decision the city
spent a lot of time and consideration making, especially if it
meant turning a 30-year process (with the current fee) back into a
50- or 75-year process.


ITT EDUCATIONAL: Faces Class Action Over Sudden Mass Layoff
-----------------------------------------------------------
Peg Brickley, writing for The Wall Street Journal, reports that a
laid-off teacher and an office staffer at ITT Educational Services
filed a lawsuit on Sept. 6 seeking class-action status on behalf
of the 8,000 employees caught up in the closure of the embattled
for-profit school operator.

The lawsuit seeks to hold the Indiana company to account for
failing to give the 60-days notice required under federal law when
large numbers of employees are terminated en masse.

ITT on Sept. 6 suddenly announced it was closing some 130
locations, due to a decision by the federal government to cut off
financial aid to new students.

A spokeswoman for ITT couldn't immediately be reached for comment
on Sept. 6 on the lawsuit, which invokes the federal Worker
Adjustment Retraining and Notification Act, or WARN Act.

ITT on Sept. 6 blamed government action for its sudden decision to
close its doors immediately, and called the federal funding cutoff
for new students "inappropriate and unconstitutional."

The closure affected some 40,000 students, as well as thousands of
employees,

It is too soon to tell how many ITT employees can shelter under
the WARN Act, said Jack Raisner, the New York lawyer representing
the ITT workers in the suit.

The law applies only to locations with 50 or more employees.
Employees of smaller ITT campuses might be unprotected by the law,
which entitles them to pay and benefits in lieu of notice, Mr.
Raisner said.

Filed in Delaware, the WARN Act lawsuit was brought in the names
of a headquarters employee, business analyst Allen Federman, and
an instructor at three California campuses, Steve Ryan.

Some employees at ITT headquarters said they received emails on
Sept. 2 telling them to take an extra-long Labor Day weekend and
not to report for work on Sept. 6.

"People were blowing money all weekend, not knowing they were
fired," Mr. Raisner said.  "That's ruffled some feathers."

Mr. Raisner also represented employees of Corinthian College,
another for-profit school chain that closed down after the federal
government withdrew aid.

ITT, like Corinthian, could have defenses to claims it violated
federal laws with the mass, no-warning layoff, Mr. Raisner said.
Unforeseen business circumstances can excuse a WARN Act violation
in some instances, and ITT has already said aggressive government
tactics left it no choice.


JEFFERSON COUNTY PUBLIC: Court Certifies Class in "Cochran" Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Hon. Greg N. Stivers granted the Plaintiffs' motion to certify
class filed in the lawsuit entitled JEANNEAN COCHRAN, ET AL., ON
BEHALF OF THEMSELVES AND THE CLASS THEY SEEK TO REPRESENT v.
JEFFERSON COUNTY PUBLIC SCHOOLS BOARD OF EDUCATION ET AL., Case
No. 3:15-cv-00751-GNS-CHL (W.D. Ky.).

Judge Stivers ruled that Counts II and III of the action will be
maintained as a plaintiff class action by Plaintiff Class
Representatives on behalf of the class, defined as:

     all union nonmember employees who, at any time since
     September 23, 2014 (and while this action is pending), are
     or were employed in the Job Family 1A classification and
     salary schedule for Jefferson County Public Schools and are,
     were or will be required to pay a compulsory fee to
     Defendants Jefferson County Association of Educational
     Support Personnel, American Federation of State, County and
     Municipal Employees Local 4011 ("Local 4011", American
     Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees,
     Indiana-Kentucky Organizing Committee 962 ("Council 962"),
     and/or American Federation of State, County and Municipal
     Employees, AFL-CIO pursuant to a compulsory unionism
     agreement between Local 4011, Council 962, Jefferson County
     Public Schools Board of Education, and Donna M. Hargens,
     Superintendent.

The Court also appointed the Plaintiffs' counsel, Milton L.
Chappell, Esq., Richard L. Masters, Esq., and Sarah E. Hartsfield,
Esq., as class counsel.

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


JL INVESTMENT: "Ricardo" Suit Moved from Cir. Ct. to S.D. Fla.
--------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit titled Julio Ricardo, and other similarly
situated individuals, the Plaintiff, v. JL Investment Group, LLC,
doing business as Olivos a Florida profit limited liability
company; Andres Amorosi, individually; and Maria Amorosi,
individually, Case No. 16-020057 CA 01, was removed from the 11th
Judicial Circuit of Florida, to the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of Florida (Miami). The District Court Clerk
assigned Case No. 1:16-cv-24041-CMA to the proceeding. The
assigned Judge is Hon. Cecilia M. Altonaga.

JL Investment provides real estate investment services.

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:

          Gary Andrew Costales, Esq.
          GARY A. COSTALES
          1200 Brickell Ave., Suite 1230
          Miami, FL 33131
          Telephone: (305) 375 9510
          Facsimile: (305) 375 9511
          E-mail: costalesgary@hotmail.com


JOSHUA BLACKMAN: Files Appeal in "Gascho" Class Action
------------------------------------------------------
Joshua Blackman, Petitioner v. Amber Gascho, on Behalf of Herself
and All Others Similarly Situated, et al., Case No. 16-364 (U.S.,
Sept. 21, 2016), is an appeal filed before the United States
Supreme Court from a lower court decision in Case No. 14-3798 (6th
Cir., June 20, 2016).

Petitioner Joshua Blackman is represented by:

          Joshua Blackman, Esq.
          Houston College of Law
          1303 San Jacinto Street
          Houston, TX 77002
          Telephone: (202) 294 9003
          E-mail: jblackman@hcl.edu


JPMORGAN CHASE: Maine Court Revives "Sabina" Action
---------------------------------------------------
Justice Ellen A. Gorman of the Maine Supreme Judicial Court
partially vacated the judgment dismissing the case captioned, ALEC
T. SABINA et al., v. JPMORGAN CHASE BANK, N.A., Case No. BCD-15-
430 (Me.), and remanded the matter for further proceedings.

Alec T. and Emma L. Sabina filed their amended complaint against
Chase in the Business and Consumer Docket on April 27, 2015. They
alleged that in March 2011, the Sabinas received a loan from Chase
that was secured by a mortgage on their real property in Portland.
When they finished paying off the mortgage in October of 2013,
Chase executed a written mortgage release and recorded that
document in the Cumberland County Registry of Deeds. The registry
then returned the recorded mortgage release to Chase. Chase mailed
a copy of the document to the Sabinas, but it retained the actual
document that it received from the registry. The Sabinas claimed
that Chase violated 33 M.R.S. Sec. 551 by failing to mail them the
"original" mortgage release document.

Chase moved to dismiss the action pursuant to M.R. Civ. P.
12(b)(6). After a hearing in July of 2015, the court granted
Chase's motion and dismissed the case with prejudice. The court
concluded that 33 M.R.S. Section 551 is ambiguous as to whether a
mortgagee complies with the statute when it mails a copy of the
mortgage release, as opposed to the "original," to the mortgagor.
Construing section 551 strictly as a "penal" statute, the court
concluded that mailing a copy of the recorded document
accomplishes the purpose of the statute, noting that the statute
does not contain the word "original."

On appeal, the Sabinas contend that the trial court abused its
discretion when it dismissed the complaint for failure to state a
claim upon which relief can be granted pursuant to M.R. Civ. P.
12(b)(6).

In her Order dated September 13, 2016 available at
https://is.gd/EUj7gc from Leagle.com, Judge Gorman concluded that
the trial court erred when it dismissed the action because the
allegations that Chase mailed a copy of the recorded mortgage
release document that it received from the registry, instead of
the actual document, were sufficient to state a claim that Chase
violated section 551.

The Sabinas also brought their claim as a class action on behalf
of similarly situated borrowers.  Their class action allegations
are not at issue in this appeal.

Alec T. Sabina and Emma L. Sabina are represented by Michael R.
Bosse, Esq. -- mbosse@bernsteinshur.com -- Daniel J. Mitchell,
Esq. -- dmitchell@bernsteinshur.com -- and Meredith C. Eilers,
Esq. -- meilers@bernsteinshur.com -- BERNSTEIN SHUR

JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A. is represented by Robert M. Brochin,
Esq. -- bobby.brochin@morganlewis.com -- and Brian M. Ercole, Esq.
-- brian.ercole@morganlewis.com -- MORGAN, LEWIS & BOCKIUS


JUNO THERAPEUTICS: Faces Securities Class Action in Washington
--------------------------------------------------------------
Pomerantz LLP disclosed that a class action lawsuit has been filed
against Juno Therapeutics Inc. and certain of its officers. The
class action, filed in United States District Court, Western
District of Washington, and docketed under 16-cv-01083, is on
behalf of a class consisting of all persons or entities who
purchased or otherwise acquired Juno securities between June 4,
2016 and July 7, 2016 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").  The Complaint alleges
that throughout the Class Period, Defendants made materially false
and misleading statements regarding the Company's business,
operational and compliance policies.  Specifically, Defendants
made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose
that: Defendants made misleading partial disclosures about
JCAR015's safety and made public misrepresentations or failed to
disclose material facts of the death of patients in its Phase 2
clinical trial.


KINDRED HEALTHCARE: Agreed to Pay Plaintiffs' Counsel Fee
---------------------------------------------------------
Kindred Healthcare, Inc. said in its Form 8-K Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on September 16, 2016, that
the parties in a class action lawsuit have discussed the payment
of the fees and expenses, and in order to avoid the uncertainties
and costs associated with a contested application for attorneys'
fees and expenses, the Company has agreed to pay plaintiffs'
counsel a fee in the amount of $195,000.

Gentiva Health Services ("Gentiva"), Kindred Healthcare, Inc.
("Kindred" or the "Company") and the former directors of Gentiva
(the "Gentiva Board") were named as defendants in a putative class
action captioned In re Gentiva Health Services, Inc. Stockholder
Litigation (the "Class Action"). Plaintiffs in the Class Action
alleged, among other things, that the members of the Gentiva Board
breached their fiduciary duties by agreeing to the merger with
Kindred (the "Merger") for inadequate consideration and by
agreeing to lock-up the Merger with various deal protection
provisions, and misrepresented and failed to disclose in the
definitive proxy statement filed by Gentiva on December 18, 2014
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (the "Proxy
Statement") allegedly material information necessary for the
stockholders of Gentiva to cast an informed vote on the Merger.
Kindred, Gentiva and the Gentiva Board believed strongly that the
Class Action claims were without merit.

On January 15, 2015, solely to eliminate the burden, expense and
risk of further litigation, and without admitting any liability or
wrongdoing, Kindred, Gentiva and the Gentiva Board entered into a
memorandum of understanding with the plaintiffs in the Class
Action to reach an agreement-in-principle to settle the
litigation. In consideration for the full settlement and dismissal
with prejudice of the Class Action, Gentiva made certain
supplemental disclosures to the Proxy Statement (the "Supplemental
Disclosures"). While Kindred and Gentiva maintain that the
Supplemental Disclosures were neither necessary nor material, they
believed that filing the Supplemental Disclosures was not likely
to cause harm to the Company and would moot the claims asserted by
the plaintiffs, eliminating the possibility that plaintiffs'
pursuit of the Class Action claims would delay the closing of the
Merger.

On June 8, 2016, the parties agreed to and filed a proposed order
voluntarily dismissing the Class Action. The Court subsequently
signed the order on July 6, 2016, dismissing the Class Action. The
Court retained jurisdiction in order to resolve any application by
plaintiffs' counsel for an award of attorneys' fees and
reimbursement of expenses related to the Class Action.

The parties have subsequently discussed the payment of such fees
and expenses, and in order to avoid the uncertainties and costs
associated with a contested application for attorneys' fees and
expenses, the Company has agreed to pay plaintiffs' counsel a fee
in the amount of $195,000 (the "Negotiated Attorney Fee").
Plaintiffs' counsel has determined that the payment of the
Negotiated Attorney Fee negates any need to petition the Court for
any additional attorneys' fees or expenses related to the Class
Action.


L'OREAL: Faces Class Action Over Amla Legend Hair Relaxer
---------------------------------------------------------
Amanda Bronstad, writing for The National Law Journal, reports
that celebrity attorney Mark Geragos has filed a class action
alleging that L'Oreal's Amla Legend hair relaxer has left women
with hair loss and scalp burns.

The suit, filed on Sept. 14 in federal court in Los Angeles, cites
numerous consumer complaints on Amazon.com about the SoftSheen
Carson Optimum Amla Legend Relaxer Kit, which is sold to African-
American women and promoted by numerous celebrities including
Beyonce, Kelly Rowland and the hair stylist to Michelle Obama.

In the suit, two California women and one woman in Illinois allege
that the product burned their scalps and caused their hair to fall
out despite claims that it contained Amla oil, derived from the
gooseberry fruit in India -- a less toxic ingredient than lye,
which is in many relaxers.

"Amla oil is a natural product that had gained substantial
popularity within the African-American community as a natural
ingredient that was effective," said Ben Meiselas, an attorney at
Los Angeles-based Geragos & Geragos, which filed the case with
Lori Feldman of New York's Levi & Korsinsky.  "Amla is really the
last ingredient, and only trace amounts of Amla are in the product
itself.  The product is really petroleum jelly mixed with a number
of hazardous and toxic chemicals."

"L'Oreal USA was recently informed of a legal case filed by two
people related to Optimum Amla Legend hair relaxer by Softsheen
Carson launched a few years ago in the U.S.," the company's chief
communications officer said in a statement on Sept. 16.  "Relaxers
are technical products that can be used safely according to the
instructions.  We cannot comment on this legal action and L'Oreal
USA is investigating the situation."

L'Oreal launched the product in 2013 as a safer alternative to
relaxers that traditionally contained harsh chemicals.  Other
celebrities who have helped promote the relaxer, sold at
Wal-Mart, Sally Beauty Supply, CVS and other retailers, were "The
Real Housewives of Atlanta" star Cynthia Bailey and actress Tracee
Ellis Ross.


LIFE PROTECT: Parties Agree to Terminate "Primack" Class Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
The Clerk of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of
Illinois made a docket entry on September 14, 2016, in the case
styled Merrill Primack v. Life Protect 24/7, Inc., et al., Case
No. 1:16-cv-05249 (N.D. Ill.), relating to a hearing held before
the Honorable Jorge L. Alonso.

The minute entry states that:

   -- a stipulation of dismissal has been filed;

   -- Plaintiff's individual claims are dismissed with prejudice,
      and Plaintiff's class claims are dismissed without
      prejudice;

   -- Plaintiff's motion for class certification is moot;

   -- the status hearing date of September 15, 2016 was stricken;
      and

   -- civil case is terminated.

A copy of the Notification of Docket Entry is available at no
charge at http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=74WkCX8k


LINCOLN HERITAGE: Faces "Mckenzie" Suit in E.D. of Pennsylvania
---------------------------------------------------------------
A lawsuit has been filed against LINCOLN HERITAGE LIFE INSURANCE
COMPANY. The case is captioned BRITTANY L. HOLMES MCKENZIE, ON
BEHALF OF HERSELF AND ALL OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED; and CYRUS
SCOTT, AS ADMINISTRATOR FOR THE ESTATE OF JOYCE SEGARS-LEVASSEUR,
ON BEHALF OF HIMSELF AND ALL OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED, the
Plaintiffs, v. LINCOLN HERITAGE LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY, and LONDEN
INSURANCE GROUP, INC., the Defendants, Case No. 2:16-cv-05052-JHS
(E.D. Penn., Sept. 21, 2016). The assigned Judge is Hon. Joel H.
Slomsky.

Lincoln Heritage provides life insurance for final expense,
Medicare supplements and other senior products.

The Plaintiffs ares represented by:

          Richard M. Ochroch, Esq.
          OCHROCH & ASSOC., P.C.
          318 South 16th Street
          Philadelphia, PA 19102
          Telephone: (215) 735 2707
          Facsimile: (215) 790 0491
          E-mail: rochroch@ochroch-law.com

The Defendants are represented by:

          Glen D. Kimball, Esq.
          O'CONNOR KIMBALL LLP
          1500 John F Kennedy Blvd
          Ste 1100 Two Penn Ctr
          Philadelphia, PA 19103
          Telephone: (215) 564 0400
          E-mail: gkimball@okllp.com


LINCOLN PARK, MI: Residents File Class Action Over Flood Damage
---------------------------------------------------------------
Dave Spencer, writing for FOX2, reports that major flooding in
Lincoln Park has left residents furious about sewage backups in
their basements and some are filing a class action suit against
the city.

Four weeks ago, 2 inches of rain in two hours caused a mountain of
problems for people living in the Council Point Park subdivision
of Lincoln Park.

Now some of them are joining together and suing the city for their
flood damage.

"Replacing things and building things back together, I'm probably
looking at $50,000," said Bob Holbird, a flood victim.

Four weeks after the sewers backed up into homes and you can still
see who got hit hard.

"It's just continuously mounting up," Mr. Holbird said.

The repairs left to do now are nothing compared to what
Mr. Holbird was dealing with in the immediate aftermath of August
16.

"I come flying down the stairs to see what was going on.  The
whole place was soaked," he said.

He's one of the 50 or so named in a class action lawsuit against
the city, claiming negligence led to this issue.

"This is sewage.  It was not water or a broken pipe.  It was
sewage," said Phillip Bazzo, the class-action lawsuit attorney.

Mr. Holbird met Mr. Bazzo shortly during the initial clean up.

"When (the attorney) came by I had a 30 yard dumpster almost
full," Mr. Holbird said.

According to the attorney, what happened to his basement could
have been avoided if the city would have restricted the amount of
water flowing into the system.

"This is not expensive or rocket science.  This doesn't require
much planning. You just have to have a will to do it," Mr. Bazzo
said.

He points to the sewer grates as a quick fix. Some in the city
have fewer holes than others.  In his opinion, they should all be
this way.

"You want to keep the water in the streets and out of people's
basements," Mr. Bazzo said.

After hearing this, Mr. Holbird was on board with the lawsuit.

"It makes you want turn around take everyone that's in office and
throw them out," he said.

The City of Lincoln Park acknowledges the problems from the flood
on its webpage.

Stating the sewer system was overwhelmed and attached a claim form
residents with flood damage can fill out, it states those looking
for money must prove the system had a defect and the city knew
about it.

That's something Mr. Holbird says he plans to with the help of his
attorney.

Mr. Bazzo says if there are others who want to join the lawsuit,
they have until Sept. 29 to do so.

"The court agrees," Judge Murphy ruled.  "If this case survives
the summary judgment phase of the case then class certification is
entirely appropriate and should go forward promptly."


LINN COUNTY: Class Action v. Forestry Dep't Steps Closer to Trial
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Alex Paul, writing for Albany Democrat-Herald, reports that if it
survives the summary judgment phase of litigation, Linn County's
$1.4 billion breach of contract lawsuit against the Oregon
Department of Forestry will likely proceed as a class action, Linn
County Circuit Court Judge Daniel Murphy ruled late on
Sept. 6.

The Sept. 6 decision comes in the wake of an Aug. 17 hearing on
the lawsuit, filed in March by Linn County on behalf of 145
counties, subdivisions of counties and other taxing districts that
receive funds from timber harvesting on state forest trust lands.

Linn County contends that the state has broken what amounts to a
decades-old contract to manage the lands, which the state acquired
from the counties, based on the "greatest permanent value."

The lawsuit argues that the phrase "greatest permanent value"
requires the state to manage the lands in question for the
greatest sustainable timber harvest.  As the state has expanded
the definition of "greatest permanent value" to include other
factors such as watershed preservation and recreation, the suit
argues, that has resulted in decreasing timber harvests, which in
turn has reduced the amount of money paid to county governments
and other entities.  The lawsuit seeks $1.4 billion in damages.

Lawyers for the state filed motions to dismiss the case, to move
it to the Oregon Court of Appeals and to deny the class action.

But Judge Murphy ruled the Circuit Court does have jurisdiction to
hear the case, because at its heart, the case is about breach of
contract, an issue clearly within the court's domain.

Judge Murphy also ruled that the requirements for a class action
lawsuit apply, although he agreed with the state that it may be
too early to certify the class "because the expenses, especially
for discovery, arising as a result of the class certification will
be substantial and would all prove meaningless if the court
certified the class before dispositive motions are resolved."

"The court agrees," Judge Murphy ruled.  "If this case survives
the summary judgment phase of the case then class certification is
entirely appropriate and should go forward promptly."

Judge Murphy also ruled that the state enjoys sovereign immunity
and therefore prejudgment interest cannot be applied.

The state argued that Linn County did not "plead a clear and
unmistakable term of a statutory contract that required defendants
to maximize revenue to the benefit of the plaintiff."

But Judge Murphy said documentation exists that "clearly sets out
the elements of contracting including transfer of title in land by
counties in consideration for certain promises to perform by the
state."

He added, "A determination of the exact terms of the contract are
another matter."

At the heart of the matter will be defining "greatest permanent
value," Judge Murphy said, but that was to be in "accordance with
the best grazing and forest management practices" of the time.

But what were those practices in 1941?

That, Judge Murphy said, can only be determined by the gathering
of evidence to be presented in court.

Said Linn County Commissioner Roger Nyquist: "We are grateful to
be one step closer to a satisfactory resolution of this matter for
communities all over rural Oregon.  "To us, this means we are
going to trial."

He said Judge Murphy's decision "defines our case well.  It
focuses on what did the term 'greatest permanent value' mean when
the parties entered these contracts back in the 1930s and '40s.
The decision defines our case well."

Mr. Nyquist added, "We look forward to our day in court."


LOUISIANA: Faces Class Action Over Solar Tax Credit Cap
-------------------------------------------------------
Tara Mapes, writing for Louisiana Record, reports that solar panel
customers are suing the state for allegedly violating their
constitutional rights when it imposed a cap on refundable solar
tax credits in July 2015 and denied claims for systems purchased
before the cap went into effect.

In 2015, the state legislature sliced tax credits in response to a
purported $2 billion budget deficit.  It imposed a cap of $10
million per year on the solar tax credits through 2017.  The cap
drops to $5 million per year for the 2017-2018 fiscal year.

In July 2016, the state Department of Revenue acknowledged it had
already reached the cap to pay claims on purchased systems through
the end of Dec. 31, 2017, writing, "Consumers purchasing
residential solar energy systems from this point forward should
not expect to receive tax credits from the state."

New Orleans Attorney Larry Centola filed the lawsuit on Sept. 9,
requesting certification of a class action against the Louisiana
Department of Revenue for refusing to pay more than 1,000
homeowners the credit for which they were qualified.

Before the tax credit went into effect in July 2015, thousands of
Louisiana residents purchased solar panels for their homes.  The
state promised them a tax credit equal to 50 percent of the
purchase price that could be combined with the federal solar tax
credit of 30 percent.  The Louisiana legislature retroactively
applied the cap to the solar tax credit and denied credits to
homeowners, however.  Mr. Centola is fighting to have the
retroactive cap declared unconstitutional under property laws.

Part of the new law reads, "Beginning in Fiscal Year 2015-2016,
the maximum amount of tax credits for purchased systems which may
be granted by the department on any return, regardless of tax
year, shall be as follows: for tax credits claimed on returns
filed on or after July 1, 2015, and before July 1, 2016, no more
than ten million dollars of tax credits shall be granted."

The court complaint alleges the language of the modified law harms
consumers because it addresses the date consumers file their tax
returns rather than the date the solar panels were purchased.
Consumers who purchased systems for the first half of 2015 were
doing so prior to the law going into effect, but they could not
possibly file tax returns for their purchase until 2016.
Consequently, the language of the law places the cap on consumers
who purchased systems before the law existed, the suit claims.

"The right to the tax credit attaches once a consumer puts the
panels on their homes," Mr. Centola told The Louisiana Record.
"The people who put their panels (up) had that right when putting
the panels on the house.  The state can't take that right away. In
our view, it is clear it was unconstitutional.  The amount these
consumers could be owed is north of $10 million."

Mr. Centola said he believes the motivation for the state to cap
the tax credit was that companies were "possibly abusing the tax
credits."

He explained the tax credit offered 50 percent credits to a system
up to $25,000.  Some of the systems solar companies were
installing weren't worth that much, but they were fraudulently
valuing them at the maximum amount.

"Our information is that (the solar companies') profit was very
large," he said.  "The legislature was frustrated by a few bad
apples spoiling the bunch so the legislature put a tax cap on
credits.  Our message to them is that it's not fair to injure the
consumers when the people you were going after were the solar
companies."

Mr. Centola explained a lot of Louisiana consumers signed up for
one-year interest-free loans for their solar systems because the
government didn't have a cap at the time they signed up.  He said
consumers now are faced with economic hardships they don't know
how to cure.

"Here we are a year later and they don't have the $12,500  from
the state and their loans will begin accruing 19 percent interest
because (the) interest-free time period is about to run out."

In addition to the loss from the tax credits, consumers have
alleged that solar companies are still misrepresenting that the
tax credits are still guaranteed.  Mr. Centola is considering
filing a second lawsuit against these companies to prevent further
harm to consumers.

Mr. Centola said his firm is filing a motion to certify the class
and the next step will be to request the district court to declare
the cap unconstitutional.

"We are hoping the lawsuit forces the state to pay the tax credit
due to these people who purchased the solar system prior to
effective date," Mr. Centola said.  "Our lawsuit has gotten the
attention of some state officials and we are looking forward to
working with them to get a resolution that is beneficial. People
are frustrated, people are angry; we are hoping our lawsuit is the
vehicle for the state to right a wrong."


LUMBER LIQUIDATORS: "Frazier" Suit Moved to Dist. S. Carolina
--------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit titled Joyce Frazier, individually, and
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-06693, was transferred from the
the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California, to
the U.S. District Court for the District of South Carolina
(Charleston). The South Carolina District Court Clerk assigned
Case No. 2:16-cv-03177-RBH to the proceeding. The assigned Judge
is Hon. R Bryan Harwell.

Lumber Liquidators is a specialty retailer of hardwood flooring.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

               - and -

          Robert Ahdoot, Esq.
          Tina Wolfson, Esq.
          AHDOOT AND WOLFSON PC
          1016 Palm Avenue
          West Hollywood, CA 90069
          Telephone: (310) 474 9111
          Facsimile: (310) 474 8585


MAJOR LEAGUE: Judge Reconsiders Class Certification Motion
----------------------------------------------------------
Brian MacPherson, writing for Providence Journal, reports that
less than a month after he denied a motion by minor-league
baseball players to classify their lawsuit against Major League
Baseball as a class action, the U.S. district court judge
presiding over the case has given the plaintiffs a second chance.

In an order issued Aug. 19, Judge Joseph C. Spero granted a motion
by the plaintiffs to reconsider his order to deny class
certification in the case, said Garrett Broshuis, the lead lawyer
for the plaintiffs and a former minor-league pitcher.  Nearly
2,000 current and former minor-league players had signed onto the
lawsuit after it had been conditionally certified as a class
action last October.  The scope of the liability Major League
Baseball faces in a class-action lawsuit is exponentially higher
than the liability it faces if the named plaintiffs involved in
the case now have their cases judged separately.

The plaintiffs must file a 25-page brief to the judge by
Sept. 12.  Major League Baseball and its teams must file a
response by Oct. 14.  A hearing to decide the question is
scheduled for Dec. 2.

Senne v. the Officer of the Commissioner of Baseball had been
scheduled to go to trial next February.  That date has been
postponed indefinitely while Judge Spero decides the question of
class certification.  In their lawsuit, the plaintiffs have argued
Major League Baseball violates minimum-wage and overtime laws in
spring training, in the five-month regular season and in the
offseason.  The defendants have argued that minor-league baseball
players should be classified as seasonal or recreational
employees, exempting them from minimum-wage and overtime laws.

In denying the motion for class certification in July, Judge Spero
accepted the contention of Major League Baseball that players'
unpaid offseason activities were not similar enough to be
considered collectively under federal and state wage laws. That it
at times was difficult to ascertain even which states in which the
players had performed their offseason work made the application of
state wage laws impossible, he wrote in his decision.

In his order granting the motion for reconsideration, the judge
ordered the plaintiffs to propose narrower classes to be certified
collectively -- narrower than the initial class, which had been
all players who had participated in minor-league baseball within
the statute of limitations.

A bill was introduced in Congress in June that would exempt minor-
league baseball players to the Fair Labor Standards Act under
which the players have filed suit, undermining the lawsuit. That
bill has been referred to the House Committee on Education and the
Workforce.


MARCOAH GROUP: Byer Clinic's Bid to Certify to Be Heard on Oct. 4
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The Clerk of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of
Illinois made a docket entry on September 14, 2016, in the case
titled Byer Clinic of Chiropractic, Ltd. v. Marcoah Group USA LLC,
et al., Case No. 1:16-cv-05318 (N.D. Ill.), relating to a hearing
held before the Honorable Rebecca R. Pallmeyer.

The minute entry states that a status hearing was held on
September 14, 2016.  The Plaintiff's First Amended "Damasco"
motion for class certification is entered and continued.  A status
hearing is set for October 4, 2016, at 9:00 a.m.

A copy of the Notification of Docket Entry is available at no
charge at http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=nHvpOBbp


MCKEE FOODS: "Martin" Seeks to Certify Class of Cal. Distributors
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The Plaintiffs ask the Court to certify that the consolidated
action captioned BRIAN MARTIN v. MCKEE FOODS CORPORATION, and DOES
1 through 25; and JAMES JUAN v. MCKEE FOODS CORPORATION, and DOES
1 through 50, Inclusive, Case No. 8:15-cv-00732-AG-JCG (C.D.
Cal.), is maintainable as a class action pursuant to Rule 23 of
the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.  They ask the Court to
certify this class:

     All distributors that performed work for McKee Foods
     Corporation in California from April 1, 2011 to the date of
     certification.

The Plaintiffs also ask the Court to appoint them as class
representatives and to appoint Gould & Associates and the Law
Office of Richard A. Jones as lead class counsel.

The Court will commence a hearing on October 31, 2016, at 10:00
a.m., to consider the Motion.

A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=zCr4cjpx

Plaintiff Brian Martin is represented by:

          Michael A. Gould, Esq.
          Aarin Zeif, Esq.
          GOULD & ASSOCIATES, A PROFESSIONAL LAW CORPORATION
          17822 East 17th Street, Suite 106
          Tustin, CA 92780
          Telephone: (714) 669-2850
          Facsimile: (714) 544-0800
          E-mail: Michael@wageandhourlaw.com
                  Aarin@wageandhourlaw.com

Plaintiff James Juan is represented by:

          Daniel G. Emilio, Esq.
          Laurie M. Cortez, Esq.
          EMILIO LAW GROUP, APC
          12832 Valley View Street, Suite 106
          Garden Grove, CA 92845
          Telephone: (714) 379-6239
          Facsimile: (714) 379-5444
          E-mail: danielemilio@emiliolaw.com
                  LaurieCortez@emiliolaw.com


MDL 2646: Settlement Order in Justice Pricing Suits Under Appeal
----------------------------------------------------------------
Ascena Retail Group, Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on September 19, 2016, for
the fiscal year ended July 30, 2016, that the Court's decision
granting the parties' joint motion for final approval of
settlement has been appealed to the United States Court of Appeals
for the Third Circuit.

The Company is a defendant in a number of class action lawsuits
that allege, among other claims, that Justice's promotional
practices violated state comparative pricing laws in connection
with advertisements promoting a 40% discount.

               Mehigan v. Ascena Retail Group, Inc.
                      and Tween Brands, Inc.

On February 12, 2015, Melinda Mehigan and Fonda Kubiak, both
consumers, filed a purported class action proceeding (the "Mehigan
case") against Ascena Retail Group, Inc. and Tween Brands, Inc.
(doing business as "Justice") in the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, on behalf of themselves
and all similarly situated consumers who, in the case of Ms.
Mehigan in the State of New Jersey, and in the case of Ms. Kubiak
in the State of New York, made purchases at Justice from 2009 to
2015 (the "Alleged Class Period"). The lawsuit alleges that
Justice violated state comparative pricing laws in connection with
advertisements promoting a 40% discount. The plaintiffs further
allege false advertising, violation of state consumer protection
statutes, breach of contract, breach of express warranty and
unfair benefit to Justice. The plaintiffs seek to stop Justice's
allegedly unlawful practice and obtain damages for Justice's
customers in the named states. They also seek interest and legal
fees.

On February 17, 2015, the complaint in the Mehigan case was
amended to add five more named individual plaintiffs and to add
the same allegations against Justice in the States of California,
Florida, Illinois and Texas.

On April 8, 2015, the complaint in the Mehigan case was amended a
second time seeking to make the case a nationwide purported class
action lawsuit. As amended, the case covers Justice customers in
47 states. The excluded states are Hawaii, Alaska and Ohio. During
the Alleged Class Period, Justice did not operate any stores in
Hawaii or Alaska. A similar class action lawsuit making
substantially the same allegations as the Mehigan case was settled
in December 2014 in Ohio.

                   Cowhey v. Tween Brands, Inc.

On February 17, 2015, Carol Cowhey, a consumer, filed a purported
class action proceeding (the "Cowhey case") against Ascena Retail
Group, Inc. and Tween Brands, Inc. (doing business as "Justice")
in the Court of Common Pleas in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania on
behalf of herself and all other similarly situated consumers who
in the State of Pennsylvania made purchases at Justice during the
Alleged Class Period. The allegations in the Cowhey case are
substantially the same as those in the Mehigan case. The relief
sought in the Cowhey case focuses on remedies available under
Pennsylvania law, which the plaintiff claims include treble
damages. On March 19, 2015, Justice removed the Cowhey case to
federal court in the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Pennsylvania.

        Consolidation of Mehigan and Cowhey Cases (Rougvie)

On April 8, 2015, the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Pennsylvania consolidated the Cowhey case and the
Mehigan case. They are now consolidated for all pre-trial purposes
in the federal court in the Eastern District of Pennsylvania.

On June 2, 2015, the court held a Rule 16 Conference and issued a
Scheduling Order and Settlement Conference Order. The Scheduling
Order sets a fact and expert discovery deadline of December 4,
2015, with trial scheduled for early 2016. In light of the
settlement described below, the trial will not go forward.

               Traynor-Lufkin v. Tween Brands, Inc.

On March 6, 2015, Katie Traynor-Lufkin and three other named
plaintiffs, all consumers, filed a purported nationwide class
action (the "Traynor-Lufkin case") against Tween Brands, Inc.
(doing business as "Justice") in the Court of Common Pleas in
Cuyahoga County, Ohio. The Traynor-Lufkin case purports to include
a class of Justice customers in 47 states. As with the Mehigan
case, the Traynor-Lufkin case excludes Hawaii, Alaska and Ohio.
During the Alleged Class Period, Justice did not operate any
stores in Hawaii or Alaska. In December 2014, Justice settled a
similar class action lawsuit in the State of Ohio. The allegations
and damages sought in the Traynor-Lufkin case are substantially
the same as those in the Mehigan case.

                  Removal of Traynor-Lufkin Case
                      and Motion to Transfer

On April 7, 2015, Justice removed the Traynor-Lufkin case to the
United States District Court for the Northern District of Ohio. On
April 13, 2015, Justice filed a motion under 28 U.S.C. Sec.
1408(a) to transfer the Traynor-Lufkin case to the United States
District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania. In
seeking the transfer, Justice argued that there were already two
consolidated actions pending in the Eastern District of
Pennsylvania and that a forum in Ohio is not appropriate because
no Ohio consumers are involved in the case. The Eastern District
of Pennsylvania was advised that the Traynor-Lufkin case was
related to Rougvie, and the case was reassigned on May 27, 2015.

         Consolidation of Traynor-Lufkin and Rougvie case

On June 18, 2015, the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Pennsylvania consolidated the Cowhey case and the
Mehigan case (collectively referred to as Rougvie) and the
Traynor-Lufkin matters. The Scheduling and Settlement Conference
Orders issued in the Rougvie matter are applicable to all parties
in the Traynor-Lufkin and Rougvie cases, including the Company and
all of the named plaintiffs in the consolidated actions.

                  Metoyer v. Tween Brands, Inc.

On May 29, 2015, Theresa Metoyer, a consumer, filed a purported
class action against Tween Brands, Inc. in the United States
District Court for the Central Division of California, Eastern
Division, on behalf of herself and all other similarly situated
consumers who made purchases from Justice stores located in
California during the four years preceding the filing of the
lawsuit. The allegations in the Metoyer case are substantially the
same as those in the other Justice pricing lawsuits described
above. The relief sought by plaintiff is substantially the same as
that sought in the other lawsuits.

On June 18, 2015, Tween Brands, Inc. filed its Answer to the
Complaint. The Court issued an Order setting a scheduling
conference for August 24, 2015. On August 21, 2015, the Court
issued an Order canceling the August 24 conference, directing the
parties to file a joint status report, and indicating that the
Court would consider resetting a status conference after review of
the joint status report. On November 14, 2015, the Court granted
the Company's motion to stay this case in light of the broader
settlement described below.

                  Gallagher v. Tween Brands, Inc.

On June 4, 2015, Robert Gallagher, a consumer, filed a lawsuit
against Tween Brands, Inc. in the United States District Court for
the Eastern District of Missouri, Eastern Division. This lawsuit
includes both national and Missouri purported class actions. The
plaintiff seeks monetary damages and reasonable costs and
attorneys' fees. On August 27, 2015, the Company filed its Answer
to the Complaint. On October 15, 2015, the Court granted the
Company's motion to stay this case in light of the broader
settlement described below.

                  Kallay v. Tween Brands, Inc.

On June 5, 2015, Andrea Kallay, a consumer, filed a purported
class action against Tween Brands, Inc. in the United States
District Court for the Southern District of Ohio, Eastern
Division. This lawsuit includes both national and Wisconsin class
actions. The plaintiff seeks monetary damages and reasonable costs
and attorneys' fees. On August 28, 2015, the Company filed its
Answer to the Complaint. On October 29, 2015, the Court granted
the Company's motion to stay this case in light of the broader
settlement described below.

                  Joiner v. Tween Brands, Inc.

On June 1, 2015, Rebecca Joiner, a consumer, filed a purported
class action against Tween Brands, Inc. in the United States
District Court for the District of Maryland. This lawsuit includes
putative national and Maryland classes. The plaintiff seeks
monetary damages and reasonable costs and attorney's fees. On
August 28, 2015, the Company filed its Answer to the Complaint. On
December 1, 2015, the Court granted the Company's motion to stay
this case in light of the broader settlement described below.

                   Loor v. Tween Brands, Inc.

On June 11, 2015, Yanetsy Loor, a consumer, filed a purported
class action against Tween Brands, Inc. in the United States
District Court for the Middle District of Florida. This lawsuit
includes putative national and Florida classes. The plaintiff
seeks monetary damages and reasonable costs and attorney's fees.
On August 21, 2015, the Company filed its Answer to the Complaint.
On December 1, 2015, the Court granted the Company's motion to
stay this case in light of the broader settlement described below.

                 Legendre v. Tween Brands, Inc.

On June 17, 2015, David Legendre, a consumer, filed a purported
class action against Tween Brands, Inc. in the United States
District Court for the District of New Jersey. This lawsuit
includes both national and New Jersey class actions. The plaintiff
seeks monetary damages and reasonable costs and attorney's fees.
On August 28, 2015, the Company filed its Answer to the Complaint.
On December 11, 2015, the Court granted the Company's motion to
stay this case in light of the broader settlement described below.

                     In re Tween Brands, Inc.,
                    Marketing & Sales Practices
                     Litigation. MDL No. 2646

On June 1, 2015, Andrea Kallay, the plaintiff in Kallay v. Tween
Brands, Inc., filed a Motion to Transfer to the United State
District Court for the Southern District of Ohio and for creation
of a Multidistrict Litigation ("MDL") proceeding styled In re:
Tween Brands, Inc., Marketing and Sales Practices Litigation, MDL
2646. Responses to the Motion to Transfer were submitted on June
23, 2015. The majority of plaintiffs in the above listed cases
filed response motions in support of transfer and consolidation to
the Southern District of Ohio. The Rougvie plaintiffs filed a
response motion opposing transfer to the Southern District of Ohio
and arguing for transfer to the Eastern District of Pennsylvania.
Justice filed a Response in Opposition, supporting transfer and
consolidation but arguing that the proper venue for the MDL is the
Eastern District of Pennsylvania. The JPML held a hearing on July
30, 2015 on the Motion to Transfer and subsequently denied the
Motion to Transfer in an Order issued on August 7, 2015.

          Settlement Agreed to at July 2, 2015 Mediation
                        and Final Approval

In July 2015, an agreement in principle was reached with the
plaintiffs in the Rougvie case to settle the lawsuit on a class
basis with all Justice customers who made purchases between
January 1, 2012 and February 28, 2015 for approximately $51
million, including payments to members of the class, payment of
legal fees and expenses of settlement administration (the
"Settlement Agreement"). As such, the Company established a
reserve for approximately $51 million during Fiscal 2015.

The proposed Settlement Agreement was filed with the United States
District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania for
preliminary approval on September 24, 2015, and received
preliminary approval by the court on October 27, 2015. The Company
paid approximately $51 million representing the agreed settlement
amount into an escrow account on November 16, 2015. Formal notice
of settlement was sent to the class members on December 1, 2015.
The final approval hearing was held on May 20, 2016.

On July 29, 2016, the Court granted the parties' joint motion for
final approval of settlement and dismissed the case with
prejudice. In reaching this conclusion, the Court rejected
virtually all of the objections to the settlement that had been
raised, but did reduce the amount of attorneys' fees to be paid to
plaintiffs' counsel, which will not affect the overall amount of
the settlement. The Court's decision has been appealed to the
United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit. Once there
is a final non-appealable approval of the Settlement Agreement, it
will resolve all claims in all of the outstanding class actions on
behalf of customers who made purchases between January 1, 2012 and
February 28, 2015.

Recently, potential claims related to purchases made in 2010 and
2011 have been raised, and it is possible that individual class
members who excluded themselves from the settlement may seek to
pursue their own individual or class claims not subject to the
broader settlement. The Company believes it has strong defenses to
any such claims and is prepared to defend against them. The
Company believes that the liability associated with any such cases
would not be material. If the matters described herein do not
occur and the pricing lawsuits are not finally resolved, the
ultimate resolution of these matters may or may not result in an
additional material loss, which cannot be reasonably estimated at
this time.


MIAMI, FL: Suit Over Red-Light Camera Fines Ongoing
---------------------------------------------------
Dan Sweeney, writing for Sun Sentinel, reports that Floridians
hoping for a refund of their red-light-camera fines -- and the
cities and counties hoping to keep that money -- are finding the
wheels of justice grind slow.

A federal lawsuit was filed in May 2015 in district court in Miami
demanding cities and counties pay back fines collected under a
red-light-camera law ruled illegal by a state appeals court.

Lawyers for the local governments went to the federal appeals
court in an attempt to get the case dismissed.  They told a panel
of judges that sovereign immunity protected them, but on Sept. 2,
the panel ruled it lacked jurisdiction to hear the case.

"Practically speaking, that means if we did nothing else, the case
would go back to the district court," said Ed Guedes, the attorney
for more than 40 of the cities and counties named in the suit.

But Mr. Guedes added he expects the local governments to ask the
entire court, not just a panel of judges, to review their
sovereign-immunity claim.

The roots of the case go back to October 2014, when a state
appeals court ruled that the city of Hollywood's red-light-camera
program was illegal because it ceded too much police power to a
private company, American Traffic Solutions, which reviewed camera
footage for law breakers.

Because the camera system was illegal, the plaintiffs argue the
fines gathered from it were ill-gotten and should be returned.
That would mean giving back more than $200 million to those who
paid $158 a pop for violating city and county red-light-camera
laws.

The case is still before the district court in Miami and because
that court is still hearing the case, the appeals court panel
decided it had no jurisdiction.

And while this case has gone on, the legal waters have been
further muddied as another state appeals court ruled in July of
this year that Aventura's red-light-camera system, which is
similar to that ruled illegal in Hollywood, is perfectly legal.

Those disparate state appeals court rulings will likely mean the
law will be reviewed by the Florida Supreme Court.


MONTEREY FINANCIAL: Jurisdictional Discovery Held in "Brinkley"
---------------------------------------------------------------
District Judge William Q. Hayes of the United States District
Court for the Southern District of California ruled that action
stays at federal district court pending results of jurisdictional
discovery in the case captioned, TIFFANY BRINKLEY on behalf of
herself and other similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. MONTEREY
FINANCIAL SERVICES, INC.; DOE MONTEREY FINANCIAL SERVICES, LLC
DOES 1 through 100, inclusive, Defendant, Case No. 16CV1103-WQH-
WVG (S.D. Cal.).

On October 15, 2013, Plaintiff Tiffany Brinkley (Plaintiff)
commenced an action against Monterey Financial Services, Inc., in
the Superior Court of the State of California for the County of
San Diego by filing a Complaint. In the Complaint, Plaintiff
asserts that she "was, at all time relevant herein, a natural
person and a resident of Tukwila, Washington."

Plaintiff seeks, among other things, to certify a putative class
that purports to include "all persons who, while physically
located or residing in California and Washington who made or
received one or more telephone calls with Defendant MONTEREY
FINANCIAL SERVICES, INC. during the four year period preceding the
filing of this lawsuit (the Class Period) and did not receive
notice at the beginning of the telephone call that their telephone
conversation may be recorded or monitored" (the Class)."

The Complaint asserts causes of action against Defendant for
violations of California Penal Code Sections 630, et seq.,
Washington Rev. Code Section 9.73, et seq., and California
Business & Professions Code Section 17200, et seq., based on
Defendant's alleged unlawful recording and/or monitoring of
telephone calls.

On December 10, 2013, Defendant filed a motion to compel
arbitration. On April 7, 2014, the state trial court ordered the
action to arbitration on an individual basis and dismissed the
class claims.

On May 29, 2014, Plaintiff filed a Notice of Appeal of the state
trial court's order compelling the action to arbitration on an
individual basis.  On November 19, 2015, the state appellate court
affirmed the trial court's order compelling the action to
arbitration and reversed the trial court's order dismissing the
class claims, leaving the determination to the arbitrator as to
whether the matter should be pursued as a class or individually.

On December 28, 2015, by joint stipulation, the parties waived
their rights to arbitrate Plaintiff's Complaint and agreed to
litigate as if there were no arbitration clause. On January 20,
2016, the action was remitted to the state trial court.

On May 6, 2016, Defendants removed the action to federal district
court pursuant to the Class Action Fairness Act (CAFA), 28 U.S.C.
Section 1332(d)(2), 1453(b). Defendants assert that the Court has
jurisdiction under CAFA on the grounds that (1) the number of
members of the proposed plaintiff class is not less than one
hundred, in the aggregate; (2) the matter in controversy exceeds
the sum or value of $5,000,000, exclusive of interest and costs;
and (3) any member of the class of plaintiffs is a citizen of a
State different from any defendant.

On May 19, 2016, Plaintiff filed a motion to remand. Plaintiff
does not dispute that her citizenship is diverse from Defendants
or that the number of putative class members is at least 100.
Plaintiff contends that Defendants' notice of removal was
untimely; that Defendants waived their right to remove the case,
and that the amount in controversy is indeterminate. Plaintiff
further contends that exceptions to CAFA apply.

Defendants contend that the notice of removal was timely, that
they have not waived their right to remove the case, and that they
carried their burden to show the amount in controversy. Defendants
also contend that exceptions to CAFA do not apply.

In his Order dated September 15, 2016 available at
https://is.gd/v70K6Z from Leagle.com, Judge Hayes concluded that
Defendants' Notice of Removal is timely because they filed the
removal less than 30 days after the 30-day removal period was
triggered pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Section 1446(b)(3) and that a more
satisfactory showing is necessary before it can rule on the amount
in controversy and the CAFA exception issues.

The court allowed the parties a period of 60 days to engage in
limited jurisdictional discovery regarding the amount in
controversy requirement and the CAFA exceptions. The parties are
directed to file any supplemental responses within 90 days of the
Order, and any replies within 14 days of any supplemental
response.

Tiffany Brinkley, Plaintiff, represented by Christina E. Wickman,
Esq. -- Christina@wickmanlaw.com -- and -- Steven Allen Wickman,
Esq. -- Steve@wickmanlaw.com -- WICKMAN AND WICKMAN -- Patrick N.
Keegan, Esq. -- pkeegan@keeganbaker.com -- KEEGAN & BAKER, LLP

Monterey Financial Services, Inc., et al. are represented by
Matthew Orr, Esq. -- morr@calljensen.com -- and William Paul Cole,
Esq. -- wcole@calljensen.com -- CALL & JENSEN APC


NATIONAL MILK: December 16 Settlement Approval Hearing Set
----------------------------------------------------------
Andrea Tucker, writing for Legal Reader, reports that the National
Milk Producers Federation class action lawsuit has reached a
settlement agreement.  The antitrust lawsuit was filed by Matthew
Edwards et al. against defendants NMPF, also known as Cooperatives
Working Together, Dairy Farmers of America, Land O' Lakes,
Dairylea Cooperative, and Agri-Mark in the Northern District Court
of California.  The suit alleges that the defendants engaged in a
nationwide conspiracy to limit milk production with the goal of
inflating retail prices of milk and milk products.

According to the lawsuit, the defendants actively engaged in
recruiting dairy farmers to help fund the CWT herd retirement
program.  The scheme began in 2003 by requiring farmers to
participate by donating a set amount of money per hundredweight of
milk that each farm produced during July.  At the end of July, CWT
began accepting bids from farmers for participation in the
program.  Farmers that participated were paid for selling all of
their dairy cows to slaughter.  In this way, CWT was paying the
farmers not to produce milk.  The result was a loss of 609.2
million pounds of milk, and the premature loss of life of
thousands of cows.

From 2003 through 2010, the defendants operated the herd
retirement program.  In 2009, CWT instituted a policy that any
farmer that participated in the program must agree not to produce
milk for one year.  In 2010, 9,672 billion pounds of milk were
removed from the market.  The program was discontinued in 2011
because CWT was no longer making as much money from it.  The
result of the program when it was active has been a steady climb
in the price of milk and milk products.  It has also effectively
removed thousands of its competitors from the market over the time
span that the program was in operation.

The settlement is for $52 million in recovery for class members. A
hearing will be held on December 16, 2016 at the Northern District
Court in Oakland, California, when the judge will consider whether
to approve the settlement or take some other action.

The states that are included in the lawsuit are Arizona,
California, Kansas, Massachusetts, Michigan, Missouri, Nebraska,
Nevada, New Hampshire, Oregon, South Dakota, Tennessee, Vermont,
West Virginia, Wisconsin and the District of Columbia. Individuals
in those states that have purchased milk and milk products,
including cream, cottage cheese, cream cheese, sour cream, half &
half, and yogurt between 2003 and the present date are eligible to
submit a claim . The deadline for claims is January 31, 2017.

This is a case of big business attempting to make tons of money on
the backs of dairy farmers and consumers.  It is mind boggling
that the program was widely advertised and in operation for seven
years with no repercussions.  The class action lawsuit was not
filed until 2014, four years after the program ended.


NATIONAL RECOVERY: Judge Allows Fee Class Action to Proceed
-----------------------------------------------------------
Dan Churney, writing for Cook County Record, reports that a
Chicago federal judge has given the green light for a case to be
litigated as a class action suit against a national collection
agency, which allegedly violated federal law by charging debtors
with improper fees in an attempt to collect debts owed to Six
Flags.

U.S. District Judge Gary Feinerman issued the ruling Aug. 30
ruling, granting class action status to a suit brought by Illinois
man Joseph Bernal against National Recovery Agency (NRA), which is
based in Harrisburg, Penn.  NRA operates a nationwide debt
collection service.

On Feb. 3, Mr. Bernal filed for a class action suit against NRA,
alleging NRA violated the federal Fair Debt Collection Practices
Act.

Mr. Bernal said NRA sent him a letter dated Feb. 17, 2015 telling
him he owed a Six Flags amusement park $267.  The letter also
demanded Bernal pay a flat 16 percent collection fee of $43.
Bernal asserted NRA had no right to tack on the fee, and in trying
to claim it, allegedly breached the Collection Practices Act,
which prohibits "false, deceptive or misleading" statements and
"unfair or unconscionable means" to collect a debt.

Mr. Bernal noted such a fee can be imposed under the Collection
Practices Act, but only if the fee is part of the agreement
between the debtor and creditor.  Mr. Bernal denied there was any
agreement to this effect between him and Six Flags, attaching a
copy of his agreement, as an exhibit, to his suit.

Mr. Bernal requested permission his suit be pursued as a class
action, by including any other Illinois citizens who received an
identical NRA letter for a delinquent bill allegedly owed to Six
Flags.  Mr. Bernal said he believes there are at least 35 such
people.  NRA said it sent 1,096 collection letters in the same
form to other Illinois residents around the time Bernal received
his letter.

NRA contested Mr. Bernal's request for class action status, but
Judge Feinerman found none of NRA's arguments persuasive.

Judge Feinerman said NRA failed to show any potential class action
participants had agreements with Six Flags that authorized
collection fees, or any agreements were made in jurisdictions
where the law allows such fees.

NRA also questioned the standing of potential class members to
engage in the suit, but Judge Feinerman pointed out Mr. Bernal, as
the person bringing the suit, is the only participant whose
standing can be disputed -- and he clearly has standing.

"NRA does not challenge Bernal's standing, and nor could it,"
Judge Feinerman observed.

Judge Feinerman similarly dismissed NRA's other contentions, such
as that the putative class was too broad and there were not enough
possible members to warrant class action.  The judge said the case
can be "resolved on a classwide basis, without any individual
variation."

Overall, in giving the go-ahead for the class action suit, Judge
Feinerman concluded NRA's arguments were "meritless" and separate
suits against NRA, instead of a class action, "would make no
sense."

Judge Feinerman also granted Mr. Bernal's request that
Mr. Bernal's counsel -- Philipps & Philipps, of southwest suburban
Palos Hills -- be allowed to represent the class.

A status hearing is set for Sept. 22.  NRA is defended by the
Chicago firm of Rock, Fusco & Connelly, and by Olson Law Group, of
Ann Arbor, Mich.


NATIONWIDE MUTUAL: 6th Cir. Says Data Breach Suit Can Proceed
-------------------------------------------------------------
David Navetta, Esq. -- david.navetta@nortonrosefulbright.com --and
Andrew Hoffman, Esq. --
andrew.hoffman@nortonrosefulbright.com -- of Norton Rose
Fulbright, in an article for Data Protection Report, report that
the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit concluded that
certain allegations of harm after a data breach caused by hacking
are sufficiently concrete to confer Article III standing.  This
case may make it more difficult for companies defending data
breach suits to quickly obtain dismissal of plaintiffs' claims.

The Data Breach & Notification Letter

In Galaria v. Nationwide Mutual Insurance Co., the plaintiffs in a
putative class action alleged that hackers breached Nationwide's
computer network and stole their personal information, along with
that of 1.1 million other individuals. The plaintiffs learned of
the incident when Nationwide sent them a breach notification
letter.  The letter suggested that plaintiffs monitor their bank
account statements and credit report to mitigate misuse of stolen
data, offered one year of free credit monitoring and identity-
fraud protection, and also suggested that the plaintiffs set up a
fraud alert and place a security freeze on their credit reports.
Although the credit freezes may cost money to place and remove,
the plaintiffs alleged that Nationwide did not offer to pay for
the associated expenses.

The Lawsuit
The plaintiffs sued Nationwide, alleging invasion of privacy,
negligence, bailment, and violations of the Fair Credit Reporting
Act (FCRA).  The plaintiffs alleged that there is an illicit
international market for stolen data and that identity thieves may
fraudulently use victims' personal information for a variety of
purposes.  According to the plaintiffs, the breach created an
"imminent, immediate and continuing increased risk" that the
plaintiffs and class members would be subject to identity fraud.
Further, the plaintiffs alleged that victims of identity theft
typically spend hundreds of hours of personal time and hundreds of
dollars of personal funds.  The plaintiffs sought damages for the
increased risk of fraud, expenses incurred in mitigating the risk
(including the cost of credit freezes), and time spent on
mitigation efforts.

The Trial Court's Dismissal
The trial court dismissed the plaintiffs' claims, concluding that
the plaintiffs lacked Article III standing to sue in federal court
because they had not alleged a cognizable injury.  In addition,
the trial court concluded that the plaintiffs did not have
"statutory standing" under FCRA so that the court lacked subject-
matter jurisdiction over the federal claim.  The plaintiffs
appealed.

The Appeal
On appeal, the Sixth Circuit reversed and concluded that the
plaintiffs had Article III standing to sue.  The court explained
that the plaintiffs sufficiently demonstrated that they (1)
suffered an injury in fact, (2) that is fairly traceable to
Nationwide's conduct, and (3) that is likely to be redressed by a
favorable judicial decision. Regarding Article III standing, the
appellate court concluded.

Injury in Fact
The court concluded that the plaintiffs' allegations of a
substantial risk of harm, coupled with reasonably incurred
mitigation costs, are sufficient to establish injury at the
pleading stage.  Because the plaintiffs' "data has already been
stolen and is now in the hands of ill-intentioned criminals," the
court could reasonably infer that hackers would use the victim'
data for the fraudulent purposes that the plaintiffs' alleged.
Thus, the plaintiffs' allegations were not improper speculative
allegations of possible future injury.  Notably, the plaintiffs'
complaints in Galaria did not allege that any fraud actually
occurred. (Although one plaintiff sought to amend the complaint
after the trial court had dismissed the action claiming that he
had discovered fraudulent attempts to open credit accounts in his
name, the appellate court's conclusion that standing exists is not
premised upon the plaintiff's later factual allegations.)

The Sixth Circuit's decision followed the outcome in two recent
data breach cases where the Seventh Circuit found standing based
on allegations that fraud occurred after the breach.  For example,
in Remijas v. Neiman Marcus Group, LLC, hackers stole
approximately 350,000 credit card numbers from a luxury retailer,
and fraud was discovered on approximately 9,200 of those cards.
794 F.3d 688, 689 (7th Cir. 2015).  In Lewert v. P.F. Chang's
China Bistro, Inc., one class representative experienced
fraudulent charges on his credit card.  In addition, Although the
Sixth Circuit cited the Supreme Court's recent Spokeo v. Robins
decision in its Article III standing analysis, it did so only
nominally, relying primarily on older standing decisions.

Interestingly, the appellate court referred to Nationwide's breach
notification letter to support its conclusion that the plaintiffs
suffered an injury.  According to the court, "Nationwide seems to
recognize the severity of the risk, given its offer to provide
credit-monitoring and identity-theft protection for a full year."
In addition, the court said that it would be unreasonable to
expect the plaintiffs to wait for actual misuse of their
information "before taking steps to ensure their own personal and
financial security, particularly when Nationwide recommended
taking those steps." (emphasis added).  Yet, state breach
notification laws often require companies to inform individuals of
mitigation steps that they can take, such as by providing
instructions on how to place a fraud alert or security freeze with
a credit bureau, and by advising individuals to monitor their free
credit reports.

The court also noted that Nationwide recommended but did not cover
the cost of credit freezes.  Thus, the costs constitute a
"concrete injury suffered to mitigate an imminent harm" and
satisfy the injury requirement of Article III standing."

Fairly Traceable
The court concluded that the plaintiffs' allegations that
Nationwide failed to implement appropriate safeguards to ensure
the security and confidentiality of data was sufficient to allege
traceability.  The court added that, although hackers were the
direct cause of the plaintiffs' injuries, they were able to access
the plaintiffs' data "only because Nationwide allegedly failed to
secure" the data.

Redressability
The court concluded that the plaintiffs sought compensatory
damages for their injuries, and that a favorable verdict would
provide redress.

Our Take
The Galaria decision may make it more difficult for companies
defending against data breach cases to eliminate cases at the
pleading stage based on a lack Article III standing.  However, the
case may not affect all types of data breach cases, particularly
those where the facts do not demonstrate that criminals actually
targeted personal information (e.g., in cases of lost or stolen
computers or storage devices).  Nonetheless, this appears to be
one of the first appellate decisions decided since the Supreme
Court's 2013 Clapper decision that found standing despite the
plaintiff's failure to allege  experiencing any fraud or identity
theft (aside from the post-dismissal attempt to amend the
complaint).  It will be interesting to see whether Nationwide will
appeal to the Supreme Court on grounds that the case is
inconsistent with Clapper and Spokeo.  Companies that suffer a
data breach may also wish to consider the inferences that the
court drew regarding Nationwide's letter when deciding how to
draft their own breach notification letters.


NBTY INC: Court Narrows Claims in "Muir" Mislabeling Complaint
--------------------------------------------------------------
District Judge Rebecca R. Pallmeyer of the United States District
Court for the Northern District of Illinois granted in part
Defendants' motion to dismiss complaint for lack of standing and
failure to state a claim in the case captioned, MICHAEL MUIR,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated,
Plaintiff, v. NBTY, INC., REXALL SUNDOWN, INC., NATURE'S ORIGIN,
LLC, NATURE'S BOUNTY, INC., VITAMIN WORLD, INC., and PURITAN'S
PRIDE, INC., Defendants, Case No. 15 C 9835 (N.D. Ill.).

Plaintiff Michael Muir purchased a bottle of the dietary
supplement St. John's Wort from a Walgreens store in Illinois in
2015. The label states that the product is "standardized to
contain 0.3% Hypericin, 0.9 mg." Muir claims the product actually
contains a far lower amount of hypericin, purportedly the active
ingredient in St. John's Wort. Muir filed the action on behalf of
a nationwide class of persons who purchased St. John's Wort
Standardized Extract from any of five different manufacturers.

He also seeks to assert consumer fraud claims on behalf of all
purchasers in the states of California, Florida, Illinois,
Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, Missouri, New Jersey, New
York, and Washington, referred to as the "multi-state class." The
complaint alleges four counts: A claim of violation of state
consumer fraud acts on behalf of the multi-state class (Count I);
a claim of violation of the Illinois Consumer Fraud Act, 815 ILCS
505/1, et seq., on behalf of Illinois purchasers (Count II); a
claim of unjust enrichment on behalf of the nationwide class
(Count III); and a claim of breach of express warranty on behalf
of the nationwide class (Count IV). He claims each member of the
class has been damaged "in the amount of the purchase price of the
products and any consequential damages resulting from the
purchases."

Defendants have moved to dismiss the complaint in its entirety.
They raise several arguments:

     -- The court has no jurisdiction over the case because
Plaintiff has not alleged any harm resulting from the hypericin
level in any product he bought, and therefore lacks standing.

     -- Defendants assert that none of them are subject to
personal jurisdiction in the court.

     -- The complaint fails as a matter of law because federal law
expressly preempts his claims and because the sampling method on
which the complaint rests is inadequate.

     -- Plaintiff has not pleaded fraud with particularity, as
required by federal pleading standards, and has not established
any right to injunctive relief.

In her Memorandum Opinion and Order dated September 22, 2016
available at https://is.gd/c00Xet from Leagle.com, Judge Pallmeyer
concluded that (1) Plaintiff has standing only to challenge the
mislabeling of the product he actually purchased; (2) declined to
decide what Plaintiff needs to prove in order to establish its
claims, merely holding here that compliance with the 12-sample
testing protocol is not a requirement at the pleading stage; (3)
denied dismissal of Count III because it will doom the unjust
enrichment claim and Defendants have not raised other bases for
such; (4) dismissed the breach of warranty claim because Plaintiff
has not identified the manufacturer or that bottle, and has not
alleged that the bottle he purchased was itself ever tested; and
(5) denied dismissal of injunctive relief claim because Plaintiff
has standing to seek injunctive relief.

Michael Muir is represented by Joseph J. Siprut, Esq. --
jsiprut@siprut.com -- Richard Lane Miller, II, Esq. --
rmiller@siprut.com -- and -- Richard Steven Wilson, Esq. --
rwilson@siprut.com -- SIPRUT PC -- Nick Suciu, III, Esq. -
nicksucui@bmslawyers.com -- BARBAT, MANSOUR & SUCIU PLLC

NBTY, Inc., et al. are represented by Amanda L. Groves, Esq. --
agroves@winston.com -- Scott M. Ahmad, Esq. -- sahmad@winston.com
-- and Scott P. Glauberman, Esq. -- sglauber@winston.com --
WINSTON & STRAWN LLP


NETSOL TECHNOLOGIES: Court Granted Final Approval to Settlement
---------------------------------------------------------------
Netsol Technologies, Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on September 15, 2016, for
the fiscal year ended June 30, 2016, that a California court has
issued an order granting the motion for final approval of a class
action settlement and plan of allocation and motion for an award
of attorneys' fees and case expenses.

The Company said, "On July 25, 2014, purported class action
lawsuits were filed in the U.S. District Court for the Central
District of California against the Company and certain of its
current or former officers and/or directors, which have been
consolidated under the caption Rand-Heart of New York, Inc. v.
NetSol Technologies, Inc., et al., Case No. 2:14-cv-05787 PA
(SHx). Plaintiffs subsequently filed consolidated amended
complaints, which asserted claims under Sections 10(b) and 20(a)
of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. As a result of the
Company's motions, the Court dismissed all of plaintiffs' claims
except those related to the scope of the Company's release of its
next generation product, NFS Ascent(TM), during the narrow
proposed class period of October 24, 2013 to November 8, 2013. The
Company filed an answer and affirmative defenses denying the
remaining claims.

On February 26, 2016, the parties executed a Stipulation of
Settlement to fully resolve the consolidated class action lawsuit,
and filed a motion seeking the Federal Court's approval of the
settlement. On March 28, 2016, the Court issued an order
preliminarily approving the settlement and providing for notice to
class members.

Following class notice and hearing, the Court issued an order
granting the motion for final approval of the settlement and plan
of allocation and motion for an award of attorneys' fees and case
expenses on July 1, 2016. The Court's Judgment approving the
settlement on the terms set forth in the Stipulation of Settlement
was signed on July 2, 2016. The cost of the settlement was covered
by the Company's insurers.


NEW YORK: Five Families Mull Class Action Against OPDD
------------------------------------------------------
The Buffalo News reports that New York State just got extra
incentive to do the right thing for residents with intellectual
disabilities.  Five Western New York families have filed a federal
lawsuit accusing the state of failing to meet its obligations to
provide a sufficient number of group homes to serve the state's
population with conditions such as Down syndrome and autism.

The state needs to act on this issue rather than spend millions
defending the lawsuit.  Negotiate a settlement and get moving.

It is at least a little reassuring that the state recognizes a
problem.  In February, the Office for People with Developmental
Disabilities issued a report on the matter to the State
Legislature.  The report acknowledged the concerns and said it is
working on them.  The state, it said, "is committed to expanding
access to home and community-based services, and offer more choice
and options."

That's a start, but the fundamental questions are whether the
state is doing all it reasonably can to serve the basic needs of
New Yorkers with developmental disabilities.

The lawsuit alleges that Gov. Andrew M. Cuomo and Kerry Delaney,
acting commissioner of the OPDD, have violated the Americans With
Disabilities Act, which requires the state to provide sufficient
appropriate community residential facilities.  They hope to have
the lawsuit certified as a class action representing more than
2,000 Western New Yorkers in similar circumstances.  If so, it
stands to improve conditions across the state.

Some of these families are approaching crisis.  As parents age,
they worry that their children will eventually be left without the
care that their disabilities require, said Buffalo attorney Bruce
A. Goldstein, a longtime advocate for people with disabilities.
"These caregivers would like to see their sons and daughters
placed in good, stable situations while they are still alive."

But what happens too often, the lawsuit claims, is that
individuals needing these services are denied a place until their
parents die or become too ill to care for them. To move a person
at that moment of crisis is both disruptive and upsetting.

"The state knows that the vast majority of these people -- the
aging caregivers -- will not abandon their adult sons and
daughters," Mr. Goldstein said.  "I think it's a very cynical and
unfair way to address the needs of people with developmental
disabilities."  If that's the state's approach, then
Mr. Goldstein is completely and obviously right.  Either way, New
York needs to do better.

The state does not build or operate such facilities, but it does
authorize and regulate them.  The plaintiffs' demand is that the
state do that.

Part of the problem in siting these homes is the opposition of
many in the neighborhoods where they could be located.  It's a
common not-in-my-backyard response, but out of keeping with the
nature of these facilities and the kind of neighborliness that
Western New Yorkers profess to be theirs.

That probably won't change, but what can be different going
forward is the level of the state's commitment to authorizing more
places for New Yorkers who need that kind of care before those
people suffer the inevitable loss of their parents.

If the lawsuit helps to speed that along, it will have
accomplished something positive.


NORDIC NATURALS: CA Affirms Dismissal of "Hoffman" Complaint
------------------------------------------------------------
Circuit Judge Julio M. Fuentes of the Court of Appeals, Third
Circuit affirmed the dismissal of Plaintiff's complaint for
failure to state a claim in the case captioned, HAROLD M. HOFFMAN,
individually and on behalf of those similarly situated, Appellant,
v. NORDIC NATURALS, INC, Case No. H041197 (3rd Cir.).

Harold M. Hoffman is a serial pro se class action litigant from
New Jersey who frequently sues under the New Jersey Consumer Fraud
Act.  According to the record in the case, Hoffman has sued nearly
100 defendants in New Jersey state court in a period of less than
four years. These defendants include Target, Whole Foods Market,
GNC, Trader Joes, Barleans Organic Oils LLC, Paradise Herbs &
Essentials Inc., Honest Tea Inc., Time Warner Cable, American
Express, Bio Nutrition Inc., and many more. In a previous opinion,
the Court noted that Hoffman is "an attorney who has made a habit
of filing class actions in which he serves as both the sole class
representative and sole class counsel."

In the instant case, Hoffman chose to sue Nordic Naturals, Inc.
for its allegedly false and misleading advertisements for fish oil
supplements. Prior to bringing the present action, Hoffman filed a
similar lawsuit against Nordic, asserting virtually identical
claims based on the same set of facts. The District Court
dismissed that first lawsuit for failure to state a claim. The
District Court accordingly dismissed the second lawsuit as
procedurally barred by the first.

On appeal, Hoffman challenges (1) the District Court's subject
matter jurisdiction under the Class Action Fairness Act; (2) the
District Court's application of New Jersey's entire controversy
doctrine; and (3) the District Court's alternative conclusion that
the complaint failed to state a claim upon which relief could be
granted.

In the Opinion dated September 14, 2016 available at
https://is.gd/iRFbuc from Leagle.com, Judge Fuentes held that a
court is not required to establish jurisdiction before dismissing
a case on non-merits ground as pointed out by Sinochem
International Co. v. Malaysia International Shipping Corp. As to
New Jersey's entire controversy doctrine, the Court held that
federal, not New Jersey, claim preclusion principles apply in
successive federal diversity actions. The Court rejected Hoffman's
contention that his filing of Hoffman II evidenced his intention
to not stand on his complaint in Hoffman I holding that filing a
new action in a different court does not prevent the District
Court's order from ripening into a final order.

Hoffman is represented in the case by:

      Harold M. Hoffman, Esq.
      OFFICE OF HAROLD M. HOFFMAN
      240 Grand Ave
      Englewood, NJ 07631
      Tel: (201)569-0086


OGEMAW COUNTY: Defendants Win Summary Judgment in Inmates' Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
District Judge Thomas L. Ludington of the United States District
Court for the Eastern District of Michigan granted in part
Defendants Hanft and OCBC's motion for summary judgment on the
claims of ten of the named Plaintiffs in the case captioned, STACY
McINTYRE, et al. Plaintiffs, v OGEMAW COUNTY BOARD OF
COMMISSIONERS, et al., Defendants, Case No. 15-cv-12214 (E.D.
Mich.).

Plaintiffs in the action are former inmates of the Ogemaw County
Jail. Defendant OCBC is a governmental agency which Plaintiffs
allege operates the Ogemaw County Sheriff Department. At all
relevant times, Defendant Hanft was the Ogemaw County sheriff and
Defendant Gustafson's commanding officer. Defendant Gustafson, an
employee of Ogemaw County, allegedly ran a Work Program and
supervised inmate-participants. The Work Program, which has been
in place for many years, allows Ogemaw County inmates to work off
a portion of their sentence through supervised community service
work. Gustafson was ultimately convicted for criminal sexual
conduct based on his conduct with two of the Work Program's female
inmates, and is currently incarcerated.

In their amended complaint Plaintiffs, who were all female
participants in the Work Program at various times, allege that
Gustafson assaulted, battered and sexually harassed female inmates
who were incarcerated at the Ogemaw County Jail and involved in
the Work Program. Plaintiffs also claim that Gustafson's conduct
was a "de facto policy" of Ogemaw County and the Ogemaw County
Sheriff's department for a substantial period of time.

Plaintiffs allege five counts arising from Defendants' conduct:
(1) Deprivation of civil rights in violation of 42 U.S.C. Section
1983; (2) Gross negligence; (3) Assault and battery; (4) Invasion
of privacy; and (5) Negligent and Intentional infliction of
emotional distress.

On February 5, 2016, Plaintiffs moved for leave to file a second
amended complaint, seeking to add five additional plaintiffs to
the putative class. Plaintiffs alleged that two of the proposed
class members, Candice McCarthy and Alyssa Oliver, were inmates
and participants in the work program. Plaintiffs alleged that the
other three proposed class members, Anna Maldonado, Angela
Scherer, and Janet Kamen were not participants in the Work
Program, but were allegedly assaulted, battered and sexually
harassed by Gustafson when they visited family members who were
assigned to the Work Program. Plaintiffs' request to expand the
class to include family members was denied, and Plaintiffs'
request to join Alyssa Oliver was denied because her claims fell
outside the relevant statutes of limitation.

In the motion, Defendants argue that the claims of Plaintiffs
Candy Olstrom, Heather Miles, Tina Bahr, Aleena Grisham, Tammy
McElroy and Tina Terkawi should be dismissed for failing to meet
the required statute of limitations, Plaintiff June Beach's claims
should be dismissed based on a prior release and waiver, and that
Plaintiff Kimberly Connor's claims should be dismissed due the
consensual nature of her activity. Furthermore, Defendants argue
that the claims of Krystal Waterman Rush and Misty Edward should
be dismissed for failure to comply with the relevant statute of
limitations, and that, even if the five year statute of
limitations claim applies pursuant to Michigan Compiled Law
Section 600.5805(3) their conduct was consensual.

In his Order dated September 15, 2016 available at
https://is.gd/JI8ssM from Leagle.com, Judge Ludington dismissed
the claims of Plaintiffs Olstrom, Miles, Bahr, Grisham, McElroy,
Terkawi, and Conner as to Defendants OCBC and Hanft holding that
Plaintiffs' accrual claims are without merit with regard to their
federal claims because Plaintiffs knew or should have known they
were subject to improper sexual advances and unprivileged
touchings at the time those actions occurred and state claims
because they are untimely. Plaintiff Beach claims are dismissed
with prejudice to all Defendants because she explicitly waived all
claims arising out of Ogemaw County's Job Works program, including
all Section 1983 claims and all state law tort claims.

Plaintiffs Edwards's and Waterman-Rush's Counts 1 (Secton 1983), 2
(gross negligence), 4 (invasion of privacy), and 5 (negligent and
intentional infliction of emotional distress) are dismissed with
prejudice as to Defendants OCBC and Hanft because their state law
assault and battery claims raise novel issues of state law, the
Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over
Plaintiffs Edwards and Waterman-Rush's assault and battery claims.


Stacy McIntyre, et al. are represented by Joseph F. Lucas, Esq.
-- jlucas@onellp.com -- SKUPIN & LUCAS

Ogemaw County Board of Commissioners, et al. are represented by
Gregory M. Meihn, Esq. -- gmeihn@foleymansfield.com -- and Melinda
A. Balian, Esq. -- mbalian@foleymansfield.com -- FOLEY & MANSFIELD


ONTARIO: Lakefront Owners File $900MM Civil Action v. MNRF
----------------------------------------------------------
Mary Beth Hartill, writing for Bracebridge Examiner, reports that
a $900 million civil action is set to move ahead against the
Ministry of Natural Resources and Forestry.

Lawyers from Oatley Vigmond met with interested parties at the
Port Carling Community Centre on Sunday, Sept. 18 stating they
have filed the case with a Barrie court now that they have a
claimant named on behalf of the others so that may proceed.

Lawyer Roger Oatley states they have promised Peter Burgess, the
man named in the civil action suit, he will be protected.  They
are trying to raise as much as $500,000 in the event that should
the claimants lose Mr. Burgess will not be out pocket.  He said
they have already attained a commitment of about $150,000 toward
the case, which does not include their legal fees.  Mr. Oatley
said they would not collect a penny unless they win, which is
indicative of their level of confidence.  The money is a war chest
of sorts, to protect Burgess who "has been brave enough to stand
up" on behalf of other lakefront property owners who sustained
significant structural damages this spring with high water levels
as ice flows collapsed boathouse walls.

For Mr. Burgess the damage was so extensive the structure had to
be demolished.  He said between demolition, permits and dumping
fees the demolition alone has already cost him about $20,000. He
has a year to rebuild on the grandfathered site.

This said, Mr. Oatley is confident.  Mr. Oatley states the firm
has sued the province several times in the past with great
success, although not as a civil action.

"There is no need to feel that it's (the province) some sort of
super presence that is unbeatable," he said.

He said the province is just an entity like any other and he
expects they will more likely face the insurance companies rather
than the province itself.

Legal partner Troy Lehman, who will be spearheading the case on
behalf of the property owners, said water levels not being lowered
past March 9 was negligence on the part of the ministry, which
resulted in unacceptably high water levels in late March and early
April of 2016 that resulted in a significant amount of damage to a
number of boathouses.  He said the water levels in Muskoka's three
biggest lakes, Muskoka, Joseph and Rosseau, were higher than
normal and ice flows damaged a number of boathouses. He said their
investigation has shown "that it was due to Ministry negligence."

The Ministry has already responded to these claims stating despite
best efforts to "forecast, prepare for and manage flooding, it's
important to remember these events are caused by severe weather
conditions out of our control."

"We feel strongly about the case based on what our experts are
telling us," said Mr. Lehman.  "We know there wasn't any
extraordinary weather."

It is up to a judge to decide if there are grounds for a case but
Lehman is confident they have grounds to proceed.

Mr. Lehman said the ministry was not following its own Muskoka
River Water Management plan that was implemented in 2006, which
sets out specific water level targets and said consultations with
experts in hydrology state that the ministry failed to follow this
plan in the spring of this year.

"The plan says you need to bring it down to the end of March or
you're going to have trouble," said Mr. Lehman.

He said stopping the water level reduction was not only
inconsistent with the plan but was also inconsistent with what the
ministry has done in previous years.

"That's what our experts are telling us.  That this was
avoidable," he said.

He said the next step is to attain the ministry's internal
documentation that "will answer the question of what went on."

They are currently estimating the amount of the lawsuit at $900
million.

"At this time we don't know exactly the amount of damages but we
know it's enormous," he said.

He said they are also recommending the court order the ministry to
follow the plan to prevent this level of damage from occurring in
future, which is why they are extending their request for funds
beyond the Muskoka cottagers who were directly impacted in 2016.

"What about next year?" asked Mr. Oakley.  "Are you willing to
have it continue year after year."

Mr. Lehman said the class action lawsuit will get the province's
attention.

"One of the goals of this is to change the ministry's behavior,"
he said.

Mr. Oatley said the earliest they will see any preliminary motions
is in 2017.  However, they are hoping other lakefront property
owners who have sustained damage during the spring of 2016 will
come forward and lend their evidence to the case.

Any waterfront property owners who sustained damage or those
willing to put monies toward the war chest can email
muskoka.flood@oatleyvigmond.com


PATHEON N.V.: Oral Contraceptive Class Action Pending
-----------------------------------------------------
Patheon N.V. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on September 13, 2016, for the
quarterly period ended July 31, 2016, that two civil actions are
pending in the United States (in Georgia and Pennsylvania) against
the Company and one of its customers. These actions are in
connection with the recall of certain lots of allegedly defective
products manufactured by the Company for the customer. The
customer has given the Company notice of its intent to seek
indemnification from the Company for all damages, costs and
expenses, pursuant to the manufacturing services agreement between
the customer and the Company.

The first action is a two-plaintiff action in United States
District Court for the Northern District of Georgia. The two named
plaintiffs in this action had previously brought a motion for
class certification that would have included 113 other plaintiffs
as a class action. Defendants opposed the motion and the motion
was denied in November 2015. The action was ordered to proceed on
behalf of the two named plaintiffs only. Following denial of class
certification in Georgia, plaintiffs' lawyers commenced the second
action as a mass action in the State of Pennsylvania on behalf of
the 113 other plaintiffs that would have comprised the class in
the Georgia action. Defendants removed the state action to the
United States District Court for the Eastern District of
Pennsylvania and have filed a motion to transfer the Pennsylvania
federal action back to the federal district court in Georgia.
Following closure of discovery in the Georgia action, plaintiffs
filed a motion to transfer the Georgia action to Pennsylvania.
Defendants opposed the motion and the motion was denied.
Defendants then filed a motion for summary judgment in the Georgia
action on August 24, 2016. On August 31, 2016, plaintiffs filed a
motion to dismiss the Georgia action (without prejudice). The
Court denied plaintiffs' motion to dismiss on September 6, 2016.
As the litigation is at an early stage, the Company is unable to
estimate the potential damages for which the Company may be
directly or indirectly liable.


PERCHERON ENERGY: Landmen File Class Action Over Unpaid OT Wages
----------------------------------------------------------------
A lawsuit filed in the Southern District of Texas claims that
Percheron Energy, LLC, failed to pay its landmen overtime wages in
accordance with the Fair Labor Standard Act ("FLSA").  The lawsuit
filed by Bohrer Brady, LLC, entitled Fletcher v. Percheron Energy,
LLC, Case No. 4:16-cv-02564 (S.D. Tex), alleges that Percheron
Energy, LLC misclassified Petroleum Landmen as "independent
contractors" in an attempt to avoid paying its employees overtime
wages.

Fletcher, the lead plaintiff in the lawsuit and a former landman
with Percheron Energy, LLC, filed suit seeking to recover unpaid
overtime wages, liquidated damages and attorney's fees for all
Petroleum Landmen who were classified as independent contractors
within the past three (3) years.  The lawsuit alleges that the
Landmen routinely worked in excess of forty (40) hours in a
workweek without overtime compensation.  The lawsuit alleges that
the practice of misclassifying employees and not paying overtime
compensation violates the FLSA which entitles the workers to
unpaid wages, liquidated damages and attorney's fees.

Percheron Energy, LLC is a land services company with corporate
headquarters located in Katy, Texas.  The company has regional and
field offices in numerous other states including California, North
Dakota, Nevada, New Mexico, Louisiana, Arkansas, Kansas,
Tennessee, Georgia, North Carolina, Kentucky, Ohio, West Virginia,
Pennsylvania, Virginia, New York and Michigan.  The company
provides survey and acquisition services for pipeline, electric
transmission and right-of-way projects from coast-to-coast.

Plaintiff is represented by Philip Bohrer and Scott Brady, Bohrer
Brady, LLC, 8712 Jefferson Highway, Suite B, Baton Rouge,
Louisiana 70809, (800) 876-3911.

Lawsuit: Linda Fletcher v. Percheron Energy, LLC, Case No. 4:16-
cv-02564 (Southern District of Texas, Houston Division).


PERNIX THERAPEUTICS: Bankr. Trustee's Bid to Settle Denied
----------------------------------------------------------
Bankruptcy Judge Laura K. Grandy of the Southern District of
Illinois Bankruptcy Court denied the request of Robert T. Bruegge,
the Chapter 7 bankruptcy trustee in the case of Alan Lee
Presswood, to compromise the Chapter 7 Debtor's interest in a
class action lawsuit.

Debtor Alan Presswood (Debtor) filed a Chapter 7 petition on May
29, 2012 and movant Robert T. Bruegge was appointed Trustee of the
bankruptcy estate.  The bankruptcy case is captioned, IN RE: ALAN
LEE PRESSWOOD, Chapter 7, Debtor(s), Case No. 12-60237 (Bankr. S.
D. Ill.)

At the time that the petition was filed, the Debtor did not
schedule or otherwise disclose any pre-petition claims or causes
of action in which he may have an interest.

On February 25, 2015, Alan Presswood, D.C., P.C. filed a class
action lawsuit against Pernix Therapeutics Holdings, Inc. (Pernix)
and other defendants in the Circuit Court of St. Louis County,
Missouri (Case No.15SL-CC00687) based, inter alia, on alleged
violations of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991
(TCPA). Specifically, the class action complaint alleges that in
April 2011, Pernix sent two unsolicited facsimiles to the Debtor
in violation of the TCPA. Pernix subsequently removed the suit to
the United States District Court for the Eastern District of
Missouri (Case No.15-cv-00592-NAB) where it remains pending. To
date, the punitive class remains unidentified and uncertified.

On September 14, 2015, the Trustee filed the Application to
Compromise the bankruptcy estate's claims against Pernix. Pursuant
to the agreement, the Trustee requests in his Application that
upon payment of the settlement amount, the Debtor be ordered to
dismiss the Pernix litigation with prejudice. Alternatively, the
Trustee asks that he be authorized to dismiss the action on the
Debtor's behalf if the Debtor fails to do so.

The Application and proposed settlement were served on all
creditors and parties in interest. The only objection was raised
by the Debtor, who asserts that the proposed settlement amount
grossly exceeds the value of the claim. He contends that the cause
of action is worth no more than $500, is fully exempt and,
therefore, should be abandoned by the Trustee. Specifically, the
Debtor alleges that Pernix's settlement offer constitutes an
impermissible attempt to "buy off" the Debtor in the TCPA
litigation and should not be approved by this Court.

In reply, the Trustee requests that these objections be overruled
as the Debtor lacks standing to challenge the proposed settlement.

In her Opinion dated September 15, 2016 available at
https://is.gd/g2OiZH from Leagle.com, Judge Grandy found that the
Debtor's whole interest in the TCPA claim has been exempted, it is
excluded from the bankruptcy estate and beyond the reach of the
Trustee. The Trustee has no standing to settle a claim that is not
property of the estate. The Court concluded that Pernix is
attempting to "buy off" not only the estate's claim but those of
all of the other putative class members as well because Pernix
offered to settle the estate's claim for $10,000, which is over
three times more than the highest possible recovery under the
relevant sections of the TCPA and twenty times the value supported
by the evidence.

Alan Lee Presswood is represented by Robert E. Eggmann, Esq. --
reggmann@demlawllc.com -- and Danielle Suberi, Esq. --
dsuberi@demlawllc.com -- DESAI EGGMANN MASON LLC

Robert T. Bruegge is represented by:

      Steven M. Wallace, Esq.
      HEPLERBROOM LLC
      820 East Terra Cotta
      Suite 139
      Crystal Lake, IL
      Tel: (815)444-0250


PETRO RIVER: Motion to Alter Judgment in Donelson-Friend Pending
----------------------------------------------------------------
Petro River Oil Corp. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on September 13, 2016, for the
quarterly period ended July 31, 2016, that in the class action
lawsuit by Martha Donelson and John Friend, Plaintiffs' three
motions: a Motion to Amend or Alter the Judgment; a Motion to
Amend the Complaint; and a Motion to Vacate Order, remain pending.

On August 11, 2014, Martha Donelson and John Friend amended their
complaint in an existing lawsuit by filing a class action
complaint styled: Martha Donelson and John Friend, et al. v.
United States of America, Department of the Interior, Bureau of
Indian Affairs and Devon Energy Production, LP, et al., Case No.
14-CV-316-JHP-TLW, United States District Court for the Northern
District of Oklahoma (the "Proceeding").  The plaintiffs added as
defendants twenty-seven (27) specifically named operators,
including the Spyglass Energy, LLC ("Spyglass"), a wholly owned
Subsidiary of Bandolier Energy, LLC, as well as all Osage County
lessees and operators who have obtained a concession agreement,
lease or drilling permit approved by the Bureau of Indian Affairs
("BIA") in Osage County allegedly in violation of National
Environmental Policy Act ("NEPA").  Plaintiffs seek a declaratory
judgment that the BIA improperly approved oil and gas leases,
concession agreements and drilling permits prior to August 12,
2014, without satisfying the BIA's obligations under federal
regulations or NEPA, and seek a determination that such oil and
gas leases, concession agreements and drilling permits are void ab
initio.  Plaintiffs are seeking damages against the defendants for
alleged nuisance, trespass, negligence and unjust enrichment.  The
potential consequences of such complaint could jeopardize the
corresponding leases.

On October 7, 2014, Spyglass, along with other defendants, filed a
Motion to Dismiss the August 11, 2014 Amended Complaint on various
procedural and legal grounds. Following the significant briefing,
the Court, on March 31, 2016, granted the Motion to Dismiss as to
all defendants and entered a judgment in favor of the defendants
against the plaintiffs. On April 14, 2016, Spyglass with the other
defendants, filed a Motion seeking its attorneys' fees and costs.
The motion remains pending.

On April 28, 2016, the plaintiffs filed three motions: a Motion to
Amend or Alter the Judgment; a Motion to Amend the Complaint; and
a Motion to Vacate Order. All three Motions are pending as of the
effective date of this response. There is no specific timeline by
which the Court must render a ruling. Spyglass intends to continue
to vigorously defend its interest in this matter.


PIZZA HUT: Franchise Owner to Appeal Class Action Dismissal
-----------------------------------------------------------
The Age reports that Pizza Hut was Adam Gordon's life.  He started
washing dishes and making dough for the family restaurant at 14,
he was a shift manager at 17, an assistant manager at 18 and a
store manager at 20.

"I know the Pizza Hut system," he says.  "I breathed it."

But not any more.  Last year, the 34-year-old Australian man sold
his two Pizza Hut franchises, walking away with just A$10,000 (NZ
$10,300).  Everything else was gone -- except his resolve.

He is hoping to force the fast-food giant back to court to
compensate franchisees for losing fistfuls of dough selling
unprofitable pizzas, as the culmination of legal action first
launched against the global giant two years ago.

Pizza Hut slashed the prices of its pizzas in 2014 to compete with
rival Dominos, with its cheapest pizzas selling for A$4.95 (now
A$5 - NZ$5.15).  The cheapest pizzas currently sell for NZ$5
throughout New Zealand.

After a group of franchisees failed to get an injunction to stop
the price cuts going ahead, more than 280 franchisees from across
Australia began a class action against Pizza Hut's then-owner Yum
Restaurants in 2015, claiming its aggressive pricing policies were
forcing mum-and-dad operators to the wall.

Mr. Gordon said once wages, rent, franchise costs, royalties,
marketing and delivery costs were taken into account, it cost him
A$5.50 (NZ $5.67) to make a A$4.95 (NZ $5.10) pizza.

An estimated 90 per cent of franchisees claimed losses and
business collapses as a direct consequence of orders they slash
the price of pizzas by up to 50 per cent, to take market share
from rivals.

The class action, initially led by Sydney franchisee Danny Diab,
alleged unconscionable conduct under the franchising code.

While Mr. Diab walked away from the class action, concerned for
the impact it was having on his family (he declined to speak about
the case to Fairfax, citing a confidentiality agreement signed as
part of the settlement), the rest stayed -- and lost.

Yum defended the action and in March the Federal Court threw out
the class action.

Now, Mr. Gordon wants to lead an appeal against the decision, and
has launched a crowd-funding appeal to try to raise the cash to go
back to court.

"We have suffered financially and emotionally with many of us
still trapped in this unequal arrangement," he said.

"[We're] buried under a mountain of debt and unable to even sell
our business to cut our losses without the intervention of the
franchisor."

Mr. Gordon is trying to raise A$300,000 (NZ $309,000) to fight the
appeal, which has to be lodged by the end of September or not at
all.

If he manages to raise the cash, Gordon will employ Sydney-based
lawyer Jim Kartsounis, who ran the Federal Court case, to run the
appeal.

If he can't raise the cash, he plans to donate it to charity.

"It is important that we do not give up the fight; if only because
this case will set a precedent for this kind of class action in
Australia," he said.

"This case will help shape judgments in years to come, if small
business owners band together against unjust and commercially
irresponsible decisions made by their franchisor."

Earlier this month, Australian private equity firm Allegro and
three former McDonalds executives acquired the master franchisees
license from Yum Restaurants.

In a statement, Allegro founding partner Chester Moynihan said the
group's immediate focus would be to strengthen the network of
Pizza Hut stores across the country.

Yum and Pizza Hut did not return calls and messages on Sept. 18.


POLARIS INDUSTRIES: "Orr" Suit Claims Violation of Securities Act
-----------------------------------------------------------------
TREVOR ORR, Individually and On Behalf of All Others Similarly
Situated, Plaintiff, v. POLARIS INDUSTRIES, INC., SCOTT W. WINE,
and MICHAEL T. SPEETZEN, Defendants, Case No. 0:16-cv-03108-WMW-
KMM (D. Minn., September 16, 2016), is a federal securities suit
on behalf of a purported class consisting of all persons other
than Defendants who purchased or otherwise acquired Polaris
securities between January 26, 2016 and September 11, 2016, both
dates inclusive.

POLARIS INDUSTRIES, INC., 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.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Gregg M. Fishbein, Esq.
     Kate M. Baxter-Kauf, Esq.
     LOCKRIDGE GRINDAL NAUEN P.L.L.P.
     100 Washington Avenue South, Suite 2200
     Minneapolis, MN 55401
     Phone: (612) 339-6900
     Fax: (612) 339-0981
     E-mail: gmfishbein@locklaw.com
             kmbaxter-kauf@locklaw.com

        - and -

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

        - and -

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

        - and -

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


PORTFOLIO RECOVERY: Wins Summary Judgment in "Panico" Case
----------------------------------------------------------
District Judge Brian R. Martinotti of the United States District
Court for the District of New Jersey granted Defendant's motion
for summary judgment in the case captioned, ANDREW PANICO,
Plaintiff, v. PORTFOLIO RECOVERY ASSOCIATES, LLC, Defendant, Case
No. 15-1566-BRM-DEA (D.N.J.).

On or after October 20, 2014, Portfolio Recovery Associates, LLC
(PRA) filed a complaint in the Law Division of the Superior Court
of New Jersey which commenced a civil action against Plaintiff
entitled Portfolio Recovery Associates, LLC A/P/O FIA Card
Services, N.A. v. Andrew Panico, Docket No. SOM-L-1432-14. The
State Court Complaint alleged that Panico incurred a financial
obligation on a certain credit card account which was in default
and the creditor's rights to the Debt had been assigned to PRA.

The State Court Complaint alleged that Panico incurred a financial
obligation on a certain credit card account (the Account) which
was in default and the creditor's rights to the Debt had been
assigned to PRA. The Debt arose out of one or more transactions in
which the money, property, insurance, or services which were the
subject of those transactions were primarily for personal, family,
or household purposes. The Account from which the Debt arose was
governed by a written credit card agreement which provides that
the Agreement is made in Delaware. It is governed by the laws of
the State of Delaware, without regard to its conflict of laws
principles, and by any applicable federal laws. And that any
litigation regarding the Account or the Agreement shall be brought
in a court located in the State of Delaware. The Account was
considered to be "delinquent" on June 18, 2010, at which time the
outstanding balance was $43,970.16.

On March 2, 2015, Plaintiff, individually and behalf of all others
similarly situated, filed a two-count Class Action Complaint
alleging the State Court Action was filed by PRA after the
applicable statute of limitations in violation of the Fair Debt
Collection Practices Act (FDCPA), 15 U.S.C. Section 1692, and the
New Jersey Consumer Fraud Act, N.J.S.A. 56:8-2.

The Parties submitted a joint letter to the Court on April 11,
2016, outlining their mutual decision to pursue summary judgment
on the central issue of Plaintiff's claim under the FDCPA.
Defendant argues that the plain language of Delaware's statute of
limitations and related tolling provision make timely PRA's
underlying State Court Action against Plaintiff, thus warranting
summary judgment in its favor.

In his Opinion dated September 14, 2016 available at
https://is.gd/h8ojBD from Leagle.com, Judge Martinotti concluded
that PRA is entitled to summary judgment in its favor pursuant to
the tolling provision of Section 8117 so that Plaintiff's clams
under the FDCPA, 15 U.S.C.  Section 1692, and New Jersey Consumer
Fraud Act, N.J.S.A. 56:8-2, fail as a matter of law.  The Court
held that Plaintiff is not a Delaware resident, has never visited
Delaware, owns no property in Delaware, has never been amenable to
service of process in Delaware, and has never been subject to
personal jurisdiction in Delaware.

Andrew Panico is represented by:

      Andrew T. Thomasson, Esq.
      Philip D. Stern, Esq.
      STERN THOMASSON LLP
      150 Morris Ave., 2nd Floor
      Springfield, NJ 07081
      Tel: (973)379-7500

Portfolio Recovery Associates, LLC is represented by Amanda Lyn
Genovese, Esq. -- amanda.genovese@troutmansanders.com -- TROUTMAN
SANDERS LLP


PRECISION OPINION: Faces "Wilber" Suit in District of Arizona
-------------------------------------------------------------
A lawsuit has been filed against Precision Opinion Incorporated.
The case is styled Richard Wilber, individually, and on behalf of
others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v, Precision Opinion
Incorporated, a Nevada corporation, the Defendant, Case No. 2:16-
cv-03195-DKD (D. Ariz., Sept. 21, 2016). The assigned Magistrate
Judge is Hon. David K Duncan.

Precision Opinion provides market research services to
corporations and agencies in the area of social science research
and public opinion polling.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Scott B Seymann, Esq.
          Steven Jay German, Esq.
          Adelman German PLC
          8245 N 85th Way
          Scottsdale, AZ 85258
          Telephone: (480) 607 9166
          Facsimile: (480) 607 9031
          E-mail: scott@adelmangerman.com
                  steve@adelmangerman.com


PRIME HEALTHCARE: Cal. App. Reverses Dismissal of "Moran" Case
--------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Eileen C. Moore of the California Court of Appeals reversed
the trial court's dismissal Plaintiff's complaint in the case
captioned, GENE MORAN, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. PRIME
HEALTHCARE MANAGEMENT, INC., et al., Defendants and Respondents,
Case No. G051391 (Cal. App.).

On three occasions in October 2013, plaintiff Gene Moran, "a self-
pay patient," went to the emergency room of a hospital owned and
operated by defendants Prime Healthcare Management, Inc., Prime
Healthcare Services, Inc., Prime Healthcare Foundation, Inc., and
Prime Healthcare Huntington Beach, LLC. Each time, he signed a
preprinted Conditions of Admission agreement (Contract) and
received medical treatment. Subsequently, plaintiff received bills
from the hospital for the treatment provided during the three
visits that exceeded $10,000.

In November 2013, plaintiff filed this putative class action
against defendants. The initial complaint stated causes of action
for breach of contract, breach of the implied covenant of good
faith and fair dealing, violation of the Unfair Competition Law or
UCL, restitutionary relief under the Consumer Legal Remedies Act
or CLRA, and declaratory relief. Plaintiff subsequently dropped
the first and second counts. His first amended complaint also
expanded the scope of the CLRA cause of action to include a
request for damages by alleging that he complied with the
statutory requirement of giving defendants notice of the
purportedly unlawful practice and a demand for correction of it.
Each iteration of the complaint is based on allegations the rates
defendants charge self-pay patients are discriminatory, exceed the
reasonable value of the treatment, and are "artificially inflated
and grossly excessive."

Defendants demurred to the first and the second amended
complaints, arguing the counts in each pleading failed to allege
facts sufficient to state a cause of action. The trial court
sustained both demurrers with leave to amend. Plaintiff filed a
third amended complaint (TAC), again stating causes of action for
violations of the UCL, CLRA, and declaratory relief. The TAC also
alleges that, "before receiving bills, Plaintiff sent
correspondence to [the] Hospital," informing it that he "was
currently unemployed and uninsured and asking that the hospital
'take into consideration my financial status of being unemployed
and not having insurance in addressing the bill,'" and expressing
his desire "'to take care of this immediately with what he had
available right now, not knowing what his future monetary
situation will be during this recession.'" According to the TAC,
the hospital never responded to plaintiff's correspondence.

Defendants demurred to the TAC, again arguing each of its counts
failed to state a cause of action. The trial court sustained the
demurrer without leave to amend, primarily concluding plaintiff
had failed to allege sufficient facts to establish his standing to
maintain the action.

On appeal, Plaintiff argues he satisfied the standing requirement
because "he received a bill from defendants, paid a portion of
that bill, and (until defendants later unilaterally returned his
payment and eliminated all charges), remained liable on the
balance." The allegation supports plaintiff's claim that he
suffered the requisite economic injury required to maintain a
private enforcement action under the UCL.

In the Opinion dated September 14, 2016 available at
https://is.gd/FQDtKY from Leagle.com, Judge Moore concluded that
the Plaintiff has sufficiently alleged facts supporting a
conclusion he has standing to claim the amount of the charges
defendants' hospital bills self-pay patients is unconscionable.

The matter remanded to the superior court for further proceedings.

Gene Moran is represented by Gretchen Carpenter, Esq. --
gretchen@gcarpenterlaw.com -- CARPENTER LAW

            -- and --

      Barry L. Kramer, Esq.
      Law OFFICE OF BARRY KRAMER
      9550 S Eastern Ave Ste 253
      Las Vegas, NV 89123
      Tel: (702) 778-6090

Prime Healthcare Management, et al. are represented by Ronald S.
Hodges, Esq. -- rhodges@shbllp.com -- Gary A. Pemberton, Esq. --
gpemberton@shbllp.com -- and -- Heather B. Dillion, Esq. --
hdillion@shbllp.com -- SHULMAN HODGES & BASTIAN


PTZ INSURANCE: Pethealth Can't Escape Robocalls Suit
----------------------------------------------------
District Judge Robert W. Gettleman of the United States District
Court for the Northern District of Illinois denied Pethealth,
Inc.'s motion for summary judgment in the case captioned,
CHRISTOPHER LEGG, PAGE LOZANO, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. PTZ INSURANCE AGENCY,
LTD., and PETHEALTH, INC., Defendants, Case No. 15-2299 (N.D.
Ill.).

Plaintiffs Christopher Legg and Page Lozano, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated, have brought an amended
putative class action complaint against defendant PTZ Insurance
Agency, Ltd. and its parent company, Pethealth, Inc. (Pethealth)
alleging that defendants violated the Telephone Consumer
Protection Act (the TCPA), 47 U.S.C. Section 227 et seq., by
calling their cellular telephones using an automated dialing
system, or "robocall," without their express written consent.
Plaintiff Legg adopted a kitten from the Florida Human Society on
November 8, 2014. As part of the adoption process a microchip was
placed in the kitten and registered with 24 PetWatch. Legg claims
that he subsequently received three phone calls on his cellular
phone from No. 877-291-1524 which is listed in 24 PetWatch's
promotional materials. The recorded message indicated that it was
from "Playful PetWatch Pet Insurance" to remind Legg of his free
gift. Legg claims that he did not give PTZ or any other related
company permission to call his cellular phone and that his cell
number is listed on the National Do Not Call Directory.

Pethealth has moved for summary judgment arguing that the
undisputed facts demonstrate that it did not initiate the calls in
question and cannot be held vicariously liable for the entity that
did.

Plaintiff counters that even if Pethealth did not physically place
the calls it can be held directly liable because it controls
everything that PTZ Agency and PTZ Brokers do.

In his Memorandum Opinion and Order dated September 14, 2016
available at https://is.gd/labSha from Leagle.com, Judge Gettleman
concluded that the evidence suggests that Pethealth and its wholly
owned subsidiaries share a number of officers, directors,
employees and offices and that plaintiff has presented evidence
from which a reasonable juror could conclude that Pethealth "was
so involved in the placing" of the robocalls as to be directly
liable.

Christopher Legg, et al. are represented by:

      Keith James Keogh, Esq.
      Amy L. Wells, Esq.
      Michael S. Hilicki, Esq.
      Michael R. Karnuth, Esq.
      Timothy J. Sostrin, Esq.
      KEOGH LAW, LTD
      55 W Monroe St #3390
      Chicago, IL 60603
      Tel:  (312)726-1092


            -- and --

      Patrick Christopher Crotty, Esq.
      Scott D Owens, Esq.
      SCOTT D. OWENS, P.A.
      3800 S Ocean Dr #235,
      Hollywood, FL 33019
      Tel: (954)-589-0588

PTZ Insurance Agency, LTD and PetHealth, Inc. are represented by
Eric L. Samore, Esq. -- esamore@salawus.com -- John C. Ochoa, Esq.
-- jochoa@salawus.com -- Molly Anne Arranz, Esq. --
marranz@salawus.com -- Ronald David Balfour, Esq. --
rbalfour@salawus.com -- and Yesha Sutaria Hoeppner, Esq. --
yhoeppner@salawus.com -- SMITHAMUNDSEN LLC


QUORUM HEALTH: "Rao" Sues Over Shady Spinoff Deal
-------------------------------------------------
Aparna Rao, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. Quorum Health Corporation, Thomas D.
Miller and Michael Culotta, Defendants, Case No. 3:16-cv-02475,
(M.D. Tenn., September 10, 2016), seeks to recover compensable
damages for violation of the Securities Act of 1933 and the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934.

Plaintiff purchased Quorum securities under a false and misleading
Registration Statement issued in connection with the Company's
spinoff from Community Health Systems, Inc. (CHS), in which the
Defendant failed to disclose that a number of Quorum's hospitals
were underperforming at the time of the spin-off from CHS.

Quorum is an independent operator and manager of general acute-
care hospitals and outpatient services in the United States, with
facilities in 16 states. Under the terms of the spin-off, CHS
stockholders who held CHS common stock as of April 22, 2016,
received a distribution of one share of Quorum common stock for
every four shares of CHS common stock, plus cash in lieu of any
fractional shares. CHS's stockholders owned all of the outstanding
common stock of Quorum upon completion of the spinoff.

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Paul Kent Bramlett, Esq.
      Robert Preston Bramlett, Esq.
      BRAMLETT LAW OFFICES
      40 Burton Hills Blvd., Suite 200
      P.O. Box 150734
      Nashville, TN 37215
      Telephone: 615.248.2828
      Facsimile: 866.816.4116
      E-Mails: Robert@BramlettLawOffices.com

               - and -

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

            - and -

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


RADIANT LOGISTICS: Status Conference Continued Until Oct. 31
------------------------------------------------------------
Radiant Logistics, Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on September 13, 2016, for
the fiscal year ended June 30, 2016, that in the case, Ingrid
Barahona v. Accountabilities, Inc. d/b/a Accountabilities
Staffing, Inc., Radiant Global Logistics, Inc. and DBA
Distribution Services, Superior Court of the State of California,
Los Angeles County, Case No. BC525802, a status conference has
since been continued until October 31, 2016 so the parties can
attempt to obtain the necessary documents.

The Company said, "On October 25, 2013, plaintiff Ingrid Barahona
filed a purported class action lawsuit against Radiant Global
Logistics, Inc. ("Radiant"), DBA, and two third-party staffing
companies (collectively, the "Staffing Defendants") with whom
Radiant and DBA contracted for temporary employees. In the
lawsuit, Ms. Barahona, on behalf of herself and the putative
class, seeks damages and penalties under California law, plus
interest, attorneys' fees, and costs, along with equitable
remedies, alleging that she and the putative class were the
subject of unfair and unlawful business practices, including
certain wage and hour violations relating to, among others,
failure to provide meal and rest periods, failure to pay minimum
wages and overtime, and failure to reimburse employees for work-
related expenses. Ms. Barahona alleges that she and the putative
class members were jointly employed by the staffing companies and
Radiant and DBA.

"Radiant and DBA deny Ms. Barahona's allegations in their
entirety, deny that we are liable to Ms. Barahona or the putative
class members in any way, and are vigorously defending against
these allegations based upon our preliminary evaluation of
applicable records and legal standards.

"If Ms. Barahona's allegations were to prevail on all claims we,
as well as our co-defendants, could be liable for uninsured
damages in an amount that, while not significant when evaluated
against either our assets or current and expected level of annual
earnings, could be material when judged against our earnings in
the particular quarter in which any such damages arose, if at all.
However, based upon our preliminary evaluation of the matter, we
do not believe we are likely to incur material damages, if at all,
since, among others: (i) the amount of any potential damages
remains highly speculative at this stage of the proceedings; (ii)
we do not believe as a matter of law we should be characterized as
Ms. Barahona's employer; (iii) any settlement will be properly
apportioned between all named defendants and Radiant and DBA will
not exclusively fund the settlement; (iv) wage and hour class
actions of this nature typically settle for amounts significantly
less than plaintiffs' demands because of the uncertainly with
litigation and the difficulty in taking these types of cases to
trial; and (v) Plaintiff has indicated her desire to resolve this
matter through a mediated settlement.

"Plaintiff recently admitted in a report to the court that she is
unable to prosecute the case because the payroll and personnel
records she needs are in the possession of Tri-State and/or
Accountabilities, and the case has been stayed as to them pending
resolution of their chapter 11 bankruptcy proceedings. In January
2016, the court held a status conference, which has since been
continued until October 31, 2016 so the parties can attempt to
obtain the necessary documents. DBA and Radiant are currently
attempting to obtain the necessary records through the Tri-State
and Accountabilities' Trustee. At this time, we are unable to
express an opinion as to the likely outcome of the matter."


SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS: Sued Over Exploding Galaxy Note 7 Smartphone
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Jonathan Stempel, writing for Reuters, reports that Samsung
Electronics Co. was sued on Sept. 16 by a Florida man who said he
suffered severe burns after his Galaxy Note 7 smartphone exploded
in his front pants pocket.

The lawsuit by Jonathan Strobel may be the first in the United
States by a Samsung phone user against the South Korean company
over a battery defect linked to the Note 7.

It was filed one day after Samsung recalled about 1 million Note
7s sold in the United States.

Samsung has received 92 reports of batteries overheating in the
United States, including 26 reports of burns and 55 reports of
property damage, U.S. safety regulators said.

"We don't comment on pending litigation," Samsung spokeswoman
Danielle Meister Cohen said in an email.  "We are urging all Note
7 owners to power their device down and exchange it immediately."

Mr. Strobel, 28, of Boca Raton, said he was in a Costco store in
Palm Beach Gardens on Sept. 9 when his Note 7 exploded.

He said the phone burned directly through his pants, resulting in
severe burns on his right leg.

Mr. Strobel said he was also severely burned on his left thumb,
after he reached over to try to remove the phone from his pants.

"He has a deep second-degree burn, roughly the size of the phone,
on his right thigh," Mr. Strobel's lawyer Keith Pierro said.
"Unfortunately for my client the recall came too late."

The lawsuit seeks unspecified damages for medical bills, lost
wages, pain and suffering, and other alleged injuries. It was
filed in a Florida state court in Palm Beach County.

The case is Strobel v Samsung Electronics America Inc et al,
Florida Circuit Court, 15th Judicial District, Palm Beach County.


SCHWABE NORTH: "Sonner" Seeks Certification of Multi-State Class
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Plaintiff in the lawsuit entitled KATHLEEN SONNER on Behalf of
of Herself and All Others Similarly Situated v. SCHWABE NORTH
AMERICA, INC. and NATURE'S WAY PRODUCTS, LLC, Case No. 5:15-cv-
01358-VAP-SP (C.D. Cal.), moves for an order certifying this
grouping of states for violations of each state's respective
consumer laws (the "Multi-State Class"):

     All persons who purchased in California, Florida, Illinois,
     Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, Missouri, New Jersey,
     New York and Washington, Defendant's Ginkgold and Ginkgold
     Max products from July 7, 2011, until the date notice is
     provided to the Class ("class period").  Excluded from the
     proposed Class are Defendant, its officers, directors and
     employees, and those who purchased Ginkgold or Ginkgold Max
     for the purpose of resale.

In the alternative, the Plaintiff seeks certification of this
California-only class (the "California Class") for violations of
California's Unfair Competition Law and Consumers Legal Remedies
Act:

     All persons who purchased in California, Defendant's
     Ginkgold and Ginkgold Max products from July 7, 2011, until
     the date notice is provided to the Class ("class period").

Excluded from the proposed Classes are the Defendant, its
officers, directors and employees, and those who purchased
Ginkgold or Ginkgold Max for the purpose of resale.

Ms. Sonner also seeks certification of her claims for breach of
express warranty on behalf of the California Class.

Ms. Sonner also seek for an order appointing her as Class
Representative and appointing Timothy G. Blood, Esq., of the law
firm of Blood Hurst & O'Reardon, LLP, as Class Counsel.

The Court will commence a hearing on January 9, 2017, at 2:00
p.m., to consider the Motion.

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

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

               - and -

          Todd D. Carpenter, Esq.
          CARLSON LYNCH SWEET KILPELA & CARPENTER, LLP
          402 West Broadway, 29th Floor
          San Diego, CA 92101
          Telephone: (619) 756-6994
          Facsimile: (619) 756-6991
          E-mail: tcarpenter@carlsonlynch.com


SLATER & GORDON: Faces Class Action Over Quindell Purchase
----------------------------------------------------------
The Financial Times reports that Slater & Gordon, the Australian-
listed law firm, plans to sue Watchstone Group following its
disastrous GBP673 million acquisition of the UK company's
professional services arm last year.

The Melbourne-based law firm booked an A$879.5 million impairment
charge in the year to the end of June related to the purchase and
is now battling to cut its A$680m net debt burden.  Slater &
Gordon also faces a class action law suit from investors related
to the acquisition, which took place when Watchstone -- an
insurance and technology group -- was known as Quindell.

S&G told the Australian Securities and Exchange Commission on
Sept. 19 that it intended to bring claims against Watchstone
arising from its purchase of Quindell's professional services
division.  S&G did not reveal the basis for the claims but said
GBP50 million of the purchase price for Quindell, which is held in
an escrow account, may not be released unless the claims are
resolved.

Ian Ramsey, professor of law at Melbourne University, said it was
possible that S&G would argue they were misled by Quindell at the
time of the acquisition.  But there is also an obligation on
companies to engage in sound legal and commercial due diligence,
he said.

"It's hard to predict where all of this will end up when and if it
gets into the court," said Mr. Ramsey.

Watchstone said on Sept. 19 it "does not believe that there are
grounds for a claim to be brought and will defend it robustly".

"Watchstone conducted a professional and transparent disposal
process of the professional services division assisted and advised
by leading specialists.  In addition, Watchstone allowed Slater &
Gordon the opportunity to complete an extensive and detailed due
diligence process with the assistance and advice of a similarly
specialist team," it said.

Not long after S&G made the purchase, Quindell came under
investigation by the UK's Serious Fraud Office for its historic
business and accounting practices.

When S&G announced its acquisition of Quindell's professional
services arm and raised A$890 million equity from investors, the
law firm said it would be "transformational" for the group.  But
the acquisition soon began to unravel and in November S&G
experienced a further blow when the UK government flagged plans to
limit the number of personal injury claims.

S&G announced a net loss of A$1 billion in the 12 months to June,
compared with net profit of A$62.4 million the previous year.

In May, S&G reached a deal with lenders on its debt repayment
schedule.  At its full-year result in August, the company said its
performance in the six months to June 30 was more encouraging as
its turnround of its UK business began to bear fruit.

Maurice Blackburn, which has initiated a class action law suit
against S&G, said the announcement of legal action by S&G cast
doubt on the firm's due diligence on Quindell.

"Slater and Gordon has on a number of occasions told the market
that it conducted extensive due diligence for the Quindell
purchase and did not rely solely on Quindell's accounts," said Lee
Taylor, special counsel for Maurice Blackburn.

"The problems that have emerged so far -- and there are many --
might just be the tip of the iceberg."


SN SERVICING: Faces "Tran" Suit in Eastern District of Penn.
------------------------------------------------------------
A lawsuit has been filed against SN Servicing Corporation. The
case is titled CHUONG VAN TRAN and TUYET HONG NGUYEN, INDIVIDUALLY
AND ON BEHALF OF ALL OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED, the Plaintiffs, v.
SN SERVICING CORPORATION, MV051, LLC, and DOES 1-10, INCLUSIVE,
the Defendants, Case No. 2:16-cv-05048-JS (E.D. Penn., Sept. 21,
2016). The assigned Judge is Hon. Juan R. Sanchez.

SN Servicing engages in the management and sale of real estate
owned properties in the United States.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

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


SQUARE INC: Court Dismisses "White" Amended Complaint
-----------------------------------------------------
District Judge Jon S. Tigar of the United States District Court
for the Northern District of California granted with prejudice
Defendant's motion to dismiss the Second Amended Complaint in the
case captioned, ROBERT E. WHITE, Plaintiff, v. SQUARE, INC.,
Defendant, Case No. 15-CV-04539-JST (N.D. Cal.).

Defendant Square provides a service which enables individuals and
businesses "to accept electronic payments without themselves
directly opening up a merchant account with any Visa or MasterCard
member bank." Plaintiff Robert E. White is the principal of a law
firm and "actively practices bankruptcy law on behalf of his
creditor clients."

On October 1, 2015, White filed the putative class action against
Square, raising a single claim under California's Unruh Civil
Rights Act. On December 21, 2015, White filed a First Amended
Complaint (FAC), seeking to represent a class of "all Persons --
other than persons who fall within Category 1 of Section 6 -- who
have ever had their Accommodations terminated by Square based on
their violation of Section 6 or who have ever been dissuaded from
seeking Accommodations from [Square] based on their unwillingness
to violate Section 6."

On April 19, 2016, the Court granted Square's motion to dismiss
the FAC concluding that "California case law requires the Court to
grant Square's motion to dismiss because Plaintiff has not
sufficiently pleaded statutory standing under the Unruh Act." On
April 29, 2016, White filed his Second Amended Complaint (SAC).
White alleges that "there are several hundred thousand Class
members." Because the minimum statutory damage award under the
Unruh Act is $4,000, Cal. Civ. Code Sec. 52, White has pleaded
that the amount in controversy exceeds $5,000,000, as required by
28 U.S.C. 1332(d)(2).

In his Order dated September 14, 2016 available at
https://is.gd/DXpGrV from Leagle.com, Judge Tigar held that White
did not have statutory standing to sue Square under the Unruh Act
because White did not "allege that he attempted to subscribe to
Square's services," but instead "merely alleged that became aware
of Square's policy and was then dissuaded from seeking to become a
Square customer."

Robert E. White is represented by William McGrane, Esq. --
william.mcgrane@mcgranepc.com -- MCGRANE PC

Robert E. White is represented by:

      Frank R. Ubhaus, Esq.
      BERLINER COHEN LLP
      Berliner Cohen LLP
      10 Almaden Blvd Fl 11
      San Jose, CA 95113
      Tel:(408) 286-5800

Square, Inc. is represented by Colleen Bal, Esq. -- cbal@wsgr.com
-- David H. Kramer, Esq. -- dkramer@wsgr.com -- and Sara Elizabeth
Rowe, Esq. -- srowe@wsgr.com -- WILSON SONSINI GOODRICH & ROSATI


STANDARD INNOVATION: Faces Class Action Over We-Vibe Vibrator
-------------------------------------------------------------
Don Crothers, writing for Inquisitr, reports that a Canadian sex
toy manufacturer, Standard Innovation, is being sued by an
Illinois woman known only as N.P. for "monitoring and recording"
her "intimate details . . .  in real time" while using the device.

According to a report from Vocativ, the woman first purchased a
We-Vibe Rave "smart" vibrator from an Illinois retailer in May for
$130.  The We-Vibe connects to the user's smartphone, allowing
them to customize their experience and unlock "bonus" vibration
patterns that can only be triggered by linking the vibrator to the
smartphone app, including "cha-cha-cha" and "crest."  The app can
also be used to create "playlists" and can even pair with another
user over the internet, allowing partners to "connect and play
together from anywhere in the world."

N.P. bought her We-Vibe Rave and used it "several times," until a
pair of hackers known as "followr" and "g0ldfisk" told an audience
at the Defcon hacking convention that smart vibrators actually
gather a lot of information about their users -- and transmit it
back home; they discovered the volume of data when they were
looking for security vulnerabilities in the device to exploit.
According to Motherboard, smart sex toys have been hacked before,
and the data they were broadcasting collected.

After the conference, a spokesperson for Standard Innovation
indicated that they would clarify their terms and conditions to
make it more plain that "mostly anonymized" data was being
collected for "market research," and would offer vibrator end-
users a chance to pull out.  Standard Innovation followed this up
with a post detailing their "commitment to customer privacy and
security" on their website.

N.P. wasn't satisfied.  Or possibly it was just too little, too
late.  According to Courthouse News, she filed a five-complaint
suit against Standard Innovation in the U.S. District Court for
the Northern District of Illinois under the Federal Wiretap Act
and the Illinois Eavesdropping Statute, in addition to alleging
consumer fraud, unjust enrichment, and intrusion upon seclusion --
all as a class-action lawsuit potentially representing tens of
thousands of customers.  The complaint indicates that the company
neglected to mention "that it transmits the collected private
usage information to its servers in Canada."

"Intimate details [are revealed] including the date and time of
each use, the vibration intensity level selected by the user, the
vibration mode or pattern selected by the user, and incredibly,
the email address of We-Vibe customers."

"[Standard Innovation's] conduct demonstrates a wholesale
disregard for consumer privacy rights and violated numerous state
and federal laws."

N.P. is seeking both an immediate injunction for Standard
Innovation to plug the leak and an unspecified amount in punitive
damages.

Standard Innovation says that the information was collected purely
for market research and product development, and say that the
information was both protected and not sold for profit.

"There's been no allegation that any of our customers' data has
been compromised.  However, given the intimate nature of our
products, the privacy and security of our customers' data is of
utmost importance to our company.  Accordingly, we take concerns
about customer privacy and our data practices seriously."

"This is one of the most incredible invasions of privacy we've
ever dealt with," said Eve-Lynn Rapp -- erapp@edelson.com -- one
of the attorneys with Edelson PC in Chicago, who are handling the
case.

As of their last comment, Standard Innovation indicated that they
could not comment on the suit itself as they had not yet been
served.


SWITRONIX INC: Faces "Klein" Suit in New York Supreme Court
-----------------------------------------------------------
A lawsuit has been filed against Switronix, Inc. The case is
captioned KLEIN, ARTHUR, INDIVIDUALLY AND AS A SHAREHOLDER OF
SWITRONIX, INC. ON BEHALF OF HIMSELF AND ALL OTHER SHAREHOLDERS OF
SWITRONIX, INC., SIMILARLY SITUATED, AND IN THE RIGHT OF NOMINAL
DEFENDANT SWITHRONIX, INC., the Plaintiff, v. KANAREK, ROSS, and
SWITRONIX, INC., the Defendants, Case No. 6795/2016 (N.Y. Sup.
Ct., Sep 21, 2016). The assigned Judge is Hon. Timothy S.
Driscoll.

Switronix supplies batteries and charging solutions in the
professional film and video industry.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          SALTZMAN CHETKOF ROSENBERG LLP
          300 Garden City Plaza no. 130,
          Garden City, NY 11530,
          Telephone: (516) 873 7200

The Defendants are represented by:

          OTTERBOURG, PC
          230 Park Ave
          New York, NY 10169
          Telephone: (212) 661 9100
          E-mail: info@otterbourg.com


SYNGENTA AG: Status Hearing in MIR162 Corn MDL Set for October 4
----------------------------------------------------------------
The parties in the multidistrict litigation captioned In re:
Syngenta AG MIR162 Corn Litigation, MDL No. 2:14-md-02591-JWL-JPO,
presented argument regarding the Producer Plaintiff's motion to
certify class, according to a minute sheet in a hearing held
before the Hon. John W. Lungstrum.

The U.S. District Court for the District of Kansas takes this
matter under advisement and will issue a written order, according
to the Minute Sheet.

The Court schedules a follow up status conference for October 4,
2016, at 9:00 a.m.

The cases in the litigation concern the Syngenta Defendants'
decision to allegedly commercialize corn seeds containing a
genetically modified trait, known as "MIR162," that reportedly
controls certain insects.  The Plaintiffs allege that corn with
this trait has entered U.S. corn stocks but has not been approved
for import by the Chinese government, which has imposed a complete
ban on U.S. corn with this trait.

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

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Patrick Stueve, Esq.
          STUEVE SIEGEL HANSON LLP
          460 Nichols Road, Suite 200
          Kansas City, MO 64112
          Telephone: (816) 714-7110
          E-mail: stueve@stuevesiegel.com

               - and -

          Don Downing, Esq.
          GRAY, RITTER & GRAHAM, P.C.
          701 Market Street, Suite 800
          St. Louis, MO 63101
          Toll Free: (888) 743-4054
          Telephone: (314) 732-0728
          Facsimile: (314) 241-4140
          E-mail: ddowning@grgpc.com

               - and -

          William Chaney, Esq.
          GRAY REED & MCGRAW, P.C.
          1601 Elm Street, Suite 4600
          Dallas, TX 75201
          Telephone: (469) 320-6031
          E-mail: wchaney@grayreed.com

               - and -

          Scott Powell, Esq.
          HARE WYNN NEWELL & NEWTON
          2025 3rd Ave. North, Suite 800
          Birmingham, AL 35203
          Telephone: (205) 328-5330
          Facsimile: (205) 324-2165
          E-mail: scott@hwnn.com

               - and -

          Daniel Gustafson, Esq.
          GUSTAFSON GLUEK PLLC
          Canadian Pacific Plaza
          120 South 6th Street, Suite 2600
          Minneapolis, MN 55402
          Telephone: (612) 333-8844
          Facsimile: (612) 339-6622
          E-mail: dgustafson@gustafsongluek.com

The Defendants are represented by:

          Thomas P. Schult, Esq.
          BERKOWITZ OLIVER WILLIAMS SHAW & EISENBRANDT LLP
          2600 Grand Boulevard, Suite 1200
          Kansas City, MO 64108
          Telephone: (816) 561-7007
          Facsimile: (816) 561-1888
          E-mail: tschult@berkowitzoliver.com

               - and -

          Edwin John U, Esq.
          Michael D. Jones, Esq.
          Patrick Philbin, Esq.
          Ragan Naresh, Esq.
          KIRKLAND & ELLIS LLP
          655 15th Street N.W., Suite 1200
          Washington, DC 20005
          Telephone: (202) 879-5000
          Facsimile: (202) 879-5200
          E-mail: edwin.u@kirkland.com
                  mjones@kirkland.com
                  patrick.philbin@kirkland.com
                  ragan.naresh@kirkland.com


TH HEALTHCARE: Nurse Files Class Action Over Unpaid OT Wages
------------------------------------------------------------
Philip Gonzales, writing for SE Texas Record, reports that a nurse
has filed a class-action lawsuit against a medical care provider
alleging she is owed overtime compensation.

Amber Li filed a complaint on behalf of all others similarly
situated on July 26 in the Houston Division of the Southern
District of Texas against TH Healthcare LTD, doing business as
Park Plaza Hospital, alleging that the medical care provider
violated the Fair Labor Standards Act.

According to the complaint, the plaintiff alleges that she
regularly worked for more than 40 hours per week without receiving
full compensation for those extra hours.  The plaintiff holds TH
Healthcare LTD responsible because the defendant allegedly also
failed to take into account all remunerations when calculating the
regular hourly and overtime rates.

The plaintiff requests a trial by jury and seeks compensation for
all unpaid overtime wages, an equal amount as liquidated damages,
attorneys' fees, costs, and expenses and such other relief to
which she may be entitled.  She is represented by Todd Slobin --
tslobin@eeoc.net -- and Ricardo J. Prieto -- rprieto@eeoc.net --
of Shellist | Lazarz | Slobin LLP in Houston.

Houston Division of the Southern District of Texas Case number
4:16-cv-02229


TIME WARNER: Court Upholds Set-Top Box Class Action Dismissal
-------------------------------------------------------------
Alexis Kramer, writing for Bloomberg BNA, reports that a federal
appellate court Sept. 2 upheld a lower court's dismissal of an
antitrust lawsuit claiming that Time Warner Inc. illegally
required customers of premium cable channels to lease set-top
boxes from the company (In re Time Warner Inc. Set-Top Cable
Television Box Antitrust Litig., 2d Cir., No. 11-02512, 9/2/16 ).

The plaintiffs in the class action case didn't sufficiently allege
that the cable services and set-top boxes were in separate product
markets and that Time Warner had market power over premium cable
services, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit ruled
in a 2-1 decision.  They failed to show "consumers are coerced
into 'leasing' set-top boxes from Time Warner that they would
otherwise purchase elsewhere," the court said.

The decision comes as the Federal Communications Commission
continues to work on a plan to open the set-top box market to
competition.  The agency's March proposal would require pay-TV
providers to deliver three core information streams to parties
that make alternatives to traditional set-top boxes (2016 TLN 6,
3/1/16).  Equipment manufacturers, app developers or other parties
would then have access to those information streams through open
technical standards.

The FCC may be considering a revised approach after receiving
criticism from lawmakers, the cable industry and the copyright
community (2016 TLN 9, 9/1/16).

Time Warner spokesman Justin Venech told Bloomberg BNA the company
is pleased with the decision.  Robert I. Harwood --
rharwood@hfesq.com -- senior partner at Harwood Feffer LLP in New
York, who represented the plaintiffs in the case, said that "Judge
Droney got it right," referring to Judge Christopher F. Droney's
dissenting opinion.

Same Market

Subscribers of Time Warner's cable services alleged that tying
premium cable channel subscriptions to the leasing of set-top
boxes violated the Sherman Act, 15 U.S.C. Sec. 1.  A federal
district court in New York dismissed the plaintiffs' third amended
complaint because it failed to allege anti-competitive effects.

A tying arrangement is an agreement in which a party will sell a
product only on the condition that the buyer also purchase a
different product.  To state a claim under the Sherman Act over a
tying arrangement, a plaintiff must show that the two products are
separate, and that the seller has sufficient market power over the
tying product.

The Second Circuit said the plaintiffs failed to allege that  set-
top boxes and cable services are sold separately in the U.S. The
court rejected their argument that Time Warner doesn't manufacture
its own set-top boxes, and that set-top boxes are sold separately
outside the country.

Time Warner's lack of manufacturing operations doesn't address
consumer demand, the court said.  The plaintiffs didn't allege
that the foreign set-top box markets were sufficiently similar to
the U.S. market, it also said.

The court said the FCC's failure as of yet to separate set-top
boxes from the cable services they deliver "bolsters our
conclusion that the plaintiffs have not plausibly alleged separate
product markets."

Also, the plaintiffs failed to plead market power over premium
cable services, the court said. The plaintiffs alleged that Time
Warner has power over the market for basic cable, but they alleged
no facts showing Time Warner's share of the market for premium
services, it said.

Harwood Feffer LLP represented the plaintiffs.  Latham & Watkins
LLP represented Time Warner.


TRANSWORLD SYSTEMS: Faces "Orzel" Suit in E.D. of New York
----------------------------------------------------------
A lawsuit has been filed against Transworld Systems Inc. The case
is captioned Usher Orzel, on behalf of himself and all others
similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. Transworld Systems Inc., the
Defendant, Case No. 1:16-cv-05251 (E.D.N.Y., Sept. 21, 2016).

Transworld Systems provides accounts receivable, debt recovery,
and past due accounts services for businesses, medical companies,
and dental companies.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


TROPICAL SMOOTHIE: 66 Hepatitis Cases Linked to Virginia Cafes
--------------------------------------------------------------
Becca Mitchell, writing for WTKR, reports that according to the
Virginia Department of Health there are now 66 confirmed cases of
hepatitis A that are connected to frozen strawberries from Egypt
used at Tropical Smoothie Cafes across Virginia.

The VDH says onsets of the illness for the 66 cases range from
early May through August.  Previously, Department of Health said
that only people who consumed smoothies with frozen strawberries
from Tropical Smoothie Cafe on August 5, 6, 7 or 8 may be at risk.

"Onsets of illness for the 40 cases range from early May through
mid-August.  The common exposure shared by ill persons was not
hypothesized until August, at which time VDH re-interviewed
persons reported earlier in the year to confirm the link with
smoothie consumption," VDH said in a statement on their website.

Of the 66 confirmed cases, 13 are in the Eastern region of
Virginia that includes Hampton Roads, 37 are in the Northern
region, 10 are in the Northwest and six are in the Central region

The 66 ill residents range in age from 14-68.  Approximately 42%
of the residents have been hospitalized for their illness.

Tropical Smoothie Cafe voluntarily withdrew all of the
strawberries sourced from Egypt and found an alternate supply.

A class action class action lawsuit representing all of the
victims of the outbreak has been filed.


UNITED AUTO: Vinny's Landscaping Suit Survives Dismissal Bid
------------------------------------------------------------
District Judge Sean F. Cox of the United States District Court for
the Eastern District of Michigan denied Defendants' motion to
dismiss the complaint in the case captioned, Vinny's Landscaping,
Inc., Plaintiff, v. United Auto Credit Corporation, et al.,
Defendants, Case No. 16-10275(E.D. Mich.).

In the putative class action, Plaintiff Vinny's Landscaping, Inc.,
(Plaintiff) alleges that Defendants violated the Telephone
Consumer Protection Act (the TCPA), 47 U.S.C. Sec. 227, as amended
by the Junk Fax Prevention Act of 2005 by sending an unsolicited
facsimile advertisement to Plaintiff and a class of similarly
situated persons. Plaintiff Vinny's Landscaping Inc. brings the
TCPA suit against the following defendants: (1) United Auto Credit
Corporation (UACC); (2) United Panam Financial Corp. (UPFC); (3)
Unitas Holdings Corp. (UHC); and (4) John Does 1-10.
Plaintiff alleges that, on or about December 5, 2012, Defendants
transmitted by telephone facsimile machine an unsolicited
facsimile to Plaintiff. Plaintiff alleges that Defendants did not
have Plaintiff's prior invitation or permission to send
advertisements to Plaintiff's fax machine.

In lieu of filing an Answer, Defendants UACC, UPFC and UHC filed
the instant Motion to Dismiss. Defendants argue that Plaintiff's
complaint against all defendants fails as a matter of law because
the challenged fax is not an advertisement. Defendants also argue
that, even if the fax at issue is an advertisement, Plaintiff has
failed to sufficiently allege that the bank holding defendants,
UPFC and UHC, are the "senders" of the fax as is required under
the TCPA.

In his Opinion and Order dated September 14, 2016 available at
https://is.gd/ZnfTUE from Leagle.com, Judge Cox found that
Plaintiff's allegations, taken together with the Fax at issue, are
sufficient to withstand dismissal at the 12(b)(6) stage.
Defendants' dismissal request on Plaintiff's complaint on the
basis that the fax is not an advertisement as a matter of law is
denied.

Vinny's Landscaping, Inc. is represented by Ross M. Good, Esq. --
jesse.goodman@grandroundshealth.com -- ANDERSON WANCA

Vinny's Landscaping, Inc. is represented by Ryan M. Kelly, Esq.
-- RKelly@andersonwanca.com -- and Brian J. Wanca, Esq. --
BWanca@andersonwanca.com -- ANDERSON & WANCA

United Auto Credit Corporation and United Auto Credit Corporation
are represented by Bradley Joseph Andreozzi, Esq. --
bradley.andreozzi@dbr.com -- DRINKER BIDDLE & REATH LLP -- Daniel
J. Ferris, Esq. -- dferris@kerr-russell.com -- and Fred K.
Herrmann, Esq. -- fherrmann@kerr-russell.com -- KERR, RUSSELL


UNITED HEALTHCARE: Faces "Frisk" Suit Seeking OT Pay Under FLSA
---------------------------------------------------------------
Holly Frisk, Susan Marie Caruso, and Medina Yasin, individually
and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v.
United HealthCare, Inc., Defendant, Case No. 2:16-cv-14411-KAM
(S.D. Fla., September 20, 2016), alleges that Plaintiffs were
denied overtime pay required under the Fair Labor Standards Act.

United HealthCare, Inc. provides managed care to customers,
including medical assistance and long term care for eligible
enrollees under the Medicaid program.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

     Jeremiah J. Talbott, Esq.
     JEREMIAH J. TALBOTT, P.A.
     900 East Moreno St.
     Pensacola, FL, 32503
     Phone: (850) 437-9600
     Fax: (850) 437-0906
     E-mail: jjtalbott@talbottlawfirm.com

        - and -

     Sean Culliton, Esq.
     SEAN CULLITON, ESQ., LLC
     150 John Knox Road
     Tallahassee, FL 32303
     Phone: (850) 385-9455
     Fax: (813) 441-1999
     E-mail: Sean.Culliton@gmail.com

        - and -

     John C. Davis, Esq.
     LAW OFFICE OF JOHN C. DAVIS
     623 Beard St.
     Tallahassee, FL 32303
     Phone: (850) 222-4770
     Fax: (850) 222-3119
     E-mail: john@johndavislaw.net


UNITED STATES: 9th Cir. Reverses Atty. Fees Ruling in "Wood" Case
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Circuit Judge M. Margaret McKeown of the Court of Appeals, Ninth
Circuit, reversed a trial court's order denying the Wood
plaintiffs' motion for attorneys' fees on the ground that they
were not the "prevailing party" and remanded case for further
proceedings in the case captioned, FLINT WOOD; PHONESAGNAM
SILIVONGXAY; CYNTHIA ROBERTS; FLISHA MUMAW, on behalf of
themselves and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs-
Appellants, v. SYLVIA MATHEWS BURWELL, Secretary of the United
States Department of Health and Human Services, Defendant-
Appellee, Case No. 14-15356 (9th Cir.).

This appeal is the latest in a decade-long conflict over the cost
of copayments and medication for low-income Arizonans who qualify
for a state Medicaid demonstration project covering childless
adults. The sole issue is whether the members of a class action
suit against the Secretary of the Department of Health and Human
Services ("DHHS" or the "Secretary") were the "prevailing
part[ies]" for purposes of attorneys' fees under the Equal Access
to Justice Act ("EAJA"), 28 U.S.C. Sec. 2412.

In 2000, Arizona voters opted to expand the Arizona Medicaid
demonstration program to cover low-income childless adults who
would not otherwise be eligible for Medicaid. Arizona applied to
the Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS) to create a
project for eligible adults to receive health services with
nominal copayments. Under this plan, healthcare providers could
not refuse services because of an inability to pay. DHHS approved
the demonstration project in 2001. With DHHS approval, Arizona
modified the program in 2003 to include higher copays (the
Copayment Rule) and to permit healthcare providers to refuse
services for inability to pay.

A group of affected individuals filed suit in federal court
challenging the modified program (Newton-Nations v. Rodgers, No.
CV-03-2506-PHX-EHC (D. Ariz. Mar. 29, 2010)).

On appeal, the Appeals Court determined that the Secretary's
approval of the Copayment Rule violated the Administrative
Procedure Act. Thus, the Secretary's decision was arbitrary and
capricious within the meaning of the APA insofar as it entirely
failed to consider an important aspect of the problem."

When the first demonstration project expired in 2011, Arizona
sought approval for a new demonstration project, which also
included the Copayment Rule. DHHS approved the new project through
2016, although the Copayment Rule expired in 2013. At around the
same time that the new project was approved, the Appeals Court
remanded the Newton-Nations case to the district court with an
order to vacate and remand to the Secretary for further
consideration. On remand, the district court dismissed the case as
moot because of the intervening 2011-2016 demonstration project, a
dismissal the Court affirmed on appeal, and awarded the plaintiffs
attorneys' fees under the Equal Access to Justice Act (EAJA).

In 2012, the Wood plaintiffs, who were recipients of health
coverage under the Arizona Medicaid demonstration project, filed
suit on essentially the same grounds as the Newton-Nations
plaintiffs against the Secretary of the Department of Health and
Human Services (DHHS or the Secretary). The complaint challenged
her approval of a new Arizona project that raised copayments for
medical visits and medications and that permitted healthcare
providers to refuse non-emergency services based on an inability
to pay.

The complaint alleged that the Secretary once again failed to
review or analyze a number of issues related to the Copayment
Rule, such as whether it was justified by any ground other than
cost-saving. The plaintiffs sought declaratory and injunctive
relief under the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment,
the APA, and the Social Security Act ("SSA"). They requested that
the Secretary be enjoined from implementing the Copayment Rule,
but did not specifically request a remand to the agency. The
district court denied the Wood plaintiffs' motion for a
preliminary injunction because the court determined that it could
not enjoin the Copayment Rule without enjoining the entire
demonstration project, a remedy that the plaintiffs did not seek.

In 2013, the district court partially granted the plaintiffs'
motion for summary judgment and remanded for the Secretary to
address the deficiencies in her approval of the 2011 demonstration
project. According to the district court, the Secretary's approval
of the new demonstration project was arbitrary and capricious in
violation of the APA.

Upon remand and reconsideration, the Secretary came to the same
conclusion as before and approved the 2011-2016 demonstration
project in a letter dated April 8, 2013 reasoning that that in the
letter "the Secretary explained her rationale for disagreeing with
the substance of the Wood plaintiffs' evidence" and "was not
required to do more," the court granted the Secretary's motion for
summary judgment. The district court later denied the Wood
plaintiffs' motion for attorneys' fees under the EAJA on the
ground that they were not the "prevailing party."

On appeal, the Wood plaintiffs alleged that the government acted
improperly in not following prescribed administrative review.

The government points to two factors that it contends alter the
prevailing party analysis: (1) the Wood plaintiffs obtained
procedural relief, but not the substantive relief they sought; and
(2) the district court remanded to the agency without vacatur,
while retaining jurisdiction.

The Appeals Court disagrees with the government's claim that this
"procedural posture made all the difference."

In her Opinion dated September 14, 2016 available at
https://is.gd/GDXgD1 from Leagle.com, Judge McKewon concluded that
the district court erred as a matter of law in holding that the
Wood plaintiffs were not a prevailing party because the posture of
the case did not fundamentally affect the prevailing party inquiry
set out in Buckhannon Bd. & Care Home, Inc. v. W. Va. Dep't of
Health & Human Res., 532 U.S. 598, 604-05 (2001) pointing that a
fee-seeking party must show that (1) there has been a material
alteration in the legal relationship of the parties and (2) it was
judicially sanctioned. The retention of jurisdiction for practical
and equitable reasons did not undermine the reality that the Wood
plaintiffs were a prevailing party. The remand was not interim
relief, but rather represented success on the APA challenge.

The Appeals Court held that the Wood plaintiffs are entitled to
prevailing party status with respect to the February 6, 2013 order
remanding the approval of the Medicaid demonstration project to
the Secretary. The Court remanded the action to the district court
to consider whether the government's position was "substantially
justified" under the EAJA.

Flint Wood, et al. are represented by Richard Rothschild, Esq. --
rrothschild@wclp.org -- WESTERN CENTER ON LAW AND POVERTY -- Jane
Perkins, Esq. -- perkins@healthlaw.org -- NATIONAL HEALTH LAW
PROGRAM

Sylvia Mathews Burwell, et al. are represented by:

      Sushma Soni, Esq.
      Michael Jay Singer, Esq.
      Appellate Staff
      US Department of Justice
      950 Pennsylvania Ave., NW
      Room 7519
      Washington, DC 20530
      Tel: (202)305-1754

            -- and --

      John S. Leonardo, Esq.
      UNITED STATES ATTORNEY
      Two Renaissance Square
      40 N. Central Avenue, Suite 1200
      Phoenix, AZ 85004-4408
      Tel:(602) 514-7500


USA TECHNOLOGIES: Expects Appeals Court to Remand Suit
------------------------------------------------------
USA Technologies, Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on September 13, 2016, for the
fiscal year ended June 30, 2016, that it is anticipated that a
Court of Appeals will remand a class action lawsuit to the
District Court pending the District Court's ruling on the
plaintiff's Motion For Relief From Final Judgment with the
District Court.

On October 1, 2015, a purported class action was filed in the
United States District Court for the Eastern District of
Pennsylvania against the Company and its executive officers
alleging violations under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. On
December 15, 2015, the court appointed a lead plaintiff, and on
January 18, 2016, the plaintiff filed an amended complaint that
set forth the same causes of action and requested substantially
the same relief as the original complaint.

On February 1, 2016, the Company filed a motion to dismiss the
amended complaint. On April 11, 2016, the Court held oral argument
on the Company's motion, and on April 14, 2016, the Court issued
an order granting the Company's motion to dismiss the amended
complaint without leave to amend.

On May 13, 2016, the plaintiff appealed the Court's order to the
United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit. On August
16, 2016, the plaintiff filed a Motion For Relief From Final
Judgment with the District Court seeking an order modifying the
District Court's April 14, 2016, order dismissing the complaint,
and permitting the plaintiff to now file an amended complaint due
to alleged newly discovered evidence.

By Order dated September 6, 2016, the District Court found that
the Motion raised a substantial issue, and directed the plaintiff
to notify the Court of Appeals thereof. On September 7, 2016, the
plaintiff so notified the Court of Appeals.

It is anticipated that the Court of Appeals will remand the case
to the District Court pending the District Court's ruling on the
Motion. The Company's response to the Motion was due by no later
than September 15, 2016. The Company believes that the Motion has
no merit and intends to vigorously oppose the Motion.


UTOPIA HOME: Worker Appeals Class Certification Denial
------------------------------------------------------
Kathleen McGuire Gilbert, writing for Legal Newsline, reports that
Magistrate Judge Steven Locke of the Eastern District New York,
recently denied conditional certification under the Fair Labor
Standards Act (FLSA) in the Cowell v. Utopia Home Care case.

This decision prevents the Utopia Home Care employees from filing
a class action suit and potentially changes the legal landscape in
the New York home health industry.  The plaintiff has already
filed an appeal.

The plaintiff's attorneys argued that up to 5,000 home health
aides and personal care attendants should be able to participate
in a class action suit to collect unpaid wages.

The wages in question would have represented hours worked and
overtime pay for a three-year period prior to the implementation
of the U.S. Department of Labor's final rule on application of the
FLSA to domestic service workers, which eliminated overtime
exemptions for home care workers.

The rule was released in January 2015 but did not take effect
until Oct. 13, 2015.

"Essentially, it's one of the first, if not the first, decision
specifically addressing the companionship services exemption at
the conditional certification stage where a court declined to
conditionally certify a group of home health aides,"
Phil Davidoff, a member of the defendant's legal team, told Legal
Newsline.

The decision hinged on the proportion of time that a home health
worker spent on tasks that fell outside the companionship work
exemption -- general household work considered unrelated to
patient care.  In order to consider an employee to be outside of
the companionship services exemption, the employee would need to
have spent more than 20 percent of the work week performing
general household work.

"What we argued, and what the court accepted, is that even the
household work that they say these employees performed was related
to the care of the patient, because it's in the plan of care," Mr.
Davidoff said.  "And if the plan of care said 'make the bed,'
that's related, by definition, to the care of the patient."

Plans of care are detailed documents that reflect both the
patient's condition and available resources.  A patient with
mobility problems and little or no family support, for example,
might well have a plan of care that includes assistance keeping
the bathroom clean.  Another patient with more severe problems but
family members willing to maintain the home might have a care plan
without any housework included.


"For an individual plaintiff, you have to look at the condition of
the house, other family members who are there . . . it involves
very fact-specific, individualized assessments,"
Mr. Davidoff said.  Because every household and every patient
differ, a class action suit would not foster judicial efficiency,
the defendant argued.

"That's what the court agreed with," Mr. Davidoff said.

Traditionally, it had been assumed under federal law that home
care aides were exempt from overtime pay.

"For the most part, that assumption was correct," Mr. Davidoff
said.  Cases like this one involve actions that happened before
the Department of Labor changed the FLSA guidelines in 2015.  The
statute of limitations is up to three years on the federal law and
up to six years in New York, creating a potentially lucrative
window of opportunity.

In the wake of the change removing the companionship services
exemption, a large number of class action suits would have been
likely.  The decision therefore strikes a blow to plaintiffs
seeking past compensation, as well as to their attorneys, as the
courts must evaluate each plaintiff's case individually.

"It's in the interest of plaintiffs attorneys to get the larger
class, because that's obviously going to be more lucrative for
them," Mr. Davidoff said.


VCA ANTECH: Wins Bid for Summary Judgment in "Graham" Suit
----------------------------------------------------------
The Hon. Christina A. Snyder granted the Defendants' motion for
summary judgment filed in the lawsuit styled TONY M. GRAHAM v. VCA
ANTECH, INC., et al., Case No. 2:14-cv-08614-CAS-JC (C.D. Cal.).

The Plaintiffs' motion for class certification is denied as moot.

In their complaint, the Plaintiffs allege that the Defendants, who
own and operate over 600 veterinary facilities in 41 states,
"engaged in a scheme of charging bogus fees to illegally upcharge"
their customers for veterinary boarding services.  Specifically,
the Plaintiffs allege that the Defendants routinely imposed
fraudulent "Biohazard Waste Management" fees in a "guise that is
designed . . . to imply," among other things, that "the surcharges
are government mandated or required."

In the civil minutes, Judge Snyder explains that as to Plaintiff
Elizabeth P. Brockwell, her common law claims fail because her
testimony demonstrates that she never actually noticed the Bio Fee
on her invoices and never discussed the Fee with VCA; accordingly,
any misrepresentation regarding the fee cannot be the cause of her
decision to treat her pet at VCA.  Judge Snyder adds that Mr.
Graham's claims of deceit and fraud fail because the Oklahoma
Consumer Protection Act's "bait and switch" provision does not
apply here.

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


VIOLIN MEMORY: Court Granted Final Approval to $7.5MM Settlement
----------------------------------------------------------------
Violin Memory, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on September 13, 2016, for the
quarterly period ended July 31, 2016, that a California court has
granted final approval of the $7.5 million class action
settlement.

Beginning on November 26, 2013, four putative class action
lawsuits were filed in the United States District Court for the
Northern District of California naming the Company and a number of
our present or former directors and officers, and the underwriters
of the Company's September 27, 2013 initial public offering (the
"IPO"). The four complaints were consolidated into a single,
putative class action, and on March 28, 2014, the plaintiffs filed
a consolidated complaint purporting to assert claims under the
federal securities laws, based upon seven categories of alleged
omissions, on behalf of purchasers of the Company's common stock
issued in the IPO.

On July 28, 2016, the court issued an order granting final
approval of class settlement, judgment and order of dismissal with
prejudice. The class settlement included, among other things, the
establishment of a settlement fund of $7.5 million, which was
disbursed as provided in the settlement agreement and the court's
orders. The settlement fund was paid by the Company's insurance
carrier and did not result in incurring any additional expense in
the current quarter.


VIRGIN AMERICA: "Bernstein" Seeks to Certify Class of Attendants
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Plaintiffs in the lawsuit titled JUILIA BERNSTEIN, LISA MARIE
SMITH, and ESTHER GARCIA, on behalf of themselves and all others
similarly situated v. VIRGIN AMERICA, INC.; and DOES 1 to 10,
inclusive, Case No. 3:15-cv-02277-JST (N.D. Cal.), move the Court
for certification of these Class and Subclasses and the
appointment of class counsel:

     Class: All individuals who have worked as California-based
            flight attendants of Virgin America, Inc. at any time
            during the period from March 18, 2011 (four years
            from the filing of the original Complaint) through
            the date established by the Court for notice of
            certification of the Class (the "Class Period").

     California Resident Subclass:
     All individuals who have worked as California-based flight
     attendants of Virgin America, Inc. while residing in
     California at any time during the Class Period.

     Waiting Time Penalties Subclass:
     All individuals who have worked as California-based
     flight attendants of Virgin America, Inc. and have separated
     from their employment at any time since March 18, 2012.

The Court will commence a hearing on October 6, 2016, at 2:00
p.m., to consider the Motion.

A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=W7OGjT4m

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Monique Olivier, Esq.
          DUCKWORTH PETERS LEBOWITZ OLIVIER LLP
          100 Bush Street, Suite 1800
          San Francisco, CA 94104
          Telephone: (415) 433-0333
          Facsimile: (415) 449-6556
          E-mail: monique@dplolaw.com

               - and -

          Alison Kosinski, Esq.
          Emily Thiagaraj, Esq.
          KOSINSKI + THIAGARAJ, LLP
          351 California Street, Suite 300
          San Francisco, CA 94104
          Telephone: (415) 230-2860
          Facsimile: (415) 723-7099
          E-mail: alison@ktlawsf.com
                  emily@ktlawsf.com


VOLKSWAGEN AG: Lawyer Challenges Irish Court Jurisdiction
---------------------------------------------------------
Peter Flanagan, writing for Bloomberg News, reports that
Volkswagen AG challenged the right of an Irish court to hear a
case over cheating on diesel emissions tests as it fought to keep
an employee from testifying for the first time in the scandal.

Paul Fogarty, a lawyer for VW, walked out of court to demonstrate
that he didn't accept a judge's decision to hear evidence before
the jurisdictional issue is decided.  Mr. Fogarty exited as the
first witness was called by lawyers representing customers that
are suing the company.

"The court has no jurisdiction to hear these matters,"
Mr. Fogarty said on Sept. 6 at the hearing in Castlebar, Mayo, in
western Ireland.

The case in the tiny courtroom, a three-hour drive from Dublin,
has bigger significance throughout Europe, with lawyers seeking
evidence that will support lawsuits against the carmaker.
Hausfeld, a law firm that was involved in a U.S. class-action
lawsuit against Volkswagen, is working with Irish lawyers to
gather material for cases in Germany, which has limited discovery
rules compared with Ireland or the U.S.

A VW executive from Ireland had been scheduled to testify about an
affidavit submitted in July.  Judge Mary Devins resumed the
hearing after Mr. Fogarty walked out and the document was instead
read out in court.

Uneven Recoveries

"The proceedings are being progressed inappropriately,"
Nicolai Laude, a spokesman for Volkswagen, said in an e-mail.

Volkswagen application challenging the court's jurisdiction won't
be heard until Sept. 16, but in the meantime the judge went ahead
with the hearing anyway, Mr. Laude said.

"Volkswagen's lawyers considered this to be improper and unfair,"
Mr. Laude said.  They also said they'd appeal.

The lawyers walked out to avoid making it seem like they accepted
the court had jurisdiction over the case, Laude said.

European politicians and consumer groups remain unhappy about the
limited compensation being offered to VW customers in the region
compared with the U.S., where car owners are getting as much as
$10,000 after their car is repaired or repurchased.

Consumer Feedback

On Sept. 5, European Union Justice and Consumer Affairs
Commissioner Vera Jourova said almost all national consumer-
protection organizations and authorities asked by the EU for
feedback said the company hasn't provided enough information. She
said she'll meet this month with the organizations, authorities
and VW officials to collect more information.

Michael Kremer, an attorney in Clifford Chance's Dusseldorf
office, said a group of corporate trial lawyers that meet
regularly to talk about litigation trends discussed the Irish VW
case.

Undermine German Rules

"If the attempt to get more information via Ireland succeeds, it
would be quite a boost for plaintiff lawyers," Mr. Kremer said.
"That would practically undermine the very restrictive German
rules."

Volkswagen's cheating on emissions tests has reverberated across
the globe since it erupted at the group's car operations a year
ago.  Ms. Jourova announced plans in July to work with European
consumer groups and regulators to pressure the company to give
payouts to affected owners.  Despite Ms. Jourova's pressure,
potential compensation or punishment of VW is out of her hands and
up to regulators or courts.


WARDEN MONMOUTH: 3rd Cir. Vacates Prior Orders in "Gayle" Case
--------------------------------------------------------------
Circuit Judge Cheryl Ann Krause of the Court of Appeals, Third
Circuit vacated the judgment entering injunctive relief on
Appellants' individual claims and denied class certification on
the ground that it was not "necessary" in view of that injunction
in the case captioned, GARFIELD GAYLE; NEVILLE SUKHU; SHELDON
FRANCOIS, Appellants, v. WARDEN MONMOUTH COUNTY CORRECTIONAL
INSTITUTION; SCOTT A. WEBER, in his official capacity as Newark
Field Office Director for Detention and Removal; *SARAH R.
SALDANA, in her official capacity as Assistant Secretary of U.S.
Immigration and Customs Enforcement; SECRETARY UNITED STATES
DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY; ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE UNITED
STATES OF AMERICA; JUAN OSUNA, in his official capacity as
Director of Executive Office of Immigration Review; JOHN
TSOUKARIS, in his official capacity as Field Office Director for
Enforcement and Removal Operations, Newark Field Office of U.S.
Immigration and Customs Enforcement; CHRISTOPHER SHANAHAN, in his
official capacity as Field Office Director for Enforcement and
Removal Operations, New York Field Office of U.S. Immigration and
Customs Enforcement; WARDEN BERGEN COUNTY JAIL; JOSEPH TRABUCCO,
in his official capacity as Director of the Delaney Hall Detention
Facility; WARDEN ELIZABETH COUNTY DETENTION CENTER; WARDEN ESSEX
COUNTY CORRECTIONAL FACILITY; OSCAR AVILES, in his official
capacity as Director of the Hudson County Correctional Facility
*Pursuant to Fed. R. App. P. 43(c), Case No. 15-1785 (3rd Cir.).

Appellants Garfield Gayle, Neville Sukhu, and Sheldon Francois are
foreign nationals and Lawful Permanent Residents of the United
States who were detained pursuant to 8 U.S.C. Sec. 1226(c), which
provides that where ICE has "reason to believe" that an alien is
"deportable" or "inadmissible" by virtue of having committed one
of a number of specified crimes or being involved in activities
threatening national security, that alien "shall" be taken into
custody "when the alien is released [from detention for those
crimes], without regard to whether the alien is released on
parole, supervised release, or probation, and without regard to
whether the alien may be arrested or imprisoned again for the same
offense."

Over the course of the last four years, Appellants have been
litigating, and the Government, defending, a purported class
action to challenge the constitutionality of 8 U.S.C. Sec.
1226(c), the section of the Immigration and Nationality Act that
requires the mandatory detention of aliens who have committed
specified crimes.

The District Court's rulings on Appellants' Third Amended
Petition, filed on August 5, 2013, and their third motion to
certify a class, filed on May 12, 2014. The Third Amended Petition
raised individual claims on behalf of Sukhu and two claims on
behalf of a putative class of aliens who are being or will be
mandatorily detained pursuant to Sec. 1226(c).

In an order dated January 28, 2015 (Gayle II), the District Court
resolved the remaining claims -- i.e., the adequacy of Joseph
hearing procedures -- on cross-motions for summary judgment, and
denied Appellants' motion to certify a class.

On appeal, Appellants, joined by numerous amici, challenge the
merits of the District Court's substantive and procedural due
process rulings, as well as its denial of their motion to certify
a class, and the Government has responded point by point.

In the Opinion dated September 22, 2016 available at
https://is.gd/nycDcy from Leagle.com, Judge Krause concluded that
the District Court exceeded its jurisdiction by adjudicating the
merits issues because (1) the claims of the individual class
representatives were long ago moot and no mootness exception
applies; (2) the motion to certify a class was filed at a point in
time when at least one putative representative had a live claim;
and (3) in denying the motion to certify a class, the District
Court erred by disregarding the Rule 23 criteria and instead
relying exclusively on the ground that a class action was
"unnecessary" because it would serve no useful purpose given the
District Court's merits rulings.

Garfield Gayle, et al. are represented by Judy Rabinovitz, Esq.
-- jrabinovitz@aclu.org -- and Michael K.T. Tan, Esq. --
mtan@aclu.org -- AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION IMMIGRANTS' RIGHTS
PROJECT

Warden Monmouth County Correctional Institution, et al. are
represented by:

      Craig W. Kuhn, Esq.
      Elizabeth J. Stevens, Esq.
      UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE OFFICE OF IMMIGRATION
      LITIGATION
      950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
      Washington, DC 20530-0001
      Tel: (202)353-1555


WELLS FARGO: Faces "Mitchell" Suit in Utah for Unfair Competition
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Lawrence J. Mitchell, Kay Mitchell, Matthew C. Bishop, et al. and
unknown Plaintiffs 1-1,000,000, Plaintiffs, v. Wells Fargo Bank,
National Association, a National Banking Association, and
Wells Fargo & Company, a Delaware Corporation, and Does, 1-5,300
Defendants, Case No. 2:16-cv-00966-CW (D. Utah, September 16,
2016), alleges violation of Utah Unfair Competition Act, invasion
of privacy (intrusion, public disclosure of private facts,
misappropriation of likeness and identity, and Utah constitutional
right to privacy), negligence, breach of contract and bailment,
conversion and fraud.

Wells Fargo & Company is a financial services company, providing
banking, insurance, investments, mortgage, and consumer and
commercial finance through more than 9,000 locations, 12,000 ATMs,
and via Internet.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

     Zane L. Christensen, Esq.
     Steven A. Christensen, Esq.
     CHRISTENSEN YOUNG & ASSOCIATES, PLLC
     9980 South 300 West #200
     Sandy, UT 84070
     Phone: (801) 676-6447
     Fax: (888) 569-2786


WELSPUN INDIA: Faces Class Actions Over Alleged Fraud
-----------------------------------------------------
The Financial Express reports that that two class action lawsuits
have been filed against Welspun India and its US subsidiaries
alleging it perpetrated "widespread fraud" for years.


WELSPUN INDIA: Faces "Brower" Suit Over Bed Linen Mislabeling
-------------------------------------------------------------
HAROLD BROWER and JUDI TALILI, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. WELSPUN INDIA LTD. and
WELSPUN USA, INC., Defendants, Case No. 1:16-cv-07318 (S.D.N.Y.,
September 20, 2016), alleges that Defendants marketed and sold bed
linens that, despite being labeled as "100% Egyptian cotton," were
not 100% Egyptian cotton.

Defendant Welspun India Ltd. is a textile company based in Mumbai,
India. It is one of the world's largest textile manufacturers.
More than 68 percent of its production is exported to the United
States.  Defendant Welspun USA Inc. is a textile company and
wholly owned subsidiary of Welspun India Ltd.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

     Scott A. Bursor, Esq.
     Joseph I. Marchese, Esq.
     Frederick J. Klorczyk III, Esq.
     888 Seventh Avenue
     New York, NY 10019
     Phone: (646) 837-7150
     Fax: (212) 989-9163
     Email: scott@bursor.com
            jmarchese@bursor.com
            fklorczyk@bursor.com


WHIRLPOOL: Oct. 11 Washer Settlement Claims Filing Deadline Set
---------------------------------------------------------------
Katie Delong, writing for Fox6Now.com, reports that a deadline is
approaching for those who have purchased, acquired or received as
a gift a new Whirlpool, Kenmore or Maytag front-loading washing
machine manufactured between 2001 and 2010 as part of a class
action settlement.

A settlement has been reached with Whirlpool Corporation and
Sears, Roebuck and Co. in several class action lawsuits claiming
that certain front-loading washing machines manufactured between
2001 and 2010 fail to adequately self-clean themselves of laundry
residue, resulting in mold or mildew buildup that can cause bad
odors and ruined laundry.

The defendants deny they did anything wrong.

A complete list of impacted washing machines can be found at:
http://www.washersettlement.com/pdf/Eligible_Washer_Models.pdf

If you have one of these washing machines, you may qualify for one
of a variety of benefits including a cash payment, a rebate on the
purchase of a new washing machine or dryer, or reimbursement for
out-of-pocket expenses incurred due to past mold or odor problems
in your washing machine.

You must complete and submit a Claim Form, including required
documentation.

Your Claim Form and documentation must be submitted online no
later than, or mailed via U.S. Mail with a postmark no later than,
October 11, 2016.

You can file a claim online at https://washersettlementclaim.com/

Meanwhile, a hearing is set for September 21st at the U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of Ohio in Cleveland. It
is a "Fairness Hearing," to determine whether this settlement is
fair, adequate and reasonable, and whether it should receive final
approval.  The court may also decide the amount of fees, costs and
expenses to award to the class.

You can contact the settlement administrator as follows:

MAIL: In re Whirlpool Corp. Front-Loading Washers Settlement, 1801
Market Street, Suite 660, Philadelphia, PA 19103

EMAIL: info@washersettlement.com

TOLL-FREE: 1-844-824-5781


WHITESTONE BAGEL: Faces "Arriola" Suit Alleging FLSA Violation
--------------------------------------------------------------
DANI MANOLO PIRIQUE ARRIOLA, and GILMA SANTOS, individually and on
behalf of others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v.
WHITESTONE BAGEL FACTORY INC.(d/b/a WHITESTONE BAGEL FACTORY),
ALESSANDRO TESTA, and NADIA TESTA, Defendants, Case No. 1:16-cv-
05157 (E.D.N.Y., September 16, 2016), seeks to recover alleged
unpaid minimum and overtime wages pursuant to the Fair Labor
Standards Act. The suit also alleges violations of the New York
Labor Law.

Defendants own, operate, or control a bagel factory in Flushing,
New York under the name Whitestone Bagel Factory.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

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


ZAIS FINANCIAL: "Dexter" Action Resolved, Except Attorneys' Fees
----------------------------------------------------------------
ZAIS Financial Corp., said in its Form 8-K Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on September 19, 2016, that
plaintiff Sean Dexter has voluntarily withdrew the motion for a
preliminary injunction, the Court cancelled the preliminary
injunction hearing, and the class action lawsuit is resolved but
for the Court's consideration of plaintiff's attorneys' fees, if
any.

The Form 8-K filing relates to the proposed merger (the
"Sutherland Merger") of Sutherland Asset Management Corporation, a
Maryland corporation ("Sutherland"), with a wholly owned
subsidiary of ZAIS Financial Corp., a Maryland corporation ("ZAIS
Financial" or the "Company") pursuant to the terms of that certain
Agreement and Plan of Merger, dated as of April 6, 2016, as
amended as of May 9, 2016 and August 4, 2016 (the "Merger
Agreement"), by and among the Company, ZAIS Financial Partners,
L.P., ZAIS Merger Sub, LLC, Sutherland and Sutherland Partners,
L.P.

On September 19, 2016, ZAIS Financial, issued a press release
announcing that Institutional Shareholder Services, Inc. and Glass
Lewis & Co., leading independent proxy advisory firms, have
recommended that ZAIS Financial stockholders vote "FOR" the
issuance of shares in connection with the Sutherland Merger.

Additionally, the Company is supplementing its disclosure
regarding the Sutherland Merger in connection with litigation
brought by a purported stockholder of the Company. 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
disclosures set forth herein, and the Company and the other named
defendants continue to deny any wrongdoing alleged in the
litigation.

As previously announced, on August 24, 2016, a putative class
action lawsuit, captioned Sean Dexter, Individually and On Behalf
of All Others Similarly Situated v. ZAIS Financial Corp., et al.
(the "Complaint"), was filed in the Circuit Court for the City of
Baltimore, Maryland (the "Court") against the Company, its
directors, Sutherland and Sutherland Partners, L.P., alleging that
the Company?s board of directors breached their fiduciary duties
in certain respects regarding the Sutherland Merger and that the
Sutherland parties aided and abetted the alleged breach of
fiduciary duties. The Complaint sought various forms of relief,
including compensatory damages and preliminary and/or permanent
injunctive relief enjoining the consummation of the proposed
Sutherland Merger. On August 30, 2016, the plaintiff filed a
motion for a preliminary injunction seeking to enjoin the proposed
shareholder vote on the proposed issuance of shares in connection
with the Sutherland Merger.

The Company and the other named defendants continue to believe
that the claims asserted in the Complaint are without merit, and
further believe that no supplemental disclosure is required under
applicable laws. However, the Company wishes to make certain
supplemental disclosures related to the Sutherland Merger, and on
September 19, 2016, in connection with the filing of these
supplemental disclosures, plaintiff Sean Dexter voluntarily
withdrew the motion for a preliminary injunction, the Court
cancelled the preliminary injunction hearing, and the lawsuit is
resolved but for the Court's consideration of plaintiff's
attorneys' fees, if any.


* 2nd Circuit May Reverse Class-Action Waiver Ruling
----------------------------------------------------
Robert Iafolla, writing for Reuters, reports that a federal
appeals court on Sept. 2 rejected the position of the National
Relations Labor Board that federal labor law prohibits class-
action waivers in workers' arbitration agreements, but hinted that
it may rule the other way on en banc review.

In a nonprecedential per curiam order, a unanimous three-judge
panel of the 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals said that it was
bound by its 2013 decision finding that class-action waivers are
enforceable in another case involving a worker's claims for unpaid
wages, even though that holding came in a brief footnote.


* Evolution of Summary Judgment Seen in Canadian Class-Actions
--------------------------------------------------------------
Julius Melnitzer, writing for Lexpert Magazine, reports that
class action lawyers have been fond of pointing to the swinging
pendulum of jurisprudence that shifts its ever-roving eye over the
class-action battleground.  In recent years, however, that
pendulum may have begun to settle down, as definitive rulings pile
up and legal principles become entrenched.

It's been almost a quarter of a century since Ontario became the
first common-law province to adopt class-action legislation, and
almost 40 years since Quebec laid the groundwork for the rest of
the country.  The pendulum is still shifting, but there's a
difference: it now hovers over a battleground that has started to
take real shape, developing defined parameters within which the
pendulum moves.

So while it may be easy to say that the past year has been less
than ideal for class-action plaintiffs, and that the pendulum has
swung over to the defense side, it's also a simplistic approach.
The truth is that the jurisprudence is increasingly refining the
parameters, with less need to define them.

"We used to be all over the map, but now we're getting closer to
knowing what's a blip and what is permanent and how it's going to
work," says Tristram Mallett of Osler, Hoskin & Harcourt LLP in
Calgary.  "We're not all the way there yet but we're getting
closer.  What's gone for sure are the days when lawyers would
spend two days arguing about what the test for certification is."

Daniel Bach -- daniel.bach@siskinds.com -- of Siskinds LLP in
Toronto says the evolution of the summary judgment procedure in
the class-action context also demonstrates the emerging maturity
of the jurisprudence.  We're at the point now, he says, where
summary judgments in class actions are going to the Court of
Appeal, where substantive legal questions can get the attention
they deserve.  Ultimately, what seems to be shaping up is a
healthy balance that augurs well for resolution of the issues that
still need clarification.

On the defense side of the ledger, courts have increasingly
questioned practices that have until now benefitted plaintiffs.
They have, for instance, given real teeth to the leave provisions
that govern the commencement of statutory secondary-market
misrepresentation proceedings.  They've also questioned the
historic characterization of product-liability cases as
"quintessential" class actions, and set the stage for a final
ruling by the Supreme Court of Canada on whether the Competition
Act and other statutes constitute a "complete code" that govern
civil claims arising from breaches of their provisions.

Plaintiffs' lawyers, for their part, got a boost from the Ontario
Court of Appeal's ruling in Ramdath v. George Brown College, which
gave the concept of "aggregate damages" a definitive nod. "Ramdath
is probably one of the most important class-action decisions ever
because it confirms that individual damages need not be proven in
certain cases," says Won Kim of Kim Orr Barristers P.C. in
Toronto, who represented the class.

Plaintiffs are also discovering fertile new ground in a host of
other areas.  Privacy and cybersecurity breach proceedings are
flourishing.  Judges are coming down harder on abuse and delay by
defendants.  The SCC is poised to pronounce on national class
actions.  The administration of settlements is achieving new
levels of maturity.  And more and more cases are making their way
to trial, proving that many class actions are in fact "manageable"
and chipping away at defense arguments that certification should
not be granted because of procedural hurdles.

With all these countervailing trends competing for permanence,
there's certainly no paucity of controversy or issues on the
substantive side of class actions -- and the ingenuity of counsel
on both sides is thriving as they learn to work within, and
around, new legal frameworks -- but with all these developments,
it may just be that the Wild West era of Canadian class actions
has finally faded into the past.

As Wendy Berman of Cassels Brock & Blackwell LLP puts it, "Our
system has definitely grown up."

LEAVES WITH TEETH

For securities class actions, the elusive standard for granting
leave to commence secondary-market misrepresentations has long
played head games with judges as well as lawyers on both sides of
the fence.  Here, perhaps, is where the jurisprudence has seen the
most dramatic change.

The SCC released two landmark securities class action decisions in
2015: Theratechnologies v. 121851 Canada Inc., which dealt with
the leave test in Quebec's Civil Code, and the trilogy around CIBC
v. Green, which dealt with the corresponding provision of
Ontario's Securities Act.  As it turns out, the language in the
Quebec Code is substantially the same as the language that
populates the corresponding provisions in the common-law
provinces.

The appellate decisions that preceded these two cases set a very
low standard for meeting the key requirement of the leave test
that there be a reasonable possibility of success for the
plaintiff.  Put simply, plaintiffs had only to show that they had
"some chance of success." The environment was definitely
plaintiff-friendly.

But the Supreme Court set a considerably higher standard -- one
that created a meaningful screening mechanism.  The threshold, the
court concluded, was more than a "speed bump": plaintiffs had to
provide credible evidence that withstood reasoned consideration
from the court to demonstrate that they had a reasonable or
realistic chance of success.

Lower courts have since put real teeth into the standard. Coffin
v. Atlantic Power, an Ontario Superior Court of Justice decision
that considered Theratechnologies before the SCC decided Green,
set the stage by confirming that courts would scrutinize not only
the pleadings, but the evidence, on a leave application.

Another decision, Rahimi v. SouthGobi Resources (also decided
after Theratechnologies but before Green), established that
defendants could use statutory defences on leave applications to
considerable effect.  In Rahimi, Justice Edward Belobaba of the
Ontario Superior Court of Justice refused leave for the plaintiff
to proceed against individual corporate defendants.  He reasoned
that these defendants had established that there was no reasonable
possibility that the plaintiffs could overcome the Securities
Act's "reasonable investigation" defence at trial.

What's compelling is that Justice Belobaba went into the evidence
presented on the leave motion at considerable length.  "When the
leave test was combined with the requirements of the reasonable
investigation defence, the court was required to consider the
'compelling and voluminous evidence of the defendants' under a
high-powered microscope," says John Campion -- jcampion@fasken.com
-- of Fasken Martineau DuMoulin LLP in Toronto, who represented
SouthGobi and five of the six individual defendants.

More recently, defendants have been further heartened by the
decision of Justice Helen Rady in Bradley v. Eastern Platinum
Ltd., released after the SCC's ruling in Green. Brian Bradley, the
proposed representative plaintiff, alleged that Eastern had failed
to disclose a complete or partial shutdown of its platinum mine in
South Africa in 2011.  The claim was then amended to allege that
the introduction of certain support technologies at the mine had
caused the decreased production.

Eastern responded with uncontradicted affidavit, documentary and
transcript evidence from employees showing that there had been no
mine shutdown or introduction of new technology at the relevant
time. Instead, the evidence revealed that the decreased production
had been caused by unforeseen rock falls.

Justice Rady concluded that the plaintiff's interpretation of
events was "simply not supported by the overwhelming weight of the
evidence that points to the opposite conclusion."  She was not
prepared to "disregard what I view to be very compelling and
persuasive evidence" that could be undermined only by the unproven
conclusion that Eastern's witnesses gave or fabricated false
evidence.

Justice Rady ruled that Green required courts to undertake "a
robust, meaningful examination and critical evaluation of the
evidence (or absence of evidence)" in order to determine whether
the action had some merit.  As Justice Rady saw it, the test for
leave was more akin to a motion for summary judgment, which
required judges to weigh the evidence, than a motion to strike,
which had to be decided on the pleadings.

"Eastern Platinum makes it clear that the leave threshold is going
to be a meaningful merits test, which is what the leave test was
always intended to be," says Alan D'Silva -- adsilva@stikeman.com
-- of Stikeman Elliott LLP in Toronto, who represented the
defendant company.

"The upshot is that motions for leave will result in a
comprehensive analysis on the merits, forcing parties to lead with
their best foot," says Kevin O'Brien -- kobrien@osler.com
-- in the Toronto office of Osler, Hoskin & Harcourt LLP.  "That's
not to say that the plaintiffs will have to prove their case, but
they will have to show a realistic possibility that they will
ultimately be successful."

Siskinds' Bach, who represented Bradley, acknowledged his client's
disappointment in the result. "It's a case where the court decided
to prefer one side's evidence over that of the other," he says.
"We believe, however, that it will be some time before the courts
have enough experience to come up with a definitive approach where
there are competing evidentiary narratives."

However that may be, Bradley does demonstrate the importance of
presenting defense evidence.  "Defendants are going to have a hard
time defeating leave applications if they fail to put forward
rebuttals to the plaintiff's case," Mr. D'Silva says.

This could represent an innovative litigation strategy, given that
such challenges haven't always been seen as the most prudent
course of action.  "When courts were treating leave applications
like rubber stamps, there was always a real discussion as to
whether the defence should consent to leave instead of subjecting
clients to invasive cross-examinations," says Andrea Laing --
andrea.laing@blakes.com -- in the Toronto office of Blake, Cassels
& Graydon LLP.  "But now that the test has teeth, there's more
upside to fighting leave vigorously."

The leave application, Ms. Laing maintains, has become a
predominant strategic consideration for defendants in secondary-
market cases.  "It's fair to say that certification pales by
comparison," she says.  "Once leave is granted, it will be very
difficult to deny certification.  But facilitating certification
in appropriate cases was really part of the purpose of the
legislation enacting the leave requirement."

From plaintiffs' perspective, the hurdles now built into the
requirement for statutory action may also portend a change in
their approach to misrepresentation cases.  Kirk Baert of Koskie
Minsky LLP in Toronto believes that what may emerge is a trend to
filing common-law misrepresentation cases without resort to the
Class Proceedings Act -- despite the fact that common-law claims
would require proof of reliance on the misrepresentation.  "A
common-law misrepresentation action that had a large number of
institutional plaintiffs affected by the misrepresentation could
be financially viable, and it could proceed without the various
statutory restrictions," he says.

Mr. Baert doesn't see proof of reliance as a significant hurdle.
"Reliance can be proven at trial like any other issue," he says.
"It won't be that hard if a bunch of pension funds come forward
and say 'of course we relied on the misrepresentation.'"

If Mr. Baert's prognostication is correct, the euphoria the
defense Bar may be enjoying about the raised standard for leave
may be vulnerable to an old adage about being careful what you
wish for.  But that's for another day.  "For the time being,
there's definitely a chill on securities class actions,"
Ms. Berman says.

HEIGHTENED SCRUTINY

Plaintiffs are also facing challenges in product-liability and
consumer class actions, two fields that their lawyers have
traditionally ploughed to fertility with a fair degree of success.
The challenges are perhaps most significant with regard to
product-liability cases.  "These cases are getting a lot more
scrutiny, even though judges have in the past referred to them as
quintessential class proceedings," says Michael Eizenga --
eizengam@bennettjones.com -- of Bennett Jones LLP in Toronto.

One key issue is whether courts should allow certification of
class proceedings by genre, where plaintiffs combine claims
against multiple products in a case without showing a common
design defect.  Here, the law remains unclear.  "Judges are moving
down different tracks," says Derek Ricci -- dricci@dwpv.com -- of
Davies Ward Phillips & Vineberg LLP in Toronto.

Mr. Ricci cites a number of conflicting decisions in Ontario
arising from Superior Court Justice Edward Belobaba's
certification of a class in Dine v. Biomet, in which Ricci was co-
counsel with colleague Kent Thomson (leave to appeal denied), and
Justice Paul Perell's refusal to grant certification in O'Brien v.
Bard Canada and in Vester v. Boston Scientific. "In some cases,
judges are taking a hard look at the evidence to see whether the
products are similar enough," Mr. Ricci says.  "In others, judges
are criticizing counsel for even leading evidence on the issue."

Plaintiffs are also coming up against the "complete code"
principle in product-liability cases and in consumer class actions
generally.  The principle states that if Parliament intends a
statutory cause of action to be the sole remedy for a statutory
breach, common-law and equitable claims are barred.

The British Columbia Court of Appeal has been particularly
supportive of the complete code defense.  In three separate cases,
the court held that the availability of statutory remedies in the
BC Business Practices and Consumer Protection Act (Koubi v. Mazda
Canada), the federal Competition Act (Wakelam v. Wyeth Consumer
Healthcare) and the federal Patent Act (Low v. Pfizer Canada)
barred claims for other types of relief.

In Koubi, the BCCA decertified a waiver of tort claim; in Wakelam,
the court extended Koubi to restitutionary misleading advertising
claims; and in Low, the court held that the patent regime, despite
the fact that it did not provide consumer remedies, was a complete
code that foreclosed civil claims for unlawful interference with
economic relation and unjust enrichment.

The scope of the principle, however, is yet to be determined,
particularly as it applies to competition law.  In Watson v. Bank
of America, for example, the BCCA agreed that the Competition Act
did not bar conspiracy claims based on breaches of the Competition
Act.  But in Ontario, Justice Paul Perell disagreed. In Shah v. LG
Chem, he opined that the BCCA had applied the wrong test in
Watson.  "Bringing some clarity to these issues is important
because competition law is a very significant part of the class-
action landscape," says Louis Sokolov -- lsokolov@sotosllp.com --
of Sotos LLP in Toronto.

Indeed, the effect of the "competition trilogy" released by the
SCC in 2013 is emerging.  "I see a lot of pent-up activity in
competition class actions because of the trilogy's release," says
Cheryl Woodin -- CWoodin@blg.com -- of Borden Ladner Gervais LLP.
"We now see about 50 cases moving through the civil courts at the
same pace.  The meat of these cases is in a very fluid state and
there's a lot of new law being generated."

JURISDICTION FRICTION

While class-action lawyers in common-law jurisdictions struggle to
keep up with the changes, the Quebec Bar is wrestling with the
nuances of the new Code of Civil Procedure, which came into force
on January 1, 2016, and brought significant changes to the rules
governing class actions in the province.  Most importantly,
defendants will for the first time have the right to seek leave to
appeal a judgment granting authorization of a class action.
Plaintiffs may continue to appeal as of right.

At press time, defendants are seeking leave in three cases:
DuProprio c. Federation des chambres immobilieres; Energie
eolienne des Moulins c. Labranche; and Centrale des syndicats c.
Allen.  Counsel in each of these cases have been invited to submit
a brief before a special panel of three judges as to the criteria
that should guide the Court of Appeal in allowing leave.

"It is an open question," says Jean Saint-Onge --
jsaintonge@lavery.ca -- in the Montreal office of Lavery, de Billy
L.L.P., as to "whether the Court of Appeal will adopt a
restrictive approach by limiting defendants' right of appeal only
to cases where, as the plaintiffs are likely to argue, the
judgment of the Superior Court would cause serious injustice if
not appealed."  Other changes to the Civil Code affect standing to
commence a class action, no longer limited to companies with less
than 50 employees, and multijurisdictional proceedings.

Lawyers both in and outside la belle province will agree, any
legislative guidance on multijurisdictional issues would be
welcome.  Some order to a chaotic situation has likely been
restored by decisions from five appellate courts shutting down
duplicative class actions as an abuse of process. "In the last
year, counsel have been able to collaborate by mutual agreement to
avoid multiple proceedings in multiple jurisdictions,"
Ms. Woodin says, citing the telecommunication cases relating to
system access fees and the Volkswagen emission litigation.

Even the top court has weighed in with a novel approach to
multiple jurisdictions.  In two cases, Parsons v. The Canadian Red
Cross Society and Endean v. Canadian Red Cross Society, the SCC
has granted leave to hear arguments on whether judges from one
province can sit with judges from other provinces to hear
arguments on multijurisdictional class actions.

The entire class-action Bar is hopeful that the SCC will provide
guidance on steps that could further facilitate dealing with such
cases.  "The uncertain situation in Canada is ridiculous in this
world of multijurisdictional litigation," says Mr. Sokolov.  "It
doesn't serve anyone, including the courts and especially the
class members."

Compounding the problem are carriage issues, which have become
more heated than ever.  "There is definitely a rise in carriage
fights," Ms. Berman says.  "The problem is that counsel appear to
be moving away from their prior approach of working out carriage
disputes [amongst themselves] to letting the courts sort them
out."

As Mr. Baert sees it, the courts aren't doing enough to sort out
the mess.  Despite the fact that his firm was part of the
consortium appointed as class counsel, he cites the most recent
decision on carriage, Kowalyshyn v. Valeant Pharmaceuticals
International as indicative of the problematic nature of the
issue.  "Carriage motions continue to be expensive, complex and
hard fought, as evidenced by the fact that the Kowalyshyn ruling
is 250 paragraphs long," he says.  "We need a better, more
objective system to determine carriage."

GLIMPSES OF CLARITY

Not every procedural issue around class actions is fraught with
uncertainty.  Judges, for instance, are scrutinizing settlements
more closely and settlement administration is sorting itself out.
"In Ontario, courts have been giving settlements a lot of healthy
scrutiny," Mr. Sokolov says.  "They're taking their role as
guardians of the class very, very seriously."

So much so that the Ontario Divisional Court recently appointed
Eizenga as amicus curiae in Waldman v. Thomson Reuters Canada
(publisher of Lexpert), a case in which the court ultimately
overturned Justice Paul Perell's refusal to approve a settlement
in a copyright-infringement case. "There is some suggestion that
an amicus should be appointed in all cases, and we may see more of
that," Mr. Sokolov says.

The effort by plaintiffs' counsel to increase class participation
rates puts even more emphasis on settlement approval.  In the
litigation relating to the DRAM memory chips, J.J. Camp and his
team at Camp Fiorante Matthews Mogerman LLP in Vancouver used
radio, TV and social media advertising to publicize an $80-million
settlement.  "To my knowledge, 17,000 was the largest number of
consumers who participated in a price-fixing class action before
this particular settlement," Mr. Camp says.  "We mailed out some
880,000 cheques to Canadian households."

That kind of uptick -- driven by the power of social media to
connect millions of plaintiffs -- is one that's likely to send a
chill down the spine of defendant corporations and their counsel.
So, when it comes to class actions, the West may not be as wild as
it once was -- but neither has it been won outright.


* Municipalities Face Class Actions Over Water, Sewer Fees
----------------------------------------------------------
Crystal A. Proxmire, writing for Oakland County One-Fifteen News,
reports that class action lawsuits against municipalities are
becoming more common, particularly those over water and sewer
billing.  Litigation attorney Soni Mithani, a Principal at Miller
Canfield in Ann Arbor, took time to educate officials about these
types of suits at the Michigan Municipal League Convention on
Sept. 15.

The Bolt case happened in 1998, and it said that since residents
had a right to vote on taxes, cities had to be careful that fees
were not really taxes in disguise.

The main question for cities, Ms. Mithani said, is "What is a
valid fee and what is an unlawful tax?"

Prior to Bolt, fees were "presumed reasonable unless proven
otherwise."  This meant that fighting fees in court was a
challenge.  In 1978 the Headlee Amendment declared that taxes be
put to a vote of the people, which is why there are so many ballot
questions asking residents for tax approval.  In 1994 the Headlee
Blue Ribbon Commission determined that fees should be evaluated to
see if they are taxes in disguise.

The lawsuit Bolt v. City of Lansing in 1998 came about because the
owner of a parking lot did not believe he should be responsible
for a sewer fee because the fee also was being used to pay off
infrastructure improvements that separated the water and sewer
system through the city.  The owner did not want to pay for
something that he was not using, and he called it a "rain Go
Comedy Ad yellowtax" because he felt that he had not asked for the
rain nor had asked the city to remove it from his property.

The Supreme Court decided to figure out what was a fee and what
was a tax.  This came down to three points that Ms. Mithani
outlined.  A "fee" must be (1) regulatory, (2) proportional and
(3) voluntary.

REGULATORY

The court determined that an ordinance (including those that
pertain to fees) must have a regulatory purpose.  "What is the
purpose of the fee or ordinance?  Do you seek to protect the
citizenry?  Does the language seek to raise health, safety and
welfare of the community?"  She noted that the ultimate goal is to
protect the public, and she recommends framing ordinances
HowesLocationusing language that makes this purpose clear.

PROPORTIONAL

"A fee has to cover the actual cost of use," Ms.Mithani said.  She
said fees cannot be used to be applied towards a fund balance, or
even to save for future costs.  They must cover the cost of
service that a property owner is using.

VOLUNTARY

Another feature of a fee is that property owners should have some
level of control to avoid or reduce the fee.  For example, sewer
fees based on water consumption or usage are more legally sound
than flat fees.

The rise of litigation involving fees happens in part because
class action cases can be heard in the Circuit Court as opposed to
through a fax tribunal. "It's a really attractive way for GT ad
05attorneys to get their cuts," she said.

Ms. Mithani shared what the basis of recent lawsuits have been
about:

   -- Attorneys are challenging fees for infrastructure.

  -- Fees for general benefits like fire protection are being
challenged.

  -- Fees that generate a high percentage of working capital are
being challenged.

  -- Fees that go to the general fund are being challenged.

  -- New fees for things once covered by the general fund are
being challenged.

  -- Keeping services consistent but raising fees can prompt a
challenge.

  -- Fees for pension costs and administrative costs are being
challenged.

She notes that any fee can be challenged, and that while the
Headlee limits the time-frame for lawsuits, there are other
avenues through which cities are being sued.  Among the basis' are
unjust enrichment, ordinance violations, statutory violations, due
process and equal protection.

One recommendation that can reduce the risk of lawsuit is to put
fees to a vote of the people.

Municipalities should also be prepared to show the relationship
between the fee and the value of the service, Mithani said.

To learn more about Miller Canfield visit
http://www.millercanfield.com/.lisaschmidt law

Recently several communities were sued based on sewer fees.  Check
out how Ferndale, Birmingham and Royal Oak fared at
http://oaklandcounty115.com/2015/12/24/royal-oak-birmingham-and-
ferndale-see-different-results-from-water-lawsuit/.

The Michigan Municipal League is dedicated to making Michigan's
communities better by thoughtfully innovating programs,
energetically connecting ideas and people, actively serving
members with resources and services, and passionately inspiring
positive change for Michigan's greatest centers of potential: its
communities.  The MML has supported the oc115 with a scholarship
to the conference.  Learn more about MML www.mml.org.


* Report Reveals Banks with Most Number of Customer Complaints
--------------------------------------------------------------
Matt Krantz, writing for USA TODAY, reports that you're supposed
to be able to trust your bank.  But multimillion-dollar
settlements, tens of thousands of customer complaints and class-
action lawsuits make that tough.

Data show where the most complaints lie.  Regions Financial (RF)
ranks as the most complained-against regional bank, and Comerica
(CMA) gets the most gripes among diversified banks relative to the
value of their total deposit bases, according to a USA TODAY
analysis of data through from the Consumer Financial Protection
Bureau and S&P Global Market Intelligence.  Regions received 16.6
complaints per billion dollars in customer deposits and Comerica
got 10.6.

By comparison, giant banks Bank of America (BAC) and Wells Fargo
(WFC) lead in the absolute largest number of complaints entered in
the CFPB system, with 11,666 and 10,773 complaints respectively,
which accounted for 9.6 and 8.6 complains per billion dollars in
deposits.  The analysis only looked at complaints associated with
bank accounts or services.  Complaints range dramatically, from
disagreement over the size and appropriateness of fees to the way
consumers feel they were treated by employees.

All told, the 17 regional and diversified banks in the Standard &
Poor's posted an average of 9.8 complaints per billion dollars in
deposits.  While the number of complaints is higher than banks
would probably like, these levels are low enough to highlight the
level of discontent doesn't indicate a "huge problem," says
Jim Sinegal, banking analyst at Morningstar.  "Ten complaints to
$1 billion in deposits doesn't seem like a huge problem."

But complaints against banks run deeper than just from disgruntled
consumers, including:

Securities class-action lawsuits. The financial sector has been
the No. 1 target of securities class-action lawsuits from 2001 to
2015, according to market research firm Cornerstone Research.  On
average, 9.3% of financial companies were subject to new class-
action lawsuits, which tops the second-most sued sector, health
care, at 8.6%.


Massive government fines. Banks and other financial companies were
responsible for half the cases and paid 90% of the penalties
handed down by the Department of Justice and 14 regulatory
agencies since 2010, says corporate watchdog Good Jobs First. From
2010 through June, U.S. and foreign banks paid $160 billion in
penalties from these agencies, with Bank of America (BAC) paying
$56 billion and JPMorgan Chase (JPM) paying $28 billion. Only
penalties of $100 million or more were included in the analysis.

The CFPB's database of banking complaints goes back to roughly
2012 as the government agency was commissioned in 2011 to be a
watchdog for consumer protection in the financial sector.  The
agency was created out of regulation following the 2008 financial
crisis and gained attention this month by hitting Wells Fargo
(WFC) with a multimillion-dollar fine following allegations
bankers were secretly opening accounts under customers' names.

There are caveats to the CFPB's complaint data.  Complaints can be
entered into the system even if the items consumers are
complaining about aren't fraudulent, wrong or could even be the
result of their own mistakes.  Comparing complaints to total
deposits also makes global banks look better than regional banks,
because they do more investment banking, which doesn't generate
consumer complaints, Mr. Sinegal says.  These complaints may also
not include issues consumers enter directly at the bank's website.

Despite the newness of the CFPB, banks say they are paying
attention to the complaints.  "Any CFPB complaints are addressed
quickly and closed.  We pride ourselves in exceeding our
customers' expectation," says Wayne Mielke, spokesman for Comerica
Bank.  "We take all customer feedback very seriously, including
those through the CFPB."  "Providing high-quality service is a top
priority for Regions.  We consistently receive top industry marks
for customer satisfaction and are committed to promptly resolving
any issues our customers bring to our attention," says Regions
spokeswoman Evelyn Mitchell.

Given the massive size of markets banks play in, it's natural to
expect the penalties to be massive, says Robert Hockett, professor
of law at Cornell Law School.  The U.S. mortgage market, for
instance, addresses the roughly $9 trillion housing market, which
is bigger than any other asset class.  Big markets generate large
fines when there's wrongdoing, he says.  These companies are also
among the biggest in the world, many that would rank among the
largest nations in the world economically, Mr. Hockett says.  That
creates a challenge for management and regulators to track.

But given the size of these markets and the massive money to be
made, the fines aren't much of a deterrent, he says, either.  "The
fines paid are minuscule compared to the profits," he says.
Employees know the firm might pay a fine and jail time is
unlikely, so they look at complaints and fines as the cost of
doing business."

WHICH BANKS GET THE MOST HATE

Bank, symbol, CPFB complaints/$1 billion in deposits, total
complaints*, type of bank

Regions Financial, RF, 16.6, 1,611, regional

Citizens Financial, CFG, 16.2, 1,724, regional

SunTrust Banks, STI, 14.0, 2,135, regional

Fifth Third Bancorp, FITB, 12.5, 1,271, regional

The PNC Financial Services, PNC, 11.8, 2,956, regional

Huntington Bancshares, HBAN, 11.8, 650, regional

Comerica, CMA, 10.6, 595, diversified

U.S. Bancorp, USB, 9.9, 3,132, diversified

Bank of America, BAC, 9.6, 11,666, diversified

BB&T, BBT, 9.0, 1,426, regional

KeyCorp., KEY, 8.9, 670, regional

M&T Bank, MTB, 8.8, 833, regional

Wells Fargo, WFC, 8.6, 10,773, diversified

People's United, PBCT, 6.5, 189, regional

JPMorgan Chase, JPM, 6.0, 8,025, diversified

Citigroup, C, 3.7, 3,494, diversified

Zions Bancorporation, ZION, 2.8, 141, regional

Source: CFPB, S&P Global Market Intelligence

* Including only complaints associated with accounts and services
in CFPB database


                            *********

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  * * *