CAR_Public/160929.mbx              C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

           Thursday, September 29, 2016, Vol. 18, No. 195




                            Headlines


15 JOHN CORP: LaJaunie Appeals From Ruling in "Murphy" Class Suit
3M: Firefighting Foam Poisoned Water, Colorado Suit Claims
ABBOTT LABORATORIES: Judge Junks Claims Over Organic Similac
ABC CORP: Faces "Lin" Suit Alleging Violation of NY Wage Laws
AFRICAN RAINBOW: Has Leave to Appeal Ruling in Workers Class Suit

ALICE CLEANERS: Faces "Pastor" Suit Under FLSA, NY Labor Laws
ALLIANZ LIFE: Breached Contract, Calif. Class Action Says
AMERICAN AIRLINES: Forces Customers to Rebook Flights, Suit Says
AMADA AMERICA: "Rumph" Sues to Recover Overtime, Missed Breaks
AMERICAN INT'L: Employee Benefit Plans Can Share in Settlement

APPLE INC: Sued in Cal. Super. Ct. Over Defective Mac Pro Product
APPLE INC: Three iPhone Owners Sue Over Touchscreen Defect
ARKANSAS: SolGen, 2 Clinics Argue on Medicaid Halt
ARTISTIC MAINTENANCE: Faces "Gonzalez" Suit Under Cal. Labor Code
ASSET MANAGEMENT: Illegally Collects Debt, "Wade" Action Claims

AUTONATION IMPORTS: "Conti" Class Suit Removed to S.D. Florida
BLACK LIVES MATTER: Faces Class Action by Dallas Cop
BLUENRGY GROUP: Bronstein Files Securities Class Action
CALIFORNIA, USA: Wilson Appeals From N.D. Cal. Ruling to 9th Cir.
CALIFORNIA MULTIMODAL: "Melendez" Suit to Recover Overtime Pay

CARLYLE AT THE OMNI: "Minecci" Suit Seeks Overtime Pay
CENSUS BUREAU: Court OKs Settlement in Discrimination Class Suit
COLORADO: Medicaid Does Not Cover Hep C Drugs, Suit Says
CROWN ASSET: Sued Over Fair Credit Reporting Act Violation
D&C SUTPHIN: "Tehozol" Suit Claims FLSA, NY Labor Law Violations

DOMINO'S PIZZA: Seeks 1st Cir. Review of Ruling in "Mooney" Suit
DXN MIKE: "Shi" Suit Alleges Violation of FLSA, NY Labor Law
ECOLAB INC: Schneider Appeals N.D. Illinois Ruling to 7th Circuit
ERNST & YOUNG: 9th Cir. Says Class Action Waiver Unenforceable
FACEBOOK: Fails in Bid to Strike Out Irish Revenge Porn Claims

FLOWERS FOODS: Oct. 11 Lead Plaintiff Bid Deadline
FOUGERA PHARMACEUTICALS: Sergeants Sues Over Overpriced Clobetasol
GEO GROUP: Oct. 24 Lead Plaintiff Bid Deadline
GLOBUS MEDICAL: Williams Appeals Decision in "Silverstein" Suit
GOOGLE INC: Judge Inclined to Conditionally Certify Class

GREENSTONE MATERIALS: Fails to Pay Overtime, "Ochoa" Suit Claims
GULF INTERSTATE: "Sloane" Case Sent to M.D. Pennsylvania Court
HARRIS & HARRIS: Faces "Griffin" Suit Over Debt Collection Acts
HEMISPHERX BIOPHARMA: Gets Final Nod for Settlement of "Kastis"
HI-TECH PHARMACEUTICALS: Sued Over Misleading Product Label

HSBC HOLDINGS: Ontario Investors Seek Class Certification of Suit
ILLINOIS: Settles Class Action Suit Over Medicaid For Youth
ITERIS INC: Board Has Issued False Disclosures, "Ionni" Suit Says
ITT EDUCATIONAL: Peiffer Rosca Sues Over WARN Act Breaches
JANI-KING INC: 3rd Circ. Refuses to Undo Franchisee Class Cert.

JOY GLOBAL: Faruqi & Faruqi Files Class Action Over Komatsu Deal
K12 INC: Class Action Suit Filed Over Misleading Advertisements
K12 INC: "Tuinenburg" Sues Over Share Price Drop
L.A. RAMS: Judge Says Personal Seat Licenses Valid
LAKELAND TOURS: Accused by "Lucia" Suit of Not Paying Overtime

LENOVO CORP: Says Did Not Know Malware on Computers
LEONIDAS LLC: Brown Appeals Ruling in US Airline Pilots Suit
LIFEVANTAGE CORP: "Zhang" Sues Over Share Price Drop
LINCOLN CREDIT: Faces "Zhou" Suit Over Consumer Debts in Calif.
LUCERO CONSTRUCTION: "Merlos" Suit Seeks Overtime Pay

MANPOWER INC: Accord in Wage & Hour Suit Fails to Win Court OK
METHOD PRODUCTS: "Richman" Sues Over Product Mislabelling
MICROSOFT CORP: Supreme Court to Hear X-Box Case This Fall
MISONIX INC: Levi & Korsinsky Files Securities Class Suit
MONSTER WORLDWIDE: Sued in Del. Over Proposed Randstad Merger

MOSAIC NEW WALES: Faces Class Action Over Wasterwater Spill
MURRAY DARLING: Murray River Stakeholders Mull Class Suit vs Firm
MYLAN PHARMACEUTICALS: Ohio Woman Sue Over EpiPen Price Hike
NANTKWEST INC: "Hare" Securities Suit Removed to Cal. Dist. Court
NATERA INC: Seeks 9th Cir. Review of Ruling in "Cahoj" Class Suit

NAT'L FOOTBALL: EA Asks Judge to Bar Players' Class Certification
NATIONWIDE CREDIT: Illegally Collects Debt, "Weber" Suit Claims
NATIONWIDE MUTUAL: 6th Cir. Revives Data Breach Class Suit
NETFLIX INC: Faces Potential Shareholders Class Action
NEW MEXICO: Court Dismissed Inmates' Class Action

NIANTIC INC: Third Class Action Filed in California
NORTHWELL HEALTH: Oct. 3 Prelim. Conference in "Park" Suit Set
OCWEN LOAN: Faces "Kirchner" Class Suit in S.D. Florida
OFFICE DEPOT: Court OKs Final Certification of "Rivet" FLSA Suit
OMEGA EMPIRE: Faces "Rodriguez" Suit Alleging FLSA Violation

ONEIDA TRIBE: 7th Cir. Affirms Immunity Ruling
ONONDAGA: Jail Faces Class Suit Over Teen Solitary Confinement
ORLY INTERNATIONAL: "Godinez" Suit Claims Violation of Labor Code
PEREGRINE FINANCIAL: Miller Appeals N.D. Ill. Ruling to 7th Cir.
PJ PIZZA: "Pedroza" Suit Seeks Reimbursement of Business Expense

POP WARNER: Faces Concussion Class Action Lawsuit
PRESSLER & PRESSLER: Transferred "Rosa" Suit in D. New Jersey
PLATINUM HOLDINGS: Faces "Addoms" Suit Over Debt Collection Acts
PROGRESSIVE DIRECT: 8th Cir. Appeal Filed in "Dammann" Class Suit
PROPERTY TECHNICIANS: "Price" Lawsuit Alleges Violation of FLSA

PUBLIX SUPER MARKETS: Customer Sues Over Parmesan Cheese Fillers
PURE STORAGE: Faces "Wilson" Securities Class Suit in California
RAYMOURS FURNITURE: 2nd Cir. Upholds Arbitration Agreements
RC BIGELOW: Appeal Filed From N.D. Cal. Ruling in "Victor" Suit
RC BIGELOW: Khasin Appeals Ruling From N.D. Cal. to 9th Circuit

RELIANT SERVICES: Jackson Seeks Review of N.D. Illinois Ruling
REGIONS BANK: UM Law Clinic Gets Class Action Settlement Funds
SANTA CRUZ: Ruling May Signal Revival of Mislabelling Cases
SCR MEDICAL: Ill. App. Court Affirms Claims Dismissal in "James"
SPD SWISS PRECISION: Appeal Filed From Ruling in "Olvera" Suit

SPECTRUM PHARMACEUTICALS: Rosen Law Firm Files Securities Suit
STARBUCKS CORP: Ninth Circuit Appeal Filed in "Forouzesh" Suit
STONEBRIDGE LIFE: Smith Seeks Review of D.S.C. Ruling to 4th Cir.
TEPPO PARTNERS: Ponsurayamas Appeals From N.D. Texas Decision
TRUMP UNIVERSITY: Trial on Student Class Action Set for Nov. 28

TRUMP UNIVERSITY: Suits Provide Ground for Impeachment, Prof Says
TWININGS NORTH: Appeal Filed From Ruling in "Lanovaz" Class Suit
TWITTER INC: Brower Piven Files Investors Class Suit
UBER: Ruling Tips Drivers Away From Class-Action Suits
UBER TECHNOLOGIES: Attys Seek 9th Circ. Review of ADR Ruling

WAL-MART STORES: Face U.S. Class Suit Over Alleged Mexican Bribery
WASHINGTON, USA: Hoffman Appeals W.D. Wash. Ruling to 9th Cir.
WELLS FARGO: Mandatory Arbitration Clause Could Thwart Lawsuits
WELLS FARGO: Faces Workers' Action Over Fake Accounts
YAKULT USA: Torrent Seeks 9th Circuit Review of C.D. Cal. Ruling

YALE UNIVERSITY: Faces Retirement Plan Class Action Lawsuits
YASAR CORP: "Morales" Sues to Recover Minimum, Overtime Pay
YAHOO INC: Data Breach May Prompt Litigation, Experts Say

* U.S. Reps Ask CFPB to Include Safe Harbor in Arbitration Rule


                            *********


15 JOHN CORP: LaJaunie Appeals From Ruling in "Murphy" Class Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Defendant Philippe LaJaunie filed an appeal from a court order
entered on August 10, 2016, in the lawsuit entitled Ethan Murphy,
et al. v. Philippe Lajaunie, et al., Case No. 1:13-cv-06503-RJS-
SN, in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New
York.

Philip Lajaunie is the president of 15 John Corp.  The Company
sought protection under Chapter 11 of the Bankruptcy Code (Bankr.
S.D.N.Y. Case No. 16-12453) on August 25, 2016.

In the appealed Order, the District Court orders Mr. Lajaunie to
pay $7,000 sanction for failing to timely produce discovery
document.  The Order also grants, among other things, a default
judgment against the Defendants in favor of the Plaintiffs and
permitting recovery of unlawfully retained tips under the New York
Labor Law.

The appellate case is captioned as Ethan Murphy, et al. v.
Philippe Lajaunie, et al., Case No. 16-3114, in the United States
Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit.

The Plaintiffs-Appellees are represented by:

          Denise Andrea Schulman, Esq.
          Daniel Maimon Kirschenbaum, Esq.
          JOSEPH & KIRSCHENBAUM LLP
          32 Broadway, Suite 601
          New York, NY 10004
          Telephone: (212) 688-5640
          Facsimile: (212) 688-2548
          E-mail: denise@jhllp.com
                  maimon@jhllp.com

               - and -

          Jeffrey E. Goldman, Esq
          Jonah William Brassard, Esq.
          THE LAW OFFICES OF JEFFREY E. GOLDMAN
          501 Fifth Ave., Suite 1900
          New York, NY 10017
          Telephone: (212) 983-8999
          Facsimile: (212) 691-2253
          E-mail: jeff@jgoldmanlaw.com
                  jonah@jgoldmanlaw.com

Defendant-Appellant Philippe LaJaunie and the Defendants are
represented by:

          Aaron Nathaniel Solomon, Esq.
          Yale Brett Pollack, Esq.
          KAUFMAN DOLOWICH & VOLUCK LLP
          135 Crossways Park Drive, Suite 201
          Woodbury, NY 11797
          Telephone: (516) 681-1100
          Facsimile: (516) 681-1101
          E-mail: asolomon@kdvlaw.com
                  ypollack@kdvglaw.com

               - and -

          Jeffery Alan Meyer, Esq.
          KAUFMAN, DOLOWICH & VOLUCK LLP
          60 Broad Street
          New York, NY 10004
          Telephone: (212) 485-9600
          Facsimile: (212) 485-9700
          E-mail: jmeyer@kdvlaw.com


3M: Firefighting Foam Poisoned Water, Colorado Suit Claims
----------------------------------------------------------
Victoria Prieskop, writing for Courthouse News Service, reported
that residents near Peterson Air Force Base in Colorado Springs
say fire-suppressing foam manufactured by 3M and two others has
poisoned the area's groundwater.

Along with 3M, the federal class action filed on September 18, in
the District of Colorado names The Ansul Company and National
Foam, all of which produce aqueous film-forming foam --  a
firefighting suppressant which was bought by the Air Force and
used extensively in the area around the base.

Neither the Air Force nor the federal government is a party to the
class action.

According to the residents, the foam contains fluorochemical
surfactants including perfluorooctane sulfonate (PFOS),
perfluorooctanoic acid (PFOA), perfluoroheptanoic acid (PFHpA) and
other perfluorinated compounds, or PFCs, which are known to be
highly water-soluble, mobile, and persistent in the environment.

Toxicology studies have found that PFCs are readily absorbed by
and accumulate in the human body, with multiple associated health
risks. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency links exposure to
PFOS and PFOA with testicular and kidney cancer, thyroid disease,
ulcerative colitis and other conditions.

The fire suppressant with PFCs was developed in the 1960s to
extinguish jet fuel fires, and the military has been purchasing
and using the foam since at least 1970.

But the residents claim that the foam's manufacturers knew by the
1980s that PFCs were dangerous to human health and the
environment. And when 3M announced that it was phasing out PFOS-
based foam in 2000, an EPA internal memo stated: "3M data supplied
to EPA indicated that these chemicals are very persistent in the
environment, have a strong tendency to accumulate in human and
animal tissues and could potentially pose a risk to human health
and the environment over the long term. [PFOS] appears to combine
persistence, bioaccumulation, and toxicity properties to an
extraordinary degree."

Despite that PFOS-based foam was no longer being produced by 2002,
the residents believe that the base continued to use foam
containing PFCs after the manufacturing cut-off.

And in January 2016, EPA testing data "identified measurable
levels of PFOS and PFOA in 94 public water systems across the
nation, including three southwest El Paso County systems proximate
to Peterson Air Force Base: Security, Wakefield, and Fountain."

Meanwhile, the Denver Post reported that "it has reached the point
where the water in all 32 of the Security Water and Sanitation
District's municipal wells is contaminated with PFCs at levels
exceeding an EPA health advisory limit of 70 parts per trillion.
At one well, PFCs have hit 1,370 PPT, federal data show -- nearly
20 times higher than the EPA health advisory. EPA officials
recommended that pregnant women and small children should not
drink local water."

The residents are suing on behalf of everyone who lives or owns
property in four water districts around the base. Their claims
include negligence, failure to warn of a defective product, design
defects in the foam, and unjust enrichment.

They seek compensation for the decrease in property value in the
affected area and mitigation or remediation costs, as well as the
costs incurred in obtaining alternative water. They also request
loss-of-use compensation and exemplary damages.

The parties could not be reached by phone for comment on September
20.

The homeowners are represented by Kevin S. Hannon and Justin D.
Blum of the Hannon Law Firm in Denver.


ABBOTT LABORATORIES: Judge Junks Claims Over Organic Similac
------------------------------------------------------------
John O'Brien, writing for Forbes.com, reports that parents who
purchased Similac Advance Organic Infant Formula, then later
claimed the product wasn't organic, have had their class action
claims thrown out by a federal judge.

On Aug. 23, U.S. District Judge Pamela Chen, of the U.S. District
Court for the Eastern District of New York, ruled that state law
claims brought by three plaintiffs are preempted by the federal
Organic Foods Production Act of 1990. The claims alleged
violations of several California and New York laws.

Chen used guidance from a 2010 decision from the U.S. Court of
Appeals for the Eighth Circuit to reach her decision. The Similac
products, produced by Abbott Laboratories, were certified as
organic by Quality Assurance International, a USDA-accredited
certifying agent.

"Here, QAI certified the products as 'organic' under federal law
and only then was Defendant permitted to use the word 'organic'
and the USDA seal on the products' labels," Chen wrote.

"Plaintiffs' challenge to this labeling cannot be described in any
way other than a direct challenge to the USDA-accredited
certifying agent's decision itself."

The attorneys representing the proposed class of consumers are
from three firms -- Finkelstein, Blankinship, Frei-Pearson &
Garber in White Plains, NY; the Golan Firm in Houston; and the
Richman Law Group of Brooklyn.

Those attorneys will have to either appeal or find a way to amend
the complaint to comply with Chen's order by Sept. 23.

They had argued that Abbott exploits its customers' preference for
organic products and that 26 of the 49 ingredients listed on the
products are not allowed in organic food.


ABC CORP: Faces "Lin" Suit Alleging Violation of NY Wage Laws
-------------------------------------------------------------
JIAN CHENG LIN, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. ABC CORP. d/b/a PHOENIX GARDEN, NORA CHU,
VICTOR CHU, Defendants, INDEX NO. 654936/2016 (N.Y. Sup., County
of New York, September 16, 2016), seeks to recover (1) minimum
wages, (2) overtime wages, (3) spread of hours compensation, (4)
illegal retention of tips (5) damages for failure to provide wage
statements (6) damages for failure to provide wage notice at the
time of hiring (7) liquidated damages, interest, costs, and
attorneys' fees for alleged systematic and classwide violations of
the New York Labor Law and the New York Minimum Wage Act.

Defendants own, operate, and/or control a restaurant.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Marisol Santos, Esq.
     HANG & ASSOCIATES, PLLC
     136-18 39th Avenue, Suite 1003
     Flushing, NY 11354
     Phone: (718) 353-8522
            (718) 353-8588
     Fax: (718) 353-6288


AFRICAN RAINBOW: Has Leave to Appeal Ruling in Workers Class Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Pete Lewis, writing for GroundUp, reports that South Africa's six
biggest gold mining companies have been given leave to appeal
against the court decision in May to allow mineworkers sick with
silicosis and TB to bring a class action against them.

The Supreme Court of Appeal has granted the mining companies leave
to appeal on all aspects of the certification by the South Gauteng
High Court of the "big bang" common law class action brought by
miners and former miners.

The six companies, who represent the entire industry and the
Chamber of Mines in this matter, are African Rainbow Minerals,
Anglo American South Africa, Anglogold Ashanti, Gold Fields,
Harmony, and Sibanye Gold.

The action concerns some 250,000 to 500,000 sick mineworkers or
former mineworkers and their families, spread out over the entire
Southern African region.

They will now have to wait while the appeal process, which could
go all the way to the Constitutional Court, is concluded.

Meanwhile the six companies have proposed a different route to
settlement, outside any judicial oversight. Through the
Occupational Lung Disease Working Group (OLDWG), they have
suggested that if the mineworkers drop their class action suit,
the gold mining industry will help the Department of Health settle
the backlog of tens of thousands of existing claims under the
Occupational Diseases in Mines and Works Act (ODMWA). The
companies have also proposed to help identify the hundreds of
thousands of people across the region who are eligible to claim
compensation for illness but have not yet done so. These claims
would be settled via ODMWA, with the mines offering to "top-up"
individual payouts without admitting any liability.

In the long term, the gold mines are negotiating with trade unions
and various government departments in a bid to rewrite the
compensation laws so that in future, the ODMWA will fall away
entirely, and silicosis and/or TB among gold mine workers will be
dealt with under the Compensation for Occupational Diseases in
Mines and Works Act (COIDA).

This would improve benefits for some sick mineworkers, and their
families if they die, compared to benefits offered by ODMWA.

But the COIDA Fund is even more chaotic than the ODMWA Fund: mired
in controversy over mismanagement and possible corruption, and
lacking in transparency. Medical doctors are increasingly
unwilling to treat injured and sick workers because the fund is
failing to pay them for these services. Time lags in settling
claims, even for deaths at work, are very long.

In addition, COIDA does not contain important provisions in ODMWA
for mandatory heart and lung autopsies for mineworkers. The COIDA
provisions for occupationally-related TB are much weaker than
under ODMWA.

But COIDA is a cast iron "no fault" system of compensation, so if
the mining companies' plan succeeds there will be no further
common law suits from any mineworkers -- or any other workers,
South African or foreign, in South Africa.


ALICE CLEANERS: Faces "Pastor" Suit Under FLSA, NY Labor Laws
-------------------------------------------------------------
JOSE LUIS PASTOR, individually and on behalf of others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. ALICE CLEANERS INC. (d/b/a ALICE DRY
CLEANERS), CHAN CHOI, and MICHAEL SAKHALSY, Defendants, Case No.
1:16-cv-07264 (S.D.N.Y., September 16, 2016), seeks to recover
alleged unpaid minimum and overtime wages pursuant to the Fair
Labor Standards Act and the New York Labor Law, the minimum wage
and overtime law, including applicable liquidated damages,
interest, attorneys' fees and costs.

Defendants owned, operated or controlled a full service cleaner
which operated under the name Alice Dry Cleaners.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Michael A. Faillace, Esq.
     MICHAEL FAILLACE & ASSOCIATES, P.C.
     60 East 42nd St., Suite 2540
     New York, NY 10165
     Phone: (212) 317-1200


ALLIANZ LIFE: Breached Contract, Calif. Class Action Says
---------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reported that a federal class action
claims in Santa Ana, Calif., that Allianz Life Insurance breached
its contract to pay the full accumulation or annuitization value
to policyholders who deferred payment for 10 years or less.


AMERICAN AIRLINES: Forces Customers to Rebook Flights, Suit Says
----------------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reported that American Airlines forces
customers to rebook their flights if they fail to check in within
arbitrary time limits -- 45 minutes for international flights
departing the United States, 60 minutes for international flights
departing other countries -- not stated in the contract, an
Illinois man claims in a federal class action.


AMADA AMERICA: "Rumph" Sues to Recover Overtime, Missed Breaks
--------------------------------------------------------------
Lisa Rumph, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated
Plaintiffs, Amada America, Inc., a California corporation, Kimco
Staffing Services, Inc., a California corporation and Does 1
through 100, inclusive, Defendants, Case No. BC634108, (Cal.
Super., September 15, 2016), seeks penalties for inaccurate wage
statements, damages for unpaid wages, unpaid penalty wages, unpaid
wages for missed meal and rest periods, liquidated damages for
unpaid minimum and overtime wages under California Labor Code as
well as pre-judgment interest, reasonable attorney's fees and
costs and such other and further relief.

Amada provides sheet metal fabrication machinery where Plaintiffs
where employed through Kimco Staffing. Rumph alleges that she was
made to work through her rest periods without compensation and
that she was not provided with itemized wage statements.

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Michael Nourmand, Esq.
      James A. DeSario, Esq.
      THE NOURMAND LAW FIRM, APC
      8822 West Olympic Boulevard
      Beverly Hills, CA 90211
      Telephone (310) 553-3600
      Facsimile (310) 553-3603


AMERICAN INT'L: Employee Benefit Plans Can Share in Settlement
--------------------------------------------------------------
Lorraine Bailey, writing for Courthouse News Service, reported
that finding that employee retirement plans are separate from the
company, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit on
September 20, said American International Group investors cannot
keep a $725 million settlement to themselves.

The investors brought the underlying class action over a decade
ago, accusing insurance giant AIG of entering into a sham $500
million reinsurance transaction with Gen Re designed to mislead
investors and artificially inflate AIG's share price.

At a time when investors were concerned about reductions in the
company's loss reserves, such a transaction allegedly permitted
AIG to report added reserves of $106 million for the fourth
quarter of 2000. Gen Re received a $5.2 million side payment for
its role in the deal, according to the complaint.

Gen Re received a $5.2 million side payment for its role in the
deal, according to the complaint.

AIG eventually reached a series of settlements on the claims. In
2012, a federal judge in Manhattan approved a deal that provides
$725 million to a class of investors who bought AIG stock between
October 1999 and April 2005.

AIG's own employee benefit plans appealed the settlement, however,
claiming that they should be entitled to their own slice of the
settlement pie.

Though the court denied the request, holding that retirement plans
are "affiliates" of AIG, the Second Circuit reversed on September
20.

"Because ERISA imposes important statutory limits on an employer's
control over the management and policies of an employee benefit
plan, those plans do not fall within the ordinary meaning of
'affiliate,'" U.S. Circuit Judge Rosemary Pooler wrote for the
three-judge panel. "Thus, appellants are entitled to their own
slice of the settlement pie and appellees will have to live with a
somewhat smaller portion."

Appellants refer to the plans behind the appeal: the AIG Incentive
Savings Plan, American General Agents' and Mangers' Thrift Plan,
AIG Retirement Plan, and AIG Insurance Company -- Puerto Rico
Capital Growth Plan.

Pooler said AIG's ability to appoint and remove members of the
plans' boards does not equate to corporate control over the
management and policies of the plans.

"ERISA's imposition of strict fiduciary duties blocks such
corporate influence," the 41-page opinion states, even though two
AIG Retirement Board members were also executives at AIG during
the class period.

"ERISA expressly contemplates scenarios where a sponsor might
appoint its own officers and directors to a plan's board," Pooler
said. "But these officers and directors, who are permitted to
'wear different hats,' must nonetheless 'wear only one at a time,
and wear the fiduciary hat when making fiduciary decisions.'"

The case is, ROTHSTEIN v. AMERICAN INTERNATIONAL GROUP, INC.,
Docket Nos. 14-4067(L), 14-4603(con) (2nd Cir.).  A copy of the
decision is available at https://is.gd/VGepeW from Leagle.com.


APPLE INC: Sued in Cal. Super. Ct. Over Defective Mac Pro Product
-----------------------------------------------------------------
DOUGLAS KAPLAN, individually, and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. APPLE INC., a California
Corporation; and DOES 1-50, inclusive, the Defendant, Case No. BC
634934 (Cal. Super. Ct., Sep. 22, 2016), seeks damages and
restitutionary relief as a result of purchasing a defective Apple
computer product.

The case involves several models of Apple computers branded as
the Mac Pro. The 2013 Mac Pro are professional-grade computers
that contain a defectively designed and implemented graphics
processing unit and defective random access memory ("RAM")IRAM
Risers. The defects cause these computers to malfunction, freeze,
crash, and ultimately render the computers unusable. These defects
are especially troublesome for creative professionals who rely on
the stability of these computers for their livelihood.

Purchasers of the 2013 line of Mac Pro computers have been
significantly injured by paying a premium on these Apple products
while receiving a product that fails to function as reasonably
expected. These computers can cost between $5,000 and $10,000 on
average and are often rendered completely useless due to the
defect.

The Plaintiff purchased three Apple Mac Pro computers with a
defective graphics processing unit and defective RAMIRAM Risers in
2014. In 2015 and 2016, Mr. Kaplan's Mac Pros suffered repeated
screen malfunctions, processing defects and system failures
"crashes".

Apple Inc. is an American multinational technology company
headquartered in Cupertino, California, that designs, develops,
and sells consumer electronics, computer software, and online
services.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Brian S. Kabateck, Esq.
          Lina. B. Melidonian, Esq.
          Drew R. Ferrandini, Esq.
          KABATECKBROWN KELLNER LLP
          644 South Figueroa Street
          Los Angeles, CA 90017
          Telephone: (213)217 5000
          Facsimile: (213) 217 5010
          E-mail: bsk@kbklaywers.com
                  lm@bklawyers.com
                  df@kbklawyers.com

               - and -

          Steven S Derelian, Esq.
          SDA LEGAL
          8052 Melrose Ave. 2 Fl.
          Los Angeles, CA 90046
          Telephone: (323) 954 9030
          E-mail: steven@sdalegal.com
                  steven@focusonlaw.net


APPLE INC: Three iPhone Owners Sue Over Touchscreen Defect
----------------------------------------------------------
Michael Abella, writing for Legal Newsline, reports that three
iPhone owners are suing Apple Inc., alleging unfair, deceptive
and/or fraudulent business practices.

Thomas Davidson of Pennsylvania, Todd Cleary of California and Jun
Bai of Delaware filed a class action complaint, individually and
on behalf of all others similarly situated, Aug. 27 in U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of California against
Apple, Inc. alleging violation of the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act
and Song-Beverly Consumer Warranty Act.

According to the complaint, Davidson, Cleary and Bai incurred and
will continue to incur expenses for the diagnosis of the
touchscreen defect and repair and replacement of their Apple
iPhones. The plaintiffs allege Apple failed to notify consumers of
the nature and extent of the problems with its iPhones and refused
to repair the iPhones without charge.

The plaintiffs seek trial by jury, an order to maintain this as a
class action, appointing the plaintiffs as class representatives
and their counsel as class counsel, all damages, pre- and post-
judgment interest, attorney fees and court costs, plus all further
relief. They are represented by attorneys Richard D. McCune --
rdm@mccunewright.com -- and David C. Wright --
dcw@mccunewright.com -- of McCuneWright LLP in Redlands,
California, and Joseph G. Sauder -- jgs@mccunewright.com --
Matthew D. Schelkopf -- mds@mccunewright.com -- and Joseph B.
Kenney -- jbk@mccunewright.com -- of McCuneWright LLP in Berwyn,
Pennsylvania.


ARKANSAS: SolGen, 2 Clinics Argue on Medicaid Halt
--------------------------------------------------
Linda Satter, writing for Arkansas Online, reports that the
Arkansas solicitor general told a panel of federal judges
September 19 that Arkansas was within its rights to cut off
Medicaid funding for Planned Parenthood patients a little over a
year ago, while an attorney for the provider said the state's
action violated the federal Medicaid Act.

Lee Rudofsky for the state and attorney Jennifer Sandman each
spent 20 minutes arguing before the three-judge panel in St. Louis
over whether an Oct. 2 preliminary injunction requiring the state
to keep paying for the services for three women who filed suit
should stand or be vacated.

The panel, consisting of 8th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals Judges
Steven Colloton of Des Moines, Iowa; Michael Melloy of Cedar
Rapids, Iowa; and Bobby Shepherd of El Dorado, peppered the
attorneys with questions about whether the women should have
exhausted state remedies before turning to the federal courts, and
whether the reasoning in a recent opinion stemming from a similar
case in Louisiana should apply to the Arkansas case.

A three-judge panel of the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals,
based in Atlanta, on Sept. 14 affirmed a federal judge's
preliminary injunction preventing Louisiana from terminating a
Planned Parenthood affiliate's access to the Medicaid program.

That termination, like the one in Arkansas, followed the release
of videos, by anti-abortion activists calling themselves the
Center for Medical Progress, purporting to show that Planned
Parenthood clinics in other states had profited from allowing
patients to donate fetal tissue to medical research after
abortions.

In Arkansas, Medicaid already didn't pay for most abortions. At
the national level, Planned Parenthood said the covertly filmed
videos were deceptively edited and that none of its affiliates
sought any payments beyond legally permitted reimbursement of
costs. In January, a Houston grand jury investigating the
undercover footage found no wrongdoing by Planned Parenthood and
instead indicted the activists on tampering charges.

Rudofsky told the panel that U.S. District Judge Kristine Baker
overstepped her authority when she imposed the injunction that
prevents the state from cutting off Medicaid funding of Planned
Parenthood services for the three individual plaintiffs, known
only as Jane Does 1, 2, and 3. Baker said the injunction will
apply "until further notice," or until the merits of a lawsuit the
women filed Sept. 11, 2015, are decided.

Although Planned Parenthood is also a plaintiff in the case, Baker
said she couldn't apply the injunction to anyone but the three
women because the case wasn't filed as a class action. Her order
prompted attorneys to amend the complaint to seek class-action
status, which she granted Jan. 25, allowing the three women to
represent a class of hundreds of Medicaid recipients in Arkansas
who use Planned Parenthood services.

Baker hasn't yet ruled on whether to expand the preliminary
injunction to apply to the entire class, as the plaintiffs also
have requested. The 8th Circuit denied the state permission to
appeal the class-certification ruling.

Medicaid, the state-administered health care program for the poor
and disabled, is funded mostly by federal dollars. According to
court documents, it spent about $51,000 in fiscal 2015 to cover
costs incurred at the state's two Planned Parenthood clinics --
one in Little Rock and one in Fayetteville.

The lawsuit was prompted by Gov. Asa Hutchinson's Aug. 14, 2015,
announcement that the state Department of Human Services would
terminate Medicaid funding of Planned Parenthood services within
30 days, in response to the reports of "unethical" actions at
other Planned Parenthood offices.

"The state doesn't want to go into detail about the bases for the
termination here because they are not only thin; they are
impermissible as a matter of federal law," Sandman of New York
told the 8th Circuit judges.

She said the 5th Circuit, in accordance with earlier decisions by
the 6th, 7th and 9th Courts of Appeal, has unanimously found that
Medicaid beneficiaries are entitled to a file a private right of
action to enforce their claims under the Medicaid Act's free
choice of providers provision.

She also pointed out that there was no administrative decision for
the plaintiffs to appeal to the state, as Rudofsky said the law
required them to do before turning to a federal court.

"It's important to remember here that what actually happened is a
termination where there is no claim of any wrongdoing," Sandman
said.

She said the state's reason for terminating Planned Parenthood as
a Medicaid provider wasn't even about Planned Parenthood of the
Heartland, which owns the Arkansas clinics, but "about Planned
Parenthood affiliates in other states."

Arkansas authorities first said the provider's Medicaid contract
was being terminated because of "an at-will determination by the
governor," and then later claimed the termination was based on a
"for-cause" determination, with the "ethics" of other affiliates
cited as the cause, Sandman noted.

Rudofsky argued that the federal Medicaid Act allows a state to
exclude a provider for ethical reasons. He told the 8th Circuit
judges, "In a series of interlocking statutes governing the
Medicaid program, Congress has set forth more than 50 types of
misconduct from which a state Department of Human Services may
decide if a Medicaid provider is no longer qualified to
participate in the Medicaid program."

He added, "The ultimate issue in this appeal is what is the proper
forum and who is the proper party to challenge such a decision."

Rudofsky argued that Congress allows a provider that has been
terminated for being unqualified to administratively appeal a
termination and, if that result is unsatisfactory, to appeal to a
state court. He said Congress also gave the U.S. Department of
Health and Human Services the ability to withhold Medicaid funding
from a state if it believes that the state has erroneously
disqualified a Medicaid provider and is out of compliance with its
Medicaid plan.

"The District Court decision," he said, referring to Baker's
injunction, "has erroneously created a third way to challenge the
decision. It allows a Medicaid patient to challenge a decision ...
[but] unlike a provider itself or the federal DHS ... patients
lack the knowledge of facts to decide" whether a provider is
unqualified, he argued.

Rudofsky said Planned Parenthood "intentionally chose to forgo an
administrative appeal" of the discontinuation of Medicaid funding
and then recruited patients so it could file a federal lawsuit. He
said Baker then "misinterpreted a section of the Medicaid Act and
the right it confers to patients."

He argued that the U.S. Supreme Court has said patients have a
right to choose among qualified providers but not to challenge a
particular state's qualification decision.

In response to a question from Judge Shepherd, Rudofsky said he
recalled that there are at least 200 providers, in addition to
county health clinics, that are available in Arkansas for Medicaid
patients to go to for birth control, annual wellness exams and
testing for sexually transmitted diseases, the services that the
Planned Parenthood clinics in Arkansas provided under their
Medicaid contract. He conceded, however, that "not all provide all
the same services."

One of the judges asked Rudofsky, "Can you see any daylight
between this case and the 5th Circuit decision that came out last
week?"

Rudofsky responded, "I think the 5th Circuit was very, very
careful not only to limit their decision to the specific facts of
their case but also to limit their decision to the concessions
that Louisiana gave, and the bases for the disqualification that
Louisiana gave."

The 5th Circuit joined the other appellate courts in holding that
federal law created a private right of action enabling patients to
sue and that states may exclude willing providers from Medicaid
only for reasons "bearing on that provider's qualification" --
meaning its ability to provide medical services "in a competent,
safe, legal and ethical manner."

The 4th Circuit noted in the Louisiana case that "the fact that
the provider did not administratively challenge its termination
did not change this analysis."

The opinion also said that "the free-choice-of-provider provision
unambiguously requires that states participating in the Medicaid
program allow covered patients to choose among the family planning
medical practitioners they could use if they were paying out of
their own pockets."


ARTISTIC MAINTENANCE: Faces "Gonzalez" Suit Under Cal. Labor Code
-----------------------------------------------------------------
CESAR GONZALEZ on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated Plaintiff, vs. ARTISTIC MAINTENANCE, INC. a California
corporation, and DOES 1 through 50, inclusive, Defendants, Case
No. 30-2016-00875644-CU-OE-CXC (Cal. Super., Orange County,
September 16, 2016), seeks restitution from Defendants for their
alleged failure to pay all overtime wages and rest and meal period
premiums under the California Labor Code and any other applicable
Industrial Welfare Commission Wage Orders.

ARTISTIC MAINTENANCE is a California corporation engaged in
providing landscape services to residential, commercial and/or
industrial properties in California including Orange County.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     James R. Hawkins, Esq.
     Isandra Fernandez, Esq.
     JAMES HAWKINS APLC
     9880 Research Drive, Suite 200
     Irvine, CA 92618
     Phone: (949) 387-7200
     Fax: (949) 387-6676


ASSET MANAGEMENT: Illegally Collects Debt, "Wade" Action Claims
---------------------------------------------------------------
Denise Wade, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. Asset Management Services Group LLC, Silverpoint Ltd,
Mentoli Trade Corp., Natalia Kabanova, Mark Smekhov, Ron Wood, Ken
Braddock, and John Does 1-10, Case No. 5:16-cv-01291-SMH-MLH (W.D.
La., September 14, 2016), seeks to stop the Defendant's unfair and
unconscionable means to collect a debt.

The Defendants operate a financial services company in Louisiana.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Scott Earl Brady, Esq.
      BOHRER LAW FIRM
      8712 Jefferson Hwy Ste B
      Baton Rouge, LA 70809
      Telephone: (225) 925-5297
      Facsimile: (225) 231-7000
      E-mail: scott@bohrerlaw.com


AUTONATION IMPORTS: "Conti" Class Suit Removed to S.D. Florida
--------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit styled Peter Conti, on behalf of himself
and all similarly situated individuals v. AutoNation Imports of
Lithia Springs, LLC, Case No. CACE-16-014919 (05), was removed
from the Seventeenth Judicial Circuit to the U.S. District Court
for the Southern District of Florida (Ft Lauderdale). The District
Court Clerk assigned Case No. 0:16-cv-62197-WPD to the proceeding.

The case alleges violation of the Fair Credit Reporting Act.

AutoNation Imports of Lithia Springs, LLC is an automotive
retailer in the United States.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Brandon J. Hill, Esq.
      Donna Vales Smith, Esq.
      WENZEL FENTON CABASSA, P.A.
      1110 North Florida Avenue, Suite 300
      Tampa, FL 33602
      Telephone: (813) 337-7992
      Facsimile: (813) 229-8712
      E-mail: bhill@wfclaw.com
              dsmith@wfclaw.com

The Defendant is represented by:

      Christine E. Howard, Esq.
      FISHER & PHILLIPS, LLP
      101 E. Kennedy Blvd., Suite 2350
      Tampa, FL 33602
      Telephone: (813) 769-7500
      Facsimile: (813) 769-7501
      E-mail: choward@laborlawyers.com

           - and -

      Cathy Mattson Stutin, Esq.
      FISHER & PHILLIPS
      450 E Las Olas Boulevard, Suite 800
      Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301
      Telephone: (954) 525-4800
      Facsimile:  525-8739
      E-mail: cstutin@laborlawyers.com


BLACK LIVES MATTER: Faces Class Action by Dallas Cop
----------------------------------------------------
David Lee, writing for Courthouse News Service, reported that a
Dallas police officer sued leaders and alleged supporters of Black
Lives Matter, blaming them for inciting violence towards police
officers that resulted in the deaths of five of his fellow
officers in a July sniper attack.

Sgt. Demetrick Pennie filed his amended complaint and proposed
class action in federal court on September 16, accusing Black
Lives Matters and seven of its leaders of civil rights violations,
conspiracy, assault and intentional infliction of emotional
distress.

He also sued President Barack Obama, U.S. Attorney General Eric
Holder, former U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, the Nation
of Islam, Louis Farrakahn, Rev. Al Sharpton, National Action
Network, the New Black Panthers Party and billionaire financier
George Soros.

Pennie is a 17-year veteran of the force and currently the
president of the Dallas Fallen Officer Foundation.

He says the defendants "repeatedly incited their supporters and
others to engage in threats of and attacks to cause serious bodily
injury or death" towards police officers of all races and
ethnicities, including Jews, Christians and whites.

"Thus, defendants, each and every one of them, jointly and
severally, conspiring and/or acting in concert either expressly or
otherwise, are inciting and causing serious bodily injury or death
to police officers and other law enforcement persons of all races
and ethnicities, Jews, and Caucasian," the 66-page complaint
states.

Pennie says Obama stated "anti-police rhetoric" after the Michael
Brown shooting in Ferguson, Missouri, that he allegedly "saw this
as another opportunity to stir up major racial tensions and hatred
for police officers."

Pennie accused Soros of giving "$650,000 directly in furtherance
of the Black Lives Matter movement's calls to violence and death."

"Defendant Soros has given at least $33 million in one year to
support various groups, such as Black Lives Matters, who are
serving to further the on-going racial war by inciting racial
violence against police officers and other law enforcement persons
of all races and ethnicities including but not limited to Jews,
Christians and Caucasians," the complaint states.

"Defendants Soros has gone so far as to pay over 80 individuals
and organizations to "protest" during the civil unrest that
occurred in Ferguson, Missouri, in furtherance of the violent and
hateful incitements to violence perpetrated by his co-defendants."

Pennie accused Farrakahn of asking black members of the military
last year "to desert and engage in mutiny and violent
insurrection" against their country.

"During the speech, Farrakhan held up the deaths of Michael Brown,
Tamir Rice and Eric Garner as evidence that there is inequality in
the treatment of black citizens, who must therefore wage war
against and severely harm and kill police officers and other law
enforcement," the complaint states. "Then Farrakhan reinforced
this call for violence by sharing a link to the video of his
speech, which he had posted on Facebook, through his official
Twitter account, with the explanation, 'Why I'm calling on all
black soldiers in the U.S. Armed Forces to come home, unite &
fight for our own lives.'"

Pennie accused Sharpton of calling for the outlawing of local
police departments last year through civil rights laws and
creating a nationalized police force.

"Defendant Sharpton lead incendiary and inflammatory rallies in
Ferguson, Missouri, early on in the developing violence and
incited the looting, arson, destruction of property, assaults on
police, threatening mobs, and violence," the complaint states. "In
one of Defendant Sharpton's rallies that occurred on December 15,
2014 in New York City, marchers were chanting death threats to the
police: 'What do we want? Dead cops! When do we want it! Now!' The
protesters event assaulted two NYPD officers and blocked traffic
on the Brooklyn Bridge."

Pennie is seeking compensatory, actual and punitive damages in
excess of $500 million.

He is represented by Larry Klayman with the FreedomWatch lobbying
group in Washington, D.C.

"Sergeant Pennie and I feel duty-bound to put ourselves forward to
seek an end to the incitement of violence against law enforcement
which has already resulted in the death of five police officers in
Dallas and the wounding of seven more, just in Texas alone,"
Klayman told Breitbart.


BLUENRGY GROUP: Bronstein Files Securities Class Action
-------------------------------------------------------
Bronstein, Gewirtz & Grossman, LLC notifies investors that a class
action lawsuit has been filed against BlueNRGY Group Limited,
f/k/a CBD Energy Limited and certain of its officers. The class
action is on behalf of a class consisting of all persons or
entities who purchased BlueNRGY securities from June 13, 2014
through October 24, 2014 inclusive.

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 Complaint alleges that throughout the Class Period Defendants
issued false and misleading statements to investors and/or failed
to disclose that. On October 24, 2014, BlueNRGY announced that its
formerly released audited fiscal statements for 2012 and 2013 and
interim financial statements for the six months ended December 31,
2013 should no longer be relied upon. BlueNRGY said some
transactions involving Gerard McGowan, the Company's former
Executive Chairman and Managing Director, were not correctly
disclosed, thus making BlueNRGY's financial statements for the
fiscal years 2012 and 2013 false and misleading. Once this news
was made public, the BlueNRGY stock dropped, damaging investors.

A class action lawsuit has already been filed. If you wish to
review a copy of the Complaint you can visit the firm's site:
http://www.bgandg.com/cbdeor you may contact Peretz Bronstein,
Esq. or his Investor Relations Analyst, Yael Hurwitz of Bronstein,
Gewirtz & Grossman, LLC at 212-697-6484 or via email
info@bgandg.com. Those who inquire by e-mail are encouraged to
include their mailing address and telephone number.  If you
suffered a loss in BlueNRGY you have until November 7, 2016 to
request that the Court appoint you as lead plaintiff.  Your
ability to share in any recovery doesn't require that you serve as
a lead plaintiff.


CALIFORNIA, USA: Wilson Appeals From N.D. Cal. Ruling to 9th Cir.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiff Kelly H. Wilson filed an appeal from a court ruling
entered in his lawsuit titled Kelly Wilson v. Cynthia Zubiate, et
al., Case No. 3:14-cv-01032-VC, in the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of California, San Francisco.

The lawsuit arose from prison condition.

The appellate case is captioned as Kelly Wilson v. Cynthia
Zubiate, et al., Case No. 16-16621, in the United States Court of
Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.

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

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

   -- Transcript is due on November 8, 2016;

   -- Appellant Kelly H. Wilson's opening brief due is due on
      December 19, 2016;

   -- Answering brief of Appellees Jeffrey Beard, California
      Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation, William
      Jordan, C. Martinez, Marion Spearman and Cynthia Zubiate is
      due on January 19, 2017; and

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

Plaintiff-Appellant KELLY H. WILSON, on behalf of himself and all
others similarly situated, is represented by:

          Jamee Ravae Lewis, Esq.
          Steven Benjamin Sacks, Esq.
          SHEPPARD MULLIN RICHTER & HAMPTON LLP
          4 Embarcadero Center
          San Francisco, CA 94111-4106
          Telephone: (415) 774-2962
          E-mail: jalewis@sheppardmullin.com
                  ssacks@sheppardmullin.com

Defendants-Appellees CYNTHIA ZUBIATE, WILLIAM JORDAN, JEFFREY
BEARD, CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS AND REHABILITATION, C.
MARTINEZ and MARION SPEARMAN are represented by:

          Kathleen Boergers, Esq.
          AGCA - OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL
          1515 Clay Street
          Oakland, CA 94612-0550
          Telephone: (510) 622-4453
          Facsimile: (510) 622-2270
          E-mail: Kathleen.Boergers@doj.ca.gov

               - and -

          Chad Allen Stegeman, Esq.
          CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
          455 Golden Gate Avenue, Suite 11000
          San Francisco, CA 94102
          Telephone: (415) 703-5826
          E-mail: chad.stegeman@doj.ca.gov


CALIFORNIA MULTIMODAL: "Melendez" Suit to Recover Overtime Pay
--------------------------------------------------------------
Oscar Danilo Almanza Melendez, on behalf of himself and other
aggrieved employees, Plaintiff, v. California Multimodal, LLC, a
California Limited Liability Company and Does 1 through 10,
inclusive, Defendants, Case No. BC633972, (Cal. Super., September
15, 2016), seeks all unpaid minimum wages and liquidated damages
due, overtime pay, missed break premium, statutory penalties,
reimbursement of business expenses under California Labor Code,
restitutionary disgorgement pursuant to the Unfair Competition
Law, prejudgment interest at the maximum legal rate, reasonable
attorney's fees, general, special and consequential damages and
such other and further relief.

Defendant provides various shipping services throughout the United
States and Mexico with multiple offices in California. Plaintiff
worked as a truck driver. Their trucks were leased to them, thus
lease expenses were deducted from their salary. Drivers were
classified as independent contractors, thus denied the usual
benefits enjoyed by regular employees.

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Dorinna E. Hirsch, Esq.
      HIRSCH LAW FIRM
      3008 First Ave.
      San Diego, CA 92103
      Telephone: (619) 822-2266
      Email: dhirsch@hirsch-law.us


CARLYLE AT THE OMNI: "Minecci" Suit Seeks Overtime Pay
------------------------------------------------------
Vincent Minecci and Jeremy Bokun, on behalf of themselves and all
others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. Carlyle at the Omni,
Inc., Bethpage Associates, LLC, Carlyle at the Palace, Inc.,
Carlyle Decor, Inc., Carlyle Mansion of Lawrence, LLC, Carlyle of
Lawrence, LLC, Carlyle off the Green, Inc. and Steven Carl,
Defendants, Case No. 2:16-cv-05134 (E.D. N.Y., September 15,
2016), seeks unpaid overtime wages, statutory, compensatory,
punitive, liquidated damages, pre-judgment interest and post-
judgment interest, reasonable attorneys' fees, costs and expenses
and such other relief under the Fair Labor Standards Act and the
New York Labor Law.

Defendants operate several high-profile catering, wedding and
special event venues on Long Island and provide or coordinate the
provision of hosting, food, drinks, equipment and wait-staff for
special events at off-site locations throughout Long Island and
New York City. Defendants are all owned and controlled by Steve
Carl. Plaintiff worked as waiters at these venues.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Orin Kurtz, Esq.
      Mark C. Gardy, Esq.
      GARDY & NOTIS, LLP
      Tower 56, 126 East 56th Street, 8th Floor
      New York, NY 10022
      Tel: (212) 905-0509
      Fax: (212) 905-0508
      Email: mgardy@gardylaw.com
             okurtz@gardylaw.com


CENSUS BUREAU: Court OKs Settlement in Discrimination Class Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
A New York federal court approved the settlement of a landmark
class action in which African American and Latino job applicants
alleged illegal background check policies and practices at the
U.S. Census Bureau denied them access to more than a million
temporary jobs for the 2010 decennial census, Outten & Golden LLP
and co-counsel said on September 21.

Adam Klein, the lead attorney for the plaintiffs and the head of
the class action practice group at Outten & Golden LLP, said,
"This historic settlement requires the Census Bureau to replace
its arbitrary and racially discriminatory use of criminal records
and develop a rational job-related method to determine whether an
applicant has a criminal history which justifies his or her
rejection from these essentially entry-level jobs."

During six years of hard-fought litigation, the plaintiffs
asserted that the Census Bureau's flawed procedures -- which
relied on an often inaccurate and incomplete FBI arrest and
convictions database -- violated Title VII of the 1964 Civil
Rights Act because of their substantial adverse impact on African
Americans and Latinos who were arrested at much higher rates than
whites, often for the same crimes, such as minor drug possession
and use.

Penny Pritzker, the Secretary of the U.S. Department of Commerce,
agreed to the settlement in April. In 2014, the court certified a
class of roughly 400,000 African Americans and Latinos, who
asserted that the Census Bureau erected unreasonable, largely
insurmountable, hurdles for applicants with arrest records --
regardless of whether the arrests were decades old, for minor
charges, or led to criminal convictions.

Mr. Klein added, "This settlement comes at a critical time when
the Census Bureau is planning for the 2020 census and developing
the criteria for hiring hundreds of thousands of temporary
workers. Instead of having its own staff set the criteria, under
this settlement, outside professionals will develop the criteria,
which we anticipate will open up many thousands of jobs to
applicants with records."

Approved by the Hon. Frank Maas, the $15 million settlement
contains a $5 million fund to help African American and Latinos
who were rejected for the 2010 Census because of criminal records
or arrests clear up their records to ease their ability to obtain
jobs in the future. Government records show that more than 70
million people in the U.S. have been arrested, but at least 35
percent of all arrests nationwide never lead to prosecutions or
convictions.

Precious Daniels, one of the named plaintiffs in the case, said,
"My primary motivation in this important case was to achieve a
change to Census's hiring practices which resulted in my rejection
and that of thousands of other African Americans and Latinos.
These jobs make a meaningful difference in our lives. I am proud
to have been a part of this collective effort to bring about these
changes."

In addition, the settlement will offer class members two options.
The first option is designed to help class members correct
mistakes in their criminal history records, to help ensure that
they are not rejected by future employers based on incorrect
information. A portion of the settlement fund will be used to set
up a "Records Assistance Program" for this purpose, which will be
administered by Cornell University's College of Industrial and
Labor Relations. The second option involves a notification
procedure from the Census Bureau designed to give class members
advance notice and information related to hiring for the temporary
jobs which will become available for the 2020 census.

Kristen Clarke, president and executive director of the Lawyers'
Committee for Civil Rights Under Law, said, "We must eliminate
discriminatory and unfair barriers to reentry faced by people with
criminal histories. This important settlement helps send a strong
message to other employers that no job seeker should be
automatically excluded from consideration for a job solely because
of a criminal record."

Ossai Miazad, attorney for the plaintiffs and the head of the
discrimination and retaliation practice group at Outten & Golden
LLP, said, "This settlement commits the federal government, the
nation's largest employer, to a hiring process for one of its
largest and most important operations -- the decennial census --
that does not unfairly and arbitrarily deny access to jobs to
millions of Americans who have had some interaction with the
criminal justice system."

Miazad added, "We anticipate that both private companies and
government agencies will develop new ways to weigh employers' need
to ensure that applicants with criminal records will have a fair
chance when they seek employment opportunities, both to their
benefit, the benefit of their communities, and to the general as
employment of those with past records has been shown to greatly
reduce recidivism."

The legal team for the plaintiffs includes Mr. Klein, Justin M.
Swartz, Lewis M. Steel, Ms. Miazad, Sally J. Abrahamson, and
Deirdre Aaron, of Outten & Golden LLP; Sharon Dietrich of
Community Legal Services of Philadelphia; Judy Whiting of
Community Service Society of New York; Robert T. Coulter, of the
Indian Law Resource Center, of Helena, Mont.; Jackson Chin of
LatinoJustice PRLDEF, of New York; Ray P. McClain of the Lawyers
Committee for Civil Rights Under Law, of Washington, D.C.; and
Darius Charney of the Center for Constitutional Rights of New
York.

The named plaintiffs in the case are Anthony Gonzalez, of
Riverview, Fla.; Precious Daniels, of Detroit, Mich.; Alexis
Mateo, of New York; Felicia Rickett-Samuels, of Stamford, Conn.;
Chynell Scott, of Philadelphia; Scotty Desphy, of Philadelphia;
and Edward Zahnle, of Portland, Ore. The two original named
plaintiffs who initiated this lawsuit were Evelyn Houser, of
Philadelphia, and Eugene Johnson, of New York.

The plaintiffs' legal team recognizes the extraordinary assistance
of mediator Hunter R. Hughes, III, of Atlanta, and the named
plaintiffs Ms. Houser and Mr. Johnson, both of whom passed away
during the pendency of this lawsuit.

More information about the lawsuit is available at
www.censusdiscriminationlawsuit.com.

The case is "Anthony Gonzalez, et al., v. Penny Pritzker,
Secretary, U.S. Department of Commerce," No. 1:10-cv-03105-FM, in
the U.S. District Court, Southern District of New York.


COLORADO: Medicaid Does Not Cover Hep C Drugs, Suit Says
--------------------------------------------------------
Emma Gannon, writing for Courthouse News Service, reported that
one of the 70,000 Coloradans with hepatitis C has brought a
federal class action in Denver against the state because its
Medicaid program does not cover breakthrough therapies for the
fatal disease.

Robert Cunningham, who was diagnosed with hepatitis C in 2004,
sued the Colorado State Department of Health Care Policy and
Financing on September 19, for refusing to approve treatment with
Direct Acting Antivirals, or DAAs, enormously expensive drugs that
are remarkably effective in treating a once-incurable disease.

The most widely known of these new drugs is Harvoni
(sofosbuvir/ledipasvir), but Cunningham names seven other drugs
and/or drug combinations that have been effective, with daily
pills taken for two to three months.

Harvoni costs $1,125 per pill in the United States, on average:
$94,500 for a typical course of treatment.

Cunningham claims Colorado refused to cover his treatment because
he has a Metavir Fibrosis Score of F1, which indicates (after F0)
the least amount of liver scarring, on a 0-4 scale in which F4
indicates full-blown cirrhosis. Colorado's Medicaid restrictions
require a patient to have a Metavir Fibrosis Score of at least F2
to receive a direct-acting antiviral drug, Cunningham says.

Calling DAAs "the only feasible cure for the disease," Cunningham
adds: "The treatment denied [by Colorado] is approved by the U.S.
Food and Drug Administration; is strongly urged by the American
Association for the Study of Liver Diseases and the Infectious
Diseases Society of America; and is recommended by the federal
agency responsible for administering Medicaid. It is provided by
Medicare, the VA and the overwhelming majority of commercial
health insurers."

According to Cunningham's lawsuit, hepatitis C is the deadliest
infectious disease in the United States, killing 20,000 people in
2014. Five million U.S. residents have the disease -- more than 1
percent of the population -- 70,000 of them in Colorado, according
to the complaint. And, Cunningham says, 14,400 Colorado Medicaid
beneficiaries have the disease.

The Colorado Department of Health Care Policy and Financing
declined comment on the lawsuit.

However, a spokesperson said that on Sept. 1 the state relaxed
requirements for hepatitis C patients to get the drugs, from F4 or
F3 to F2. It also eliminated a six-month abstinence period
formerly required of drug and alcohol users, so long as the
patient is receiving drug or alcohol counseling and has been in a
treatment program for at least a month.

The new authorization requirements take effect Oct. 1.

Cunningham seeks class certification and an injunction. He is
represented by Sara Neel and other attorneys with the American
Civil Liberties Union of Colorado in Denver. Neel did not
immediately respond to a request for comment on September 22.


CROWN ASSET: Sued Over Fair Credit Reporting Act Violation
----------------------------------------------------------
Sheila D. Ruk, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated v. Crown Asset Management, LLC, Case No. 1:16-cv-03444-
LMM-JSA (N.D. Ga., September 14, 2016), is brought against the
Defendants for violation of the Fair Credit Reporting Act.

Crown Asset Management, LLC is a receivables management and
consulting firm.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Steven Howard Koval, Esq.
      THE KOVAL FIRM, LLC
      3575 Piedmont Road
      Building 15, Suite 120
      Atlanta, GA 30305
      Telephone: (404) 350-5900
      Facsimile: (404) 549-4654
      E-mail: shkoval@aol.com

D&C SUTPHIN: "Tehozol" Suit Claims FLSA, NY Labor Law Violations
----------------------------------------------------------------
EDILBERTO TEHOZOL, MARCO TEHOZOL, RAFAEL TEHOZOL, RICARDO CASTRO
and FERNANDO MARTINEZ individually and on behalf of others
similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. D & C SUTPHIN CORP. (D/B/A FINE
FARE SUPERMARKET), M.S. FAMILY FOOD CORP. (D/B/A C-TOWN
SUPERMARKET), L & S 5311 FOOD CORP. (D/B/A C-TOWN SUPERMARKET),
DAVID SANTANA, ANTONIO SANTANA AND RODOLFO DIAZ
Defendants, Case No. 1:16-cv-05183 (E.D.N.Y., September 17, 2016),
seeks to recover minimum wage compensation, overtime compensation,
spread-of-hours pay, unlawful deductions, fines relating to a
failure to provide notice and wage statements, breach-of-contract
and quantum-meruit damages, and related liquidated damages,
interest and attorneys' fees and costs pursuant to the Fair Labor
Standards Act, the New York Labor Law as recently amended by the
Wage Theft Prevention Act.

Defendants own, operate, manage and/or control grocery stores.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

     Lina Franco, Esq.
     LINA FRANCO LAW, P.C.
     42 Broadway, 12th Floor
     New York, NY 10004
     Phone: (1800) 933-5620
     Web site: http://www.LinaFrancoLawPC.com


DOMINO'S PIZZA: Seeks 1st Cir. Review of Ruling in "Mooney" Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Defendants Domino's Pizza, Domino's Pizza, LLC, GDS Enterprises
Inc. and Geoffrey D. Schembechler filed an appeal from a court
ruling in the lawsuit entitled Mooney, et al. v. Domino's Pizza,
et al., Case No. 14-cv-13723-IT, in the U.S. District Court for
the District of Massachusetts, Boston.

As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the case was
brought against the Defendants for unlawfully taking a tip credit
against the wages of the delivery drivers while withholding
service charges that properly belonged to the delivery drivers.

The appellate case is captioned as Mooney, et al. v. Domino's
Pizza, et al., Case No. 16-8038, in the United States Court of
Appeals for the First Circuit.

According to the Appellate Court's briefing schedule, appearance
form is due on September 30, 2016.

Plaintiffs-Appellees ALEXANDER MOONEY, individually and on behalf
of all others similarly situated, and KEVIN BARTLETT, individually
and on behalf of all others similarly situated, are represented
by:

          Brant Casavant, Esq.
          Stephen S. Churchill, Esq.
          FAIR WORK PC
          192 South St., Suite 450
          Boston, MA 02111
          Telephone: (617) 231-6777
          E-mail: brant@fairworklaw.com
                  steve@fairworklaw.com

               - and -

          Alan D. Meyerson, Esq.
          LAW OFFICE OF ALAN DAVID MEYERSON
          100 State Street, 9th Floor
          Boston, MA 02109-0000
          Telephone: (617) 444-9525
          Facsimile: (617) 934-7715
          E-mail: alan@alandavidmeyerson.com

               - and -

          David B. Summer, Esq.
          LAW OFFICE OF DAVID B. SUMMER
          77 Franklin Street
          Boston, MA 02116
          Telephone: (617) 695-0050
          E-mail: david@summerlaw.com

Defendants-Appellants DOMINO'S PIZZA, DOMINO'S PIZZA, LLC, GDS
ENTERPRISES INC., and GEOFFREY D. SCHEMBECHLER, and Defendant AMY
SCHEMBECHLER are represented by:

          Daniel J. Blake, Esq.
          Kevin G. Kenneally, Esq.
          LECLAIR RYAN PC
          1 International Pl., 11th Floor
          Boston, MA 02110-0000
          Telephone: (617) 502-8200
          Facsimile: (617) 502-8270
          E-mail: daniel.blake@leclairryan.com
                  kevin.kenneally@leclairryan.com


DXN MIKE: "Shi" Suit Alleges Violation of FLSA, NY Labor Law
------------------------------------------------------------
LILI SHI, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated,
Plaintiff, v. DXN MIKE CORPORATION d/b/a Shangri Nail Skincare,
XIUNAN DING and MI ZHOU Defendants, Case No. 1:16-cv-05185
(E.D.N.Y., September 18, 2016), arises from Defendants' alleged
willful and unlawful employment policies, patterns and/or
practices in violation of the Federal Labor Standards Act, and of
the New York Labor Law.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     John Troy, Esq.
     TROY LAW, PLLC
     41-25 Kissena Boulevard Suite 119
     Flushing, NY 11355
     Phone: (718) 762-1324
     Email: johntroy@troypllc.com


ECOLAB INC: Schneider Appeals N.D. Illinois Ruling to 7th Circuit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Steven Schneider filed an appeal from a court ruling in his
lawsuit titled Steven Schneider v. Ecolab, Incorporated, Case No.
1:14-cv-01044, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of Illinois, Eastern Division.

As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the Case
seeks certification of a class of Institutional employees for
alleged violations of Illinois wage and hour laws.

The appellate case is captioned as Steven Schneider v. Ecolab,
Incorporated, Case No. 16-8017, in the U.S. Court of Appeals for
the Seventh Circuit.

Plaintiff-Petitioner STEVEN SCHNEIDER, individually and on behalf
of all others similarly situated, is represented by:

          Terrence Buehler, Esq.
          TOUHY, TOUHY, BUEHLER & WILLIAMS LLP
          55 W. Wacker Drive
          Chicago, IL 60601
          Telephone: (312) 372-2209
          E-mail: tbuehler@tbuehlerlaw.com

               - and -

          Peter S. Lubin, Esq.
          Andrew C. Murphy, Esq.
          DITOMMASO LUBIN, P.C.
          17W 220 22nd Street
          Oakbrook Terrace, IL 60181-0000
          Telephone: (630) 710-4990
          Facsimile: (630) 333-0333
          E-mail: psl@ditommasolaw.com
                  acm@ditommasolaw.com

Respondent-Defendant ECOLAB, INCORPORATED, is represented by:

          John A. Ybarra, Esq.
          LITTLER MENDELSON P.C.
          321 N. Clark Street
          Chicago, IL 60654
          Telephone: (312) 372-5520
          E-mail: jybarra@littler.com


ERNST & YOUNG: 9th Cir. Says Class Action Waiver Unenforceable
--------------------------------------------------------------
Scott M. Wich, in an article for Society for Human Resource
Management, reports that agreements in which employees consent to
have employment disputes submitted to an arbitrator, rather than a
court, are not an uncommon condition of employment. The terms of
such agreements can vary widely and, at times, include waivers of
the right to pursue claims on a collective or class basis. While
noting a divide among the nation's courts on the legitimacy of
such waivers, the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals recently held
that they are unenforceable under the National Labor Relations Act
(NLRA).

Stephen Morris and Kelly McDaniel were employees of Ernst & Young.
As a condition of their employment, they were required to sign a
"concerted action waiver." The waiver required employees to pursue
claims against the company through arbitration and also stipulated
that workers must "arbitrate only as individuals and in 'separate
proceedings.' " The effect of the waiver was to preclude class or
collective actions.

Morris and McDaniel filed a class and collective action under the
Fair Labor Standards Act and related state law, alleging employee
misclassification and the denial of overtime pay. Ernst & Young
moved to compel arbitration of the claims, which was ordered by
the lower court. Morris and McDaniel appealed and argued that the
waiver was unlawful under the NLRA. Ernst & Young countered that
the Federal Arbitration Act (FAA) commanded that the arbitration
agreements be enforced as written.

In a split decision, the appeals court sided with Morris and
McDaniel. The majority opinion relied heavily on Section 7 of the
NLRA, which protects the right of employees to engage in concerted
activity. It cited several decisions where Section 7 protected
activity was found to include the right to pursue in court legal
actions on a collective or class basis.

Applying its Section 7 analysis to the Ernst & Young arbitration
agreements, the majority opinion concluded that the requirement
that employees pursue legal claims "only as individuals" and "in
separate proceedings" interfered with their protected right to
engage in concerted activity. The majority opinion concluded that
the "separate proceedings" clause of the agreement was
unenforceable.

The majority opinion found that the FAA was not inconsistent with
the NLRA. It opined that the FAA, which favors the enforcement of
arbitration agreements, could not be read so broadly as to allow
for waivers of NLRA rights.

The dissenting opinion found the majority opinion to be
"breathtaking in its scope and error." Relying on the
interpretations of the FAA by the U.S. Supreme Court, the
dissenting opinion said that the proper analysis questions whether
a statute "contains an express 'contrary congressional command'
that overrides the FAA.' " Finding that the text and legislative
history of the NLRA does not expressly preclude pre-dispute
arbitration agreements containing a class-action waiver, the
dissenting opinion concluded that the Ernst & Young agreements
should be enforced.

Morris v. Ernst & Young LLP, 9th Cir., No. 13-16599 (Aug. 22,
2016).

Professional Pointer: The underlying dispute, involving the
interpretation of two federal statutes seemingly at odds with each
other, is likely to reach the U.S. Supreme Court. With federal
appeals courts split on the correct interpretation of the FAA and
the NLRA, employers using arbitration agreements with their
employees are well-advised to follow developments in this area of
the law.

Scott M. Wich -- smwich@cbdm.com -- is an attorney with Clifton
Budd & DeMaria, LLP in New York City.


FACEBOOK: Fails in Bid to Strike Out Irish Revenge Porn Claims
--------------------------------------------------------------
Katerina Sharkova, writing for Lexoo Legal Brief, reports that
Facebook has failed its attempt to strike out legal action brought
by a Northern Irish teenager over the posting of a nude photo.

The 14 year old has brought an action against both Facebook and
the man suspected of posting the image to a "shame" page.

The case has the potential to reframe the legal parameters of
permissible online behaviour.

Lawyers speaking on behalf of the girl in Belfast High Court
alleged the image was obtained via blackmail and its publishing
constituted a type of revenge porn which was repeatedly hosted on
the social media site from 2014 until January of last year.

The girl is seeking damages for misuse of private information,
negligence and a breach of the Data Protection Act, submitting
that Facebook held the power to block the image's republication by
using tools to identify the image.

Lawyers on behalf of Facebook have maintained that the photograph
was taken down as soon as the site was notified of its
publication.

The social media company faced a second legal setback in Austria,
where a Vienna court allowed a data protection case to be heard as
a class action suit.

Leading privacy activist Max Schrems is claiming EUR500 in damages
for each of his lawsuit's signatories -- numbering over 25,000
people.


FLOWERS FOODS: Oct. 11 Lead Plaintiff Bid Deadline
--------------------------------------------------
Lundin Law PC announced on September 21, 2016, that a class action
lawsuit was filed against Flowers Foods, Inc. concerning possible
violations of federal securities laws between February 7, 2013 and
August 10, 2016 (the "Class Period"). Investors who purchased or
otherwise acquired shares during the Class Period should contact
the Firm in advance of the October 11, 2016 lead plaintiff motion
deadline.

You can call Brian Lundin, Esquire, of Lundin Law PC, at 888-713-
1033, or e-mail him at brian@lundinlawpc.com.

No class has been certified in the above action yet. Until a class
is certified, you are not considered represented by an attorney.
You may also choose to do nothing and be an absent class member.

The complaint alleges that during the Class Period, Flowers Foods
issued false and misleading statements and/or failed to disclose
that: the Company was improperly classifying employees as
independent contractors; that the misclassification exposed
Flowers Foods to legal liability and/or negative regulatory
action; that proper classification would have a negative impact on
Flowers Foods' operations; and that as a result of the above, the
Company's public statements were materially false and misleading
at all relevant times.

On August 10, 2016, the Company announced that the U.S. Department
of Labor scheduled a compliance review of Flowers Foods under the
Fair Labor Standards Act. After the market closed that day, the
Company issued a press release announcing disappointing Q2 2016
financial results. When this news was announced to the public, the
stock price of Flowers Foods fell, which caused investors harm.

Lundin Law PC was founded by Brian Lundin, a securities litigator
based in Los Angeles dedicated to upholding shareholders' rights.


FOUGERA PHARMACEUTICALS: Sergeants Sues Over Overpriced Clobetasol
------------------------------------------------------------------
Sergeants Benevolent Association Health & Welfare Fund, on behalf
of itself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Fougera
Pharmaceuticals, Inc., Hi-Tech Pharmacal Co., Inc., Perrigo
Company Plc, Sandoz, Inc., Taro Pharmaceutical Industries, Ltd.,
Taro Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc. and Wockhardt USA LLC, Defendants,
Case No. 1:16-cv-07229, (S.D. N.Y., September 10, 2016), seeks
damages and injunctive relief resulting from the Defendants'
overcharging of generic Clobetasol in violation of the Sherman
Act.

Sergeants Benevolent Association Health & Welfare Fund is for the
benefit of retired New York City Police Department Sergeants and
their dependents. It allegedly purchased Clobetasol for its
members at exorbitant prices.

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Peter Safirstein, Esq.
      SAFIRSTEIN METCALF LLP
      1250 Broadway, 27th Floor
      New York, NY 10001
      Telephone: (212) 201-2845
      Email: psafirstein@safirsteinmetcalf.com

             - and -

      Daniel C. Girard, Esq.
      Jordan Elias, Esq.
      Adam E. Polk, Esq.
      GIRARD GIBBS LLP
      711 Third Ave, 20th Floor
      New York, NY 10017
      Telephone: (212)798-0136
      Facsimile: (212)557-2952
      Email: dcg@girardgibbs.com
             je@girardgibbs.com
             aep@girardgibbs.com


GEO GROUP: Oct. 24 Lead Plaintiff Bid Deadline
----------------------------------------------
Khang & Khang LLP announced on September 21, 2016, that a class
action lawsuit was filed against The GEO Group, Inc. Investors who
purchased or otherwise acquired shares between March 1, 2012 and
August 17, 2016 inclusive (the "Class Period"), are encouraged to
contact the Firm prior to the October 24, 2016 lead plaintiff
motion deadline.

If you purchased shares of GEO during the Class Period, please
contact Joon M. Khang, Esquire, of Khang & Khang, 18101 Von Karman
Avenue, 3rd Floor, Irvine, CA 92612, by telephone: (949) 419-3834,
or by e-mail at joon@khanglaw.com.

There has been no class certification in this case yet. Until
certification occurs, you are not represented by an attorney. You
may choose to take no action and remain a passive class member.

The complaint alleges that during the Class Period, the Company
made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose:
that GEO's facilities lacked adequate safety and security
standards and were less efficient at offering correctional
services than the Federal Bureau of Prisons' ("BOP") facilities;
that the Company's rehabilitative services for inmates were less
effective than the BOP's services; that the U.S. Department of
Justice ("DOJ") was unlikely to renew and/or extend its contracts
with GEO; and that as a result of the above, GEO's public
statements were materially false and misleading at all relevant
times. On August 18, 2016, Deputy Attorney General Sally Yates
announced that the DOJ decided to stop using private prisons,
since they are less safe and less effective than federal
government-run prisons. When this information was disclosed to the
public, the stock price of GEO decreased, which caused investors
harm.

If you wish to learn more about this lawsuit, or if you have any
questions concerning this notice or your rights, please contact
Joon M. Khang, a prominent litigator for almost two decades, by
telephone: (949) 419-3834, or by e-mail at joon@khanglaw.com


GLOBUS MEDICAL: Williams Appeals Decision in "Silverstein" Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Austin J. Williams, one of the Plaintiffs in the lawsuit
originally filed as Mark Silverstein, individually and on behalf
of all others similarly situated v. Globus Medical, Inc., et al.,
Case No. 2:15-cv-05386-WB (E.D. Pa., September 29, 2015), filed an
appeal from a court ruling entered in the case.

The appellate case is captioned as Austin Williams, et al. v.
Globus Medical Inc., et al., Case No. 16-3607, in the United
States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit.

As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the complaint
asserts claims under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and seeks damages in an
unspecified amount, attorney's fees and other relief.

Plaintiff-Appellant AUSTIN J. WILLIAMS is represented by:

          Jacob A. Goldberg, Esq.
          Keith R. Lorenze, Esq.
          ROSEN LAW FIRM
          101 Greenwood Avenue, Suite 440
          Jenkintown, PA 19046
          Telephone: (215) 600-2817
          Facsimile: (212) 202-3827
          E-mail: jgoldberg@rosenlegal.com
                  klorenze@rosenlegal.com

               - and -

          Robert V. Prongay, Esq.
          GLANCY PRONGAY & MURRAY LLP
          122 East 42nd Street, Suite 2920
          New York, NY 10168
          Telephone: (310) 201-9150
          E-mail: RProngay@glancylaw.com

Plaintiff-Appellee MARK SILVERSTEIN, Individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated, is represented by:

          Lee Albert, Esq.
          GLANCY PRONGAY & MURRAY LLP
          122 East 42nd Street, Suite 2920
          New York, NY 10168
          Telephone: (212) 682-5340
          E-mail: lalbert@glancylaw.com

               - and -

          Jacob A. Goldberg, Esq.
          ROSEN LAW FIRM
          101 Greenwood Avenue, Suite 440
          Jenkintown, PA 19046
          Telephone: (215) 600-2817
          Facsimile: (212) 202-3827
          E-mail: jgoldberg@rosenlegal.com

Defendants-Appellees GLOBUS MEDICAL INC., DAVID C. PAUL, RICHARD
A. BARON, DAVID M. DEMSKI and STEVEN M. PAYNE are represented by:

          Barry M. Kaplan, Esq.
          WILSON SONSINI GOODRICH & ROSATI
          1700 K Street NW, 5th Floor
          Washington, DC 20006
          Telephone: (206) 883-2500
          Facsimile: (206) 883-2699
          E-mail: bkaplan@wsgr.com

               - and -

          Gregory L. Watts, Esq.
          WILSON SONSINI GOODRICH & ROSATI
          139 Townsend Street, Suite 150
          San Francisco, CA 94107
          Telephone: (206) 883-2500
          E-mail: gwatts@wsgr.com

               - and -

          Timothy D. Katsiff, Esq.
          Marc J. Sonnenfeld, Esq.
          MORGAN LEWIS & BOCKIUS LLP
          1701 Market Street
          Philadelphia, PA 19103
          Telephone: (215) 963-4857
          E-mail: tkatsiff@morganlewis.com
                  msonnenfeld@morganlewis.com


GOOGLE INC: Judge Inclined to Conditionally Certify Class
---------------------------------------------------------
Matthew Renda, writing for Courthouse News Service, reported that
a federal judge in San Jose, Calif. said on September 23, she is
inclined to conditionally certify a class of people over the age
of 40 who say they were denied jobs at Google because of their
age.

"I am not considering the merits today except for at the most
fundamental level, but I will reserve that for the summary
judgment phase," U.S. District Court Judge Beth Freeman said at a
lively hearing.

The dispute stems from class action claims made by two Google
applicants, Robert Heath and Cheryl Fillikes, who claim the
company systematically refuses to hire older people

If Freeman opts to conditionally certify a class of older job
applicants rejected by Google, the company will have to file a
motion to decertify the class, which they will almost certainly do
in the coming months.

"The plaintiffs in this instance have what appear to be individual
age-discrimination cases," Google attorney Anthony Cleland said.

Freeman appeared inclined to agree with Google's interpretation,
but allowed the conditional certification to proceed as many other
courts favor the two-step process.

"Well, sometimes in these cases I know how they are likely to come
out, but I have to restrain myself from jumping down the road too
much," Freeman said after Cleland had made his case about the
individual nature of the sundry age discrimination claims made by
the class.

The real fireworks came at the beginning of the hearing, when
Freeman told plaintiff Heath's attorney, Dow Patton, that his
proposed class is too broad.

"I was surprised by the remarkable breadth of the class you are
seeking to certify," Freeman said. "It includes all applicants
over age 40 for three categories. Now Mr. Health has sufficiently
alleged he was qualified to apply, but there is no standard, no
floor."

Freeman said she may have applied at Google herself despite never
taking calculus in high school and would have been denied due to
lack of qualifications, not age.

"There is no indication of qualification at the application stage
and that is why you are going to lose today," Freeman told Patton,
who then promptly dropped his argument.

Freeman received the argument of Patton's colleague, Daniel
Kotchen, more favorably, if only because he included the standard
or floor that his colleague left out.

Representing Fillikes, Kotchen defined the class as people 40 or
over who were interviewed in person by Google. Because Google has
a four-part application process -- a recruiter screen, followed by
a telephone screen, an on-site interview and then the hiring
reviews -- Kotchen argued that anyone who receives an on-site
interview has met the company's qualifications standard.

Patton then attempted to narrow his class during the hearing.
Freeman bristled.

"I have bent over backwards to give you the opportunity to be
heard on the merits and now you are going to come here and tell
Google, 'Wait, that wasn't what we meant,'" Freeman said. "Google
has not had the opportunity to consider the modification so
whatever you wrote, that is what you will have to live with."

Heath's attempt to certify an overbroad class means he will likely
have to pursue his claims as an individual age discrimination
lawsuit.

Meanwhile, Fillikes will act as a class representative unless
Google prevails on its future motion to decertify.

In the complaint, Fillikes claims Google has engaged in a
systematic pattern and practice of discriminating against
individuals who are age 40 and older in hiring, compensation, and
other employment decisions with the resultant effect that persons
age 40 or older are systemically excluded from positions for which
they are well-qualified."

While the median age of computer programmers is about 42, the
median age of a Google employee is 29, Fillikes says.

Fillikes is a systems engineer with a degree in engineering from
Cornell and a doctorate from the University of Chicago in
computational physics. She has amassed about 40 years of computer
programming experience and was 47 at the time she interviewed with
Google.

She interviewed with Google four times between 2007 and 2014, in
some cases after the company reached out to her. However, after
clearing the first two hurdles of the company's hiring process and
interviewing at Google's campus, she was not hired.

The key to whether the suit will survive as a class action hinges
on whether Google engaged in a systematic practice of not hiring
people of a certain age, and whether the plaintiffs included in
the class were all affected in a similar manner by this policy or
practice.

Google will attempt to prove that the plaintiffs' claims arise out
of circumstances that are unique to each individual and cannot be
adjudicated as a class action.

The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission is actively
investigating Google for age discrimination, according to the
suit.

For his part, Heath was 60 when he applied and was ultimately
rejected by Google in 2001.

Heath says his rejection came despite being highly qualified and
having experience pertinent to the position for which he was
applying.

The case is captioned, ROBERT HEATH, and CHERYL FILLEKES,
Plaintiffs, on behalf of themselves and others similarly situated,
Plaintiffs, v. GOOGLE INC., a Delaware corporation,
Defendant., Case No. 15-cv-01824-BLF (N.D.CAL.)


GREENSTONE MATERIALS: Fails to Pay Overtime, "Ochoa" Suit Claims
----------------------------------------------------------------
JOSE OCHOA, individually, and on behalf of all other similarly
situated current and former employees of GREENSTONE MATERIALS,
INC. v. GREENSTONE MATERIALS INC., a California Corporation; and
DOES 1 through 50, inclusive, Case No. 30-2016-00875367-CU-OE-CXC
(Cal. Super. Ct., Orange Cty., September 15, 2016), arises from
the Defendants' alleged failure to pay overtime compensation, and
failure to provide meal and rest periods.

The Defendants are all corporations authorized to conduct
business, and actually conducting business, in the state of
California, County of Orange.  The Defendants were the employers
of the Plaintiff.  The Plaintiff does not know the true names or
capacities of the Doe Defendants.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Farzad Rastegar, Esq.
          RASTEGAR LAW GROUP, A.P.C.
          22760 Hawthorne Boulevard, Suite 200
          Torrance, CA 90505
          Telephone: (310) 961-9600
          Facsimile: (310) 961-9094
          E-mail: farzad@rastegarlawgroup.com


GULF INTERSTATE: "Sloane" Case Sent to M.D. Pennsylvania Court
--------------------------------------------------------------
District Judge Nora Barry Fischer of the United States District
Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania deferred ruling on
Plaintiff's motion for conditional certification of the nationwide
FLSA collective action in the case captioned, THOMAS SLOANE,
Plaintiff, v. GULF INTERSTATE FIELD SERVICES, INC., Defendant,
Civil Action No. 15-1208 (W.D. PA.).

Judge Fischer said the Sloane case belongs to the U.S. District
Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania, Williamsport
Division.

Plaintiff Thomas Sloane filed the action on behalf of himself
against Defendant Gulf Interstate Field Services, Inc. The wage
and hour collective action challenges the compensation system that
Gulf utilizes to pay inspectors that it places to work on projects
for clients operating in the oil and gas industry at sites
throughout the United States. Sloane worked as a welding inspector
for Gulf during parts of 2014 at a compression station operated by
Kinder Morgan in Wyalusing, Bradford County, Pennsylvania and also
on a Kinder Morgan pipeline project in Oklahoma.

Sloane seeks conditional certification of a nationwide collective
action under the FLSA consisting of approximately 1,860 inspectors
during the past three years and a related class action comprised
of an estimated 158 inspectors who worked in Pennsylvania
throughout the same time period.

The lawsuit represents the second attempt of Plaintiff's counsel
to bring a nationwide FLSA collective action against Gulf
asserting that the payment system for its inspectors violates
federal overtime laws.  The Plaintiff's lawyers previously filed
Hughes v. Gulf Interstate Field Services, Inc., 2015 WL 4112312
(S.D. Ohio July 7, 2015).  The U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of Ohio denied conditional certification of a
nationwide collective and certified a more narrow collective
action that includes only Gulf employees placed at a project in
Ohio operated by Mark West.

In the Sloane case, there are presently two related motions
pending before the W.D. Pa. Court, albeit in different procedural
postures. First, Sloane's motion for conditional certification of
the nationwide FLSA collective action is fully briefed and counsel
provided oral argument as to same at a motion hearing held on May
26, 2016. Second, Sloane's motion for conditional certification of
the Pennsylvania class was more recently filed, with further
briefing still due under the Court's scheduling Order.

In her Memorandum Opinion dated July 27, 2016 available at
https://is.gd/igDN8Y from Leagle.com, Judge Fischer found that
that Sloane has failed to show cause why the lawsuit that his
attorneys erroneously filed in the Western District should not be
transferred to the Middle District pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Sec.
1404(a) since that is the District where Sloane worked at the
Defendant's Wyalusing, Pennsylvania compressor site.

The W.D. Pa Court said it will decline to rule on the pending
motions in deference to the transferee court (the M.D. Pa. court).

An appropriate Order follows transferring the matter to the
Williamsport Division of that District.

Thomas Sloane, Plaintiff is represented by Alexandra Koropey
Piazza, Esq. -- apiazza@bm.net -- Sarah R. Schalman, Esq. --
sschalman-bergen@bm.net -- Shanon J. Carson, Esq.-- scarson@bm.net
-- BERGER & MONTAGUE,P.C. -- James A. Jones, Esq. -- Richard J.
Burch, Esq. - BRUCKNER BURCH PLLC

Gulf Interstate Field Services, Inc., Defendant is represented by
Annette A. Idalski, Esq. -- annette.idalski@chamberlainlaw.com --
Peter N. Hall, Esq. -- peter.hall@chamberlainlaw.com ---
CHAMBERLAIN HRDLICKA WHITE WILLIAMS & AUTHRY; Keith E. Whitson,
Esq. -- kwhitson@schnader.com -- SCHNADER HARRISON, SEGAL & LEWIS


HARRIS & HARRIS: Faces "Griffin" Suit Over Debt Collection Acts
---------------------------------------------------------------
ANGELICA GRIFFIN, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated, and STATE OF ILLINOIS ex rel. ANGELICA GRIFFIN,
Plaintiffs, v. ARNOLD SCOTT HARRIS, P.C. d/b/a HARRIS & HARRIS,
Ltd.; HARRIS & HARRIS, Ltd. a/kla "Balta Strategic Initiatives";
and HARRIS & HARRIS OF ILLINOIS, LTD., Defendants, Case No. 2016-
CH-12318 (Ill. Cir., Cook County, September 16, 2016), alleges
violation of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act.

Harris & Harris, Ltd. is a debt collector in the business of
collecting medical debt, hospital bills, and municipal and
government fines and judgments.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Berton N. Ring, Esq.
     Stuart M. Clarke, Esq.
     BERTON N. RING, P.C.
     123 West Madison Street, Suite 1500
     Chicago, IL 60602
     Phone: (312) 781-0290


HEMISPHERX BIOPHARMA: Gets Final Nod for Settlement of "Kastis"
---------------------------------------------------------------
Hemispherx Biopharma announced on September 22, 2016, that the
Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware has issued an order
granting final approval of a settlement of the derivative and
class action case captioned Kastis, et al. v. Carter, et al.

At a final settlement hearing on September 19, 2016, the Court
approved the settlement and awarded the plaintiffs' counsel $1.25
million in attorneys' fees. No Company funds were used to pay the
settlement or attorneys' fees award; the settlement was funded by
Hemispherx's insurance companies which paid to Hemispherx $3.5
million in settlement of several policy disputes, in part related
to this claim, that were in policy mediation. The final settlement
does not constitute any admission of fault or wrongdoing by
Hemispherx or any of the individual defendants.

"We are pleased to close this chapter and move forward toward
continued success in accomplishing our important corporate goals
of developing and commercializing Ampligen and Alferon," said Tom
Equels, Hemispherx's CEO. "The net result of this order is that
substantial funds and management time are now free for business
purposes, rather than litigation, and we have settled all pending
material litigation."


HI-TECH PHARMACEUTICALS: Sued Over Misleading Product Label
-----------------------------------------------------------
Shawn Smith, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. Hi-Tech Pharmaceuticals, Inc., Case No. 6862 (D.C.
Super. Ct., September 14, 2016), is brought against the Defendants
for failure to state material facts regarding the Hyperdrive 3.0+
product's contents that tend to mislead by omitting that
methylsynephrine is actually an unapproved drug that has been
linked to serious adverse events including nausea, vomiting,
agitation, tachycardia, chest pain, and cardiac arrest and
omitting that consumption of Hyperdrive 3.0+ in accordance with
the label includes an unapproved drug ingredient at concentrations
or dosages suitable for prescriptive medical purposes.

Hi-Tech Pharmaceuticals, Inc. manufactures and distributes dietary
supplements throughout the United States.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Christopher T. Nidel, Esq.
      1615 New Hampshire Ave, NW
      Washington, DC 20009
      Telephone: (202) 558-2030
      E-mail: chris@nidellaw.com

         - and -

      Nicholas A. Migliaccio, Esq.
      Jason S. Rathod, Esq.
      MIGLIACCIO & RATHOD LLP
      412 H St., NE, Suite 302
      Washington, DC 20002
      Telephone: (202) 470-3520
      Facsimile: (202) 800-2730
      E-mail: nmialiaccio@classlawdc.com


HSBC HOLDINGS: Ontario Investors Seek Class Certification of Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Investigation Counsel P.C., a Toronto law firm specializing in
civil fraud and investor class actions, announced an important
update about an ongoing class action in Ontario against HSBC
Holdings plc (and hke:0005.HK).

The proceeding, Yip v. HSBC Holdings et al., Court File No. CV-14-
507953-00CP, has been brought on behalf of all investors who
purchased shares or American Depositary Receipts ("ADRs") of HSBC
Holdings between July 31, 2006 and July 11, 2012 (the "Class
Period").

The action arises from HSBC's alleged longstanding and systemic
compliance, control, and ethical failures, specifically its
violations of applicable anti-money laundering ("AML") and anti-
terrorist financing ("ATF") legislation and its alleged
participation in schemes to manipulate benchmark interest rates
Libor and Euribor. These AML and ATF-related violations allegedly
had serious implications for the bank's Canadian operations, which
used and relied on HSBCs inadequate compliance and risk management
systems, controls, policies, and practices.

It is alleged that during the Class Period HSBC never disclosed
these failures and misled investors by representing it had
properly designed and effective internal controls and
comprehensive risk management systems, policies, and practices
across its global operations, including in Canada, and by touting
its disciplined, ethical culture of risk management and adherence
to a Code of Ethics, Group Values and Business Principles, and
certain external codes of conduct.

The plaintiff alleges the truth about HSBC's longstanding and
systemic compliance failures was at least partially revealed in
July 2012 through media reports, a U.S. Senate Subcommittee
investigation addressing the bank's role in money laundering and
terrorist financing, and the release of two thousand pages of
internal HSBC documents. Following the release of this
information, there was a significant decline in HSBC's share
price, resulting in substantial financial harm to its
shareholders. The action seeks damages of $20 billion on behalf of
the investor class members.

The plaintiff has served HSBC with a motion record in support of
certifying the action as a class proceeding and for leave to
pursue statutory claims for secondary market misrepresentation
under Part XXIII.1 of the Ontario Securities Act.

Investors who bought HSBC shares or ADRs between July 31, 2006 and
July 11, 2012 are urged to contact Investigation Counsel P.C. for
further information about this class action.


ILLINOIS: Settles Class Action Suit Over Medicaid For Youth
-----------------------------------------------------------
Shannon Heffernan, writing for WBEZ News, reports that in a recent
class action lawsuit families said Illinois wasn't giving children
on Aedicaid access to necessary mental health help. Families said
it was particularly hard to get treatment in the community and
children were unnecessarily ending up institutions.

The state and families have now reached a settlement. It forces
the state to pay for services, including community-based therapy
and in-home support. The hope is that more children will be able
to stay with their families.

The state will not comment until the settlement gets final court
approval. That's expected to happen in late December.


ITERIS INC: Board Has Issued False Disclosures, "Ionni" Suit Says
-----------------------------------------------------------------
EDWARD IONNI, derivatively on behalf of ITERIS, INC. and
individually and on behalf of himself and all other similarly
situated stockholders of ITERIS, INC. v. JOE BERGERA, RICHARD
CHAR, KEVIN C. DALY, GREGORY A. MINER, ABBAS MOHADDES, GERARD M.
MOONEY, THOMAS L. THOMAS, MIKEL H. WILLIAMS, AND ITERIS, INC.,
Defendants. and ITERIS, INC., Nominal Defendant, Case No. 1:16-cv-
00807-UNA (D. Del., September 15, 2016), is brought on behalf of
similarly situated stockholders of Iteris alleging breach of
fiduciary duty and unjust enrichment.

The Plaintiff seeks to remedy false and misleading disclosures
made by the Company's Board of Directors to Iteris's stockholders
in proxy statements issued in connection with the Company's 2014
and 2015 annual meetings of stockholders, and to recover on the
Company's behalf stock options granted as a result of those
tainted votes, including stock options granted to the Company's
Chief Executive Officer and President, Joe Bergera.

Iteris is a Delaware corporation headquartered in Santa Ana,
California.  According to its SEC filings, Iteris is "a provider
of intelligent information solutions for both the traffic
management and global agribusiness markets."  The Individual
Defendants are directors and officers of the Company.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Brian E. Farnan, Esq.
          Michael J. Farnan, Esq.
          FARNAN LLP
          919 N. Market St., 12th Floor
          Wilmington, DE 19801
          Telephone: (302) 777-0300
          E-mail: bfarnan@farnanlaw.com
                  mfarnan@farnanlaw.com

               - and -

          Steven J. Purcell, Esq.
          Douglas E. Julie, Esq.
          Robert H. Lefkowitz, Esq.
          PURCELL JULIE & LEFKOWITZ LLP
          65 Broadway, Suite 828
          New York, NY 10006
          Telephone: (212) 725-1000
          E-mail: spurcell@pjlfirm.com
                  djulie@pjlfirm.com
                  rl@pjlfirm.com


ITT EDUCATIONAL: Peiffer Rosca Sues Over WARN Act Breaches
----------------------------------------------------------
The Peiffer Rosca Wolf law firm filed a class action in the United
States District Court for the Central District of Illinois,
Springfield Division, on Sept. 7, 2016, alleging ITT Educational
Services, Inc., commonly known as "ITT Tech" or "ITT Technical
Institute," violated its now-former employees' rights by not
giving adequate notice as required by the WARN Act.

The Department of Education had been investigating ITT Tech since
the Fall of 2014. On September 2, 2016, ITT Tech employees were
told that they were going to receive a "comp day" and that
attendance was not required on the Tuesday following Labor Day
Weekend. Former ITT Tech employees received an email on September
6, 2016 providing notice of termination.

The lawsuit seeks to recover, on behalf of all ITT Tech employees,
60 days' backpay, health insurance benefits, and retirement
benefits.

What You May Do

The Peiffer Rosca Wolf lawyers are prepared to take further action
and seek payment of backpay and other benefits on behalf of ITT
Tech employees who were terminated without proper notice.

If you worked for ITT Educational Services, Inc. and/or ITT Tech
and wish to obtain additional information about our investigation
or would like to discuss this matter or your rights, please visit
Brandon Wise toll free at 888-998-0520 or by email at
bwise@prwlegal.com.

The Peiffer Rosca Wolf law firm represents employees whose rights
have been violated by their employer.


JANI-KING INC: 3rd Circ. Refuses to Undo Franchisee Class Cert.
---------------------------------------------------------------
Dan Packel, writing for Law360, reports that the Third Circuit on
September 21 said a lower court ruled correctly when it said that
franchisees for the world's largest commercial cleaning franchisor
could pursue claims that they had been denied wages via class
action.

In a published decision, the panel denied Jani-King Inc.'s bid to
have the class certification for approximately 300 Philadelphia-
area franchisees reversed, finding all members of the class were
subject to a shared set of documents.

"The Jani-King franchise agreement, policies manual and training
manual are common to the class -- they apply to the franchisee who
has no employees and services a low-value contract and to the
franchisee with dozens of employees and many cleaning contracts.
These documents describe the level of Jani-King's right to control
its franchisees," Judge D. Michael Fisher said in the opinion.

Two Jani-King franchisees sued the company in 2009, claiming they
were miscategorized and should be treated as employees. The two
assert that they rarely or never hired employees to help with
cleaning work and are owed wages under the Pennsylvania Wage
Payment and Collection Law. The law obligates employers to pay
wages and agreed-upon benefits in a regular fashion and limits the
deductions that can be made.

After the cleaners' claims were trimmed in 2012, U.S. District
Court Judge R. Barclay Surrick ruled to certify the class in 2015.

Jani-King appealed the ruling, arguing the question of whether the
cleaners were employees could not be resolved on a classwide
basis.

The company also said that because the documents in question could
not be used to determine the employment status of the plaintiffs
under Pennsylvania law, they were inappropriately considered in
the class certification ruling. The panel looked at case law to
conclude that this was not accurate.

"Under certain circumstances ... an employment relationship -- or
the lack of one -- can be determined by examining the documents
alone," Judge Fisher said.

Jani-King also asked the judges to examine the documents to rule
on the merits of the case, with reference to the state's multipart
test for determining employment relationships. But the panel
declined.

"Jani-King may ultimately be correct that the franchise agreement
and manual do not contain sufficient controls over the day-to-day
work of its franchisees to make them employees under Pennsylvania
law, and we express no opinion on that matter here," Judge Fisher
said. "If Jani-King is correct and the documents cannot, as a
matter of fact, establish that the franchisees are employees,
Jani-King will prevail classwide."

Judge Robert Cowen dissented from the ruling, calling franchising
"a bedrock of the American economy" and saying that the majority
opinion threatens its viability.

"We're very pleased with the decision. I've been litigating
against these so-called 'cleaning franchise companies' for 10
years," said attorney Shannon Liss-Riordan, who represents the
plaintiffs. "They're essentially selling jobs to immigrant workers
who are willing to put their savings -- thousands of dollars --
into getting cleaning work."

She secured a $5.5 million settlement in a similar case against
Coverall North America Inc. in Massachusetts federal court in
2015.

Stephen Hagedorn, general counsel for Jani-King, highlighted the
fact that the panel declined to rule on the merits of the case as
well as Judge Cowen's favorable conclusions.

"We're disappointed in the decision, and we certainly believe that
it will encourage more class actions against franchisors," he
said.

Jani-King is represented by Kerry L. Bundy, Eileen M. Hunter and
Aaron D. Van Oort of Faegre Baker Daniels LLP.

The plaintiffs are represented by Shannon Liss-Riordan and
Adelaide Pagano of Lichten & Liss-Riordan PC and David J. Cohen.

The case is Williams et al. v. Jani-King of Philadelphia et al.,
case number 15-2049, in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third
Circuit.


JOY GLOBAL: Faruqi & Faruqi Files Class Action Over Komatsu Deal
----------------------------------------------------------------
Faruqi & Faruqi, LLP has filed a class action lawsuit in the
United States District Court for the Eastern District of
Wisconsin, case no. 2:16-cv-01153, on behalf of shareholders of
Joy Global, Inc. who held Joy securities on the record date,
September 1, 2016, and have been harmed by Joy's and its board of
directors' alleged violations of Sections 14(a) and 20(a) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Securities and Exchange
Commission Rule 14a-9, in connection with  the proposed sale of
the Company to Komatsu America Corp.

On July 21, 2016, the Company announced it had entered into an
Agreement and Plan of Merger pursuant to which Joy will merge with
Pine Solutions, Inc., a wholly owned subsidiary of Komatsu, and
will thereafter continue as the surviving corporation. The
shareholder vote on the Proposed Transaction is expected to occur
October 19, 2016.

Pursuant to the terms of the Merger Agreement, which was
unanimously approved by the Board, Joy shareholders will receive
$28.30 in cash per share for each share of Joy they own. The
complaint claims that this offer is inadequate in light of the
Company's recent financial performance and strong growth
prospects, and that the Schedule 14A Definitive Proxy that was
filed with the SEC soliciting shareholder votes provides
materially incomplete and misleading information about the
Company's financials and the fairness of the Proposed Transaction,
in violation of Sections 14(a) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act.

Take Action

Plaintiff is represented by Faruqi & Faruqi, LLP, a law firm with
extensive experience in prosecuting class actions, and significant
expertise in actions involving corporate fraud. Faruqi & Faruqi,
LLP, was founded in 1995 and the firm maintains its principal
office in New York City, with offices in Delaware, California, and
Pennsylvania.

If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no
later than 60 days from Sept. 7. Any member of the putative class
may move the Court to serve as lead plaintiff through counsel of
their choice, or may choose to do nothing and remain an absent
class member. If you wish to discuss this action, or have any
questions concerning this notice or your rights or interests,
please contact:

          Nadeem Faruqi, Esq.
          FARUQI & FARUQI, LLP
          685 3rd Avenue, 26th Floor
          New York, NY 10017
          Telephone: (877) 247-4292 or (212) 983-9330
          E-mail: nfaruqi@faruqilaw.com


K12 INC: Class Action Suit Filed Over Misleading Advertisements
---------------------------------------------------------------
Khang & Khang LLP announced on September 7, 2016, that a class
action lawsuit has been filed against K12, Inc. Investors who
purchased or otherwise acquired shares between November 7, 2013
and October 27, 2015, are encouraged to contact the Firm prior to
the September 19, 2016 lead plaintiff motion deadline.

If you purchased K12 shares during the Class Period, please
contact Joon M. Khang, Esquire, of Khang & Khang, 18101 Von Karman
Avenue, 3rd Floor, Irvine, CA 92612, by telephone: (949) 419-3834,
or by e-mail at joon@khanglaw.com.

There has been no class certification in this case. Until
certification occurs, you are not represented by an attorney. You
may choose to take no action and remain a passive class member.

The complaint alleges that during the Class Period, K12 issued
false and misleading statements and/or failed to disclose: that
the Company published misleading advertisements about students'
academic progress, parent satisfaction, graduates' eligibility for
admission into the University of California and California State
University, class sizes, the individualized and flexible nature of
K12's instruction, hidden costs, and the quality of the materials
provided to students; that the Company submitted inflated student
attendance numbers to the California Department of Education in
order to receive additional funding; that K12 was open to
potential civil and criminal liability due to these practices;
that K12 would likely be forced to end these practices, which
would have a negative impact on its operations and prospects; and
as a result, the Company's public statements were materially false
and misleading at all relevant times. When the true details
emerged, shares of K12 fell in value, which caused investors harm.

If you wish to learn more about this lawsuit, or if you have any
questions concerning this notice or your rights, please contact
Joon M. Khang, a prominent litigator for almost two decades, by
telephone: (949) 419-3834, or by e-mail at joon@khanglaw.com.


K12 INC: "Tuinenburg" Sues Over Share Price Drop
------------------------------------------------
Gil Tuinenburg, Individually and On Behalf of All Others Similarly
Situated, Plaintiff, v. K12 Inc., Ronald J. Packard, Nathaniel A.
Davis and James J. Rhyu, Defendants, Case No. 3:16-cv-05305, (N.D.
Cal., September 15, 2016), seeks to pursue remedies under the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934.

K12 is a technology-based education company that purportedly
provides educational products and solutions to public school
districts, public schools, virtual charter schools, private
schools and families. Defendants failed to disclose that they were
publishing misleading advertisements about students' academic
progress, parent satisfaction, their graduates' eligibility for
University of California and California State University admission
and class sizes. K12 share prices fell substantially.

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Avi Wagner, Esq.
      THE WAGNER FIRM
      1925 Century Park East, Suite 2100
      Los Angeles, CA 90067
      Telephone: (310) 491-7949
      Facsimile: (310) 694-3967
      Email: avi@thewagnerfirm.com

             - and -

      Todd H. Henderson, Esq.
      BRAGAR EAGEL & SQUIRE P.C.
      885 Third Avenue, Suite 3040
      New York, NY 10022
      Telephone: (212) 308-5858
      Facsimile: (212) 486-0462
      Email: henderson@bespc.com


L.A. RAMS: Judge Says Personal Seat Licenses Valid
--------------------------------------------------
Joe Harris, writing for Courthouse News Service, reported that
the Los Angeles Rams must grant season tickets to some fans who
bought personal seat licenses while the team was in St. Louis, a
federal judge ruled on September 21.

U.S. District Judge Stephen Limbaugh Jr. found that the personal
seat licenses are valid even though the NFL team moved to Los
Angeles. The Rams must also refund deposits for others who bought
the licenses.

The ruling covers three class actions filed shortly after the
Rams' move was approved in January. Those cases were consolidated
into one.

Envision LLC and Richard Arnold argued that their seat licenses
were still valid despite the team's move and that they had the
right to buy season tickets in Los Angeles. The Rams claimed the
licenses were terminated by the move.

The other plaintiff, Ronald McAllister, claimed the Rams
terminated their contracts with the move and therefore owed the
license-holders refunds on their deposits.

The Rams were not available for comment late on September 21.

More than 46,000 fans bought the licenses when the Rams moved to
St. Louis from Los Angeles 21 years ago. The licenses grant owners
the right to buy season tickets.

Limbaugh found that two different contracts were issued -- some
directly by the Rams and others from the team's ticketing agent,
FANS Inc.

Limbaugh found that fans who bought seat licenses directly from
the Rams were entitled to buy season tickets even with the move to
Los Angeles, because those agreements never stated that the
agreement was terminated due to relocation.

However, people who bought licenses from FANS Inc. were not
entitled to season tickets, because the FANS contract states that
it is terminated in the event of a Rams relocation.

Limbaugh noted that the FANS contract states that the Rams can
terminate the contract for any reason and refund "part or all" of
the license-holder's deposit. Deposit is not defined in the
contract. Limbaugh said he would determine the amount of a deposit
later.

The consolidated cases are: McAllister v. The St. Louis Rams, No.
4:16-CV-172 SNLJ (E.D. Mo.); Envision, LLC, et al. v. The St.
Louis Rams, LLC, No. 4:16-CV-00262-CDP (E.D. Mo.); Arnold, et al.
v. The St. Louis Rams, LLC, No. 4:16-cv-00297-SNLJ (E.D. Mo.).


LAKELAND TOURS: Accused by "Lucia" Suit of Not Paying Overtime
--------------------------------------------------------------
MELISSA LUCIA, an individual, on behalf of herself and all other
similarly situated individuals v. LAKELAND TOURS LLC, a Delaware
limited liability company doing business as WORLDSTRIDES; and DOES
1 through 50, inclusive, Case No. 30-2016-00875289-CU-OE-CXC (Cal.
Super. Ct., Orange Cty., September 15, 2016), accuses the
Defendants of failing to pay overtime and minimum wages, and to
provide meal and rest periods.

Lakeland Tours LLC, doing business as Worldstrides, is a Delaware
limited liability company, doing business in Newport Beach, County
of Orange, California.  The true names and capacities of the Doe
Defendants are unknown to the Plaintiff.  The Defendants offer
middle school and high school students educational travel programs
to Washington D.C., New York, and other historic East Coast
destinations, as well as science programs to Central Florida, the
Florida Keys, and the Everglades.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Levik Yarian, Esq.
          N.P. Seitz, Esq.
          LAW OFFICE OF LEVIK YARIAN, APLC
          700 N. Central Ave., Suite 470
          Glendale, CA 91203
          Telephone: (818) 459-4999
          Facsimile: (818) 484-2345
          E-mail: levik@yarianlaw.com
                  nick@yarianlaw.com


LENOVO CORP: Says Did Not Know Malware on Computers
---------------------------------------------------
Matthew Renda, writing for Courthouse News Service, reported that
computer manufacturer Lenovo insisted it did not know malware was
installed on computers it sold to consumers, and that no one was
harmed by the presence of the malicious software during a hearing
in San Jose, Calif. federal court on September 23.

Daniel Stephenson, attorney for Lenovo, asked U.S. District Court
Judge Ronald Whyte to refrain from certifying a class in the case,
arguing none of the four people who bought Lenovo computers
infected with faulty software was harmed and therefore lack
sufficient reason to sue.

"What we have here, your honor, are witnesses who are talking
about a theoretical vulnerability that was never exploited,"
Stephenson said. "This is a big class action with a lot of damages
for people who were not injured."

The plaintiffs, represented by attorney Andrew Mura, rebutted the
argument by saying they were injured at the point of sale -- by
purchasing defective equipment with preinstalled malware they
didn't know about, which reduced the value of their laptops.

"The plaintiffs testified that it was important for them to know
whether the computers were installed with malware," Mura said.

Their second rebuttal focused on what they construe as an actual
injury, namely the malware called Superfish, which allows Lenovo
to see interactions between the user and a website like Amazon in
order to target ads.

"They wanted this information so they could demonstrate ads to
clients and to make profit," Mura said. "It's a money-making
scheme."

Stephenson argued that Lenovo was unaware the software had these
capabilities at the time it went to market and that as soon as it
became aware, Lenovo addressed the issue by removing the offending
software.

Furthermore, despite Superfish using search data and browsing
history to target ads, no private information such as emails,
credit cards or dates of birth were disclosed by the software.

"If information is collected that cannot be attached to a
particular person, is that a privacy violation?" Stephenson asked
the judge.

Whyte, whose courtroom demeanor is taciturn compared to other
judges in the Northern District, did not indicate whether he was
willing to certify a class.

But in other cases, including a recently dismissed case against
Facebook and another against Google, judges refuse class
certification due to a number of factors that complicate the
commonality question.

In this case, however, all of the plaintiffs are working with the
same computer -- a point absent in the privacy cases against
Facebook and Google.

Mura further said a class action is necessary because trying the
cases individually is burdensome, particularly when accounting for
the expense of hiring experts to parse the technical information
associated with the claims.

Whyte took the matter under submission and is expected to issue a
decision in the coming months.


LEONIDAS LLC: Brown Appeals Ruling in US Airline Pilots Suit
------------------------------------------------------------
Federick M. Brown, Jr., and Jose J. Gonzalez filed an appeal from
a court ruling in the lawsuit styled US AIRLINE PILOTS
ASSOCIATION, Plaintiff, v. ROGER VELEZ, on behalf of himself and
all similarly situated former America West Pilots, and LEONIDAS,
LLC, Defendants, No. 3:14-cv-00577-RJC-DCK, in the United States
District Court for the Western District of North Carolina at
Charlotte.

The appellate case is captioned as US Airline Pilots Association
v. Frederick Brown, Jr., Case No. 16-2060, in the United States
Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit.

As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter on Sept. 26,
2016, Judge Robert J. Conrad, Jr., granted the joint motion for
final approval of class action settlement agreement and release in
the Case.  A full-text copy of Judge Conrad's September 7, 2016
order is available for free at https://is.gd/MbjwkY from
Leagle.com.

The Appellants each filed a set of five identical objections to
the Joint Motion.  They argued that the representatives and class
counsel for the East Pilot Settlement Class are inadequate
representatives of the class, and that the class notice was
inadequate because it did not disclose necessary information.
Judge Conrad, however, found that the notice appears to be
sufficient.

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

Plaintiff-Appellee US AIRLINE PILOTS ASSOCIATION is represented
by:

          John West Gresham, Esq.
          TIN, FULTON, WALKER & OWEN, PLLC
          301 East Park Avenue
          Charlotte, NC 28203
          Telephone: (704) 338-1220
          E-mail: jgresham@tinfulton.com

               - and -

          Zachary Richard Harkin, Esq.
          Joy Kim Mele, Esq.
          Brian O'Dwyer, Esq.
          Gary Silverman, Esq.
          O'DWYER & BERNSTEIN LLP
          52 Duane Street
          New York, NY 10007-0000
          Telephone: (212) 571-7100
          E-mail: zharkin@odblaw.com
                  jmele@odblaw.com
                  bodwyer@odblaw.com
                  gsilverman@odblaw.com

Defendants ROGER VELEZ, on behalf of himself and all similarly
situated former America West Pilots, and LEONIDAS, LLC, are
represented by:

          Kelly J. Flood, Esq.
          Marty Harper, Esq.
          SHUGHART THOMPSON & KILROY, PC
          3636 North Central Avenue
          Phoenix, AZ 85012
          Telephone: (602) 650-2043
          Facsimile: (602) 264-7033

               - and -

          C. Grainger Pierce, Jr., Esq.
          NEXSEN PRUET, PLLC
          227 West Trade Street
          Charlotte, NC 28202
          Telephone: (704) 338-5321
          Facsimile: (704) 805-4712
          E-mail: gpierce@nexsenpruet.com


LIFEVANTAGE CORP: "Zhang" Sues Over Share Price Drop
----------------------------------------------------
Jun Zhang, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. Lifevantage Corporation, Darren Jay Jensen
and Mark R. Jaggi, Defendants, Case No. 2:16-cv-00965, (D. Utah.,
September 15, 2016), seeks to pursue remedies under the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934.

LifeVantage identifies, researches, develops, and distributes
nutraceutical dietary supplements and skin care products.
Defendants failed to disclose that LifeVantage lacked effective
internal financial controls. As a result, the Company had
improperly accounted for sales in certain international markets,
along with associated revenue and income tax accruals.

Zhang owns shares of stock of LifeVantage.

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Zane L Christensen, Esq.
      Steven A. Christensen, Esq.
      CHRISTENSEN YOUNG & ASSOCIATES, PLLC
      9980 South 300 West, Ste 200
      Sandy, UT 84070
      Tel: 801-676-6447
      Fax: 888-569-2786
      Email: zane@christensenyounglaw.com
             steven@christensenyounglaw.com


LINCOLN CREDIT: Faces "Zhou" Suit Over Consumer Debts in Calif.
---------------------------------------------------------------
JIE ZHOU, an individual and also known as Jacky Zhou; CECILIA
CHONG, an individual and also known as Chew F. Chong and Chew F.
Wong; and LAN LI, an individual v. LINCOLN CREDIT CENTER, INC, a
California corporation; RUSSEL TANG, an individual; KEN DUONG, an
individual; and DOES 1-50, inclusive, Case No. BC634052 (Cal.
Super. Ct., Los Angeles Cty., September 15, 2016), is brought on
behalf of all persons within California, who retained the debt
settlement services of Lincoln Credit from 2012 and up until the
date of entry of judgment after trial, in order to negotiate and
settle their unsecured consumer debts with the persons' unsecured
creditors.

Lincoln Credit Center, Inc., is a California corporation with its
principal place of business located in San Diego, California.
Lincoln Credit operates from multiple locations in the state of
California, and one of them is in San Gabriel, California, where
the Plaintiffs entered into agreements with Lincoln Credit.

Russel Tang and Ken Duong are residents of the state of
California.  Ken Duong is the titular owner of Lincoln Credit, but
is an associate of and a mere front-man for Defendant Tang, who in
fact owns, controls and operates Lincoln Credit, according to the
complaint.  The Plaintiffs are ignorant of the true names and
capacities of the Doe Defendants.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Sam X. J. Wu, Esq.
          Alexei Brenot, Esq.
          William G. Barrett, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF SAM X.J. WU, APC
          8600 Utica Ave, Building 100
          Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91730
          Telephone: (626) 588-2388
          Facsimile: (626) 656-8088
          E-mail: samwulaw@yahoo.com


LUCERO CONSTRUCTION: "Merlos" Suit Seeks Overtime Pay
-----------------------------------------------------
Ismael Merlos, individually and all other similarly situated
persons, known and unknown, Plaintiff, v. Lucero Construction 1,
Inc. and Luis Lucero, Individually, Defendants, Case No. 1:16-cv-
08965, (N.D. Ill., September 15, 2016), seeks overtime wages,
unpaid wages for three years, statutory damages, reasonable
attorneys' fees and costs and such other and further relief under
the Fair Labor Standards Act and the Illinois Minimum Wage Law.

Plaintiff worked for Defendants performing remodeling projects. He
claims to have been denied overtime pay.

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Susan J. Best, Esq.
      CONSUMER LAW GROUP, LLC
      6232 N. Pulaski, Suite 200
      Chicago, IL 60646
      Tel: 312-878-1263
      Email: sbest@yourclg.com


MANPOWER INC: Accord in Wage & Hour Suit Fails to Win Court OK
--------------------------------------------------------------
District Judge Lucy H. Koh of the United States District Court for
the Northern District of California denied Plaintiffs' motion for
preliminary approval of the class action settlement in the case
captioned, JUVENTINA MATA, et al., Plaintiffs, v. MANPOWER
INC./CALIFORNIA PENINSULA, et al., Defendants, Case No. 14-CV-
03787-LHK (N.D. Cal.).

In her Order dated September 8, 2016 available at
https://is.gd/GQpFB0 from Leagle.com, Judge Koh held that there
are obvious deficiencies with Plaintiffs' motion. These
deficiencies include: (a) the failure of the Settlement Agreement
and proposed Notice to notify Class Members about related cases
and released claims, (b) tension over the Class definition and
released claims, (c) issues regarding the objection procedure, and
(d) other issues.

Plaintiffs brought a putative wage and hour class action lawsuit
against a Manpower entity.  Plaintiff Claudia Padilla (Padilla)
was employed by Manpower CP from December 2011 to March 2014.
Plaintiff Lesli Guido (Guido) was employed by Manpower CP from
March 2011 to October 2011. A third Plaintiff, Juventina Mata, was
dismissed from the action after the parties discovered that "there
was no record of Ms. Mata ever having worked for any of the
Defendants."

As part of their employment, Plaintiffs allege that Defendants
required Plaintiffs to attend an orientation as well as trainings
related to Defendants' timekeeping and other internal processes.
Plaintiffs further aver that they were required to attend client-
specific orientations and meetings, which included post-
termination meetings. Plaintiffs assert that Defendants did not
pay Plaintiffs for engaging in these activities, did not reimburse
Plaintiffs for expenses incurred related to these activities, and
did not provide accurate wage statements to reflect Plaintiffs'
participation in these activities.

The Guido-Padilla parties seek conditional certification of as
class of "All current and former non-exempt, hourly associates who
worked for Defendant Manpower, Inc./California Peninsula from
April 12, 2009 through Preliminary Approval and all current and
former non-exempt, hourly associates who worked for Defendants
Manpower Inc., ManpowerGroup Inc., and ManpowerGroup US Inc. from
February 13, 2009 through Preliminary Approval. Notwithstanding
the foregoing, any person who performed work and/or suffered
violations of any law occurring while such person was in the
employ of either Manpower US Inc. and/or any Manpower franchise is
not a Class Member."

On March 4, 2016, Plaintiffs moved for class certification.  The
motion was set for hearing on May 19, 2016, at 1:30 p.m.  On May
16, 2016, the parties filed a stipulation which stated that they
had "reached a settlement in principle that would resolve the
case."

Plaintiffs subsequently filed the motion for preliminary approval
of class action settlement on June 9, 2016. This motion included
copies of the proposed Notice and Settlement Agreement. The motion
for class certification was denied as moot, and the class
certification hearing was vacated.

After reviewing the motion for preliminary approval, the Court
issued an order on September 1, 2016 which asked the parties to
address questions about the Settlement Agreement, proposed Notice,
and objection procedure. The parties filed a response to the
Court's order on September 6, 2016.

Judge Koh noted that the Guido-Padilla case is not the only
putative, wage and hour class action that has been filed against a
Manpower entity. There are at least nine other cases in federal
and state courts in California alone. Many of these cases involve
the same defendants, the same or substantially similar claims, and
overlapping class periods.  Those nine cases are Ramirez I,
Ramirez II, Willner I, Willner II, Stimpson, Sanchez, Rico,
Zemudio, or Martinez.

The Court observed that none of the nine cases are discussed in
any detail in the Settlement Agreement or proposed Notice of the
Guido-Padilla case.  According to Judge Koh, the failure of the
proposed Notice to mention the foregoing cases is magnified by the
scope of the Release specifically in Paragraph 39 of the
Settlement Agreement holding that  the Release applies to "any and
all related claims," which includes violations of numerous
sections of the California Labor Code, all Industrial Welfare
Commission Wage Orders, California Business and Professions Code
Sec. 17200, and any other related claim that is "known or unknown,
contingent or accrued, statutory or common law."

The Settlement Agreement includes a Release that provides that
"Plaintiffs and Class Members fully release and discharge
Defendants and any parent, subsidiary, affiliate, predecessor or
successor, and all agents, employees, officers, directors,
insurers, and attorneys therefor from any and all claims, debts,
liabilities, demands, obligations, guarantees, costs, expenses,
attorney fees, penalties, damages, action or causes of action
contingent or accrued for, or which relate to or arise out of the
allegations and claims asserted in the operative complaint in the
Action and any and all related claims."

Judge Koh noted that the Preliminary Approval Hearing that there
appears to be some tension between the Class definition and the
Release, which could create confusion for Class Members.

The parties also have filed a proposed objection form. This
objection form directs Class Members to either (1) mail their
objections to the Settlement Administrator, or (2) file their
objections to any district court in the Northern District of
California in person.

According to Judge Koh, there are several issues with this
procedure. First, this procedure does not conform to the procedure
set forth in the Settlement Agreement, which only requires the
mailing of objections to the Settlement Administrator and does not
provide any other method for lodging objections.  Second, the
procedure could result in confusion: it sets forth two different
avenues to object (mail or file) to two different institutions
(the Settlement Administrator and the U.S. District Court). Third,
some Class Members may not know how to file a document with the
Court, as the procedures for doing so can be complex.

Judge Koh said the parties must modify the proposed Notice to
conform to the Settlement Agreement, which requires only the
mailing of objections to the Settlement Administrator.

The Court also raised other issues at the Preliminary Approval
Hearing.  For instance, in the parties' amended motion for
preliminary approval, the parties will provide legal authority on
how the proposed class satisfies Federal Rule of Civil Procedure
23(b)(3). Specifically, Rule 23(b)(3) requires a court to find
that "questions of law or fact common to class members predominate
over any questions affecting only individual members" before
certifying a monetary damages class. Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(b)(3). In
addition, the parties have indicated that they will change the cy
pres recipient, from the Interdisciplinary Center for Healthy
Workplaces to the California Department of Industrial Relations.
The parties are directed to make conforming changes to the amended
Settlement Agreement and proposed Notice.

The Court directed the parties to make conforming changes to the
amended Settlement Agreement and proposed Notice and submit
amended Settlement Agreement and proposed Notice, by October 6,
2016.


METHOD PRODUCTS: "Richman" Sues Over Product Mislabelling
---------------------------------------------------------
Daniel Richman and Ashley Peluchette, individually and on behalf
of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. Method Products,
PBC, a Delaware public benefit corporation, and People Against
Dirty, PBC, a Delaware public benefit corporation, and Does 1
through 10, inclusive, Defendants, Case No.3:16-cv-05167 (N.D.
Cal., September 7, 2016), seeks to enjoin Defendants from making
any "natural" and/or "naturally-derived" claims, seeks full
restitution of all monies wrongfully obtained, disgorgement of all
ill-gotten gains, actual damages, attorneys' fees and such other
and further relief under the Consumer Legal Remedies Act, False
Advertising Law, Fraudulent Prong of Unfair Competition Law,
Unfair Prong of Unfair Competition Law, and Florida's Deceptive
and Unfair Trade Practices Act.

Method Products is a public benefit corporation incorporated under
the laws of the State of Delaware, with its principal place of
business located at 637 Commercial Street, Suite 300, San
Francisco, California 94111. It manufactures, distributes,
markets, advertises and sells "Method Products" throughout the
nation. It claims to be "Natural" and/or "Naturally Derived"
despite containing unnatural ingredients that are artificial,
synthetic, and/or highly processed.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Benjamin M. Lopatin, Esq.
      EGGNATZ, LOPATIN & PASCUCCI, LLP
      2201 Market St., Suite H
      San Francisco, CA 94114
      Tel: (415) 324-8620
      Fax: (415) 520-2262
      Email: blopatin@ELPlawyers.com


MICROSOFT CORP: Supreme Court to Hear X-Box Case This Fall
----------------------------------------------------------
Princess G. Manasseh, writing for University of Miami, reports
that a case before the U.S. Supreme Court could impact how
companies decide which products to sell and whether product
liability is financially worth the risk. This fall the high court
will be considering Microsoft v. Baker to decide if a technical
shortcut in the law that makes it easier to bring class action
lawsuits against big companies is a legitimate loophole.

It is called voluntary dismissal of a claim with prejudice. By
doing this, the plaintiff in a lawsuit can force an appeals court
to reconsider a case. That is what lawyers in the state of
Washington successfully did in 2011 and it has become the source
of great controversy ever since -- controversy that will be
settled by the Supreme Court this fall.

Sergio Campos, professor of law in the University of Miami School
of Law, explored this issue with faculty and students September 14
at the first "Cert Talk," a new legal series launched at Miami Law
examining cases granted a writ of certiorari, or cases going
before the Supreme Court.

Known to some as "the Xbox case," Microsoft v. Baker began in 2007
(then Baker v. Microsoft) as five separate lawsuits against
Microsoft for damaged game discs allegedly caused by their
consoles. Nine years later, the case has grown much larger. A
major question the country's highest court will be settling is if
a party can even bring a claim in a class action suit in the
absence of a recognized class of individuals harmed. This is known
legally as "standing." At first blush the right to bring a class
action claim forward without a class may seem like an obvious
"no," but the question goes a lot deeper.

"Cert Talks are an opportunity for faculty members to stay abreast
of some of the most newsworthy cases granted certiorari by the
Supreme Court," explained Osamudia James, vice dean and professor
of law at University of Miami School of Law.

A Cert Talk is delivered by law school faculty whose area of
expertise is at the crux of the case before the Supreme Court. In
the case of Microsoft v. Baker, Campos, whose expertise lies in
civil procedure and class actions, co-wrote an amicus brief for
the respondent in the case.

"The outcome will likely go one of three ways," said Campos.

In its decision, the court could take a strict property view and
find that there is no standing, a view closely associated with the
late Justice Antonin Scalia. Campos considers this an unlikely
outcome for the court to take, largely because of Scalia's absence
from the bench.

A second possibility is that the court will find there is standing
based on prior precedent from two 1980 Supreme Court cases --
Closest Guaranty National Bank v. Roper and United States Parole
Commission v. Geraghty. Campos told the lunchtime crowd of law
faculty and students that this is the most likely outcome.

The most exciting outcome in Campos' view, however, would be one
where the court looks at the standing issue not through the view
of precedent or property, but instead in terms of the function of
the class action.

"In small claims, class actions are often necessary because no
class member has a stake sufficient enough to bring an individual
lawsuit," said Campos.

This can be easily understood by considering that Baker's original
claim for the damaged disc was around $30 and the Federal Court
filing fee is $400. These lawsuits are possible, then, by
empowering one individual class member to be the representative
and forcing the sharing of common costs.

In considering this, the court could go back to a traditional view
of the standing doctrine -- that standing is a requirement to
ensure there is adequate representation of all the interests that
are implicated by the litigation. Campos believes that if the
court really takes seriously what the class action does, it could
allow appeals by this procedure because it serves to incentivize
people to develop arguments and facts in litigation. It also
ensures that the absent class members will be adequately
represented.

As technical as this issue is, the ramifications of the decision
for the broader public could be dramatic.

"How the court decides this issue will have an enormous impact,"
said Campos, such as "whether more or less defective products get
made and whether certain products get introduced to the market at
all."


MISONIX INC: Levi & Korsinsky Files Securities Class Suit
---------------------------------------------------------
The following statement is being issued by Levi & Korsinsky, LLP:

To: All persons or entities who purchased or otherwise acquired
securities of Misonix, Inc. (NASDAQ:MSON) between November 5, 2015
and September 14, 2016. You are hereby notified that a securities
class action lawsuit has been commenced in the USDC for the
Eastern District of New York. To get more information go to:

http://www.zlk.com/pslra/misonix-inc

or contact Joseph E. Levi, Esq. either via email at jlevi@zlk.com
or by telephone at (212) 363-7500, toll-free: (877) 363-5972.
There is no cost or obligation to you.

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

On September 14, 2016, Misonix revealed that the company would
delay the filing of its Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year
ending June 30, 2016 due to "deficiencies [that] existed in the
Company's internal control over financial reporting at June 30,
2016." Misonix further announced that the company's Audit
Committee was conducting an investigation related to the
deficiencies. On this news, Misonix stock fell over 18%, to close
at $5.00 per share on September 15, 2016.

If you suffered a loss in Misonix you have until November 18, 2016
to request that the Court appoint you as lead plaintiff. Your
ability to share in any recovery doesn't require that you serve as
a lead plaintiff.

Levi & Korsinsky is a national firm with offices in New York, New
Jersey, California, Connecticut, and Washington D.C. The firm's
attorneys have extensive expertise and experience representing
investors in securities litigation, and have recovered hundreds of
millions of dollars for aggrieved shareholders. Attorney
advertising. Prior results do not guarantee similar outcomes.


MONSTER WORLDWIDE: Sued in Del. Over Proposed Randstad Merger
-------------------------------------------------------------
Paul Gordon, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. Edmund P. Giambastiani, Jr., Timothy T. Yates, Jeffrey
F. Rayport, Gillian Munson, Roberto Tunioli, John R. Gaulding,
James P. McCeigh, Randstad North America, Inc., and Merlin Global
Acquisition, Inc., Case No. 12746 (Del. Ch. Ct., September 14,
2016), is brought on behalf of all public stockholders of Monster
Worldwide Inc., to enjoin the proposed acquisition announced on
August 9, 2016, pursuant to which Randstad North America, Inc.
will acquire the outstanding shares of Monster in a deal valued at
approximately $429 million, with each Monster stockholder
receiving $3.40 per share in cash upon consummation of the merger.

Monster Worldwide Inc. is a global online employment solutions
company incorporated in Delaware with its principal offices
located in New York, New York.

Randstad North America, Inc. provides temporary, temporary-to-hire
and permanent placement services each week to over 100,000 people
through its network of more than 900 branches and client-dedicated
locations.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      James Banko, Esq.
      Derrick B. Farrell, Esq.
      Michael Van Gorder, Esq.
      FARUQI & FARUQI, LLP
      20 Montchanin Road, Suite 145
      Wilmington, DE 19807
      Telephone: (302) 482-3182
      Facsimile: (302) 482-3612
      E-mail: jbanko@faruqilaw.com
              dfarrell@faruqilaw.com
              mvangorder@faruqilaw.com


MOSAIC NEW WALES: Faces Class Action Over Wasterwater Spill
-----------------------------------------------------------
Alex Pickett, writing for Courthouse News Service, reported that
residents living near fertilizer giant Mosaic's New Wales, Florida
phosphate processing plant claim in a federal class action that a
"toxic radioactive wastewater" spill from the facility earlier
this month has contaminated their water.

Mosaic announced the spill on September 11 -- two weeks after
company officials noticed a sinkhole opened up under a pool of
acidic wastewater called a gypsum stack. This water -- a cocktail
of chemicals and minerals with low levels of radiation -- is
created during Mosaic's processing of phosphate into fertilizer.

The sinkhole, 45-feet-wide and of a still unknown depth, swallowed
an estimated 215 million gallons of the wastewater. The company
confirmed the wastewater reached the Florida aquifer, the state's
main source of drinking water.

About 5,000 residents live within five miles of the processing
plant -- the largest in the world -- and a majority of households
use private wells.

According to the Florida Department of Environmental Protection,
Mosaic hired a third-party to perform tests on wells in the area.

So far, tests on 52 wells near Mosaic's processing plant have not
found any contaminants, according to Mosaic and Florida's DEP.

"We immediately took steps to remove as much water from the
leaking process pond as possible, and are now operating a recovery
well to remove the rest of the water from the aquifer," said Walt
Precourt, Mosaic's Senior Vice President of Phosphates, in a
statement. "Based on extensive monitoring data, no water from the
stack has migrated off our property."

"Our Mosaic team continues to work around the clock to review the
situation, and our response to it," he continued. "We continue to
analyze the situation, and our response to it, and we realize we
could have done a better job in providing timely information to
our neighbors and the broader community."

But attorney Frank Petosa of the Morgan & Morgan Complex
Litigation Group, which is representing the class, said residents
are unsure if the testing results are reliable.

"There needs to be frequent monitoring and testing of wells in the
surrounding community," he said. "Taking one test, one time is not
sufficient."

The Florida DEP is not yet commenting on possible fines related to
the sinkhole spill.

"While there continues to be no evidence of offsite movement or
threat to offsite groundwater supplies, DEP will continue to
ensure Mosaic's efforts properly resolve this issue," said DEP
Secretary Jon Steverson in a statement. "Once the issues
surrounding this sinkhole are resolved, DEP will finalize its
ongoing investigation to determine any necessary accountability
measures to ensure this doesn't happen again."

Mosaic has a history of environmental problems near its mines and
processing plants.

Last year, the company reached a nearly $2 billion settlement with
the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency for alleged violations of
the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act for improper storage of
billons of gallons of hazardous waste. The settlement is the
largest of its kind.

This sinkhole is also not the first to open up at the New Wales
processing plant. In 1994, a 120-foot-wide sinkhole spilled
contaminated water into the Florida aquifer. More recently, in
2009, a sinkhole at a processing plant in north Florida spilled
several million gallons of wastewater.

"They would not be considered a good neighbor to the residents
around the plant," Petosa said.

Earlier this year, Mosaic announced plans to expand mining
operations in three Florida counties.

"Enough is enough," said Jaclyn Lopez, Florida director of the
Center for Biological Diversity. "Florida must finally take a
stand against this destructive, radioactive phosphate mining that
is putting our health and environment at risk."

Even Democratic presidential nominee Hillary Clinton commented on
the incident while campaigning in the state this week.

"For goodness sake, people are entitled to clean water," Clinton
told a local TV station, before releasing a transcript of her
comments to the public. "People are entitled to know what is in
their water and companies that profit off of common resources need
to be held liable when something goes wrong. So I have a very
clear view about this: polluters should pay to clean up the messes
that they have created."

The class wants Mosaic to pay for independent water testing within
a five-mile radius of the sinkhole and any property damage related
to the spill. They are also seeking unspecified damages.


MURRAY DARLING: Murray River Stakeholders Mull Class Suit vs Firm
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Tahlia McPherson, writing for The Courier, reports that the Corowa
Caravan Park succumbed to water late on September 19, but its
owners have vowed to "come back".

"We did our best, but the Murray River beat us this time," manager
Julie Bartlett said.

Park owners Sheryl and Don Ayres watched, alongside 85 annual site
holders, as the water rose to cause an estimated $100,000 in
damages. It had been a physical, mental and emotional struggle for
three weeks against the flood.

About 60 volunteers, 2000 sandbags and seven water pumps weren't
enough to fend off the mighty Murray.

"There were certainly a lot of tears around the table last night -
- we will come back, but it will take a lot of hard work and it
will be expensive," Mrs. Bartlett said.

The park was one of three in Corowa at risk of flooding and will
remain closed indefinitely. Mrs. Bartlett said it was
"unbelievable" how quickly the water came in.

"There are probably still 40 or so vans down there and about 90
per cent of the park is affected," she said.

The site was given evacuation orders at 2pm September 15 and told
to be out of the park by 6pm September 16.

Water was predicted to reach 6.7 metres on September 17, but
didn't hit the mark.

"In the end, the water didn't rise until September 19, which is a
pity because people could have come up on the weekend to get their
vans," Mrs Bartlett said.

"We've had one of wettest winters I can remember, eight weeks ago,
the Murray at Corowa was really low, they just stored and stored
until they had no choice."

A further 40 millimetres of rain has been predicted for
September 21.

Miscommunication, rapid water rises and water mismanagement were
talking points around Corowa on September 20.

Several caravan owners, business people and residents spoke of
class action.

Murray River Action Group chairman Richard Sargood said water
operators from Canberra had committed to a post-flood meeting in
the region.

"We will be asking them to justify why there were minimum
600megalitres/day releases on one day, then seven days later they
were releasing 45,000," he said.

"It hasn't happened for 20 years and the management hasn't gotten
any better.

"I have heard class action mentioned, there's a number of people
suggesting a similar thing . . . with significant rain predicted.

"It makes you wonder why they dropped releases (on September 19
and September 20)."


MYLAN PHARMACEUTICALS: Ohio Woman Sue Over EpiPen Price Hike
------------------------------------------------------------
Brendan Pierson, writing for Reuters, reports that an Ohio woman
on Sept. 6 filed a proposed class action lawsuit against Mylan
Pharmaceuticals Inc in an Ohio county court, claiming sharp price
hikes for the company's EpiPen device violated the state's
consumer protection law.

Mylan has raised the U.S. price of the EpiPen, which is used to
treat life-threatening allergies, from less than $100 when it
acquired the product in 2007 to more than $600, drawing criticism
from parents, consumer groups and U.S. politicians.

New York's attorney general said on Sept. 6 he is investigating
whether Mylan violated antitrust laws in its contracts to provide
EpiPens to some school systems.


NANTKWEST INC: "Hare" Securities Suit Removed to Cal. Dist. Court
-----------------------------------------------------------------
MICHAEL HARE and NORMAN JACOBS, on behalf of themselves and all
others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, vs. NANTKWEST, INC.,
PATRICK SOONSHIONG, BARRY J. SIMON, RICHARD GOMBERG, STEVE GORLIN,
MICHAEL D. BLASZYK, HENRY JI, RICHARD KUSSEROW, JOHN T. POTTS,
JR., ROBERT ROSEN, JOHN C. THOMAS, JR., CAMBRIDGE EQUITIES L.P.,
MP 13 VENTURES LLC, MERRILL LYNCH PIERCE FENNER & SMITH
INCORPORATED, CITIGROUP GLOBAL MARKETS INC., JEFFERIES LLC, PIPER
JAFFRAY & CO., MLV & CO. LLC, DOES 1 through 25, Inclusive,
Defendants, Case 2:16-cv-06697, was removed from the Superior
Court of California, County of Los Angeles, to the United States
District Court for the Central District of California.

NANTKWEST, INC. -- http://nantkwest.com/-- is a clinical-stage
immunotherapy company.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

     Patrice L. Bishop, Esq.
     STULL STULL AND BRODY
     9430 W. Olympic Boulevard, Suite 400
     Beverly Hills, CA 90212
     Phone: (212) 687-7230
     Fax: (212) 490-2022

        - and -

     Shimon Yiftach, Esq.
     BRONSTEIN GEWIRTZ AND GROSSMAN LLC
     60 East 42nd Street, Suite 4600
     New York, NY 10165
     Email: info@bgandg.com
     Phone:  212-697-6484
     Fax:  212-697-7296

     BRONSTEIN, GEWIRTZ & GROSSMAN
     144 North Beverwyck Road Lake, Suite 187
     Hiawatha, NJ 07034
     Phone: 973-335-6409
     Fax:  973-335-3717
     Email: info@bgandg.com
     shimon@bgandg.com

The Defendants are represented by:

     Jordan Eth, Esq.
     Philip T. Besirof, Esq.
     MORRISON & FOERSTER LLP
     425 Market Street
     San Francisco, CA 94105-2482
     Phone: 415.268.7000
     Fax: 415.268.7522
     E-mail: JEth@mofo.com
             PBesirof@mofo.com


NATERA INC: Seeks 9th Cir. Review of Ruling in "Cahoj" Class Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Defendants Natera, Inc.; Matthew Rabinowitz; Jonathan Sheena; Herm
Rosenman; Roelof F. Botha; Todd Cozzens; Edward C. Driscoll, Jr.;
James I. Healy; and John Steuart filed an appeal from a court
ruling in the lawsuit entitled Mika Cahoj v. Natera, Inc., et al.,
Case No. 3:16-cv-01512-HSG, in the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of California, San Francisco.

As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the Case was
originally filed on March 10, 2016, in the Superior Court of the
State of California for the County of San Mateo, Case No.
CIV537717, seeking to recover damages under the Securities Act, in
connection with purchase of stock.  The Plaintiff alleges that the
Registration Statement and Prospectus issued in connection with
the Company's initial public offering contained materially
incorrect or misleading statements and omitted material
information that was required to be disclosed.

The Defendants subsequently removed the Case from the Superior
Court to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of
California on March 28, 2016.  The District Court assigned Case
No. 3:16-cv-01512-HSG to the proceeding.

The appellate case is captioned as MIKA CAHOJ, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff-Appellee v.
NATERA, INC.; MATTHEW RABINOWITZ; JONATHAN SHEENA; HERM ROSENMAN;
ROELOF F. BOTHA; TODD COZZENS; EDWARD C. DRISCOLL, Jr.; JAMES I.
HEALY; JOHN STEUART, Defendants-Appellants, and SEQUOIA CAPITAL
XII, LP; SC XII MANAGEMENT, LLC; LIGHTSPEED VENTURE PARTNERS VIII,
LP; LIGHTSPEED ULTIMATE GENERAL PARTNER VIII LTD; MORGAN STANLEY &
CO. LLC; COWEN AND COMPANY, LLC; PIPER JAFFRAY & CO.; ROBERT W.
BAIRD & CO. INC.; WEDBUSH SECURITIES, INC., Case No. 16-16577, in
the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.

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

   -- Appellant's opening brief and excerpts of record must be
      served and filed on December 16, 2016;

   -- Appellee's answering brief and excerpts of record must be
      served and filed on January 17, 2017; and

   -- The optional appellant's reply brief must be filed and
      served within 14 days of service of the appellee's brief.


NAT'L FOOTBALL: EA Asks Judge to Bar Players' Class Certification
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Maria Dinzeo, writing for Courthouse News Service, reported that
Electronic Arts returned to federal court over its Madden NFL
video game, this time asking a federal judge to bar retired NFL
players from moving forward with a right-of-publicity class
action.

"The plaintiffs are asking what no federal court has ever done,
which is to certify a nationwide right-of-publicity class action,"
EA attorney R. James Slaughter said at a motion to certify hearing
on September 22. "This court shouldn't be the first."

Michael Davis, Vince Ferragamo and Billy Joe Dupree sued EA in
2010 on behalf of 6,000 retired NFL players, objecting to the use
of avatars that closely resembled them in "Madden 2009" -- a game
that allowed players to pit "historical teams" against one
another.

For instance, the game includes a 1979 Los Angeles Rams team, for
which Ferragamo played quarterback. The game depicts the Rams'
quarterback as an avatar with identical characteristics to
Ferragamo -- 26 years old, 6 feet 3 inches tall, and weighing 207
pounds.

U.S. District Judge Richard Seeborg refused to dismiss the case in
2012, and the Ninth Circuit affirmed his ruling last year.

On September 22, lawyers battled over whether Seeborg should
certify a nationwide class based on California's right-of-
publicity laws.

Brian Henri, who represents the athletes, argued as a matter of
course that the class should be certified in the Northern
District, where EA maintains its legal and business affairs
departments and made its player-licensing decisions.

"You say that as if it's a given," Seeborg said, skeptical that a
game that is made and sold nationwide should be subject to one
state's jurisdiction. "If you're selling the game in other parts
of the country, where is the wrong occurring?" he asked.

"The last event that triggered liability would be the place of the
wrong. That would be the publication -- which occurred in
California," Henri said. "Where conduct emanated from California
and the defendant is a California corporation, that is sufficient
to say California laws should apply."

Not so, EA attorney Slaughter said.

"The last event that's occurring is the sale," he argued. "It's
not the intention to violate a right, it's whether that right was
actually violated. It's the actual use, not the intention to make
a use, and the only evidence before the court is that the game was
designed in Florida and manufactured and sold throughout the
United States."

Slaughter also said that the class shouldn't be certified because
its members aren't ascertainable.

"They need to figure out a way to ascertain who is in the class
and they haven't done that," he told Seeborg. "No matter what law
applies, identifiability is a core element of a right-of-publicity
claim and the plaintiffs must prove that each avatar in the game
is readily identifiable as a plaintiff."

Seeborg brought up EA's consumer survey, noting that users didn't
seem to be able to recognize the avatars as certain players.

"If you don't know who Vince Ferragamo is, it doesn't much matter
if you can identify him in a game," he said. "Let's say there's a
class member that nobody cares about and is a poor soul with no
fans. How is that person a class member?"

Henri said it doesn't matter whether avatars are immediately
recognizable to gamers, and that EA's own databases can be used to
accurately identify the players, famous or not.

Besides, he added, "It's very clear they misappropriated the
commercial interest of the class members in their video games."
Seeborg didn't indicate how or when he'd rule on the matter.


NATIONWIDE CREDIT: Illegally Collects Debt, "Weber" Suit Claims
---------------------------------------------------------------
Avrom Weber, on behalf of himself and all other similarly situated
consumers v. Nationwide Credit, Inc., Case No. 1:16-cv-05106
(E.D.N.Y., September 14, 2016), seeks to stop the Defendant's
unfair and unconscionable means to collect a debt.

Nationwide Credit, Inc. operates a debt collection firm in New
York.

Avrom Weber is a pro se plaintiff.


NATIONWIDE MUTUAL: 6th Cir. Revives Data Breach Class Suit
----------------------------------------------------------
Circuit Judge Helene N. White of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the
Sixth Circuit reversed a district court's dismissal of complaints
in the case captioned, MOHAMMAD S. GALARIA (15-3386); ANTHONY
HANCOX (15-3387), individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. NATIONWIDE MUTUAL
INSURANCE COMPANY, Defendant-Appellee, Case Nos. 15-3386, 15-3387
(6th Cir.).  The Sixth Circuit remanded the matter for further
proceedings.

Plaintiffs Mohammad Galaria and Anthony Hancox brought putative
class actions after hackers breached the computer network of
Defendant Nationwide Mutual Insurance Company and stole their
personal information. In their complaints, Plaintiffs allege
claims for invasion of privacy, negligence, bailment, and
violations of the Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA). Plaintiff
Hancox filed a five-count putative class-action complaint against
Nationwide in the United States District Court for the District of
Kansas, and Plaintiff Galaria filed essentially the same complaint
in the United States District Court for the Southern District of
Ohio a month later. The Kansas district court transferred Hancox's
action to the Ohio district court, which designated the dockets as
related.

In Counts I and II of the complaints, Plaintiffs allege that
Nationwide willfully and negligently violated the Fair Credit
Reporting Act (FCRA), Pub. L. No. 91-508, 84 Stat. 1114 (1970)
(codified at 15 U.S.C. Sec. 1681), by failing to adopt required
procedures to protect against wrongful dissemination of
Plaintiffs' data. In Counts III, IV, and V, Plaintiffs allege
claims for negligence, invasion of privacy by public disclosure of
private facts, and bailment, which also arose out of Nationwide's
failure to secure Plaintiffs' data against a breach.

The complaints seek damages for, among other things, the increased
risk of fraud; expenses incurred in mitigating risk, including the
cost of credit freezes, insurance, monitoring, and other
mitigation products; and time spent on mitigation efforts.

Defendants moved to dismiss the action which the district court
granted concluding that Plaintiffs failed to state a claim for
invasion of privacy, lacked Article III standing to bring the
negligence and bailment claims, and lacked statutory standing to
bring the FCRA claims.

Plaintiffs moved for reconsideration and leave to amend, asserting
that the district court erred in dismissing one of their FCRA
claims. Plaintiffs did not seek reconsideration of the other four
dismissed claims, which were omitted from the proposed amended
complaint, but maintained their right to appeal the dismissals.

The district court denied reconsideration and leave to amend,
concluding that Plaintiffs had not demonstrated a clear error of
law, and that the proposed amendment would not cure any
deficiencies in the FCRA claim in any event.

In the consolidated appeal, Plaintiffs challenge the dismissal of
the negligence, bailment, and FCRA claims and the denial of their
motions for reconsideration and leave to amend. Plaintiffs do not
appeal the dismissal of their invasion-of-privacy claim.

Nationwide argues that the dismissal of the negligence and
bailment claims should be affirmed on the basis that Plaintiffs
failed to state claims for relief.

In the Order dated September 12, 2016 available at
https://is.gd/hoJfIZ available at Leagle.com, Judge White
concluded that Plaintiffs have Article III standing and that the
district court erred in dismissing the FCRA claims for lack of
subject-matter jurisdiction.

Circuit Judge Alice M. Batchelder disagreed with the majority's
conclusion, holding that the plaintiffs have not satisfied the
fundamental requirement of federal court jurisdiction. There is no
allegation of fact in either complaint that makes plausible the
notion that Nationwide is at all responsible for the criminal acts
that increased the plaintiffs' risk of identity theft.


NETFLIX INC: Faces Potential Shareholders Class Action
------------------------------------------------------
Todd Longwell, writing for VideoInk, reports that San Diego law
firm Finkelstein & Krinsk LLP announced on Sept. 7, 2016, that it
is investigating a potential class action lawsuit against Netflix
on behalf of current and former shareholders over alleged false
and misleading business information issued by the streaming
service's executive officers.

In an email to VideoInk, Finkelstein & Krinsk LLP CEO Jeffrey R.
Krinsk said that the potential suit would involve Netflix
shareholders who purchased stock in Q3 2014.

Netflix finished the quarter with 37.2M subscribers in the U.S.
and 15.84M internationally, falling below the 37.6M and 16.16M,
respectively, it projected. A day after the numbers were
announced, the value of Netflix shares dropped nearly 20%.

"We intend to reinforce the factual allegations and hope to hear
from potential class members which allows us to detail the conduct
we allege was improper to that person/business," said Krinsk in
his email.

Netflix did not respond to a request for comment.

In recent months, Finkelstein & Krinsk has been involved in class
action suits against brokerage giant Charles Schwab, Volkswagen
and Chobani yogurt.

In 2013, U.S. District Judge Samuel Conti in San Francisco
dismissed a shareholder lawsuit against Netflix alleging that the
company had misled them about pricing trends and the profitability
of its streaming and DVD services as it prepared to spin them off
into two separate businesses. Netflix's share price fell 76%
between July and October 2011, when the announced spinoff was
aborted.


NEW MEXICO: Court Dismissed Inmates' Class Action
-------------------------------------------------
Victoria Prieskop, writing for Courthouse News Service, reported
that a federal judge in Albuquerque, dismissed an inmates' class
action accusing the New Mexico state prison in Farmington of
medical negligence and Americans with Disabilities Act violations.

U.S. District Judge James Browning found the 26 former inmates of
the San Juan County Detention Center failed to state claims that
could be granted under the ADA or New Mexico tort law, including
negligence and intentional infliction of emotional distress. He
also agreed with the county's immunity defense.

The inmates alleged five types of common injury: denial of
necessary prescription medication; denial of access to medical
professionals or outside medical facilities; refusal to transport
them to a hospital or emergency room for life-threatening
conditions; injuries inflicted on them by prison staff; and forced
consumption of unprescribed prescription medication.

Browning's Sept. 20 Opinion and Order disposed of all claims under
the ADA and the New Mexico Tort claims Act. He set an Oct. 3
hearing on remaining motions.

The cases are: OLGA SALAZAR, Personal Representative of the Estate
of JESUS MARQUEZ,  Plaintiff, vs. SAN JUAN COUNTY DETENTION CENTER
("SJCDC"), SAN JUAN COUNTY, SAN JUAN REGIONAL MEDICAL CENTER
("SJRMC"), THOMAS C. HAVEL, INDIVIDUALLY AND AS ADMINISTRATOR OF
SJCDC, DR. ERIC KETCHAM, INDIVIDUALLY, CINDY KETCHAM,
INDIVIDUALLY, KATIE (Unknown Surname), RN,  Defendants, No. CIV
15-0417 JB/LF (D.N.M.), consolidated with

JESSE BURKEE, EARL CALLAHAN, LARIET CHARLES, GORDON DOUGLAS
DERRICK, AARON EATON, CALVIN FINCH, PAUL GOULD, JOSEPH GUTIERREZ,
MARK HINOJOS, THOMAS KNIGHT, AURELIO MARQUEZ, ANGELO MARTINEZ,
MARK MARTINEZ, RUDY MARTINEZ, VICTORIA MARTINEZ, PAUL MATAMOROS,
RICHARD MCDONALD, DEBBIE NEZ, DAVID PAGE, STEVE PARRISH, CLIFFORD
ROGERS, ADAM SCHUESSLER, JASON TRUJILLO, FRANKLIN TSO, STEVE
VALERIO, JIMMY WEAHKEE and HARRY WILLIAMS,  Plaintiffs, vs. SAN
JUAN COUNTY DETENTION CENTER ("SJCDC") SAN JUAN COUNTY,
CORRECTIONAL HEALTHCARE COMPANIES, INC. ("CHC"), SAN JUAN REGIONAL
MEDICAL CENTER ("SJRMC"), PRESBYTERIAN MEDICAL SERVICES
("PRESBYTERIAN"), THOMAS C. HAVEL, INDIVIDUALLY AND AS
ADMINISTRATOR, SAN JUAN COUNTY DETENTION CENTER,  Defendants, No.
CIV 15-0439 JB/LF (D.N.M.), consolidated with

CHARLES CARTER, Personal Representative of the Estate of WILLIAM
"BILLY" CARTER,  Plaintiff, vs. SAN JUAN COUNTY DETENTION CENTER
("SJCDC"), SAN JUAN COUNTY, SAN JUAN REGIONAL MEDICAL CENTER
("SJRMC"), THOMAS C. HAVEL, INDIVIDUALLY AND AS ADMINISTRATOR OF
SJCDC, DR. ERIC KETCHAM, INDIVIDUALLY, CINDY KETCHAM,
INDIVIDUALLY, Defendants, No. CIV 15-0497 JB/LF(D.N.M),
consolidated with

COREY JONES, Personal Representative of the Estate of Sharon Jones
Plaintiff, vs. SAN JUAN COUNTY DETENTION CENTER ("SJCDC"), SAN
JUAN COUNTY, SAN JUAN REGIONAL MEDICAL CENTER ("SJRMC"), THOMAS C.
HAVEL, INDIVIDUALLY AND AS ADMINISTRATOR OF SJCDC, DR. ERIC
KETCHAM, INDIVIDUALLY, CINDY KETCHAM, INDIVIDUALLY, Defendants,
No. CIV 15-0526 JB/LF (D.N.M.).


NIANTIC INC: Third Class Action Filed in California
---------------------------------------------------
Pomerantz LLP announced on Sept. 6 that a third class action
lawsuit has been filed against Niantic, Inc., The Pokemon Company,
and Nintendo Co. Ltd.  Niantic, a software development company, is
the developer and publisher of the Pokemon Go mobile game.
Pokemon Co. is responsible for marketing and licensing the Pokemon
franchise.  Nintendo is the publisher of the popular Pokemon video
game series and owns a 32% stake in Defendant Pokemon Co.  Each of
the three defendants receives a percentage of all revenues
generated by the Pokemon Go mobile application.

The class action, filed in United States District Court, Northern
District of California, and docketed under 16-cv-04556, is on
behalf of a class consisting of all persons whose use and
enjoyment of their property has been affected by the Pokemon Go
mobile game.

A copy of the Complaint can be obtained at www.pomerantzlaw.com.
To discuss this action, contact Robert S. Willoughby at
rswilloughby@pomlaw.com or 888.476.6529 (or 888.4-POMLAW), toll
free, ext. 9980.  Those who inquire by e-mail are encouraged to
include their mailing address, telephone number.

Pokemon Go is the latest iteration of the immensely popular
Pokemon media franchise, which consists in large part of a series
of video games in which players take on the role of "trainers"
with the goal of capturing and collecting fantasy creatures called
Pokemon.  Released on July 6, 2016 in the United States, Pokemon
Go is an "augmented reality" game in which players use their smart
phones to "catch" Pokemon in the players' real-world surroundings
by utilizing the GPS, camera, and gyroscope features on users'
mobile devices.  When the game detects, via GPS, that players are
in the vicinity of certain real-world locations, the GPS
coordinates of which were selected and programmed into the mobile
application by Niantic and known to Pokemon Go players as
"Pokestops" and "Pokemon gyms," the players gain access to
potentially vital in-game items, which they can use to catch
Pokemon, among other purposes, or gain the opportunity to engage
in virtual "battles" with other Pokemon Go players.

Pokemon Go was an immediate success.  In the two months since its
release, Pokemon Go has been downloaded more than 30 million times
and earned hundreds of millions of dollars in revenue.

However, within days of the game's release, it became clear that a
number of the GPS coordinates that Niantic had designated as
Pokestops and Pokemon gyms were, in fact, on or directly adjacent
to private property, and that Niantic had placed these Pokestops
and Pokemon gyms without the consent of the properties' owners.
As a direct result of Defendants' actions, Pokemon Go players have
repeatedly trespassed on and damaged private property.  The
intentional, unauthorized placement of Pokestops and Pokemon gyms
on or near the property of Plaintiff and other members of the
proposed class constitutes a continuing invasion of the class
members' use and enjoyment of their properties, committed by
Niantic on an ongoing basis for Defendants' profit.

"Defendants recklessly developed and marketed a product without
properly considering its impact on private homeowners, depriving
them of their right to enjoy their property without nuisance.  The
Pokemon Company, Nintendo, and Niantic failed to realize that
their virtual game has very real-world consequences," said Jeremy
A. Lieberman, attorney for the plaintiffs.


NORTHWELL HEALTH: Oct. 3 Prelim. Conference in "Park" Suit Set
--------------------------------------------------------------
A preliminary conference is scheduled for October 3, 2016 in the
class action captioned FRANKLIN PARK, individually and on behalf
of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. NORTHWELL HEALTH,
INC. f/k/a North Shore-Long Island Jewish Health System, Inc.
Defendant, INDEX NO. 700757/2016 (N.Y. Sup., County of Queens,
January 21, 2016).

The action seeks to hold Defendant liable for alleged unpaid
earned wages due to Plaintiff Franklin Park and other similarly
situated paramedics and emergency medical technicians in violation
of relevant sections of the New York Labor Law and the New York
Compilation of Codes, Rules, and Regulations.

Northwell Health, Inc. operates hospitals that provide healthcare
services to patients and their families in the metro New York area
and beyond.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     LAW OFFICE OF ETHAN A. BRECHER, LLC
     600 Third Avenue, 2nd Floor
     New York, NY 10016
     Phone: (646) 571-2440
     Fax: (888) 821-0246


OCWEN LOAN: Faces "Kirchner" Class Suit in S.D. Florida
-------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been commenced against Ocwen Loan
Servicing, LLC and Ocwen Financial Corporation.

The case is captioned George Kirchner, Eileen Kirchner, Blossom
Jones, on behalf of themselves and others similarly situated v.
Ocwen Loan Servicing, LLC and Ocwen Financial Corporation, Case
No. 1:16-cv-23950-UU (S.D. Fla., September 14, 2016).

The Defendants own and operate a company that provides residential
and commercial mortgage loan.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Peter Prieto, Esq.
      PODHURST ORSECK, P.A.
      Suntrust International Center
      1 S.E. 3rd Avenue, Suite 2700
      Miami, FL 33131
      Telephone: (305) 358-2800
      Facsimile: (305) 358-2382
      E-mail: pprieto@podhurst.com

OFFICE DEPOT: Court OKs Final Certification of "Rivet" FLSA Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Hon. William J. Martini entered an opinion in the lawsuit
entitled KYLE RIVET, JEREMIAH HARRIET, AMANDA NOHRENBERG, BRENT
KAUFMAN, and RON BELL individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. OFFICE DEPOT, INC., Case No. Civ. No. 2:12-
02992 (WJM) (D.N.J.):

   -- granting the Plaintiffs' motion for final certification of
      the collective action under the Fair Labor Standards Act;

   -- denying Office Depot's motion for decertification;

   -- granting in part and denying in part the Plaintiffs' motion
      for class certification of the State Law Classes; and

   -- granting the motion for class certification as to the
      Colorado, Maryland, and Washington Classes, but denying
      without prejudice as to the Oregon Class.

The Plaintiffs in the case worked as Assistant Store Managers for
Office Depot during a period ranging from early 2000 to July 2013.
Seeking to bring claims on behalf of themselves and other ASMs,
they allege that Office Depot's method for paying overtime
violated state and federal wage and hour laws. The Plaintiffs
moved for final certification of a collective action that alleges
violations of the FLSA.  Under Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of
Civil Procedure, the Plaintiffs also moved for certification of
four proposed classes (collectively, "the State Law Classes") that
allege violations of state wage and hour laws.  Office Depot
opposes both motions, while also moving to decertify the FLSA
conditional collective action.

The Court appoints the firms Klafter Olsen & Lesser LLP, Berger &
Montague, P.C., Whitfield Bryson & Mason LLP, and Locks Law Firm
as class counsel with respect to the Colorado, Maryland, and
Washington Classes.  Appointment of class counsel for the Oregon
Class would be premature because the class has not been certified,
Judge Martini wrote.

A copy of the Opinion is available at no charge at
https://goo.gl/gd8LHh from Leagle.com.

Plaintiffs Kyle Rivet, Constance Gibbons, Linda McQueen, Corey
Rivers, Monte Enyeart, Chris Simmons, Cesar Ocampo, Theresa Albro,
Eugene Anderson, Bryan Duvall, Jeremy Pritchett, Justin Pritchett,
George Fisher, Detective Don Nelson, Brenda Hinote, Sheila Davies,
Brent Kaufman, Ron Bell, Amanda Nohrenberg, Terry Parker and
Jeremiah Harriet are represented by:

          Alexandra Koropey Piazza, Esq.
          BERGER & MONTAGUE PC
          1622 Locust Street
          Philadelphia, PA 19103
          Telephone: (215) 875-3063
          Facsimile: (215) 875-4604
          E-mail: apiazza@bm.net

               - and -

          Michael Hayden Reed, Esq.
          KLAFTER OLSEN AND LESSER LLP
          Two International Drive, Suite 350
          Rye Brook, NY 10573
          Telephone: (914) 934-9200
          Facsimile: (914) 934-9220
          E-mail: michael.reed@klafterolsen.com

Plaintiffs Kyle Rivet, Constance Gibbons, Brent Kaufman, Ron Bell,
Amanda Nohrenberg and Jeremiah Harriet are represented by:

          Seth R. Lesser, Esq.
          KLAFTER OLSEN AND LESSER LLP
          Two International Drive, Suite 350
          Rye Brook, NY 10573
          Telephone: (914) 934-9200
          Facsimile: (914) 934-9220
          E-mail: slesser@klafterolsen.com

Plaintiff Terry Parker is represented by:

          Andrew P. Bell, Esq.
          Michael A. Galpern, Esq.
          LOCKS LAW FIRM, LLC
          801 N. Kings Highway
          Cherry Hill, NJ 08034
          Telephone: (856) 663-8200
          Facsimile: (856) 823-1551
          E-mail: abell@lockslaw.com
                  mgalpern@lockslaw.com

The Defendant is represented by:

          Ashley Jean Hale, Esq.
          Richard G. Rosenblatt, Esq.
          August W. Heckman, III, Esq.
          MORGAN LEWIS & BOCKIUS LLP
          101 Park Ave.
          New York, NY 10178-0060
          Telephone: (212) 309-6878
          Facsimile: (212) 309-6001
          E-mail: ashley.hale@morganlewis.com
                  richard.rosenblatt@morganlewis.com
                  august.heckman@morganlewis.com


OMEGA EMPIRE: Faces "Rodriguez" Suit Alleging FLSA Violation
------------------------------------------------------------
JESUS BARAHONA RODRIGUEZ, and other similarly-situated
individuals, Plaintiff (s), v. OMEGA EMPIRE, LLC, DUO EPSILON
INC., d/b/a EAT GREEK SOUVLAKI, STAVROS DIMOTAKIS, and VASSILIOS
DIMOTAKIS, a/k/a/ BILLY DIMOTAKIS and JENNY SKORDILIS,
individually, Defendants, Case No. 1:16-cv-23991-MGC (S.D. Fla.,
September 16, 2016), seeks to recover money damages for alleged
unpaid regular and overtime wages under the Fair Labor Standards
Act.

OMEGA EMPIRE, LLC, and DUO EPSILON INC., are Greek restaurants
doing business under the name of EAT GREEK SOUVLAKI.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


ONEIDA TRIBE: 7th Cir. Affirms Immunity Ruling
----------------------------------------------
Circuit Judge Ilana Rovner of the Court of Appeals, Seventh
Circuit, affirmed a district court's ruling that the defendant, an
Indian tribe, was immune from suit under the Fair and Accurate
Credit Transaction Act (FACTA).

The appellate case is captioned, JEREMY MEYERS, individually, and
on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff-Appellant,
v. ONEIDA TRIBE OF INDIANS OF WISCONSIN, Defendant-Appellee, Case
No. 15-312 7 (7th Cir.).

Between February 6 and 17, 2015, Plaintiff Jeremy Meyers used his
credit card to make purchases at the Oneida Travel Center and two
Oneida One Stop retail locations in and around Green Bay,
Wisconsin. All three stores are owned and operated by a federally-
recognized Indian tribe, the Oneida Tribe of Indians of Wisconsin.
At each store he received electronically printed receipts that
included more than the last five digits of his credit card as well
as the card's expiration date. He alleges that the Tribe issued
these receipts in violation of FACTA.

Meyers sued the Oneida Tribe for these alleged violations of FACTA
and brought a putative class action on behalf of all credit and
debit card holders who, after June 3, 2008, received from the
Oneida Tribe, an electronically printed receipt that displayed
more than the last five digits of the person's credit or debit
card or displayed the card's expiration date.

The Oneida Tribe moved to dismiss Meyers' claim for lack of
subject matter jurisdiction under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure
12(b)(1). The Tribe argued that Meyers' claims were barred under
the doctrine of tribal sovereign immunity and that Meyers had not
suffered an "injury in fact" granting him standing under Article
III of the Constitution.

The district court subsequently concluded that the Tribe was
immune from suit and granted the motion to dismiss. It dismissed
the claim because it could not find a clear, unequivocal statement
in FACTA that Congress meant to abrogate the sovereign immunity of
Indian Tribes.

On appeal, Meyers argues that the district court dismissed his
claim based on its erroneous conclusion that Indian tribes are not
governments.

In his Order dated September 8, 2016 available at
https://is.gd/F18MAB from Leagle.com, Judge Rovner held that the
lower court properly treated the Tribe's motion to dismiss because
the Congress did not specifically list Indian tribes in FACTA
definition of "person." As the court described it in Michigan v.
Bay Mills Indian Comty., 134 S.Ct. 2024, 2030 (2014), the Indian
tribes possess "common-law immunity from suit traditionally
enjoyed by sovereign powers. Thus unless and until Congress acts,
the tribes retain their historic sovereign authority".  This is
true even for a tribe's commercial activities.

Jeremy Meyers is represented by Thomas A. Zimmerman, Jr. Esq. --
tom@attorneyzim.com -- ZIMMERMAN LAW OFFICES

Oneida Tribe of Indians of Wisconsin is represented by Thomas M.
Pyper, Esq. -- thomas.pyper@huschblackwell.com -- HUSCH BLACKWELL


ONONDAGA: Jail Faces Class Suit Over Teen Solitary Confinement
--------------------------------------------------------------
Patrick Lohmann, writing for Syracuse.com, reports that the
practice of holding teenagers in solitary confinement at the
Onondaga County Justice Center has become the subject of a class-
action lawsuit filed by state civil rights groups alleging the
punishment violates Constitutional rights and harms young minds.

More than 80 teens, most of them of minority races, were held in
solitary confinement at the Onondaga County Justice Center between
October 2015 and August 2016, according to a federal class-action
lawsuit filed on September 20 by the New York Civil Liberties
Union and Legal Services of Central New York.

The lawsuit is filed on behalf of six 17-year-olds, identified by
their initials, currently incarcerated at the Justice Center,
including in solitary confinement. The lawsuit alleges the teens
are being placed at risk of serious harm to their physical and
mental health. The suit said teens in such isolation entertain
thoughts of suicide and suffer from post-traumatic stress
disorder.

The lawsuit alleges the teens are held in isolation in "barren"
cells that are 7 feet by 9 feet for 23 hours a day. While in the
cells, adults imprisoned nearby "threaten to douse them in feces
and urine and to sexually assault them."

"You can't see anything but black walls closing in on you. It's
like the cells are designed to make you act crazy," said Randy
Pope, 16, who is not suing but spoke at a news conference on
September 21 of his experience. "I tried doing crossword puzzles
but kept thinking about killing myself."

Pope said he was placed in "the box" for two days after a verbal
argument over a basketball with another inmate.

Sgt. Jon Seeber at the sheriff's office declined to comment due to
the pending litigation.

The lawsuit names Conway, Justice Center Chief Custody Deputy
Esteban Gonzalez, Assistant Chief Custody Deputy Kevin M. Brisso
and the Syracuse City School District, which provides education to
school-aged inmates at the jail. A school district spokesman said
he was unaware of the lawsuit and declined immediate comment.

The lawsuit also alleges one deputy played a game with teen
inmates on the jail basketball court in which he sent inmates to
isolation if they made a jump shot and guessed a number. Attorney
Joshua Cotter of Legal Services of Central New York said this game
happened more than once.

The NYCLU declined to identify the deputy but staff said the story
was corroborated by "multiple" inmates at the jail.

A local organization, Alliance of Communities Transforming
Syracuse, has been pushing for such a change for at least a year.
It appeared that the practice might have ended when county leaders
announced juvenile inmates would be transferred from the
Jamesville Correctional Facility to the Justice Center.

"But the celebration was premature," the lawsuit states.

The NYCLU said 86 teens were placed in solitary confinement around
250 times between October 2015 and August 2016 at the Justice
Center. The lawsuit said teens are locked inside the jail
sometimes for "weeks and months on end."

Luchele Chisunka, of ACTS, said the organization started hearing
continued stories from teen inmates subject to solitary
confinement in the winter of 2015 and found "data that confirmed
eyewitness accounts."

"This practice is particularly disturbing because almost all of
the children are children of color," she said.

The plaintiffs have spent between 30 and 115 days in isolation,
according to the lawsuit. One teenage boy spent 400 days in
isolation and one girl spent 102 days in isolation, according to
the lawsuit.

Samuel Young, director of advocacy at Legal Services CNY, said at
the news conference that criminal justice practices and law in
Onondaga County are particularly harmful for 16- and 17-year-olds
accused of crimes. That's because New York hasn't raised the age
for suspects capable of being tried as adults and because juvenile
solitary confinement has continued.

"Even the infamous Rikers Island has recognized that solitary
confinement of juveniles must stop," Young said. "One of the only
places in the country where a 16- or 17- year-old child can find
themselves in a solitary confinement cell .... is in our very own
Onondaga County Justice Center."

The lawsuit states the jail has 30 to 40 "dimly lit" cells on two
floors inside the jail. Pope and the lawsuit said the cells smell
strongly of urine and feces, and "the dark green walls are marred
by scratch marks from previous occupants," the lawsuit states.

The lawsuit also said studies show how psychologically harmful the
practice can be especially for young adults who will eventually be
released from jail and return to society.

The lawsuit asks for an injunction on the practice, for a
declaration that juvenile solitary is unconstitutional and for
reimbursement of associated costs.


ORLY INTERNATIONAL: "Godinez" Suit Claims Violation of Labor Code
-----------------------------------------------------------------
FERNANDO GODINEZ, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, and on behalf of the general public, Plaintiff, v.
ORLY INTERNATIONAL, INC., a California Corporation, and DOES 1
through 10, Inclusive, Defendants, Case No. BC 633072 (Cal.
Super., County of Los Angeles, September 16, 2016), alleges that
Defendants have had a consistent policy of failing to compensate
their non-exempt California employees for all overtime wage earned
during the course of employment, failing to provide them
accurately itemized wage statements, and failing to pay them all
wages due and owing upon separation of employment in violation of
the Labor Code.

Orly International, Inc. provides nail care products.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


PEREGRINE FINANCIAL: Miller Appeals N.D. Ill. Ruling to 7th Cir.
----------------------------------------------------------------
Robert Miller, Fargo 500 LLC and Gainesville Coins, Inc., filed an
appeal from a court ruling in the lawsuit styled Robert Miller, et
al. v. Ira Bodenstein, Case No. 1:15-cv-04260, in the U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, Eastern
Division.

Ira Bodenstein is the trustee of estate of Peregrine Financial
Group, Inc.

The appellate case is captioned as Robert Miller, et al. v. Ira
Bodenstein, Case No. 16-3425, in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the
Seventh Circuit.

As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter on Sept. 20,
2016, the case before the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of Illinois is one of the three bankruptcy appeals
brought by two groups of former customers of the now defunct
Peregrine Financial Group against its trustee, and appellee Ira
Bodenstein.

The dismissal of the first appeal forms the basis of the second
appeal, which is the District Court Case, in which the customers
argue that the Bankruptcy Court should have construed their class
action claims as amended proofs of claim that relate back to their
timely filed initial proofs of claim.  The first appeal raises two
primary issues -- (i) the appellants in that case challenge the
Bankruptcy Court's ruling that their retail foreign exchange and
OTC metal contracts were not commodity contracts, and (ii) they
appeal the Bankruptcy Court's finding that their funds were not
held in a resulting trust by Peregrine and, thus, were properly
included in the bankruptcy estate.

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

   -- Appellant's brief is due on or before October 24, 2016, for
      Fargo 500 LLC, Gainesville Coins, Inc. and Robert Miller;
      and

   -- Transcript information sheet is due by September 27, 2016.

Appellants ROBERT MILLER, FARGO 500 LLC and GAINESVILLE COINS,
INC., on behalf of themselves and other persons and entities
similarly situated, are represented by:

          Michael C. Moody, Esq.
          O'ROURKE & MOODY
          55 W. Wacker Drive
          Chicago, IL 60601
          Telephone: (312) 849-2020
          E-mail: mmoody@orourkeandmoody.com

Appellee IRA BODENSTEIN, Trustee of estate of Peregrine Financial
Group, Inc., is represented by:

          Terence G. Banich, Esq.
          SHAW GUSSIS FISHMAN GLANTZ WOLFSON & TOWBIN LLC
          321 N. Clark Street
          Chicago, IL 60654-0000
          Telephone: (312) 980-3859
          E-mail: tbanich@shawfishman.com


PJ PIZZA: "Pedroza" Suit Seeks Reimbursement of Business Expense
----------------------------------------------------------------
Samson Pedroza, individually and on behalf of similarly situated
persons, Plaintiff, v. P.J. Pizza San Diego, LLC and PJ Pizza
Holdings, LLC, Defendants, Case No. 3:16-cv-02330, (S.D, Fla.,
September 10, 2016), seeks disgorgement of profits garnered
illegally, restitution under the California Business & Professions
Code, permanent injunctive and declaratory relief, pre and post
judgment interest and such other relief under the Fair Labor
Standards Act and California Wage and Hour Law.

P.J. San Diego, LLC and PJ Pizza Holdings, LLC together own and
operate approximately 25 or more Papa John's franchise stores in
and around the San Diego area. It employs delivery drivers who use
their own automobiles to deliver pizzas and other food items to
its customers.

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Jack D. McInnes, Esq.
      PAUL McINNES LLP
      601 Walnut Street, Suite 300
      Kansas City, MO 64106
      Telephone: (816) 984-8100
      Facsimile: (816) 984-8101
      Email: paul@paulmcinnes.com

             - and -

      Ryan Thompson, Esq.
      WATTS GUERRA LLP
      525 South Douglas Street, Suite 260
      El Segundo, CA 90245
      Telephone: (424) 220-8141
      Facsimile: (424) 732-8190
      Email: rthompson@wattsguerra.com
             rthompson@wattsguerra.com

             - and -

      Mark A. Potashnick, Esq.
      WEINHAUS & POTASHNICK
      11500 Olive Blvd., Suite 133
      St. Louis, MO 63141
      Tel: (314) 997-9150
      Facsimile: (314) 997-9170
      Email: markp@wpattorneys.com


POP WARNER: Faces Concussion Class Action Lawsuit
-------------------------------------------------
Jonathan Bilyk, writing for Cook County Record, reports that even
as lawsuits continue to pile on in Chicago federal courtrooms
against colleges and universities over football-induced
concussions, a new front in the legal scrimmage has opened, as
plaintiffs have lined up to tackle youth football powerhouse Pop
Warner over brain injuries allegedly suffered by young teen
athletes.

On Sept. 1, two women who alleged their sons suffered CTE, or
chronic traumatic encephalopathy, from playing youth football,
filed a potential class action lawsuit in Los Angeles federal
court against Pop Warner Little Scholars Inc., the entity that
oversees youth tackle football programs in 42 states and
internationally.

In Illinois, Pop Warner administers its Chicagoland conference,
which includes more than two dozen teams from throughout Chicago,
the suburbs and communities just outside of the metropolitan area.
The league offers divisions, based on age and weight, for children
ages 5-14, according to its website.

Like other concussion trauma related lawsuits, the California
lawsuit alleged Pop Warner misled parents and the public about the
potential risk of brain injuries which could be suffered by those
playing football. While Pop Warner boasted of its ability to
reduce the risk of concussions and brain injury through its
improved equipment and better playing techniques, the lawsuit said
those statements were "false and misleading advertising" masking
the real risks to young athletes.

In the lawsuit, the plaintiffs have requested the creation of a
class of additional plaintiffs, including anyone who played Pop
Warner youth football anywhere in the U.S. since 1997, and now
suffer from brain injuries, and another class including the
parents of those former youth football players.

The lawsuit also includes as defendants the National Operating
Committee on Standards Athletic Equipment (NOCSEA), which governs
the safety of youth football playing equipment, and USA Football,
the official youth football development partner of the National
Football League.

The lawsuit has asked the court to order NOCSEA to slap warning
labels concerning the risk of brain injury on youth football
equipment, to release youth football helmet safety standards and
pay out unspecified damage awards, including punitive damages and
attorney fees.

The plaintiffs in the California action are represented by
attorneys Thomas Girardi and Robert Finnerty, of the firm of
Girardi & Keese, of Los Angeles.

The action comes as professional and amateur football
organizations of all kinds find themselves under a blitz of
concussion-related legal actions.

In Cook County, a judge in October 2015 tossed a potential class
action brought against the Illinois High School Association, which
oversees high school football and other athletics throughout
Illinois. The judge in that case dismissed with prejudice the
action brought against the IHSA in 2014, saying he supported the
IHSA's safety record, and that he believed the best way to protect
high school athletes was through the enactment of new laws, and
not huge lawsuits.

Some legal observers at the time said they believed the ruling
would create a high bar for other similar legal actions against
the IHSA, but could still leave the door open for other lawsuits
against individual high schools.

At the college level, Chicago federal court was chosen by a panel
of federal judges as the jurisdiction in which the mounting number
of cases concerning brain injuries suffered by college athletes
would be heard.

Early this year, a federal judge signed off on a $75 million
settlement between a group of former college players, who alleged
they had suffered brain injuries playing college football and
other sports, and the National Collegiate Athletic Association.
Under that settlement, the NCAA agreed to invest in a brain injury
screening and evaluation program and to institute a range of other
"corrective measures." The NCAA also pledged not to oppose $15
million in attorney fees and payments of $2,500-$5,000 to the
former athletes who brought the lawsuit as named defendants.

However, the settlement also did not foreclose on the possibility
of future class action lawsuits against individual colleges and
universities, or the athletic conferences in which their programs
participate.

And in the months since the settlement, about 15 such lawsuits
have been filed in federal courts across the country, and
transferred into Chicago.

Cases now pending in the Northern District of Illinois include
lawsuits against the Southeastern Conference, the Atlantic Coast
Conference, the Big 10 Conference, the PAC-12 Conference, the
Western Athletic Conference and member schools including Duke
University, Wake Forest University, Penn State University,
Stanford University, Boston College and Brigham Young University,
among others.

Attorneys who have brought those actions include those from the
firms of Edelson P.C., of Chicago, and Wilson Kehoe Winingham, of
Indianapolis.

The U.S. Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation selected U.S.
District Judge John Z. Lee to handle the federal college
concussion litigation cases.


PRESSLER & PRESSLER: Transferred "Rosa" Suit in D. New Jersey
-------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit entitled Clara G. Rosa, Individually and
on behalf of all other similarly situated persons v. Pressler &
Pressler LLP and New Century Financial Services, Inc., Case No.
BER L 005442 16, was transferred from the Superior Court of Bergen
County to the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey
(Newark). The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:16-cv-05570
to the proceeding.

Pressler & Pressler LLP operates a law firm located at 7 Entin Rd,
Parsippany, NJ 07054.

New Century Financial Services, Inc. is a financial services firm
headquartered in Whippany, New Jersey.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Daniel Zemel, Esq.
      Fred M. Zemel, Esq.
      ZEMEL LAW LLC
      70 Clinton Ave.
      Newark, NJ 07114
      Telephone: (862) 227-3106
      E-mail: dz@zemellawllc.com
              thezemellawfirm@optimum.net


PLATINUM HOLDINGS: Faces "Addoms" Suit Over Debt Collection Acts
----------------------------------------------------------------
ROBERTO ADDOMS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiffs, v. PLATINUM HOLDINGS GROUP, LLC, a Nevada
Limited Liability Company; PREMIUM ASSET SERVICES, LLC, a Nevada
Limited Liability Company; and DOES 1 to 10, inclusive,
Defendants, Case No. 2:16-cv-06970-TJH-AJW (C.D. Cal., September
16, 2016), alleges violation of the Fair Debt Collection Practices
Act and Rosenthal Fair Debt Collection Practices Act, which
prohibits debt collectors from engaging in abusive, deceptive and
unfair practices.

Platinum Holdings Group, LLC --
http://www.platinumholdingsllc.com/-- operates in the debt
collection industry.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Briana M. Kim, Esq.
     BRIANA KIM, PC
     249 East Ocean Boulevard, Suite 814
     Long Beach, CA 90802
     Phone: (714) 482-6301
     Fax: (714) 482-6302
     E-mail: briana@brianakim.com

        - and -

     Kevin Mahoney, Esq.
     Katherine J. Odenbreit, Esq.
     MAHONEY LAW GROUP, APC
     249 East Ocean Boulevard, Suite 814
     Long Beach, CA 90802
     Phone: (562) 590-5550
     Fax: (562) 590-8400
     E-mail: kmahoney@mahoney-law.net
             kodenbreit@mahoney-law.net


PROGRESSIVE DIRECT: 8th Cir. Appeal Filed in "Dammann" Class Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs Andrea L. Dammann and May K. Yang filed an appeal from
a court order dated August 8, 2016, and judgment dated August 9,
2016, in the lawsuit styled Andrea L. Dammann, et al. v.
Progressive Direct Insurance Company, Case No. 0:15-cv-03149-MJD,
in the U.S. District Court for the District of Minnesota -
Minneapolis.

The lawsuit arose from insurance-related issues.

The appellate case is captioned as Andrea L. Dammann, et al. v.
Progressive Direct Insurance Company, Case No. 16-3591, in the
United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit.

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

   -- Transcript is due on or before October 24, 2016;

   -- Appendix is due on November 1, 2016;

   -- Appellants' brief is due on November 1, 2016;

   -- Appellee's brief is due 30 days from the date the Court
      issues the Notice of Docket Activity filing the brief of
      Appellant; and

   -- Appellants' reply brief is due 14 days from the date the
      Court issues the Notice of Docket Activity filing the
      Appellee brief.

Plaintiffs-Appellants Andrea L. Dammann and May K. Yang,
individually and on behalf of classes of similarly situated
individuals, are represented by:

          Rachel Ann Kitze Collins, Esq.
          Eric N. Linsk, Esq.
          Robert K. Shelquist, Esq.
          LOCKRIDGE & GRINDAL
          100 Washington Avenue, S., Suite 2200
          Minneapolis, MN 55401-0000
          Telephone: (612) 339-6900
          Facsimile: (612) 339-0981
          E-mail: rakitzecollins@locklaw.com
                  rnlinsk@locklaw.com
                  rkshelquist@locklaw.com

               - and -

          Charles Slane, Esq.
          TERRY & SLANE PLLC
          7760 France Avenue, S., Suite 820
          Bloomington, MN 55435
          Telephone: (952) 820-4605

Defendant-Appellee Progressive Direct Insurance Company is
represented by:

          Leah Chalmers Janus, Esq.
          Richard D. Snyder, Esq.
          Todd Alan Wind, Esq.
          FREDRIKSON & BYRON PA
          4000 Pillsbury Center
          200 S. Sixth Street
          Minneapolis, MN 55402-1425
          Telephone: (612) 492-7000
          E-mail: ljanus@fredlaw.com
                  rsnyder@fredlaw.com
                  twind@fredlaw.com


PROPERTY TECHNICIANS: "Price" Lawsuit Alleges Violation of FLSA
---------------------------------------------------------------
Nicole Price, 5086 Co. Rd. 237, Mt. Gilead, Ohio 43338 And Shiloh
Price, 5086 Co. Rd. 237, Mt. Gilead, Ohio 43338 And Mark Foust,
407 S. Delaware St. #A3, Mt. Gilead, Ohio 43338, And Shelly Foust
407 S. Delaware St. #E7, Mt. Gilead, Ohio 43338, On behalf of
themselves and all others Similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. Jon
R. Veard, 300 Broadway Avenue, Suite 202, Lorain, Ohio 44052 And
Property Technicians Incorporated dba United Property Management
300 Broadway Avenue, Suite 202, Lorain, Ohio 44052, And Robbie
Bellino, c/o Property Technicians Incorporated, 300 Broadway
Avenue, Suite 202, Lorain, Ohio 44052, And JRV Management LLC
300 Broadway Avenue, Suite 202, Lorain, Ohio 44052 And Vinton
Manor, LLC 300 Broadway Avenue, Suite 202 Lorain, Ohio 44052 And
Fayette Manor LLC 300 Broadway Avenue, Suite 202, Lorain, Ohio
44052, And 203 G. Woodwind, LLC, 300 Broadway Avenue, Suite 202
Lorain, Ohio 44052, And Lynchburg Properties, LLC, 300 Broadway
Avenue, Suite 202, Lorain, Ohio 44052, And Each of the Following
Limited Partnerships, Located at 300 Broadway Avenue, Suite 202
Lorain, Ohio 44052, Veard-Lee Court Limited Partnership, Veard-
Ashley Limited Partnership, Veard-Galion Limited Partnership,
Veard-Jenna Terrace Limited Partnership, Veard-Jane Lew Limited
Partnership, Veard-Antlers Limited Partnership, Veard-Ottawa
Limited Partnership, Veard-McArthur Limited Partnership, Veard-
Mineral Wells Limited Partnership, Veard-Foster Garden Limited
Partnership, Veard-Preston Limited Partnership, Veard-Oberlin
Limited Partnership, Veard-Wooster Limited Partnership, Veard-
Hidden Creek Limited Partnership, Veard-Overlook Limited
Partnership, Veard-Hurricane Limited Partnership, Veard-Masontown
Phase II Limited Partnership, Veard-Cambridge Limited Partnership
Wills Creek Associates Limited Partnership, Veard-Investments
Limited Partnership, Valley View Associates Limited Partnership,
College Village Associates Limited Partnership, Lakeview Estates
Limited, Veard-Gassaway Limited Partnership, Veard-Portage
Partners Limited Partnership, Raceland Meadows, LTD., Veard-Lima
Limited Partnership, Veard-Park Meadow Limited, Riverbluff, LTD.,
Harding Development Company, Veard-Tulsa Limited Partnership,
Veard-Irving Limited Partnership, Veard-Lake Jackson Limited
Partnership, Veard Family Limited Partnership, Veard Baytown
Limited Partnership, Veard-Vinton Limited Partnership, Veard-Oak
Hill Limited Partnership, Attica Terrace Limited Partnership,
Lynchburg Commons Limited Partnership, Veard-Dunkirk Limited
Partnership, Veard-Gassaway Phase II, Veard-Westview Limited
Partnership, Veard-Hartland Limited Partnership, Defendants, Case
No. 1 16-cv-02310 (N.D. Ohio, September 16, 2016), was filed for
alleged violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act.

Property Technicians Incorporated is a full service residential
property management company doing business as United Property
Management.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

     Sharon Cason-Adams, Esq.
     Roxi A. Liming, Esq.
     ADAMS & LIMING, L.L.C.
     Rivers Edge Corporate Center
     1335 Dublin Road, Suite 104D
     Columbus, OH 43215
     Phone: (614) 488-2015
     Fax: (614) 488-2069
     E-mail: sharon@adamsliming.com
             roxi@adamsliming.com


PUBLIX SUPER MARKETS: Customer Sues Over Parmesan Cheese Fillers
----------------------------------------------------------------
Kyle Arnold, writing for Orlando Sentinel, reports that a Longwood
man is suing Publix Super Markets Inc., saying its grated Parmesan
cheese isn't all it claims to be.

Eric Tamayo filed a lawsuit in U.S. District court on September 20
alleging that Publix's house brand "100 percent real grated
Parmesan cheese" is loaded with fillers.

The lawsuit says Tamayo submitted the cheese to laboratory testing
and found the grated Parmesan and Romano Parmesan cheese contained
"adulterants and fillers, including powdered cellulose."

"Through these deceptive, misleading, and unfair business Publix
has been able to command a price for the 100% Grated Parmesan
Cheese Products higher than a fair market price and to induce
purchases that otherwise would have not occurred," the complaint
says.

It did not say exactly how much cellulose and other ingredients
the laboratory testing found. Powdered cellulose is an anti-
clumping agent made out of wood pulp and other plant fibers.

Publix, however, has changed their bottles in recent months to
remove the "100 percent real" wording.

Parmesan cheese on the shelves at Publix on September 21 morning
only said "Grated Parmesan Cheese" and leaves off the "100 percent
real" wording.

A spokesman for Publix said the company does not comment on
pending litigation. A lawyer for Tamayo also declined to comment.

The lawsuit said Tamayo made the purchases at Publix in 2016 and
includes pictures of Publix Parmesan cheese with the "100 percent
real grated Parmesan Cheese" wording.

The lawsuit follows a handful of other lawsuits filed against Wal-
Mart, Heinz and other makers of canisters of grated Parmesan
cheese. In those cases, the lawsuits said the products contained 4
percent to 8 percent cellulose and other fillers.

That stemmed from a Bloomberg News investigation into the alleged
unnamed ingredients in grated Parmesan cheeses at various
retailers.

Target also was sued over its Parmesan cheese composition. Those
cases have been consolidated and are still pending in federal
court.

In the Orlando case, Tamayo is petitioning the court for class-
action status, saying that Publix was able to demand higher prices
and garner more sales for its Parmesan by saying it was 100
percent cheese.

The case is pending before U.S. District Judge Gregory Presnell.


PURE STORAGE: Faces "Wilson" Securities Class Suit in California
----------------------------------------------------------------
CURTIS WILSON, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly
Situated v. PURE STORAGE, INC., SCOTT DIETZEN, TIMOTHY RIITTERS,
JOHN COLGROVE, MIKE SPEISER, ANEEL BHUSRI, MARK GARRETT ANITA M.
SANDS, FRANK SLOOTMAN, MICHELANGELO VOLPI, GREYLOCK XIII LIMITED
PARTNERSHIP, GREYLOCK XIII PRINCIPALS LLC, GREYLOCK XIII-A LIMITED
PARTNERSHIP, GREYLOCK XIII GP LLC, SUTTER HILL VENTURES, REDPOINT
ASSOCIATES IV, LLC, REDPOINT VENTURES IV, L.P., MORGAN STANLEY &
CO. LLC, GOLDMAN, SACHS & CO., BARCLAYS CAPITAL INC., ALLEN &
COMPANY LLC, MERRILL LYNCH, PIERCE, FENNER & SMITH INCORPORATED,
PACIFIC CREST SECURITIES, STIFEL, NICOLAUS & COMPANY,
INCORPORATED, RAYMOND JAMES & ASSOCIATES, INC., EVERCORE GROUP
L.L.C. and DOES 1-25, inclusive, Case No. 16CIV01406 (Cal. Super.
Ct., San Mateo Cty., September 15, 2016), is a securities class
action brought on behalf of all those who purchased Pure Storage
common stock in or traceable to Pure Storage's October 7, 2015
initial public stock offering, seeking to pursue remedies under
the Securities Act of 1933.

Pure Storage is a California-based manufacturer and purveyor of
all-flash data storage systems, predominately to mid-size and
large enterprise customers.  The Individual Defendants are
directors and officers of the Company.

Greylock XIII Limited Partnership, Greylock XIII-A Limited
Partnership, their general partner Greylock XIII GP LLC, and
Greylock XIII Principals LLC; Sutter Hill Ventures; and Redpoint
Associates IV, LLC, and Redpoint Ventures IV, L.P., collectively
owned more than 50% of the Company's outstanding shares prior to
the IPO, giving them substantial control over Pure Storage.

Morgan Stanley & Co. LLC; Goldman, Sachs & Co.; Barclays Capital
Inc.; Allen & Company LLC; Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith
Incorporated; Pacific Crest Securities (a division of KeyBanc
Capital Markets Inc.); Stifel, Nicolaus & Company, Incorporated;
Raymond James & Associates, Inc.; and Evercore Group LLC. are
investment banking firms that acted as underwriters of the IPO,
helping to draft and disseminate the IPO documents.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Shimon Yiftach, Esq.
          YIFTACH LAW FIRM
          1925 Century Park East, Suite 1990
          Los Angeles, CA 90067
          Telephone: (424) 322-0322
          Facsimile: (310) 971-9996
          E-mail: shimon@yiftach1aw.com

               - and -

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


RAYMOURS FURNITURE: 2nd Cir. Upholds Arbitration Agreements
-----------------------------------------------------------
John B. Lewis -- jlewis@bakerlaw.com -- of Baker & Hostetler LLP,
in an article for Lexology, reports that amid contrary decisions
by the Seventh and Ninth Circuits, the Second Circuit followed its
earlier precedent in Patterson v. Raymours Furniture Co., No. 15-
2820 (Sept. 2, 2016), enforcing an Employment Arbitration Program
(EAP) that requires employees to submit their employment and
compensation claims to individual arbitration.

The EAP, however, permits employees to file charges and
participate in investigations before the Equal Employment
Opportunity Commission and state or local anti-discrimination
agencies, and did not compel employees to waive any rights they
had under the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA) or prevent
employees from filing unfair labor practice charges with the
National Labor Relations Board (NLRB).

The Case History

A Raymours Furniture Company Inc. (Raymours) employee, Connie
Patterson, filed a putative collective and class action raising
claims under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) and New York
labor law. In response, Raymours moved to compel arbitration under
the EAP. The district court granted the motion, holding that the
class action waiver in the agreement was enforceable. Patterson v.
Raymours Furniture Co., 96 F.Supp. 3d 71 (S.D.N.Y. 2015).

Patterson maintained that the EAP's prohibition of class or
collective actions violated the employees' right to engage in
"concerted activities" under the NLRA. See Section 7 of the NLRA,
29 U.S.C. Sec 157. But the lower court rejected the assertion,
holding that the Federal Arbitration Act (FAA) required
arbitration of Patterson's claims because the plaintiffs had
agreed to arbitrate their claims based on the EAP's terms.

The Appeal

The issue on appeal was "whether the EAP's prohibition of class or
collective adjudication of work-related claims illegally restricts
employees' substantive rights under the NLRA and the Norris-La
Guardia Act (NLGA) and is unenforceable under the FAA." The Second
Circuit noted that the NLRB had previously determined that
Sections 7 and 8(a)(1) of the NLRA prevent enforcement of
arbitration agreements that prospectively waive an employee's
right to pursue legal claims in any forum on a collective basis.
See, e.g., D.R. Horton, Inc., 357 NLRB No. 184, 2012 WL 36274
(2012), and Murphy Oil USA, Inc., 361 NLRB No. 72, 2014 WL 546554
(2014).

But, the NLRB's position had been rejected previously by both the
Fifth and Eighth Circuits. See e.g., D.R. Horton v. NLRB, 737 F.3d
344 (5th Cir. 2013), Murphy Oil USA, Inc. v. NLRB., 808 F.3d 1013,
1015 (5th Cir. 2015), and Cellular Sales of Missouri, LLC v. NLRB,
824 F.3d 772 (8th Cir. 2016), (these decisions have been the
subject of blog articles here). As referenced, the Seventh and
Ninth Circuits have recently taken a different course, agreeing
with the Board's position. See Morris v. Ernst & Young, LLP, No.
13-16599, 2016 WL 4433080 (9th Cir. Aug. 22, 2016), and Lewis v.
Epic Systems Corp., 823 F.3d 1147 (7th Cir. 2016). (The Morris and
Lewis opinions have been discussed in blog articles here.)

The Second Circuit, however, found it was bound by precedent to
follow its earlier decision in Sutherland v. Ernst & Young LLP,
726 F.3d 290 (2d Cir. 2013), which "decline[d] to follow the
[NLRB's] decision" in D.R. Horton "that a waiver of the right to
pursue a FLSA claim collectively in any forum violates the
[NLRA]." 726 F.3d at 297 n. 8.

That said, the Court mused: "If we were writing on a clean slate
we might well be persuaded, for the reasons forcefully stated in
Chief Judge Wood's and Chief Judge Thomas's opinions in Lewis and
Morris, to join the Seventh and Ninth Circuits and hold that the
EAP's waiver of collective action is unenforceable." But, the
Court was not writing on a clean slate and thus followed its
Sutherland opinion, which "clearly presented" and "rejected [the]
appellant's position." Indeed, in Sutherland the parties
"extensively briefed their arguments under the NLRA and the NLGA,
and the panel's rejection of those arguments was necessary to its
judgment." That will remain the Court's position until overruled
by an en banc panel or the Supreme Court.

BOTTOM LINE:

The Second Circuit's latest decision in Patterson simply
underscores the Circuit split and the compelling need for decisive
Supreme Court review.


RC BIGELOW: Appeal Filed From N.D. Cal. Ruling in "Victor" Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiff Adam Victor filed an appeal from a court ruling in the
lawsuit styled Adam Victor v. R.C. Bigelow, Inc., Case No. 3:13-
cv-02976-WHO, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District
of California, San Francisco.

As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the District
Court denied class certification in the Case, which is brought
over food misbranding allegations challenging antioxidant claims
for Bigelow's black tea.

The appellate case is captioned as Adam Victor v. R.C. Bigelow,
Inc., Case No. 16-16639, in the United States Court of Appeals for
the Ninth Circuit.

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

   -- Transcript must be ordered by October 17, 2016;

   -- Transcript is due on November 15, 2016;

   -- Appellant Adam Victor's opening brief is due on
      December 27, 2016;

   -- Appellee R.C. Bigelow, Inc.'s answering brief is due on
      January 27, 2017; and

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

Plaintiff-Appellant ADAM VICTOR, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, is represented by:

          J. Price Coleman, Esq.
          COLEMAN LAW FIRM
          1100 Tyler Avenue
          Oxford, MS 38655
          Telephone: (662) 236-0047
          Facsimile: (662) 513-0072
          E-mail: colemanlawfirmpa@bellsouth.net

               - and -

          Ben (Pierce) F. Gore, Esq.
          PRATT & ASSOCIATES
          1871 The Alameda
          San Jose, CA 95126
          Telephone: (408) 369-0800
          Facsimile: (408) 369-0752
          E-mail: pgore@prattattorneys.com

Defendant-Appellee R.C. BIGELOW, INC., is represented by:

          James C. Danaher, Esq.
          Joan B. Flaherty, Esq.
          GORDON & REES LLP
          101 West Broadway
          San Diego, CA 92101
          Telephone: (619) 696-6700
          Facsimile: (619) 696-7124
          E-mail: jdanaher@gordonrees.com
                  jflaherty@gordonrees.com


RC BIGELOW: Khasin Appeals Ruling From N.D. Cal. to 9th Circuit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiff Alex Khasin filed an appeal from a court ruling in the
lawsuit titled Alex Khasin v. R.C. Bigelow, Inc., Case No. 3:12-
cv-02204-WHO, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District
of California, San Francisco.

As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the District
Court denied class certification in the Case, which is brought
over food misbranding allegations challenging antioxidant claims
for Bigelow's green tea.

The appellate case is captioned as Alex Khasin v. R.C. Bigelow,
Inc., Case No. 16-16641, in the United States Court of Appeals for
the Ninth Circuit.

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

   -- Transcript must be ordered by October 17, 2016;

   -- Transcript is due on November 15, 2016;

   -- Appellant Alex Khasin's opening brief is due on
      December 27, 2016;

   -- Appellee R.C. Bigelow, Inc.'s answering brief is due on
      January 27, 2017; and

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

Plaintiff-Appellant ALEX KHASIN, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, is represented by:

          J. Price Coleman, Esq.
          COLEMAN LAW FIRM
          1100 Tyler Avenue
          Oxford, MS 38655
          Telephone: (662) 236-0047
          Facsimile: (662) 513-0072
          E-mail: colemanlawfirmpa@bellsouth.net

               - and -

          Ben (Pierce) F. Gore, Esq.
          PRATT & ASSOCIATES
          1871 The Alameda
          San Jose, CA 95126
          Telephone: (408) 369-0800
          Facsimile: (408) 369-0752
          E-mail: pgore@prattattorneys.com

Defendant-Appellee R.C. BIGELOW, INC., is represented by:

          James C. Danaher, Esq.
          Joan B. Flaherty, Esq.
          GORDON & REES LLP
          101 West Broadway
          San Diego, CA 92101
          Telephone: (619) 696-6700
          Facsimile: (619) 696-7124
          E-mail: jdanaher@gordonrees.com
                  jflaherty@gordonrees.com


RELIANT SERVICES: Jackson Seeks Review of N.D. Illinois Ruling
--------------------------------------------------------------
Joseph Jackson filed an appeal from a court ruling in the lawsuit
styled Joseph Jackson v. Reliant Services Group, LLC, et al., Case
No. 1:15-cv-03224, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of Illinois, Eastern Division.

The appellate case is captioned as Joseph Jackson v. Reliant
Services Group, LLC, et al., Case No. 16-3453, in the U.S. Court
of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit.

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

   -- Transcript information sheet is due by September 30, 2016;
      and

   -- Appellant's brief is due on or before October 26, 2016, for
      Joseph Jackson.

Plaintiff-Appellant JOSEPH JACKSON, an Illinois Sole
Proprietorshop, individually and as the representative of a class
of similarly-situated persons doing business as J&D BUILDERS, is
represented by:

          Phillip A. Bock, Esq.
          BOCK, HATCH, LEWIS & OPPENHEIM, LLC
          134 N. LaSalle Street
          Chicago, IL 60602
          Telephone: (312) 658-5500
          E-mail: phil@classlawyers.com

Defendants-Appellees RELIANT SERVICES, LLC, a Delaware Limited
Liability Company doing business as RELIANT FUNDING, and ADAM
STETTNER, an individual, are represented by:

          Bradley Andreozzi, Esq.
          DRINKER BIDDLE & REATH, LLP
          191 N. Wacker Drive
          Chicago, IL 60606-1698
          Telephone: (312) 569-1173
          Facsimile: (312) 569-3173
          E-mail: bradley.andreozzi@dbr.com


REGIONS BANK: UM Law Clinic Gets Class Action Settlement Funds
--------------------------------------------------------------
Monika Gonzalez Mesa, writing for Daily Business Review, report
that the University of Miami School of Law's investor rights
clinic has received $107,282 from the settlement of a class action
lawsuit against Regions Bank related to U.S. Pension Trust Corp.'s
sale of unregistered securities in the 1990s.

The money is a cy pres distribution of money left over from a $13
million settlement after distributing most of the settlement to
the class members. It would have cost $120,000 to cover the cost
of another round of distributions to investors, said clinic
director Teresa J. Verges.

The plaintiffs counsel, including some UM law graduates, sought
the cy pres order to allow distribution to the clinic, which under
the supervision of Verges and another attorney represents
investors for free when their claims are too small to attract an
attorney.

The settlement came in Laura Yelitza Cifuentes, et al. v. Regions
Bank, filed in 2011 on behalf of more than 5,000 Latin American
investors who purchased investment plans from Coral Gables-based
U.S. Pension Trust. Regions had served as trustee for the
investment plans.

In the mid-1990s, U.S. Pension Trust solicited clients throughout
Latin America to invest in mutual funds. The director of U.S.
Pension never registered with the Securities and Exchange
Commission or the state as a broker, dealer or investment adviser.
Birmingham, Alabama-based Regions Bank served as plan trustee
since 2001.

The SEC accused U.S. Pension Trust of fraud, selling unregistered
securities and inadequately disclosing fees and costs. The agency
claimed Regions aided and abetted the sale of securities by an
unregistered dealer. The SEC prevailed in both cases, and U.S.
Pension Trust went out of business.

The class action lawsuit, which followed the SEC actions, alleged
the plans were sold in violation of Florida's investor protection
statute and that Regions' involvement rendered it liable under the
statute.

"One of the reasons we recommended the investor rights clinic for
a cy pres award is because the clinic reasonably approximates the
interests of the class in the underlying case," said David
Rothstein, a partner at Dimond Kaplan & Rothstein who graduated
from the UM School of Law in 1995. "The clinic includes financial
outreach and helping small claim investors recover losses due to
fraud and broker misconduct."
Many of the clinic's clients are on Social Security or disability
and can't cover the cost of experts and travel to a hearing,
Verges said. The distribution will underwrite the costs of the
clinic, which has recovered $750,000 for clients since its
inception in 2012.

"If it wasn't for the clinic, all these people would have to
either forgo their claim or purse them without an attorney pro se"
in arbitration, Verges said.


SANTA CRUZ: Ruling May Signal Revival of Mislabelling Cases
-----------------------------------------------------------
Stephen R. Freeland -- srfreeland@Venable.com -- of Venable LLP,
in an article for Lexology, reports that earlier this year, we
discussed the Ninth Circuit's decision staying a consumer class
action against Chobani challenging its listing of "evaporated cane
juice" as an ingredient on its yogurt labels. According to the
plaintiffs in that case, "evaporated cane juice" was simply code
for sugar, and Chobani therefore allegedly misled them about the
healthiness of its products. The Ninth Circuit reasoned that a
stay was necessary on primary jurisdiction grounds in order to
allow the FDA time to complete its review of draft guidance on the
use of the term. This decision was viewed as a temporary breather
for food companies facing class actions challenging the use of the
term. The Northern District of California's recent decision in
Swearingen v. Santa Cruz Natural, Inc., issued after the FDA
published its final guidance, may signal a revival of such cases.

As in Chobani, the class action complaint in Swearingen -- filed
before the FDA issued its final guidance -- alleges that soda
products offered for sale by Santa Cruz were misleadingly labeled
as containing "evaporated cane juice." The Swearingen plaintiffs
contend that the use of "evaporated cane juice" violates FDA
regulations and California food labeling laws that require food
labels to reflect the common or usual name of an ingredient which,
as in Chobani, plaintiffs contend is sugar. The Swearingen
complaint also asserted claims under California's Unfair
Competition Law (UCL), False Advertising Law (FAL) and Consumer
Legal Remedies Act (CLRA), as well as claims for breach of
warranty, negligence, and injunctive and declaratory relief.

Santa Cruz moved to dismiss the complaint but the district court,
like the Ninth Circuit in Chobani, stayed the action. After the
FDA issued its final guidance -- which indicates that the term
"evaporated cane juice" should be listed on food labels as "sugar"
-- the district court in Swearingen lifted the stay and granted in
part and denied in part Santa Cruz's motion to dismiss.

The court dismissed without prejudice plaintiffs' negligence and
negligent misrepresentation claims because the damages sought are
purely economic and, therefore, are barred by the economic loss
rule. The court also dismissed -- with prejudice -- plaintiffs'
breach of warranty claims for failing to give Santa Cruz the
required statutory notice of breach and an opportunity to cure
before filing suit.

Plaintiffs' request for declaratory and injunctive relief were
also dismissed on standing grounds because they failed to allege
that they intend to purchase Santa Cruz's soda products again.
While the court gave plaintiffs leave to amend their complaint to
try to remedy this pleading failure, it expressed doubts that
plaintiffs could do so.

While the court also concluded that plaintiffs were barred from
basing their claims on Santa Cruz soda products that did not list
evaporated cane juice as an ingredient, the court permitted
plaintiffs to pursue claims against products that did list that
ingredient even if the named plaintiffs did not purchase those
products. The court noted that courts within its own district "are
split as to whether actual purchase is required to establish the
requisite injury-in-fact" for standing. However, the court agreed
with those decisions holding that, "where plaintiffs seek to
proceed as representatives of a class . . . 'the critical inquiry
seems to be whether there is sufficient similarity between the
products purchased and not purchased." According to the court, the
non-purchased soda products were sufficiently similar to the soda
products purchased by the plaintiffs to give them standing to
pursue claims based on both.

The court also concluded that plaintiffs had pled sufficient facts
to satisfy the "reasonable consumer" test under California's
consumer protection laws, at least with respect to two of the
products at issue. That test "'requires a plaintiff to show
potential deception of consumers acting reasonably in the
circumstances -- not just any consumers.'" According to the court,
the two products that satisfied this standard -- at least at the
pleading stage -- listed their sugar content at 29 and 25 grams
respectively, and also listed "organic" purees and "juice
concentrates" as ingredients. The court determined "that a
reasonable consumer might think that these ingredients created
naturally occurring sugars that comprised the sugar content of the
beverage."

However, the court had "reservations as to whether a reasonable
consumer would be misled as regarding added sugars" in the other
two products at issue, which listed sugar content of 35 and 32
grams respectively. According to the court, "[i]t is unclear that
a reasonable consumer would believe that 35 [or 32] grams of sugar
naturally occurs, as plaintiffs allege, in filtered water . . .
juice, or other . . . flavorings." Nonetheless, despite the
court's reservations, it declined to exclude these products at the
motion to dismiss stage.

This decision may signal a revival of class action claims against
food manufacturers for listing "evaporated cane juice" as an
ingredient. However, as the Swearingen court noted, a plaintiff
must plead -- and, if they survive dismissal, later prove --
reliance on that term in order to satisfy the standing
requirements of the FAL, CLRA and the "unlawful prong" of the UCL.


SCR MEDICAL: Ill. App. Court Affirms Claims Dismissal in "James"
----------------------------------------------------------------
Justice Margaret Stanton McBride of the Illinois Appellate Court
affirmed the dismissal of claims against defendants in the case
captioned, COREY JAMES, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. SCR MEDICAL
TRANSPORTATION, INC.; PACE SUBURBAN BUS SERVICE, a Division of the
Regional Transportation Authority, (RTA); EMPIRE FIRE AND MARINE
INSURANCE COMPANY; and GEMINI INSURANCE COMPANY, Defendants, (SCR
Medical Transportation, Inc.; Pace Suburban Bus Service, a
Division of the Regional Transportation Authority (RTA); and
Empire Fire and Marine Insurance Company, Defendants-Appellees),
Case No. 1-15-0358 (Ill. App.).

Plaintiff Corey James filed the suit seeking declaratory relief
entitling him up to $1 million in UIM coverage from SCR, Pace, and
Empire, on grounds that when SCR contracted to provide drivers for
Pace vans, SCR agreed to maintain $1 million in UIM coverage.

He suffered personal injuries in Chicago on March 9, 2010, in a
collision with a motorist he contends was underinsured. After
receiving the $50,000 limit of the other motorist's insurance
coverage and a $28,608 settlement in workers' compensation
benefits from his own employer, James requested underinsured
motorist (UIM) coverage from his employer's business automobile
liability insurer, Empire Fire and Marine Insurance Company
(Empire). Empire denied the claim because SCR's UIM coverage was
limited to $50,000, which was the amount James had already
received from the other driver, meaning that he was not
"underinsured" within the meaning of Empire's policy. He made four
attempts at pleading a cause of action.

Five of the nine counts were directed at SCR. In count I, James
sought a declaratory judgment to the effect that the SCR-Pace
contract regarding para-transit service required $1 million in UIM
coverage and that a purported oral modification of that
requirement was "against public policy and void." Count IV
consisted of allegations that SCR, Pace, and Empire engaged in a
civil conspiracy to "circumvent" the $1 million UIM requirement.
Count V was a proposed class action seeking a declaratory judgment
on behalf of all injured passengers and drivers of SCR-Pace vans
who had been denied more than $50,000 in UIM coverage. There were
two counts labeled as "Count VI," the second of which sought a
declaratory judgment that SCR had "an obligation to provide
$1,000,000 UIM benefits and has breached this obligation."

Count VII was similar, but recast the allegations "AS TO THE CLASS
OF PERSONS AGGRIEVED" and described the proposed class of
plaintiffs as "all van drivers and handicapped passengers" who
have not been paid "the $1,000,000 UIM benefits to which they are
entitled."

The trial court dismissed all claims against SCR, Pace, and Empire
with prejudice pursuant to section 2-619 of the Code of Civil
Procedure. The court also dismissed of Gemini Insurance Company
(Gemini) from the suit. James neither appealed from that ruling
nor included Gemini in his third amended complaint.

The Appeals Court addressed the issue on whether James may bring a
claim against his employer. James contends he may sue SCR because
he is exempt from the principle that an employee injured on the
job normally cannot sue his Illinois employer, provided the
employee is entitled to receive workers' compensation benefits
from the employer or the employer's insurer. He contends the
$50,000 UIM coverage is contrary to public policy because the
"purpose of UIM in this situation is simple: to provide benefits
to only two classes of people, and no one else: the handicapped
passengers in the SCR/PACE vans and the van drivers.

In her Opinion dated September 1, 2016 available at
https://is.gd/DcP1a7 from Leagle.com, Judge McBride held that the
trial court's rulings against James and in favor of SCR, Pace, and
Empire were appropriate. The Court found that James is not a
third-party beneficiary of the SCR-Pace contract because he has no
contract provisions with which to overcome the strong presumption
in Illinois that contracting parties intend that the terms of
their agreement apply only to them, not to others. James also has
not met the heavy burden of showing that the UIM terms should be
invalidated for public policy reasons.


SPD SWISS PRECISION: Appeal Filed From Ruling in "Olvera" Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiff Amanda Olvera filed an appeal from a court ruling in her
lawsuit styled Amanda Olvera v. SPD Swiss Precision Diagnostic, et
al., Case No. 8:15-cv-02035-JLS-JCG, in the U.S. District Court
for the Central District of California, Santa Ana.

The appellate case is captioned as Amanda Olvera v. SPD Swiss
Precision Diagnostic, et al., Case No. 16-56343, in the United
States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.

As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, Ms. Olvera
seeks damages, interest, restitution and all other forms of
equitable monetary relief and reasonable attorneys' fees arising
from alleged breach of implied warranty of merchantability, fraud
and negligent misrepresentation in violation of the Magnuson-Moss
Warranty Act, California's Consumers Legal Remedies Act and
California's Unfair Competition Law, False Advertising Law.

SPD makes pregnancy tests that claim could estimate the number of
weeks a woman was pregnant.  Upon purchasing the product, Ms.
Olvera claims that this does not work.

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

   -- Transcript must be ordered by October 14, 2016;

   -- Transcript is due on January 12, 2017;

   -- Appellant Amanda Olvera's opening brief is due on
      February 21, 2017;

   -- Answering brief of Appellees Procter & Gamble Co. and SPD
      Swiss Precision Diagnostics GmbH is due on March 17, 2017;
      and

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

Plaintiff-Appellant AMANDA OLVERA, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated, is represented by:

          Scott A. Bursor, Esq.
          BURSOR & FISHER, P.A.
          888 Seventh Avenue
          New York, NY 10019
          Tel: (212) 989-9113
          Fax: (212) 989-9163
          E-Mail: scott@bursor.com

               - and -

          Lawrence Timothy Fisher, Esq.
          BURSOR & FISHER, P.A.
          1990 North California Blvd., Suite 940
          Walnut Creek, CA 94596
          Tel: (925) 300-4455
          Fax: (925) 407-2700
          E-Mail: ltfisher@bursor.com

Defendants-Appellees SPD SWISS PRECISION DIAGNOSTICS GMBH and
PROCTER & GAMBLE CO. are represented by:

          David Doss Piper, Esq.
          KEESAL, YOUNG & LOGAN
          400 Oceangate
          Long Beach, CA 90802
          Telephone: (562) 436-2000
          Facsimile: (562) 436-7416
          E-mail: david.piper@kyl.com


SPECTRUM PHARMACEUTICALS: Rosen Law Firm Files Securities Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Rosen Law Firm, a global investor rights law firm, announced on
September 21, 2016, that it has filed a class action lawsuit on
behalf of purchasers of Spectrum Pharmaceuticals, Inc. securities
(NASDAQ:SPPI) from December 16, 2015 through September 16, 2016,
both dates inclusive (the "Class Period").

To join the Spectrum class action, go to the website at
http://www.rosenlegal.com/cases-955.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.

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, throughout the Class Period defendants
made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose
that: (1) the FDA previously questioned whether the data from the
611 and 612 Studies were clinically meaningful; (2) the FDA
advised defendants in December 2012 not to submit the New Drug
Application based on data from the 611 and 612 Studies; and (3) as
a result, defendants' public statements about Spectrum's business,
operations and prospects were materially false and misleading at
all relevant times. When the true details entered the market, the
lawsuit claims that investors suffered damage.

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 21, 2016. If you wish to join the litigation, go to
http://www.rosenlegal.com/cases-955.htmlor to discuss your rights
or interests regarding this class action, please contact Phillip
Kim or Kevin Chan of Rosen Law Firm toll free at 866-767-3653 or
via email at pkim@rosenlegal.com or kchan@rosenlegal.com.


STARBUCKS CORP: Ninth Circuit Appeal Filed in "Forouzesh" Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Alexander Forouzesh filed an appeal from a court ruling in his
lawsuit styled Alexander Forouzesh v. Starbucks Corporation, et
al., Case No. 2:16-cv-03830-PA-AGR, in the U.S. District Court for
the Central District of California, Los Angeles.

As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter on Aug. 26,
2016, the District Court has thrown cold water on the lawsuit,
which claimed that Starbucks defrauded customers by adding ice to
its cold beverages.  Judge Percy Anderson tossed out the potential
class action lawsuit because a reasonable customer would know that
a portion of iced coffee or tea would include ice and they'd be
able to see it through the clear plastic cups the beverages are
served in.  In fact, he said, even a child would get it.

The appellate case is captioned as Alexander Forouzesh v.
Starbucks Corporation, et al., Case No. 16-56355, in the United
States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.

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

   -- Appellant Alexander Forouzesh's opening brief is due on
      February 23, 2017;

   -- Appellees Does and Starbucks Corporation's answering brief
      is due on March 27, 2017; and

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

Plaintiff-Appellant ALEXANDER FOROUZESH, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated, is represented by:

          Justin Farahi, Esq.
          FARAHI LAW FIRM, APC
          22760 Hawthorne Boulevard
          Torrance, CA 90505
          Telephone: (310) 774-4500
          Facsimile: (424) 295-0557
          E-mail: justin@farahilaw.com

Defendant-Appellee STARBUCKS CORPORATION is represented by:

          Robert J. Guite, Esq.
          SHEPPARD MULLIN RICHTER & HAMPTON LLP
          4 Embarcadero Center
          San Francisco, CA 94111-4106
          Telephone: (415) 774-3176
          Facsimile: (415) 403-6014
          E-mail: rguite@sheppardmullin.com

               - and -

          Robin Andrea Achen, Esq.
          Sascha Von Mende Henry, Esq.
          SHEPPARD MULLIN RICHTER & HAMPTON LLP
          333 South Hope Street
          Los Angeles, CA 90071-1448
          Telephone: (213) 617-5579
          Facsimile: (213) 443-2893
          E-mail: rachen@sheppardmullin.com
                  shenry@sheppardmullin.com

               - and -

          Fred R. Puglisi, Esq.
          SHEPPARD MULLIN RICHTER & HAMPTON LLP
          1901 Avenue of the Stars
          Los Angeles, CA 90067-6001
          Telephone: (310) 228-3733
          Facsimile: (310) 228-3933
          E-mail: fpuglisi@sheppardmullin.com


STONEBRIDGE LIFE: Smith Seeks Review of D.S.C. Ruling to 4th Cir.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiff Sharen Smith filed an appeal from a court ruling in her
lawsuit styled Sharen Smith v. Stonebridge Life Insurance Co.,
Case No. 3:15-cv-02846-BHH, in the United States District Court
for the District of South Carolina at Columbia.

The appellate case is captioned as Sharen Smith v. Stonebridge
Life Insurance Co., Case No. 16-2055, in the United States Court
of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit.

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

   -- Initial forms are due within 14 days;
   -- Opening Brief and Appendix are due on October 26, 2016; and
   -- Response Brief is due on November 28, 2016.

Plaintiff-Appellant SHAREN SMITH, on behalf of herself and all
others similarly situated, is represented by:

          Joseph H. Aughtman, Esq.
          AUGHTMAN LAW FIRM, LLC
          1772 Platt Place
          Montgomery, AL 36117
          Telephone: (334) 868-0440

               - and -

          Aaron Craig Hemmings, Esq.
          HEMMINGS & STEVENS PLLC
          5613 Duraleigh Road
          P. O. Box 90698
          Raleigh, NC 27675
          Telephone: (919) 277-0161
          E-mail: ahemmings@hemmingsandstevens.com

               - and -

          Joseph Clay Hopkins, Esq.
          William Elvin Hopkins, Jr., Esq.
          HOPKINS LAW FIRM, LLC
          12019 Ocean Highway
          P. O. Box 1885
          Pawleys Island, SC 29585
          Telephone: (843) 314-4202
          Facsimile: (843) 314-9365
          E-mail: bill@hopkinsfirm.com

Defendant-Appellee STONEBRIDGE LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY is
represented by:

          Kevin Kendrick Bell, Esq.
          ROBINSON, MCFADDEN & MOORE, PC
          P. O. Box 944
          Columbia, SC 29202-0944
          Telephone: (803) 227-1111
          Facsimile: (803) 744-1555
          E-mail: kbell@robinsonlaw.com


TEPPO PARTNERS: Ponsurayamas Appeals From N.D. Texas Decision
-------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiff Piyapat Ponsurayamas filed an appeal from a court ruling
in the lawsuit titled Piyapat Ponsurayamas v. Teppo Partners,
L.P., et al., Case No. 3:15-CV-2345, in the U.S. District Court
for the Northern District of Texas, Dallas.

As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the Plaintiff
seeks to recover unpaid overtime and minimum wages, liquidated
damages, and reasonable attorneys' fees and costs pursuant to the
Fair Labor Standards Act.

The appellate case is captioned as Piyapat Ponsurayamas v. Teppo
Partners, L.P., et al., Case No. 16-11365, in the U.S. Court of
Appeals for the Fifth Circuit.

Plaintiff-Appellant PIYAPAT PONSURAYAMAS, and all others similarly
situated under 29 U.S.C. 216 (b), is represented by:

          Robert Lee Manteuffel, Esq.
          J.H. ZIDELL, P.C.
          6310 Lyndon B. Johnson Freeway
          Dallas, TX 75240
          Telephone: (972) 233-2264
          E-mail: rlmanteuffel@sbcglobal.net

Defendants-Appellees TEPPO PARTNERS, L.P.; TEPPO MANAGEMENT,
L.L.C.; TEPPO ENTERPRISES, INCORPORATED; and MASAYUKI OTAKA are
represented by:

          John Bridges Brown, Esq.
          OGLETREE, DEAKINS, NASH, SMOAK & STEWART, P.C.
          8117 Preston Road
          Preston Commons, W.
          Dallas, TX 75225
          Telephone: (214) 987-3800
          Facsimile: (214) 987-3927
          E-mail: john.brown@ogletreedeakins.com


TRUMP UNIVERSITY: Trial on Student Class Action Set for Nov. 28
---------------------------------------------------------------
Dorian Hargrove, writing for San Diego Reader, reports that
Donald Trump's attorneys have been denied a request as they go
about defending their client from charges related to the Trump
University case.

According to a ruling posted on the federal court's website on
September 20, the lawyers filed a motion requesting an opportunity
to argue for allowing former students who are not members of the
class-action lawsuit a chance to testify in the case.

Former students sued Trump and his (now-defunct) real-estate
university in April 2010 for what they claim was a pure money-
making scheme. Students say that instructors were more concerned
about bilking money from them for additional classes and expensive
instruction packages than they were interested in their education.

Instructors, alleges the complaint, persuaded students to take out
small loans, borrow money from relatives, or max out credit cards
to pay for the materials and extra classes.

During the course of the past year the lawsuit has served as a
distraction for the Republican presidential candidate. Earlier
this year, Trump was criticized for questioning whether federal
judge Gonzalo Curiel could remain unbiased due to his Mexican
heritage and Trump's stance on illegal immigration.

In August, Judge Curiel ruled against a motion from Trump's
attorneys to dismiss the case. Curiel delivered this latest blow
to Trump as well.

Not allowing Trump University students who are not a part of the
class action to testify, says lead Trump attorney Daniel
Petrocelli in a September 19 court filing, essentially sets the
stage for a one-sided trial.

"Under the guise of 'streamlining' a trial in which they accuse
defendants of fraud and elder abuse, plaintiffs seek to prevent
the jury from hearing testimony of former students of Trump
University, except for plaintiffs' three self-selected named
representatives. No authority exists for such a one-sided affair."

Petrocelli says the non-class members could offer a different view
and help jurors determine whether they were told Trump University
was an accredited college and whether they felt that Trump would
actually play a part in their curriculum.

"Such testimony is indisputably relevant and important for a jury
to consider in determining whether plaintiffs have established
their class case. Of course, plaintiffs will have the opportunity
to object at trial to specific questions, cross-examine the former
students, and offer their own evidence if they see fit to do so.
And, naturally, the Court will regulate the admission and
exclusion of all evidence proffered by both sides."

One such former student was Meena Mohan. In July 2015, Mohan
provided testimony in a separate class-action lawsuit brought by
Art Cohen in Orange County. In her testimony, included in
Petrocelli's September 19 motion, Mohan testified about her
experience as a Trump University student. She said that she was
never told that she had to leave positive reviews of the
university. Nor was she ever led to believe that Trump University
was actually an accredited or licensed university.

As to Trump's involvement, Mohan said the following in her July
2015 deposition: "I believed that some of [Trump's] ideas must
have been in the part of the package, but other than that,
personal involvement, zero. That was my understanding."

The case is set to head to trial on November 28.

       Trump Wants to Call Former Students to Witness Stand

Bianca Bruno, writing for Courthouse News Service, reported that
Republican presidential nominee Donald Trump pressed a federal
judge in San Diego, on September 19 to allow him to call former
Trump University students not part of a class action to the
witness stand later this year.

Trump wants U.S. District Judge Gonzalo Curiel to let him call a
handful of former students from his now-defunct real estate school
to testify about their positive experiences. The request comes a
little less than two months before the trial in Low v. Trump
University kicks off in San Diego Federal Court following the
Thanksgiving holiday.

In an order earlier this month, Curiel said he would not postpone
the post-election trial date to accommodate a scheduling conflict
for Trump's lead attorney Daniel Petrocelli, giving the go-ahead
for the first of three Trump University lawsuits to go to trial.

Sonny Low and the others sued Trump long before he launched his
presidential bid, claiming they were duped into paying upwards of
$35,000 on the promise they'd learn insider real estate secrets
from instructors "handpicked" by Trump himself.

At a hearing earlier this summer, attorneys for the class told
Curiel they would move to exclude testimony from any former Trump
University students who are not class members, which Trump's
attorneys opposed. After receiving filings from Trump and the
plaintiffs on their respective positions, Trump asked
Curiel on September 19, if the court would allow Trump to respond
to the class' position.

In addition to talking about their positive experiences, Trump's
witnesses are expected to testify they did not believe that the
use of the word "university" in the title meant the school was
accredited, a direct conflict to the class' false advertising and
fraud arguments.

The class claims allowing Trump to call a dozen students who opted
out of a class of more than 7,600 would skew testimony, noting
there's no way they could speak for the entire class. Low and the
others say they would have to call 600 class members for each opt-
out student brought to the stand by Trump.

On September 19, Trump said he wants to be allowed to respond to
the plaintiffs' opposition because he claims the class presented
new arguments and evidence in their opposition that he should be
allowed to address. Trump also said the procedural background is
"unusual," as the issue would normally be vetted in hearings
before the trial, but "for whatever reason" Curiel did not require
the plaintiffs do that when they requested the exclusion order.

A 56-page exhibit attached to Trump's request includes an email
exchange between the lawyers for both parties as well as a draft
of Trump's response to the plaintiffs' opposition to calling the
handful of students to the witness stand.

Trump said the admissibility of former Trump University students'
testimony is of "paramount importance" and implicates "defendants'
constitutional rights and the integrity of the trial itself."

Both parties and the court would benefit from a "full ventilation
of these issues" which could only occur if Trump is granted
permission to file response papers, the candidate said.

The plaintiffs also filed a response late on September 19,
indicating they plan to oppose Trump's request on the record by
the end of the week.

The case is captioned, SONNY LOW et al., on Behalf of Themselves
and All Others Similarly Situated, Plaintiffs, v. TRUMP
UNIVERSITY, LLC et al., Defendants., Case No. 10-CV-0940-
GPC(WVG)(S.D.CAL)


TRUMP UNIVERSITY: Suits Provide Ground for Impeachment, Prof Says
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Bianca Bruno, writing for Courthouse News Service, reported that a
University of Utah law professor believes the fraud allegations
against Republican presidential nominee Donald Trump's now-defunct
real estate school could constitute impeachable offenses if he is
elected Nov. 8.

Christopher Peterson penned a 23-page academic paper outlining how
the fraud and racketeering claims in three lawsuits against Trump
University, if proven, would rise to the level of impeachable
offenses under the Constitution.

Two of the class actions against Trump and Trump University are
being litigated in San Diego federal court. The plaintiffs in Low
v. Trump University and Cohen v. Trump rely on essentially the
same fraud and false advertising claims, with the Cohen case
claiming a violation of the Racketeering Influenced and Corrupt
Organizations Act. The RICO claim triples damages and attorney
fees if Trump is found to have knowingly defrauded Trump
University students.

The other case against Trump University was filed by New York's
Attorney General.

Students in the two class actions say the word "university" made
them to believe the school was accredited. They also say the
school misrepresented that instructors were "handpicked" by Trump
himself.

Some students paid upwards of $35,000 to attend the Trump
University seminar classes and get hands-on mentorship and
guidance from the instructors Trump purportedly "handpicked" to
dish out his real estate investing secrets.

Peterson said Trump University's advertising campaign capitalized
on the businessman's "name recognition" and instructors who
"boasted of having close personal relationships with Trump." The
professor detailed the ways the Trump University seminars were
focused on "up-selling" and capitalizing on the emotions of the
attendees. Staff members also ranked attendees based on their
liquid assets so they could more effectively sell expensive "Trump
Elite" packages priced at up to $35,000.

Consumers filed complaints with the Better Business Bureau, law
enforcement offices in at least 11 states, the Federal Trade
Commission and the Justice Department, according to Peterson. The
students said they did not receive meaningful real estate
mentoring, were advised to engage in illegal behavior and were
blamed for their inability to make money in the real estate
market.

In arguing the legality of impeaching a President Trump, Peterson
points to a specific article in the Constitution which states the
president "shall be removed from office on impeachment for, and
conviction of, treason, bribery, or other high crimes and
misdemeanors." The authority to impeach a sitting president rests
with Congress, with an affirmative vote required from at least
two-thirds of senators. The chief justice of the U.S. Supreme
Court would preside over the trial.

The law professor argues fraud and racketeering would constitute
impeachable "high crimes or misdemeanors." He says while there may
be public and political debate over what would constitute
impeachable offenses, "the most plain" reading is simply that
"impeachable behavior is only that which would subject an ordinary
person to criminal indictment and prosecution." He says the
breadth of the phrase was intentional by the framers of the
Constitution and "leaves much to the wisdom and judgment of the
House of Representatives and Senate."

Peterson says there is no "clear legal hurdle" that would prevent
Congress from beginning impeachment proceedings, noting it would
be "well within its legal rights to insist upon a president who is
not a fraudster or a racketeer."

Peterson also argues impeachable offenses apply not only to those
committed while in office, but to pre-incumbency conduct,
especially in light of the current unorthodox race for the Oval
Office. He says impeachment for conduct before being elected
president is rare, but that may be because voters don't typically
vote for candidates accused of "high crimes or misdemeanors."

But Peterson also acknowledges that the strongest argument against
impeaching Trump would be the collective voice of an electorate
who, despite the accusations, chose to elect Trump to the highest
office of the United States. An election win for Trump would not
make him untouchable, though, as voters' own elected
representatives could move to kick him out.

According to Peterson, Trump's attempt to "publicly misrepresent
the facts and circumstances surrounding his alleged fraud and
racketeering" should also be weighed when deciding if impeachment
is the correct action to take. Trump has "deflected blame" and
attempted to "tarnish the reputations" of those former students
involved in the cases against him, and most notably criticized the
judge presiding over the two San Diego cases -- U.S. District
Judge Gonzalo Curiel -- by attacking Curiel's Mexican heritage
when the judge ruled against him.

"If Trump had apologized and accepted responsibility for the
alleged fraud and racketeering, the argument that the election
served as an effective referendum on the appropriateness of
impeachment would be more persuasive," Peterson wrote. "As it
stands, Trump's own representations regarding the case may have
distorted the public view of whether Trump committed fraud or
racketeering."

Looking to the effects of the Trump campaign on American politics,
Peterson said Trump has "planted to seeds for a weakened
presidency." He also points out that while Trump has threatened to
commit "high crimes" if elected, including ordering the murder of
innocent family members of terrorism suspects and torturing
suspected criminal defendants, he has already committed crimes
against American consumers.

Unlike his promised crimes yet to come, the illegal acts in
Trump's high-pressure wealth seminars have already occurred,"
Peterson wrote.


TWININGS NORTH: Appeal Filed From Ruling in "Lanovaz" Class Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Nancy Lanovaz filed an appeal from a court ruling in the lawsuit
styled NANCY LANOVAZ, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. TWININGS NORTH AMERICA, INC., Case No. 5:12-
cv-02646-RMW, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District
of California, San Jose.

As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, Nancy Lanovaz
sued Twinings claiming it misbranded its tea as containing
antioxidants.  She claimed that because California had adopted
federal regulations, Twinings also violated California laws on
unfair competition, false advertising and consumer remedies.

The appellate case is captioned as NANCY LANOVAZ, individually and
on behalf of all others similarly situated v. TWININGS NORTH
AMERICA, INC., Case No. 16-16628, in the United States Court of
Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.

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

   -- Transcript must be ordered by October 13, 2016;

   -- Transcript must be filed by court reporter by November 14,
      2016;

   -- Appellant's opening brief and excerpts of record must be
      served and filed on December 22, 2016;

   -- Appellee's answering brief and excerpts of record must be
      served and filed on January 23, 2017; and

   -- The optional appellant's reply brief must be filed and
      served within 14 days of service of the appellee's brief.


TWITTER INC: Brower Piven Files Investors Class Suit
----------------------------------------------------
The securities litigation law firm of Brower Piven, A Professional
Corporation, announced on September 21, 2016, that a class action
lawsuit has been commenced in the United States District Court for
the Northern District of California on behalf of purchasers of
Twitter, Inc., common stock during the period between February 6,
2015 and July 28, 2015, inclusive (the "Class Period").  Investors
who wish to become proactively involved in the litigation have
until November 15, 2016 to seek appointment as lead plaintiff.

If you wish to choose counsel to represent you and the Class, you
must apply to be appointed lead plaintiff and be selected by the
Court.  The lead plaintiff will direct the litigation and
participate in important decisions including whether to accept a
settlement for the Class in the action.  The lead plaintiff will
be selected from among applicants claiming the largest loss from
investment in Twitter common stock during the Class Period.
Members of the Class will be represented by the lead plaintiff and
counsel chosen by the lead plaintiff.  No class has yet been
certified in the above action.

The complaint accuses the defendants of violations of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 by virtue of the defendants'
failure to disclose during the Class Period that by early 2015,
daily active users ("DAUs") had replaced the timeline views metric
as the primary user engagement metric tracked internally by
Twitter management and the trend in use engagement growth was flat
or declining, new product initiatives were not having a meaningful
impact on MAUs (a measure of the total user base) or user
engagement, the acceleration in MAU growth was the result of low-
quality MAU growth, and the previously issued projections
regarding MAU growth lacked any reasonable basis.

According to the complaint, following a July 28, 2015 press
release announcing its second quarter 2015 financial results,
disclosing that MAUs had increased by only 2 million users over
the prior growth, product initiatives had not affected growth, and
that organic growth was going to be very low, the value of Twitter
shares declined significantly.

If you have suffered a loss in excess of $100,000 from investment
in Twitter common stock purchased on or after February 6, 2015 and
held through the revelation of negative information during and/or
at the end of the Class Period and would like to learn more about
this lawsuit and your ability to participate as a lead plaintiff,
without cost or obligation to you, please visit our website at
http://www.browerpiven.com/currentsecuritiescases.html. You may
also request more information by contacting Brower Piven either by
email at hoffman@browerpiven.com or by telephone at (410) 415-
6616.  Brower Piven also encourages anyone with information
regarding the Company's conduct during the period in question to
contact the firm, including whistleblowers, former employees,
shareholders and others.

Attorneys at Brower Piven have extensive experience in litigating
securities and other class action cases and have been advocating
for the rights of shareholders since the 1980s.  If you choose to
retain counsel, you may retain Brower Piven without financial
obligation or cost to you, or you may retain other counsel of your
choice.  You need take no action at this time to be a member of
the class.


UBER: Ruling Tips Drivers Away From Class-Action Suits
------------------------------------------------------
Mike Isaac, writing for The New York Times, reports that a federal
court ruled on Sept. 7 that Uber drivers are subject to individual
arbitration in a class-action case over background checks, handing
the ride-hailing company a legal decision that it may be able to
use to fend off other driver class-action suits.

The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals on Sept. 8 ruled that private
arbitration agreements -- a clause that Uber drivers agree to when
signing up to drive for the company -- were valid and enforceable
in a case, Mohamed v. Uber Technologies, in which drivers had
taken issue with Uber's background check practices. The decision
reversed a previous ruling in the case, where a district court
judge had deemed private arbitration unenforceable.

Private arbitration, a legal maneuver often used by companies,
allows corporations to litigate against plaintiffs individually
instead of through class-action lawsuits. Opponents of the
practice argue that binding arbitration clauses give companies
unfair advantages against workers, who typically do not have the
time and resources to fight companies on their own.

"Arbitration is a fair, speedy and less costly alternative to
class-action litigation," Theodore J. Boutrous Jr., Uber's outside
counsel at the law firm Gibson Dunn, said in a statement. "We've
always believed our optional arbitration agreements should have
applied in this case, and we're pleased with the court's decision
today."

While the ruling is limited to the Mohamed case, it establishes a
precedent that gives Uber ammunition to fight other class-action
lawsuits. That includes a separate class-action case in which
nearly 400,000 current and former Uber drivers sued to be
classified as employees, rather than as independent contractors.

"Today's decision is not good" for the class-action suit where
Uber drivers sought to be labeled employees, Shannon Liss-Riordan,
the lawyer representing that case, said in a statement.

The ruling comes just months after Uber and Ms. Liss-Riordan had
come to an agreement to settle the driver classification case for
as much as $100 million. In August, a judge rejected the terms of
the initial settlement as inadequate. If Uber files a motion to
apply the ruling to the driver classification suit, that could
force drivers in the case to turn to individual arbitration.

Ms. Liss-Riordan said the battle for her clients is far from over.
She said she has more than 1,500 drivers signed up in California
to pursue individual arbitration cases if necessary, and she urged
any other drivers who wish to do the same to contact her.


UBER TECHNOLOGIES: Attys Seek 9th Circ. Review of ADR Ruling
------------------------------------------------------------
Ben Hancock, writing for The Recorder, reports that plaintiffs'
attorneys pursuing a class action against Uber Technologies Inc.
have asked the full U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit to
overturn a panel decision that they say "creates a new level of
insulation" for arbitration agreements.

In a petition for rehearing en banc, lawyers at Ahdoot & Wolfson
and Goldstein, Borgen, Dardarian & Ho argue that the August
opinion sending driver disputes into arbitration runs counter to
Ninth Circuit jurisprudence as well as rules established by the
Supreme Court.

The three-judge panel held that Uber's 2013 and 2014 arbitration
agreements are valid and were not unfairly forced upon drivers. In
its decision reversing U.S. District Judge Edward Chen of the
Northern District of California, the panel ruled that the ability
of drivers to opt out of arbitration meant the contract was not
"unconscionable."

If it stands, the decision could stem the tide of class actions
that have confronted the company on the issue of how it classifies
drivers. Hundreds of thousands of Uber drivers have signed those
arbitration agreements.

The petition for rehearing argues that the opinion by Circuit
Judge Richard Clifton is "incompatible" with Ninth Circuit case
law. Plaintiffs lawyers challenge the panel's interpretation of a
key precedent, Kilgore v. KeyBank, and point to a fresh Ninth
Circuit decision on the National Labor Relations Act, which held
that companies cannot use arbitration pacts to bar employees from
collective action.

Uber's arbitration pact contains a class-action waiver, but the
NLRA issue was not central to the Ninth Circuit panel's decision.
In a footnote, Clifton dismissed the NLRA argument as made too
late by the plaintiffs. The decision then went on to say that the
presence of an opt-out clause immunizes an arbitration agreement
against any NLRA violation because accepting the waiver is not a
"condition of employment."

The plaintiffs say that goes against decisions from the Ninth and
Seventh circuits. Parties in those cases have petitioned the U.S.
Supreme Court for review. "At the very least, this court should
grant en banc review to await the outcome of petitions for writ of
certiorari that have been filed with the Supreme Court," they
wrote.

Uber's lead lawyer, Theodore Boutrous Jr. of Gibson, Dunn &
Crutcher, declined to comment.


WAL-MART STORES: Face U.S. Class Suit Over Alleged Mexican Bribery
------------------------------------------------------------------
Jonathan Stempel and Nandita Bose, writing for Reuters, report
that Wal-Mart Stores Inc. must face a class-action lawsuit
accusing the world's largest retailer of defrauding shareholders
by concealing suspected bribery to help it expand faster in
Mexico, a U.S. judge said.

In a decision on September 20, U.S. District Judge Susan Hickey in
Fayetteville, Arkansas rejected Wal-Mart's contention that a
Michigan pension fund had no standing to lead the case because it
had not suffered losses on the retailer's stock.

The decision means shareholders can sue Wal-Mart and former Chief
Executive Mike Duke as a group over the alleged cover-up of
bribery at Wal-Mart de Mexico. This could lead to a larger payout
at lower cost than if individual lawsuits were required.

Class certification "would enhance judicial economy and
efficiency," given that many shareholders had small claims, and
"concentrating the claims in defendants' home forum with uniform
decisions is desirable," Hickey wrote.

Wal-Mart spokesman Randy Hargrove said the Bentonville, Arkansas-
based retailer believes a class action is "not appropriate," and
may appeal the certification decision.

The market value of Wal-Mart fell by roughly $17 billion over
three days in April 2012, after The New York Times published a
Pulitzer Prize-winning report saying the retailer paid bribes to
Mexican officials for years to speed up store openings.

Shareholders said Wal-Mart knew about the scheme as early as 2005,
and downplayed it even after learning about the Times'
investigation.

Wal-Mart had argued that a widely-accepted accounting method
prevented the lead plaintiff City of Pontiac General Employees'
Retirement System from showing it lost money on Wal-Mart stock.

But the judge said the pension fund could show losses under
another widely-accepted accounting method, and that Wal-Mart
failed to show why its preferred method was better.

The class period runs from Dec. 8, 2011 to April 20, 2012, Hickey
said.


WASHINGTON, USA: Hoffman Appeals W.D. Wash. Ruling to 9th Cir.
--------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs Mary Hoffman, Susan Routh, Linda Eby and Mary Jane
Aurdal Olson filed an appeal from a court ruling in their lawsuit
titled Mary Hoffman, et al. v. Department of Social and Health
Services of the State of Washington, et al., Case No. 2:14-cv-
00200-MJP, in the U.S. District Court for Western District of
Washington, Seattle.

The appellate case is captioned as Mary Hoffman, et al. v.
Department of Social and Health Services of the State of
Washington, et al., Case No. 16-35749, in the United States Court
of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.

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

   -- Transcript must be ordered by October 14, 2016;

   -- Transcript is due on November 14, 2016;

   -- Opening brief of Appellants Linda Eby, Mary Hoffman, Mary
      Jane Aurdal Olson and Susan Routh is due on December 23,
      2016;

   -- Answering brief of Appellees Department of Social and
      Health Services of the State of Washington, Jay Inslee,
      Patricia Lashway and SEIU Healthcare 775NW is due on
      January 23, 2017; and

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

Plaintiffs-Appellants MARY HOFFMAN, SUSAN ROUTH, LINDA EBY and
MARY JANE AURDAL OLSON, on behalf of themselves and others
similarly situated, are represented by:

          Michael Patrick Brown, Esq.
          LAW OFFICE OF MICHAEL P. BROWN
          1169 E. John St., #101
          Seattle, WA 98112
          Telephone: (206) 909-3922

               - and -

          Wright A. Noel, Esq.
          CARSON & NOEL PLLC
          20 Sixth Avenue NE
          Issaquah, WA 98027
          Telephone: (425) 837-4717
          E-mail: wright@carsonnoel.com

               - and -

          Jeffrey Iver Tilden, Esq.
          GORDON TILDEN THOMAS & CORDELL LLP
          1001 Fourth Avenue
          Seattle, WA 98154
          Telephone: (206) 467-6477
          E-mail: jtilden@gordontilden.com

Defendants-Appellees DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL AND HEALTH SERVICES OF
THE STATE OF WASHINGTON; JAY INSLEE, in his capacity as Governor
of the State of Washington; and PATRICIA LASHWAY, in her capacity
as Secretary of the Department of Social and Health Services of
the State of Washington, are represented by:

          Alicia Orlena Young, Esq.
          ASSISTANT ATTORNEY GENERAL
          OFFICE OF THE WASHINGTON ATTORNEY GENERAL (OLYMPIA)
          P.O. Box 40126
          Olympia, WA 98504-0126
          Telephone: (360) 586-6398

Defendant-Appellee SEIU HEALTHCARE 775NW is represented by:

          Scott A. Kronland, Esq.
          ALTSHULER BERZON LLP
          177 Post Street
          San Francisco, CA 94108
          Telephone: (415) 421-7151
          Facsimile: (415) 362-8064
          E-mail: skronland@altshulerberzon.com

               - and -

          Michael Craig Subit, Esq.
          FRANK FREED SUBIT & THOMAS LLP
          705 Second Avenue
          Seattle, WA 98104
          Telephone: (206) 682-6711
          E-mail: msubit@frankfreed.com


WELLS FARGO: Mandatory Arbitration Clause Could Thwart Lawsuits
---------------------------------------------------------------
Suzanne Barlyn, writing for Insurance Journal, reports that Wells
Fargo & Co. customers aiming to sue the bank over bogus accounts
opened in their names may be in for an unpleasant surprise: the
fine print requires them to take their claims to an arbitrator
instead of a court.

Mandatory arbitration rules inserted into account-opening
agreements prohibit customers from joining class actions or suing
the third-largest U.S. bank in court. Instead, the agreements
require individual, closed-door arbitration.

U.S. senators highlighted the issue on September 20 as they
grilled Wells Fargo Chief Executive Officer John Stumpf during a
hearing.

Asked if he would set aside the mandatory arbitration agreements
for customers affected by the phantom accounts, Stumpf demurred.

"I'm not an expert in that," he said, adding he would talk to his
legal team.

That was not enough for some lawmakers.

"If we had class action on this in 2010, 2009, 2008, the problem
never would have gotten so out of hand," Senator Elizabeth Warren,
a Democrat from Massachusetts, said later, when questioning
regulators about the practice.

Class actions can be more affordable for unhappy customers,
especially those with limited resources, because they can band
together to sue, rather than having to hire lawyers individually.
Consumers also complain that target companies often choose the
arbitrators; proceedings are confidential; and decisions are hard
to appeal.

Three Wells Fargo customers filed a lawsuit on September 16 in a
Utah federal court, seeking class action status on behalf of
hundreds of thousands of customers nationwide they say were harmed
by the San Francisco-based bank's fraud and recklessness.

It was unclear whether they could get around the mandatory
arbitration clauses, though. Last year, Wells successfully invoked
the clauses to defend against a class action suit tied to bogus
accounts.

In that case, the judge said customers had to arbitrate because of
agreements they signed when opening legitimate accounts at the
bank.

The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, a brainchild of Warren,
was part of the regulatory group that negotiated a $190 million
settlement from Wells Fargo over the bogus accounts.

The bureau is considering rules to ban banks, credit card issuers
and other companies from forcing customers to submit to
arbitration and waive their right to join class action lawsuits.

Under the proposal, companies could still use arbitration, but
would have to tell consumers they could join class action lawsuits
instead.

Mandating arbitration when signing up for financial products has
become standard practice after a 2011 U.S. Supreme Court decision
validated the practice.

Still, the tide may be turning, said Joseph Peiffer, a New Orleans
lawyer who has represented investors and others in class action
lawsuits.

"Class actions dissuade companies from ripping people off a
thousand dollars here and a thousand dollars there," Peiffer said.


WELLS FARGO: Faces Workers' Action Over Fake Accounts
-----------------------------------------------------
Matt Reynolds, writing for Courthouse News Service, reported that
former and present Wells Fargo employees in California filed a
$2.6 billion class action against the bank, claiming they are the
"biggest victims" of the bank's policy of opening accounts without
customers' knowledge.

On Sept. 8, the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau hit Wells
Fargo Bank with a $100 million penalty for secretly and unlawfully
opening deposit and credit card accounts. The Office of the
Comptroller of the Currency ordered the third largest bank in the
nation to pay $35 million. The same day, Los Angeles City Attorney
Mike Feuer said that the city had reached a $50 million settlement
with the bank over the practice.

Up to 1.5 million deposit accounts were opened without
authorization and as many as 565,000 applications were opened that
may not have been authorized, Feuer's office said -- adding that
5,300 employees had been fired.

On September 22, Wells Fargo employees filed a class action in Los
Angeles County Superior Court claiming that the bank imposed
strict quotas on employees across all of its branches. The bank
pressured workers to foist up to eight banking products on
customers whether they wanted them or not, the complaint says.

According to the filing, the bank's aggressive and illegal sales
tactics pushed employees to "breaking point." Wells Fargo CEO John
Stumpf saw Wells Fargo stock soar as a result, while thousands of
employees earning $12 per hour were left to shoulder the blame for
banks' conduct, the 26-page lawsuit says.

"The biggest victims of this scheme are a class of people that
nobody else has talked about. The biggest victims of Wells Fargo's
scam is the class of victims that were fired because they did not
meet these cross-sell quotas by engaging in the fraudulent scam
that would line the CEO's pockets," the class says in its lawsuit.
"The good employees with a conscience who tried to meet the sales
quotas without engaging in fraudulent scams are the biggest
victims of this scam. They are the employees that this lawsuit
seeks to redress."

Wells Fargo constantly monitors employees to make sure that they
are meeting the bank's strict sales quotas, according to the
class, and employees who do not meet daily and monthly quotas are
told to do "whatever it takes" to meet them.

"Defendants strictly enforced and closely monitored sales quota
system that made it difficult for plaintiffs to keep their jobs
without resorting to fraud," the class says in the lawsuit.

Wells Fargo fired employees who did not meet the "impossible
quotas" to motivate remaining workers and further the scheme,
according to the lawsuit.

Claims include termination and retaliation, unlawful business
practices and failure to pay wages. The class seeks total damages
of $2.6 billion, an injunction and statutory penalties.
Attorney Jonathan Delshad who is representing named plaintiffs
Alexander Polonsky and Brian Zaghi did not respond to requests for
interviews by phone and email on September 23.

Wells Fargo spokesman Mark Folk declined to comment.

At a Senate Banking Committee hearing this week, Sen. Elizabeth
Warren, D-Massachusetts, said that Stumpf should resign and face a
criminal investigation. She joined other senators in calling for
the Department of Labor to investigate the firing of bank
employees.

"Okay, so you haven't resigned, you haven't returned a single
nickel of your personal earnings, you haven't fired a single
senior executive," Warren said to Stumpf on September 20.
"Instead, evidently, your definition of 'accountable' is to push
the blame to your low-level employees who don't have the money for
a fancy PR firm to defend themselves."

On September 22, lawsuit follows two shareholder derivative
complaints filed against the Wells Fargo board in San Francisco
County Superior Court.


YAKULT USA: Torrent Seeks 9th Circuit Review of C.D. Cal. Ruling
----------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiff Nicolas Torrent filed an appeal from a court ruling in
the lawsuit entitled Nicolas Torrent v. Yakult U.S.A., Inc., Case
No. 8:15-cv-00124-CJC-JCG, in the U.S. District Court for the
Central District of California, Santa Ana.

As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the action
arises out of the Defendant's alleged false and misleading claims
that the live microorganism Lactobacillus casei Shirota in the
Yakult probiotic drink is beneficial to human health and helps
balance the digestive system.

The appellate case is captioned as Nicolas Torrent v. Yakult
U.S.A., Inc., Case No. 16-56338, in the United States Court of
Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.

Plaintiff-Appellant NICOLAS TORRENT, on Behalf of Himself and All
Others Similarly Situated, is represented by:

          Elizabeth Lee Beck, Esq.
          Jared Harrison Beck, Esq.
          BECK & LEE TRIAL LAWYERS
          Corporate Park at Kendall
          12485 SW 137th Ave., Suite 205
          Miami, FL 33186
          Telephone: (305) 234-2060
          Facsimile: (786) 664-3334
          E-mail: elizabeth@beckandlee.com
                  jared@beckandlee.com

               - and -

          Cullin O'Brien, Esq.
          CULLIN O'BRIEN LAW, P.A.
          6541 NE 21st Way
          Fort Lauderdale, FL 33308
          Telephone: (561) 676-6370
          Facsimile: (561) 320-0285
          E-mail: cullin@cullinobrienlaw.com

Defendant-Appellee YAKULT U.S.A., INC., is represented by:

          Adam R. Fox, Esq.
          SQUIRE SANDERS (US) LLP
          555 South Flower Street
          Los Angeles, CA 90071-2300
          Telephone: (213) 624-2500
          E-mail: adam.fox@squirepb.com


YALE UNIVERSITY: Faces Retirement Plan Class Action Lawsuits
------------------------------------------------------------
Jeffrey D. Mamorsky -- mamorskyj@gtlaw.com -- Terry L. Moore --
mooreterry@gtlaw.com -- and Francis Serbaroli --
serbarolif@gtlaw.com -- of Greenberg Traurig LLP, in an article
for Lexology, report that there has been much media coverage of
the recent class action lawsuits filed against some of the most
prestigious universities in the United States by university
employees. These class action lawsuits allege that the
universities breached their fiduciary obligations in running their
defined contribution 403(b) retirement plans by allowing the plans
to pay excessive investment, record-keeping and administrative
fees, thereby resulting in reduced retirement savings for their
employees. The roster of current defendants includes Yale, MIT,
Vanderbilt, Duke, Cornell, Johns Hopkins, and the University of
Pennsylvania, among others, and more class actions of this type
against other universities are expected. These suits are similar
to the fiduciary-duty breach hidden fee litigation that has
bedeviled corporate 401(k) plan sponsors for years. The suits also
claim that some university retirement plans offer too many
investment options (Duke University allegedly offered more than
400; John Hopkins, 440; and Vanderbilt, 340), have multiple
recordkeepers (John Hopkins allegedly has five recordkeepers; Duke
and Vanderbilt, four) and the universities failed to put record-
keeping and other services for their retirement plans out for
competitive bidding on a periodic basis.

Among the plaintiffs' allegations are that the universities'
failure to properly supervise their plans resulted in too many and
confusing investment options; that some investments charged
significant withdrawal penalties thereby making withdrawal very
difficult; that retirement assets were invested in actively
managed underperforming funds with high retail costs as opposed to
less expensive institutional index funds; and that, in some cases,
conflicts of interest existed between the universities' plans and
the universities' board members and administration.

While these suits have only recently been filed, other suits
against 401(k) plan sponsors for alleged mismanagement and high
fees have already resulted in settlements running into tens of
millions of dollars.

Not-for-profits sponsoring 403(b) plans must realize that under
the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (ERISA), they
likely will be met with allegations that they are fiduciaries,
responsible for demonstrating prudence in selecting and monitoring
the plan's service providers, making sure that the plan is
operated in accordance with its terms, and assuring that the
plan's expenses are reasonable. ERISA requires a plan fiduciary to
act solely in the interest of the plan's participants and their
beneficiaries.

What should be of concern particularly to large not-for-profit
hospital and health care systems is that their roles as
fiduciaries of their employees' retirement plans is no different
than that of the universities involved in these class actions. In
fact, the law firm that is at the forefront of bringing these
class action lawsuits brought a similar class-action lawsuit in
2014 against Novant Health, a not-for-profit hospital system that
operates numerous hospitals in the Carolinas, Virginia, and
Georgia. In that case, a retired physician and several other
employees claimed, among other things, that the fees associated
with Novant's retirement plan increased tenfold over three years;
that its retirement plan options were too costly; and that the
founder of a brokerage firm that earned fees from Novant's
retirement plans had previously donated $5 million to one of
Novant's hospital facilities. The Novant suit was settled in May
2016 for $32 million.

Not-for-profit hospital and health care systems should consult
with counsel in order to consider taking steps to reduce the
likelihood of becoming a victim of these class action lawsuits.
There are some steps such plan sponsors may want to consider:

   * Adopting a robust governance structure that regularly reviews
the types of investment funds offered and their performance as
compared to other funds, examines expenses and annuities in
particular, and regularly benchmarks and documents fees to
determine if they are reasonable.

   * Adopting an investment policy statement pointing towards
supervision of the plans to assure that they are operated
exclusively in the best interests of the plans' participants.

   * Setting up performance standards for the plan's service
providers and regularly monitoring their performance.

   * Conducting a confidential, comprehensive, and objective
review (perhaps by independent counsel who specializes in plan
governance and forensic fee analysis) of all current investment
options available in the plans, the investment option selection
process, and all administrative, investment, and record-keeping
fees. Any decisions to change or decisions to keep fund options
should be documented.

   * Implementing a periodic competitive bidding process for
record-keeping, administrative, investment consulting, plan
participant education, and other commoditized plan services.

   * Providing all plan participants with accurate information
about all retirement plan options, all fees they may incur, and
the identity of plan fiduciaries.

As noted above, this list is not exhaustive, and while taking any
of these measures has the potential to reduce exposure to risk, it
is not a guarantee. Risk mitigation techniques should be developed
with counsel and tailored to your specific needs.


YASAR CORP: "Morales" Sues to Recover Minimum, Overtime Pay
-----------------------------------------------------------
Edwin E. Morales, and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v.
Yasar Corporation d/b/a N&J Food Market, a Florida for profit
corporation, and Yasar Saleh, individually, Defendants, Case No.
1:16-cv-23954, (S.D. Fla., September 15, 2016), seeks to recover
money damages for unpaid minimum wage compensation and unpaid
overtime wages under the Fair Labor Standards Act and the Florida
Minimum Wage Amendment.

Defendants operate a food market located in Miami-Dade County,
Florida where Plaintiff worked as a cook. Morales claims to be
paid below the mandatory minimum wage rates and denied overtime
premium.

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Alexander Pastukh, Esq.
      ALEXANDER PASTUKH, P.A.
      1395 Brickell Avenue, Ste. 800
      Miami, FL 33131
      Tel: (305) 502-5715
      E-mail: apastukh@appalaw.com


YAHOO INC: Data Breach May Prompt Litigation, Experts Say
---------------------------------------------------------
Matthew Renda, writing for Courthouse News Service, reported that
Yahoo confirmed on September 22, a massive data breach dating back
to 2014 that affected as many as 500 million user accounts.

"A recent investigation by Yahoo! Inc has confirmed that a copy of
certain user account information was stolen from the company's
network in late 2014 by what it believes is a state-sponsored
actor," the company said in a September 22, press release.

A data breach affecting 500 million users would represent the
largest data breach in history, according to multiple reports.
Peeved Yahoo users began filing what will no doubt be a raft of
class actions on September 23.

The ramifications of the breach remain unknown, but the tech giant
insists that the breach was limited to names, email addresses,
telephone numbers, birth dates and in some cases passwords and
encrypted security questions.

"The ongoing investigation suggests that stolen information did
not include unprotected passwords, payment card data, or bank
account information; payment card data and bank account
information are not stored in the system that the investigation
has found to be affected," the company said.

Yahoo is in the process of notifying its customers and encouraging
them to change passwords and security answers and to monitor their
email accounts for suspicious activity.

"Online intrusions and thefts by state-sponsored actors have
become increasingly common across the technology industry," the
company said. "Yahoo and other companies have launched programs to
detect and notify users when a company strongly suspects that a
state-sponsored actor has targeted an account."

At this point, many experts in the legal field believe litigation
is inevitable.  Anthem and other insurance companies that suffered
a data breach, widely thought to be initiated by China, were hit
with multiple class-action lawsuits. Plaintiffs seek millions in
damages.

Target and other large companies have also been sued by consumers
who claimed the corporations failed to protect their personal
information.


* U.S. Reps Ask CFPB to Include Safe Harbor in Arbitration Rule
---------------------------------------------------------------
In a bipartisan letter, the leaders of a House subcommittee write
that the CFPB's proposal to ban the use of class action waivers in
pre-dispute arbitration agreements could end up limiting consumer
choice and hurting consumers.

The leaders of the U.S. House of Representatives Financial Service
Committee's Subcommittee on Financial Institutions and Consumer
Credit from both sides of the aisle have sent a letter to the
Consumer Financial Protection Bureau urging Director Richard
Cordray to create a safe harbor in the Bureau's final rule
regulating pre-dispute arbitration agreements.

In the letter, U.S. Reps. Randy Neugebauer (R-Texas) and Lacy Clay
(D-Mo.) expressed their concern that the CFPB's proposed rule on
pre-dispute arbitration agreements--which would forbid financial
institutions from including class action waiver provisions in
their arbitration agreements--may limit consumers' options for
disputes and ultimately hurt low-income consumers.

"A prohibition on class action waivers will result in financial
institutions dissolving their consumer-friendly arbitration
programs as they are forced to bear significantly increased
exposure associated with class action litigation," they wrote.
"Such an outcome would leave many American consumers seeking to
remedy small dollar disputes without a viable forum for
resolution."

Instead, Neugebauer and Clay wrote that the CFPB could create a
safe harbor for financial institutions by developing clear,
consumer-friendly model arbitration agreements for them to use.

The CFPB issued its Notice of Proposed Rulemaking on Arbitration
Agreements on May 24; in August, ACA International submitted
comments opposing the rule. ACA urged the CFPB to withdraw the
Proposed Rule and take a more balanced approach that will allow it
to achieve the same public policy goals that it purports to
achieve through a ban on class action waivers, but in a way that
preserves individual arbitration, does not run afoul of explicit
congressional directives, and is fair for consumers and
compliance-minded businesses, including debt collectors.

Arbitration agreements containing class action waivers play an
important role by offering legitimate debt collectors, especially
small businesses, a way to quickly and more easily defeat
inappropriate class action lawsuits. In the credit and collection
industry, class action lawsuits frequently get filed despite
lacking crucial criteria. Such class filings are often used
strategically in hopes of increasing a settlement offer.


                            *********

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  * * *