CAR_Public/161003.mbx              C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

             Monday, October 3, 2016, Vol. 18, No. 197




                            Headlines


012 SMILE: Faces Class Action Over Excessive Tariffs
013 NETVISION: Sued Over Excessive Prices of Outgoing Calls
ABILITY INC: GPM Appointed as Class Action Co-Lead Counsel
AFNI INC: Class Certification Sought in "Alan" Suit
AMERICAN INTERCONTINENTAL: Unable to Defeat TCPA Class Action

AMERICAN RENAL: Lundin Law Files Class Action Lawsuit
AMERICAN RENAL: Howard G. Smith Files Securities Class Action
APPLE INC: Faces Class Action Over IPhone Upgrade Program
ARCTIC EXPRESS: Settlement in "Owner-Operator" Case Approved
AVVO INC: Judge Tosses Class Action Over Lawyer Listings

BEHAVIORAL HEALTH: Faces "Mendez" Suit Alleging Disability Bias
BENECARD SERVICES: Data Breach Class Action Dismissal Affirmed
BLUE CROSS: 6th Cir. Vacates Class Settlement
BRIAN GIBBS: Faces "Coronado" Lawsuit Alleging FLSA Violation
BURMA SUPERSTAR: Ex-Employee Details Brutal Work Conditions

CALIFORNIA: "Sutcliffe" Case Can't Proceed as Class
CAPIO PARTNERS: Illegally Collects Debt, "Lebovitz" Suit Claims
CAROLINAS HEALTHCARE: Sued Over Anti-Competitive Actions
CARIBBEAN CRUISE: Settles TCPA Class Action for $76 Million
CENTURYLINK COMMUNICATIONS: Faces "Sample" Class Suit in Arizona

CHATTANOOGA, TN: Police Files Class Action Over Pay Disparity
CHICAGO, IL: Polk Joins Class in "Gutierrez" Case
CHINACAST EDUCATION: Jayhawk Private Seeks Certification of Class
CONOCOPHILLIPS: Class Certification Bid in "Cruz" Suit Granted
CONTINENTAL CASUALTY: Faces "Dolins" Suit Alleging ERISA Breach

COOK COUNTY, IL: Williams, et al. Seek to Certify Subclasses
CREDIT CONTROL: Illegally Collects Debt, "Freund" Suit Claims
CYTOSPORT INC: Plaintiff Seeks Certification of 4 Classes
DANNEL P. MALLOY: "Wright" Suit Denied Class Status
DAVE'S GOURMET: Faces "Kazemi" Suit Over ECJ in Pasta Sauces

DETROIT: 7 Schoolchildren Sue Over Right to Literacy Exclusion
DISH NETWORK: To Pay $1.75MM to Settle FCRA Class Action Lawsuit
E & L TRANSFER: Faces "Brown" Suit Over Alleged Violation of FLSA
EDWARD BUKATY: Settlement in "Cobb" Case Has Initial OK
EGS FINANCIAL: Court Approves Settlement in "Burns" Suit

FACEBOOK INC: Privacy Class Action Heads to EU's Court of Justice
FARMERS INSURANCE: "Alvarez" Suit Gets Conditional Certification
FIGI'S COMPANIES: "Perez" Suit Seeks Certification of Two Classes
FLUIDMASTER INC: Faces "Castillo" Lawsuit Over Toilet Fill Valve
FRANK ORTEGA: Faces "Zaragoza" Lawsuit Alleging FLSA Violation

GLOBE LIFE: Proctor Seeks to Certify Policyholders Class
GREGG A WILLIAMS: Sued in N.Y. Over Alleged Sexual Harassment
HARFORD COUNTY, MD: Judge Denies Inmate's Petitions
HARRAH'S LAS VEGAS: Settlement in "McDonagh" Suit Has Initial OK
HATHAWAY DINWIDDIE: Faces "Moreno" Suit in California

HAUDENOSAUNEE DEVELOPMENT: Six Nations File Class Action Suit
HOUSING AUTHORITY, CA: Final Settlement Hearing Set for Dec. 5
ILG TECHNOLOGIES: Mans Sue for Incorrect Bar Exam Results
IMOTORSPORTS INC: Foley Seeks Certification of Class
INTEGRATED PRODUCTION: Sued Over Failure to Pay Workers Overtime

INTUITIVE SURGICAL: Court Conceals Pre-litigation Records
JESSE CASARES: JT's Frames Seeks Certification of Class
JOY GLOBAL: Nov. 7 Class Action Lead Plaintiff Deadline Set
KERYX BIOPHARMACEUTICALS: Misled Investors, Class Action Alleged
KERYX BIOPHARMACEUTICALS: Khang & Khang Files Class Action Suit

LINCARE INC: Court Trims Down Notice Plan in "Culley" Suit
LKQ CORPORATION: Class Certification Sought in "Wendell" Suit
LOS ANGELES, CA: LADWP Settles Class Action for Nearly $50-Mil.
LUMBER LIQUIDATORS: "Chestnut" Suit Transferred to D. Maryland
LUMBER LIQUIDATORS: "Williams" Suit Transferred to N.D. Florida

MACHINE ZONE: Court Rules Class Certification in "Mihajlo" Suit
MACY'S INC: Court Lifts Stay Order in "Tapia" Suit for Dismissal
MANNKIND CORP: Court Dismisses "Ardolino" Case
MARTHA P. MIMS: Court Denies Motion to Amend Complaint
MASTERCARD: Faces GBP14-Bil. Consumer Class Action in UK

MCDONALD'S CORP: Asks Court to Deny Class Cert. in "Salazar"
MDL 1658: Appeal Bond Set at $55,000 for One Objector
MEADOWBROOK MEAT: Settlement in "Taylor" Suit Granted Final Okay
MEDICAL & FINANCIAL: Illegally Collects Debt, "Cala" Suit Claims
METAL PARTNERS: Class Certification Sought in "Wendell" Suit

METALS USA: Court Approves Notice Plan in "Wilson" Suit
NATIONAL MILK: NH Residents Have Until Jan. 31 to File Claims
NATIONSTAR MORTGAGE: Court Stays Action over Dismissal
NEW TECH GLOBAL: Class Certification Sought in "Clay" Suit
NORTHERN OIL: Glancy Prongay Files Securities Class Suit

NORTHSHORE UNIVERSITY: Faces Class Action Over High Park Merger
NOVANT HEALTH: Agrees to $32MM Settlement in Class Action Suit
NVIDIA: GeForce GTX 970 Settlement Claims Process Begins
OCWEN FINANCIAL: "Weiner" Case Discovery, Other Deadlines Moved
OCWEN LOAN: Court Narrows Claims in "Poynter" Suit

OCH-ZIFF CAPITAL: Court Certifies Class in "Menaldi" Suit
OCH-ZIFF CAPITAL: U.S. Judge Ignored Own Deadline in Class Action
OMEGA NATURAL: California Court Dismisses ARL Class Action
OMNICARE INC: Settlement Approval Bid Moved to Oct. 20
PAPHOS INC: Faces "McLamb" Suit Under FLSA, S.C. Wage Payment Act

PERMANENTE MEDICAL: "Brown" Suit Invokes FLSA, Cal. Labor Laws
PHH CORP: Court Spots No Reason to Seal Docs in "Munoz" Case
PNC FINANCIAL: Settles Home Loan Class Action for $70 Million
PROCTER & GAMBLE: Faces "Cornejo" Lawsuit Over Deodorant Product
PUBLIX SUPER: Faces "Chmielewski" Class Suit in M.D. Florida

PURE STORAGE: Faces Class Action, Nov. 11 Lead Plaintiff Deadline
PVH CORP: Settlement Approval Hearing Moved to Nov. 3
QUORUM HEALTH: November 8 Lead Plaintiff Motion Deadline Set
R.J. REYNOLDS: Class Members Can Now Apply to Redeem 'C-Notes'
RANDSTAD US: Settlement in "Wright" Suit Has Final Approval

RETRIEVAL-MASTERS: Illegally Collects Debt, Action Claims
ROBERT HALF: $6.3MM Attorney's Fees Award Reasonable
SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS: Sued Over U.S. Employee Recruiting Policies
SAN PASQUAL: Carter, et al. Seek Certification of Class
SANTA CLARA, CA: Class Certification Bid in "Chavez" Suit Granted

SCOTT KERNAN: Class Certification Sought in "Hicks" Suit
SONS OF DIVINE: Jackson Seeks to Recover Unpaid Wages of Nurses
STARBUCKS CORP: Crittenden Joins Strumlauf-Robles Case
SUPERIOR PERFORMERS: Protective Order Entered in "Ritter" Case
SYRACUSE, NY: Class Certification Sought in Jailed Minor's Case

TALMER BANCORP: Livonia Retirement Sys. Wins Lead Plaintiff Bid
TARGET CORP: Faces "Locicero" Suit Alleging Violation of FLSA
TAXI AFFILIATION: Settles Chicago Taxi Surcharge Fee Class Actions
TOYOTA MOTOR: Class Action Alleges Rodents Chewing Car Wiring
TRIPLE J: Judge Seals Documents in "Mateo-Evangelio" Suit

U.S. BANCORP: Judge Orders Filing of Amended Suit in "Hopkins"
UNITEDHEALTHCARE: Expands Hep C Coverage to Settle Class Action
URBAN OUTFITTERS: Illegally Obtains Consumer Info, Action Claims
WIDEOPEN WEST: "Thomas" Sues Over Deceptive Business Practices
WYNDHAM VACATION: Court Thwarts Bid for Class Arbitration

XOMA CORP: Hearing on "Markette" Suit Dismissal Moved to Dec. 15
YAHOO INC: Faces "Havron" Suit Over Alleged Security Breach

* Sept. 3 Oklahoma Quake May Mean More Class Action Litigation
* Banner Ads Joke in Real World, But Not in Class-Action
* JND Legal Successfully Closes Major Class Action Settlement
* Judicial Conference Publishes Proposed Class Action Amendments



                            *********

012 SMILE: Faces Class Action Over Excessive Tariffs
----------------------------------------------------
Partner Communications Company Ltd., an Israeli communications
operator, on Sept. 14 disclosed that its fully owned subsidiary,
012 Smile Telecom Ltd. received a lawsuit and a motion for the
recognition of this lawsuit as a class action, filed against 012
Smile and two other international long distance operators in the
Central District Court on September 11, 2016.

The claim alleges, among others, that the Defendants charge
excessive tariffs from occasional customers for each long distance
call minute, contrary to section 17 of the Communications Law
(Telecommunications and Broadcasting) 1982, that allows a licensee
to charge reasonable payment for a telecommunication service that
it provides.

The total amount claimed against the Defendants if the lawsuit is
recognized as a class action was not stated by the plaintiff.

012 Smile is reviewing and assessing the lawsuit and is unable at
this preliminary stage, to evaluate, with any degree of certainty,
the probability of success of the lawsuit or the range of
potential exposure, if any.


013 NETVISION: Sued Over Excessive Prices of Outgoing Calls
-----------------------------------------------------------
Cellcom Israel Ltd. on Sept. 14 disclosed that a purported class
action was filed against 013 Netvision Ltd., the Company's wholly
owned subsidiary, and two other Israeli international calls
operators, alleging that the defendants unlawfully charge random
customers with excessive and unreasonable prices for outgoing
calls from Israel.

The total amount claimed from the defendants, if the lawsuit is
certified as a class action, was not estimated by plaintiffs.  At
this preliminary stage, the Company is unable to assess the
lawsuit's chances of success.


ABILITY INC: GPM Appointed as Class Action Co-Lead Counsel
----------------------------------------------------------
Glancy Prongay & Murray LLP disclosed that it has been appointed
Co-Lead Counsel, together with Cohen Milstein Sellers & Toll PLLC,
in the securities class action against Ability, Inc. (formerly,
Cambridge Capital Acquisition Corporation) ("Ability" or the
"Company") and certain executive officers of the Company,
currently pending in the United States District Court for the
Southern District of New York - In re Ability, Inc. Securities
Litigation, No. 16-cv-03893-VM.

On September 8, 2015, publicly traded Cambridge Capital
Acquisition Corporation ("Cambridge") announced the execution of a
definitive agreement under which Cambridge would merge with
privately-held Ability Computers & Software Industries Ltd.
("ACSI").  On December 23, 2015, Cambridge held a special meeting
of its shareholders to vote on the proposed merger with ACSI; and,
following a majority vote in favor of the merger, Cambridge
announced that the merger with ACSI had closed.  As a result of
the merger, Cambridge changed its name to Ability, Inc. and the
Company's ordinary shares and warrants began trading on the NASDAQ
under the symbols ABIL and ABILW, respectively.

Investors that held Cambridge/Ability stock or warrants prior to
the December 23, 2015 special shareholder meeting are encouraged
to contact Lesley F. Portnoy, Esq. of GPM at 310-201-9150 to
discuss the status of the case and the claims in the litigation.

On May 2, 2016, Ability announced its financial results for the
fourth quarter and full-year 2015.  The Company also announced
that it would be restating its consolidated financial statements
as of December 31, 2014 and for the two years in the period then
ended.  In reaction to these announcements, on May 2, 2016, the
price of Ability common stock fell $2.42 per share, or 33%, to
close at $4.90 per share, on heavy trading volume.

The complaint filed in this lawsuit alleges that (a) the Company
had materially overstated its income by failing to account for
commissions; (b) the Company had materially overstated its
operating results by improperly recognizing revenue on multiple-
element sales transactions; (c) the Company had a material
weakness in its internal controls over financial reporting and
disclosure controls and that such controls were ineffective; and
(d) as a result of the foregoing, the Company's financial
statements for the years ending December 31, 2013 and 2014 were
materially false and misleading and not prepared in accordance
with U.S. Generally Accepted Accounting Principles.

If you purchased shares of Cambridge or Ability securities during
the Class Period of September 8, 2015 through April 29, 2016,
inclusive, or if you have any questions concerning this case, this
announcement, or your rights or interests with respect to these
matters, or if you would like an update concerning the status of
this case, would like to learn more about the case, or have
information and wish to discuss these matters further, please
contact Lesley Portnoy of GPM, 1925 Century Park East, Suite 2100,
Los Angeles, California 90067, by telephone at 310-201-9150, toll-
free at 888-773-9224, by email at shareholders@glancylaw.com, or
visit our website at http://www.glancylaw.com.If you inquire by
email please include your mailing address, telephone number,
transaction date(s) and number of shares purchased.


AFNI INC: Class Certification Sought in "Alan" Suit
---------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit styled Jason Alan, individually, and on behalf of
all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. AFNI INC.; DOES 1-100
inclusive, and each of them, the Defendant(s), Case No. 2:16-cv-
04409-GW-JC (C.D. Cal.), the Plaintiff move the Court to certify a
class consisting of:

"all persons within the United States who received any collection
telephone calls from Defendant to said person's cellular telephone
made through the use of any automatic telephone dialing system or
an artificial or prerecorded voice and such person had not
previously consented to receiving such calls within the four years
prior to the filing of this Complaint."

The Plaintiff also moves the Court for appointment of Plaintiff as
Class Representative, and for appointment of Plaintiff's attorneys
as Class Counsel.

Afni is a debt collection agency.

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

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


AMERICAN INTERCONTINENTAL: Unable to Defeat TCPA Class Action
-------------------------------------------------------------
David O. Klein of Klein Moynihan Turco LLP, in an article for
Lexology, reports that a ruling that refused to strike class
allegations was issued by a judge presiding over a putative class
action in the Northern District Court of Illinois concerning
alleged violations of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act
("TCPA"). In the TCPA class action case, a for-profit university,
American Intercontinental University, Inc., is being accused of
contacting consumers on their cell phones through use of an
autodialer, without previously obtaining prior express written
consent to contact such individuals.

What was the Court's reasoning for keeping the TCPA class action
allegations alive?

The judge ultimately ruled that the decision on whether to certify
the proposed class was premature and would be best decided at the
time that the putative class representative files her motion for
class certification. Nevertheless, the judge did rule that the
proposed class definition must be amended because the putative
class was found to be an impermissible "fail-safe" class. A "fail-
safe" class is one in which a class member qualifies as such
solely based on whether or not a defendant is liable. Here, the
proposed class was defined to consist of individuals who did not
provide express written consent to be contacted, which itself is a
requirement for liability under the TCPA. Relying on the principle
that qualification for membership in a class cannot depend upon
the liability of the defendant, the Court ordered an amendment to
the proposed class definition.

Protect Your Business From TCPA Class Action Liability

We have written extensively about increased regulatory and
judicial interest in autodialing, as well as telemarketing calls
placed to cell phones in general. Here, AIU is most likely facing
a lengthy and costly class action lawsuit with exposure to a
significant judgment. As such, this TCPA class action case
provides further proof of the importance of having proper
practices and procedures in place to ensure the appropriate use of
autodialing technology.

If you are interested in learning more about this topic or need to
review your telemarketing practices and procedures, please e-mail
us at info@kleinmoynihan.com, or call us at (212) 246-0900.

The material contained herein is provided for information purposes
only and is not legal advice, nor is it a substitute for obtaining
legal advice from an attorney. Each situation is unique, and you
should not act or rely on any information contained herein without
seeking the advice of an experienced attorney.


AMERICAN RENAL: Lundin Law Files Class Action Lawsuit
-----------------------------------------------------
Lundin Law PC announced on Sept. 14, 2016, a class action lawsuit
has been filed against American Renal Associates Holdings, Inc.
(ARA) concerning possible violations of federal securities laws.
Investors who purchased or otherwise acquired shares 1) pursuant
and/or traceable to the Initial Public Offering ("IPO") on or
about April 21, 2016; and/or 2) on the open market between
April 21, 2016 and August 18, 2016, should contact the Firm in
advance of the October 31, 2016 lead plaintiff motion deadline.

To participate in this class action lawsuit, 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 action. 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.

According to the complaint, ARA issued false and misleading
statements to investors and/or failed to disclose that: the
Company was engaged in a fraudulent scheme to steer patients away
from Medicare and Medicaid plans they qualified for, into more
expensive Affordable Care Act plans to obtain greater
reimbursement for its dialysis services; the scheme was in
violation of federal and state laws; and as a result, the
Company's public statements were materially false and misleading
at all relevant times. When this news was disclosed to the public,
ARA shares declined in value, causing investors harm.

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


AMERICAN RENAL: Howard G. Smith Files Securities Class Action
-------------------------------------------------------------
The Law Offices of Howard G. Smith announced that a class action
lawsuit has been filed on behalf of investors who purchased or
otherwise acquired American Renal Associates Holdings, Inc.,
securities (1) pursuant and/or traceable to American Renal's false
and misleading Registration Statement and Prospectus issued in
connection with the Company's initial public offering on or about
April 21, 2016; and/or (2) on the open market between April 21,
2016 and August 18, 2016, both dates inclusive.

Investors suffering losses on their American Renal investments are
encouraged to contact the Law Offices of Howard G. Smith to
discuss their legal rights in this class action at 888-638-4847 or
by email to howardsmith@howardsmithlaw.com.

The Complaint alleges that throughout the Class Period, Defendants
made false and/or misleading statements or failed to disclose
that: (i) American Renal was engaged in a fraudulent scheme to
steer patients away from qualified-for Medicare and Medicaid plans
into more expensive Affordable Care Act ("ACA") plans to obtain
greater reimbursement for the Company's dialysis services; (ii)
the foregoing scheme was in violation of federal and state laws;
and (iii) as a result of the foregoing, American Renal's public
statements were materially false and misleading at all relevant
times.

If you purchased shares of American Renal during the Class Period
you may move the Court no later than October 31, 2016 to ask the
Court to appoint you as lead plaintiff if you meet certain legal
requirements. To be a member of the Class you need not take any
action at this time; you may retain counsel of your choice or take
no action and remain an absent member of the Class. If you wish to
learn more about this action, or if you have any questions
concerning this announcement or your rights or interests with
respect to these matters, please contact Howard G. Smith, Esquire,
of Law Offices of Howard G. Smith, 3070 Bristol Pike, Suite 112,
Bensalem, Pennsylvania 19020 by telephone at (215) 638-4847, toll-
free at (888) 638-4847, or by email to
howardsmith@howardsmithlaw.com, or visit our website at
http://www.howardsmithlaw.com.


APPLE INC: Faces Class Action Over IPhone Upgrade Program
---------------------------------------------------------
Block & Leviton LLP disclosed that it has filed a class action
lawsuit against Apple Inc. on behalf of Apple customers who signed
up for the Apple iPhone Upgrade Program last year and have now
been shut out of receiving the latest iPhones.

On September 7, 2016, Apple announced the availability of new
iPhones: the iPhone 7 and iPhone 7 Plus.  Customers who had signed
up for the Apple iPhone Upgrade Program, which promised an "easy"
way to get a new iPhone "every year," tried like many others to
purchase their iPhones as soon as they went on sale at midnight
Pacific time on September 9, 2016.  But, the lawsuit alleges,
iPhone Upgrade Program customers, unlike every other customer,
were shut out from reserving the most in-demand phone models and
colors.

These customers are unable to "get in line" to reserve their
favored devices.  Instead, they are told to simply "check back."
In the meantime, they will continue to be required to make monthly
payments on their older iPhones, and their eligibility for future
iPhones will be delayed, the lawsuit alleges.

If you belong to the iPhone Upgrade Program and have been affected
by these issues, you can contact Block & Leviton to learn more
about your legal rights. Contact attorney Jacob Walker at
jake@blockesq.com or visit www.blockesq.com/iphone

Block & Leviton is a Boston-based law firm representing investors
and consumers nationwide.

The case, filed September 12, 2016, is pending in the United
States District Court for the Northern District of California, and
is captioned Frank v. Apple Inc., No. 5:16-cv-05217.  A copy of
the complaint is posted at www.blockesq.com/iphone


ARCTIC EXPRESS: Settlement in "Owner-Operator" Case Approved
------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, OWNER-OPERATOR INDEPENDENT DRIVERS ASSOCIATION, INC.,
et al., Plaintiffs, v. ARCTIC EXPRESS, INC., et al., Defendants,
Case No. 97-CV-750 (S.D. Ohio), District Judge Algenon L. Marbley
approved the Plaintiffs' unopposed Motions for Settlement Approval
and Attorney Fees, including the Plaintiffs' Motion for Order to
Application for Entry of Final Order Approving Settlement and
Settlement Distribution Plan.

The case involves a truth-in-leasing class action concerning
certain escrow funds of independent truck drivers. For purposes of
the settlement, the Court certified the Plaintiffs' renewed motion
for class certification composed of all independent truck owner-
operators who have:

     (1) entered agreements with Defendant D&A Associates, Ltd.,
         which purport to lease, with the option to purchase,
         trucking equipment under the terms of D&A's equipment
         lease/purchase agreement; and,

     (2) leased the equipment to Defendant Arctic Express, Inc.
         under the terms of Arctic's federally-regulated motor
         carrier lease agreement.

The Court approved the Attorney Fees amounting to $1,000,000 and
the Costs amounting to $249,277. The named Plaintiffs Carl Harp
and Michael Wiese was granted with the representative service
award amounting to $25,000 each.

The Court likewise, ordered that upon the payment of Defendant
Comerica Bank of the $3,000,000 Settlement Amount to the third-
party claims administrator, First Class, Inc., Comerica Bank is
discharged from any further liability.

A copy of the Court's Order dated September 21, 2016 is available
at https://goo.gl/KetLlu from Leagle.com.

Owner Operator Independent Drivers Association Inc., Plaintiff,
represented by Gregory Michael Cork, The Cullen Law Firm.

Owner Operator Independent Drivers Association Inc., et al.,
Plaintiffs, represented by James Burdette Helmer, Jr., Helmer
Martins, Rice & Popham Co., L.P.A., Joyce E. Mayers, Cullen Law
Firm, Paul D. Cullen, Sr., The Cullen Law Firm & Paul B. Martins,
Helmer, Martins, Rice & Popham Co., L.P.A..

Arctic Express Inc, Defendant, represented by David A. Ferris --
dferris@ferrislawgroup.com -- Ferris & Ferris LLP.

D & A Associates Ltd, et al., Defendants, represented by Sarah
Daggett Morrison, Ohio BWC.

Carl Harp, et al., Counter Defendants, represented by Gregory
Michael Cork, The Cullen Law Firm, James Burdette Helmer, Jr.,
Helmer Martins, Rice & Popham Co., L.P.A. & Paul D. Cullen, Sr.
-- pdc@cullenlaw.com -- The Cullen Law Firm.


AVVO INC: Judge Tosses Class Action Over Lawyer Listings
--------------------------------------------------------
Jonathan Bilyk, writing for Cook County Record, reports that a
federal judge has tossed a Chicago lawyer's class action lawsuit
against online attorney directory Avvo, ruling Avvo's lawyer
listings are protected by the First Amendment, and don't break an
Illinois law which forbids the use of personal information,
without consent, for profit.

The U.S. District Judge Robert W. Gettleman sided with the
Seattle-based Avvo Inc., and dismissed the legal action of named
plaintiff John Vrdolyak, saying Avvo's listings should not be
considered "commercial speech," like an advertisement for a
specific product, brand or retailer.  Rather, he said, the
listings should be considered more akin to publications in which
advertisements can be place, like newspapers or magazines, or
professional directories, like the Yellow Pages.

"The court agrees with defendant that to hold otherwise would lead
to the unintended result that any entity that publishes truthful
newsworthy information about individuals such as teachers,
directors and other professionals, such as a newspaper or yellow
page directory, would risk civil liability simply because it
generated revenue from advertisements placed by others in the same
field," Judge Gettleman wrote.  "Defendant's (Avvo's) actions are
more like those of Sports Illustrated than Jewel."

The case landed in federal court in February, when Chicago
attorney Moira Bernstein, through her lawyers, with Zimmerman Law
Offices, of Chicago, filed a complaint.  She alleged Avvo
misappropriated her identity and those of other lawyers "for
commercial purpose," in violation of Illinois' Right of Publicity
Act, when it created and published listings for her and others in
Illinois without their consent.

The complaint noted the information came from otherwise public
records, such as bar admissions and other court and regulatory
sources.  The complaint also acknowledged Avvo doesn't charge
attorneys to be listed on their site.

However, Ms. Bernstein argued Avvo overstepped the law by creating
"sponsored listings" -- essentially, the opportunity for listed
attorneys to pay to place their name, photo, contact information
and "Avvo Rating" score on the pages listing competing attorneys
who have not "sponsored" a listing.  This, she argued, amounted to
Avvo using her information without her consent to make money.

In May, in response to Avvo's request to transfer the case from
Chicago to courts in its home turf in the Pacific Northwest, the
Zimmerman attorneys replaced Ms. Bernstein with Mr. Vrdolyak, as
the lead plaintiff.  According to court documents, Bernstein had
"claimed" her profile, an act which required consenting to Avvo's
user agreement.  That agreement included forum selection language
requiring all disputes between Avvo and its users to be handled in
Seattle's federal court.

Mr. Vrdolyak had not consented to the user agreement terms,
allowing the case to stay in Chicago, with Judge Gettleman's
assent.

However, on Sept. 12, Judge Gettleman said the lawsuit is a non-
starter, because of the nature of what Avvo does.

The plaintiffs argued Avvo should be held liable in a similar
fashion to supermarket chain Jewel, which federal courts found had
violated the Illinois publicity law by publishing an ad in a
commemorative issue of Sports Illustrated published to commemorate
the induction of Chicago Bulls' great Michael Jordan into the
Basketball Hall of Fame.

In that case, Jewel had similarly attempted to argue its ad was
not necessarily selling anything, and so should be protected by
the First Amendment.

Judges, however, found the ad was "no less 'commercial' because it
promotes brand awareness or loyalty rather than explicitly
proposing a transaction in a specific product or service.'"

The plaintiffs said this should mean Avvo's "Sponsored Links" are
actually "ads for each attorney's 'brand.'"

Judge Gettleman, however, said this argument misrepresents what
Avvo does.

"The court views what defendant does as more akin to the yellow
pages directory, which receives First Amendment protection, than
the advertisement that Jewel placed in Jordan," he said.

While the judge said the "Sponsored Listings" are "commercial
speech," they don't negate the totality of what Avvo does.

"Jewel's ad did not convert the entire commemorative issue into
commercial speech," said Judge Gettleman.  "Not do the Sponsored
Listings turn the entire attorney directory into commercial
speech.

"Consequently, the court concludes that defendant's publications
are fully protected by the First Amendment."

Avvo was represented in the action by attorneys with the firms of
Jenner & Block, of Chicago, and Davis Wright Tremaine, of Seattle.

Following the ruling, Avvo said the decision is in keeping with
the outcome of a similar lawsuit recently settled in California.
In that case, Avvo was able to use a California law to persuade
the plaintiff to dismiss the case and pay Avvo's legal fees.

Avvo noted Illinois doesn't have a similar law on the books.

However, Avvo's Chief Legal Officer Josh King said the company is
evaluating its options concerning any further actions in
connection with the dismissal of the Illinois lawsuit.

"This is further validation that publishers like Avvo needn't
obtain the consent of their subjects prior to exercising their
First Amendment rights," said King in a prepared statement.  "The
purpose of a free and unfettered media is to provide transparency
and openness.  While we never felt like the principle was really
at risk here, we're pleased at the explicit recognition that our
efforts to help people better understand lawyers and the legal
profession is fully protected by the First Amendment."


BEHAVIORAL HEALTH: Faces "Mendez" Suit Alleging Disability Bias
---------------------------------------------------------------
PAUL MENDEZ, an individual v. BEHAVIORAL HEALTH SERVICES, INC., a
corporation; LISBETH PEREYRA, an individual and Does 1 through 100
Inclusive Defendants, Case No. BC634343 (Cal. Super. Ct., Los
Angeles Cty., September 19, 2016), is brought on behalf of those
similarly situated, and the general public, seeking full
restitution and disgorgement of all employment compensation
allegedly and wrongfully withheld by the Defendants.

Mr. Mendez also alleges wrongful termination, disability
discrimination and harassment due to disability.

Behavioral Health Services, Inc., is a corporation headquartered
in the County of Los Angeles, California.  Lisbeth Pereyra was the
Plaintiff's supervisor and a resident of the County of Los
Angeles.  The Plaintiff is ignorant of the true names and
capacities of the Doe Defendants.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Stephen F. Danz, Esq.
          DANZ & ASSOCIATES
          11661 San Vicente Blvd., Suite 500
          Los Angeles, CA 90049
          Telephone: (310) 207-4568
          E-mail: sfdanz@aol.com

               - and -

          Brian I. Vogel, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF BRIAN I. VOGEL
          572 E. Green Street, Suite 305
          Pasadena, CA 91101
          Telephone: (626) 796-7470
          Facsimile: (626) 796-7474
          E-mail: vogellawfirm@gmail.com


BENECARD SERVICES: Data Breach Class Action Dismissal Affirmed
--------------------------------------------------------------
Jessica Karmasek, writing for Legal Newsline, reports that a class
action lawsuit brought against a prescription benefit
administrative services company has been dismissed in its
entirety.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit, with its Aug. 25
ruling, effectively quashed the lawsuit filed by a group of former
Benecard Services Inc. employees.  The company provides mail and
specialty drug dispensing, managed vision services, and contact
lens mail order services to public and private sector
organizations.

"Pennsylvania's economic loss doctrine provides that 'no cause of
action exists for negligence that results solely in economic
damages unaccompanied by physical injury or property damage,'"
Circuit Judge Julio M. Fuentes explained in the seven-page
opinion.

"The District Court held that because Plaintiffs' negligence claim
sounds only in economic loss resulting from the fraudulent tax
returns filed with their information, the economic loss doctrine
bars their claim.  We agree."

Joan Longenecker-Wells, Kenneth Dodson, Genevieve Regal,
Benjamin Huffnagle and Nicholas Dankosky originally filed their
class action in the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of
Pennsylvania in February 2015.

The defendants also included Benecard Central Fill of PA, Benecard
Marketing, National Vision Administrators, and Contact Fill.

The plaintiffs, alleging breach of trust and identity fraud, sued
their former employer for damages allegedly caused by a data
security breach.

According to their complaint, each of the five plaintiffs provided
Benecard with personal information -- i.e. names, birth dates,
Social Security numbers -- via tax forms and other paperwork as
part of the hiring process.

Then, in early 2015, unknown third parties breached Benecard's
computer system and gained access to the plaintiffs' personal
information.

The third parties allegedly used the employees' information to
file fraudulent tax returns.  The IRS issued tax refunds to the
unknown parties instead of the plaintiffs.

The former employees argued Benecard failed to protect their
privacy and violated administrative guidelines and industry
standards, and caused the plaintiffs financial injuries for the
2014 tax year.

The plaintiffs were hoping to recover compensatory damages in
excess of $5 million, attorney fees and court costs.

The Third Circuit, in affirming the district court, shot down the
former employees' theory that Benecard breached an implied
contract by failing to safeguard their information.

"Here, Plaintiffs have failed to plead any facts supporting their
contention that an implied contract arose between the parties
other than that Benecard required Plaintiffs' personal information
as a prerequisite to employment," Judge Fuentes wrote.

"This requirement alone did not create a contractual promise to
safeguard that information, especially from third party hackers."

The Third Circuit concluded that the district court did not err in
granting Benecard's motion to dismiss.


BLUE CROSS: 6th Cir. Vacates Class Settlement
---------------------------------------------
Ann Yackshaw -- ayackshaw@bakerlaw.com -- of Baker & Hostetler
LLP, in an article for Lexology, reports that this summer, the
Sixth Circuit rejected class action litigants' filing of the bulk
of their class settlement documents under seal. Shane Grp., Inc.
v. Blue Cross Blue Shield of Mich., 825 F.3d 299 (6th Cir. 2016).
The Sixth Circuit's decision here is another indication of the
increasing scrutiny that federal courts are taking with respect to
class action settlements.

Controlling 60 percent of the commercial health insurance market
in Michigan, Blue Cross obtained most-favored-nation agreements
with more than 40 hospitals in the state. Under these agreements,
Blue Cross promised to increase its own reimbursement rates for
hospital services in return for each hospital's agreement to
charge other commercial health insurers at least the same
reimbursement rate as Blue Cross. Additionally, Blue Cross secured
most-favored-nation-plus agreements with 22 other Michigan
hospitals, ensuring that those hospitals charged other commercial
insurers a higher reimbursement rate than Blue Cross.

The Department of Justice filed a price-fixing claim against Blue
Cross, and plaintiffs filed this piggyback class action, seeking
$13.7 billion plus treble damages. After Michigan outlawed most-
favored-nation clauses, the DOJ dismissed its complaint. The class
action, however, proceeded. Plaintiffs moved for and defendants
opposed class certification, filing each and every exhibit under
seal. After the plaintiffs' expert submitted his report,
estimating class-wide damages at just $118 million, Blue Cross
moved to exclude the report. Once again, the parties filed each
and every document under seal.

The parties entered settlement negotiations, eventually agreeing
to a $30 million settlement fund, which was to be distributed
among millions of class members. But 26 self-insured businesses
objected and moved to intervene to unseal the record. The district
court denied the motion and approved the settlement agreement.

On appeal, the Sixth Circuit vacated the settlement and all the
district court's orders to seal. Given the public's strong
interest in open records, "[o]nly the most compelling reasons can
justify non-disclosure of judicial records." The court reasoned
that the public's interest is particularly high in class actions,
in which members of the public are also parties to the case.

The Sixth Circuit found the parties' justifications for sealing
"patently inadequate." The parties vaguely referred to
"quotations, information, and references to multiple depositions
and documents designated as confidential," and the district court
accepted these reasons without scrutiny. According to the Sixth
Circuit, the parties and the court both needed to do more.
Specifically, the Sixth Circuit stated that parties should have
shown some compelling interest in secrecy -- trade secrets,
attorney-client privilege or statutorily mandated confidentiality
-- that outweighed the public interest in disclosure. And the
district court should have set forth specific findings and
conclusions justifying nondisclosure.

The Sixth Circuit found that the sealed documents undermined the
settlement fairness hearing. The sealing prevented the objectors
from determining whether the settlement was fair and reasonable.
The complaint led the objectors to believe their claim was worth
$13.7 billion. The plaintiffs' expert, however, could only
identify $118 million in damages, and the plaintiffs accepted just
$30 million. The sealed documents connected the dots from the
$13.7 billion complaint to the $30 million settlement fund, and
without them, the objectors could not assess the settlement's
fairness. The court therefore vacated the orders to seal and
remanded for a new fairness hearing.

Since Shane Group, document sealing has been on the Sixth
Circuit's mind. A few weeks later, the court sua sponte vacated
orders to seal motions for summary judgment and accompanying
exhibits. Beauchamp v. Fed. Home Loan Mortg. Corp., No. 15-6067,
2016 WL 3671629, at *4-5 (6th Cir. July 11, 2016). Later, relying
once again on Shane Group, the Sixth Circuit handed a team of
BakerHostetler attorneys a victory on appeal, affirming the
unsealing of an entire case. Rudd Equip. Co., Inc. v. John Deere
Constr. & Forestry Co., No. 16-5055, 2016 WL 4410575 (6th Cir.
July 27, 2016).


BRIAN GIBBS: Faces "Coronado" Lawsuit Alleging FLSA Violation
-------------------------------------------------------------
AURA LECRICIA TORRES CORONADO, FREDY JOSUE HERNANDEZ CRUZ,
PAULINO RAMIREZ VELASQUEZ, MARIA REINA LOPEZ, PORFIRIO FUENTES
PEREZ and FATIMA MUNGUIA individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiffs, vs. BRIAN GIBBS PROPERTY
MANAGEMENT, LLC; BRIAN C. GIBBS; ADULAM CLEANING SERVICES, LLC;
HENRY FAJARDO AND BEATRIZ FAJARDO, Defendants, Case 2:16-cv-14703
(E.D. La., September 14, 2016), seeks to recover unpaid overtime
wages, an additional equal amount as liquidated damages, and
reasonable attorney's fees and costs under the Fair Labor
Standards Act.

BRIAN GIBBS PROPERTY MANAGEMENT, LLC -- http://www.bgpmnola.com/-
- is a New Orleans based property management company.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

     Jody Forester Jackson, Esq.
     Mary Bubbett Jackson, Esq.
     JACKSON+JACKSON
     201 St. Charles Avenue, Suite 2500
     New Orleans, LA 70170
     Phone: (504) 599-5953
     Fax: (888) 988-6499
     E-mail: jjackson@jackson-law.net
             mjackson@jackson-law.net


BURMA SUPERSTAR: Ex-Employee Details Brutal Work Conditions
-----------------------------------------------------------
Jay Barmann, writing for sfist, reports that former dishwasher and
line cook at Burma Superstar, William Navarette, who is one of the
lead plaintiffs in a class action suit against the local chain has
revealed some further details to the East Bay Express about the
grievances that he and about 100 other employees are seeking to
settle with the suit.

In addition to not being allowed breaks or being given paid sick
leave, Navarette alleges something that sounds like straight-up
wage theft:

In one alleged violation, Navarette said Burma Superstar owner
Desmond Tan instituted a policy whereby employees would not
receive certain weekly paychecks. Instead, these checks would
become a deposit, and employees would only get them back when they
stopped working for the restaurant.

And apparently no employee who had this happen to them ever saw
one of these "deposits" returned to them.

Also, he says, that working in the kitchen was especially brutal
during his time there. "Once you walk into that kitchen, you're
not going to stop until you get to leave for the night," he
explained," he tells the paper. "It was complete madness."

The suit alleges that the illegal wage practices and employee
treatment was the same across the board at all five locations,
including three Burma Superstars in SF and the East Bay, B Star in
the Richmond, and the Mission's Burma Love. According to the
filing, Tan classified many employees as salaried, rather than
hourly wage workers, thereby skirting state laws governing
overtime. In total, the restaurant is accused of over fourteen
wage violations going back at least four years.

So far, the restaurant and its owner have declined to comment on
the suit.

The suit was filed by attorneys with the Asian Law Caucus, Legal
Aid Society, and Centro Legal de la Raza, and it follows on
similar cases won or settled in employees' favor, many of whom
speak limited English, at Yank Sing and Udupi Palace.

Update: KRON 4 has a statement from the attorneys for the Burma
Superstar ownership in response to the suit, saying, "The owners
value their team as an extension of their family, and strive to
treat everyone with the utmost respect, providing good wages and
excellent benefits -- well beyond what is required by federal,
state and city laws."

SFist received an additional statement from the owners through a
PR rep which says "For six years now [the owners] have provided
health care to employees. And many of Burma Superstar's employees
have been with the company since the opening of the restaurants.
This frivolous lawsuit is based on false allegations. Burma
Superstar will be totally exonerated and will prevail in court."


CALIFORNIA: "Sutcliffe" Case Can't Proceed as Class
---------------------------------------------------
In the case, John E. Sutcliffe, et al., Plaintiffs, v. Judge
Timothy Cain, et al., Defendants, C.A. No. 4:16-2939-MBS-TER (D.
S.C.), Senior District Judge Margaret B. Seymour denied the
Plaintiffs' bid for class action certification, holding that
prisoners, as laypersons, cannot bring class action lawsuits.

The case involves a civil rights action filed by eight state
prisoners, proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis. Plaintiffs
allege that Defendants engaged in fraud, conspiracy, and other
offenses with respect to the dismissal of other cases filed by the
Plaintiffs.

Moreover, the Court upheld a decision from the Eleventh Circuit
that the Prison Litigation Reform Act (PLRA) precludes indigent
prisoners from participating in multi-plaintiff actions. Prisoners
must file separate complaints to comply with the PLRA's
requirement that each prisoner pay the full filing fee. PLRA
likewise, requires each prisoner to exhaust his or her
administrative remedies prior to filing a civil lawsuit.

Judge Seymour further ordered the Clerk of Court to terminate
Anthony Cook, David Duren, Yahya Muquit, Travis Bellamy, Robert
Mitchell, Clarence Chisolm, and Lawrence L. Crawford as Plaintiffs
of the case. A separate civil action numbers for the seven
Plaintiffs terminated shall be assigned.

A copy of the Court's Order dated September 13, 2016 is available
at https://goo.gl/L0RhJO from Leagle.com.

Anthony Cook, Plaintiff, Pro Se.


CAPIO PARTNERS: Illegally Collects Debt, "Lebovitz" Suit Claims
---------------------------------------------------------------
Chaya Lebovitz, on behalf of herself and all other similarly
situated consumers v. Capio Partners, LLC, Case No. 1:16-cv-05289
(E.D.N.Y., September 22, 2016), seeks to stop the Defendant's
unfair and unconscionable means to collect a debt.

Capio Partners, LLC operates as a healthcare debt purchasing
company.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


CAROLINAS HEALTHCARE: Sued Over Anti-Competitive Actions
--------------------------------------------------------
The Associated Press reports that Carolinas HealthCare System
faces a class action lawsuit filed by a Mecklenburg County
resident, just three months after the State of North Carolina and
the federal government sued the Charlotte-based hospital.

The Charlotte Observer reported the lawsuit filed by
Christopher DiCesare accuses the hospital of illegal and anti-
competitive actions.

The lawsuit does not explain how Mr. Dicesare was injured.  He is
a customer of Cigna HealthCare.  That's one of four companies that
provide 85 percent of the commercial insurance in the Charlotte
area.

In a June lawsuit, the U.S. Justice Department and the state
attorney general said Carolinas HealthCare has driven up health
care costs through illegal efforts to prevent competition.

Carolinas HealthCare has denied the allegations and asked the
federal court to dismiss the complaint.


CARIBBEAN CRUISE: Settles TCPA Class Action for $76 Million
-----------------------------------------------------------
Nicole Su, Esq., of Dorsey & Whitney LLP, in an article for
JDSupra, reports that the four-year long saga of Aranda, et al. v.
Caribbean Cruise Line, Inc., et al. looks like it will finally be
coming to an end.  The plaintiffs, which include approximately 1
million individuals who received calls from Caribbean Cruise Line
and its subsidiary marketing companies between August 2011 and
August 2012, may receive a record $76 million for their TCPA
claims.

Eric Troutman wrote an epic blog entry on Judge Kennelly's  order
denying the cruise companies' Motion to Decertify Class based on
Spokeo, Inc. v. Robins, 136 S. Ct. 1540 (2016).

On the heels of the court's decision, the parties informed Judge
Kennelly that they had reached a settlement.  The deal was reached
two days before trial was set to begin.  Although a memorandum of
understanding has not been signed yet, the deal is estimated to
cost the cruise companies' between $56 million and $76 million.
If the maximum $76 million is paid, it will be the highest TCPA
settlement in history.

Judge Kennelly ordered the executed settlement agreement and
Motion for Preliminary Approval be submitted no later than
September 26, 2016.


CENTURYLINK COMMUNICATIONS: Faces "Sample" Class Suit in Arizona
----------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been commenced against Centurylink
Communications LLC, Level 3 Communications LLC, Sprint
Communications Company LP, and WilTel Communications LLC.

The case is captioned Walter E. Sample, Sherry L. Earle Revocable
Living Trust, San Simon Gin Incorporated, and Lesco Enterprises
Incorporated, for themselves and all others similarly situated v.
Centurylink Communications LLC, Level 3 Communications LLC, Sprint
Communications Company LP, and WilTel Communications LLC, Case No.
4:16-cv-00624-RM (D. Ariz., September 22, 2016).

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Dan Millea, Esq.
      ZELLE HOFMANN VOELBEL & MASON LLP
      500 Washington Ave S, Ste 4000
      Minneapolis, MN 55415
      Telephone: (612) 339-2020
      Facsimile: (612) 336-9100
      E-mail: dmillea@zelle.com

         - and -

      John Dean Curtis II, Esq.
      BURCH & CRACCHIOLO PA
      P.O. Box 16882
      Phoenix, AZ 85011-6882
      Telephone: (602) 234-8760
      Facsimile: (602) 234-0341
      E-mail: jcurtis@bcattorneys.com

CHATTANOOGA, TN: Police Files Class Action Over Pay Disparity
-------------------------------------------------------------
Shelly Bradbury, writing for Times Free Press, reports that
in August, a Hamilton County jury awarded more than $560,000 to 25
police officers because the city failed to give those officers
promised raises and failed to maintain fair conditions of
employment.  Now, attorneys in the case have filed a class-action
lawsuit that raises the same issues for a new set of plaintiffs.

Attorneys at Davis & Hoss believe at least 50 additional police
personnel were affected by the city's missteps, and they believe
those ranking officers are due the same back pay as the 25
officers who brought the original suit in 2012.

The new class-action suit was filed on Sept. 13.  The city of
Chattanooga, Mayor Andy Berke and police Chief Fred Fletcher are
named as defendants.

"We had 25 on our original lawsuit and there were countless other
people that the 2010 pay plan went out to and affected," said
attorney Janie Parks Varnell.  "We've identified upwards of 50;
there are more, most likely."

Both cases stem from a years-long dispute about the police
department's pay policies, which for about seven years allowed
recently hired police officers to earn higher salaries than their
supervisors.

At the center of the original case was a one-page document that
was sent out to police personnel in 2010.  The document laid out
changes to police salaries.  While the city contended that the
document was only a one-time pay adjustment, the officers said the
document promised to give police future raises as they gained
experience.

The jury in the original lawsuit agreed with police in an Aug. 25
verdict and awarded the 25 officers back pay for the time they
worked without receiving the promised raises.  Those original
officers were each awarded between $11,000 and $58,000 in back
pay.

The new case raises all the same issues as the original case,
except one.  In the original lawsuit, officers alleged that the
city practiced age discrimination when it implemented a particular
training program.  However, the jury ruled against the officers on
that claim.

The age discrimination claims have been dropped from the new
class-action suit.

Parks Varnell said the class-action suit allows the attorneys to
more easily include a large number of plaintiffs in the case.  She
expects the lawsuit to move more quickly because much of the
research and discovery has already been done as both sides
prepared for trial in the original lawsuit.

"This [lawsuit] is in hopes that the city will recognize this
affected many other people besides our original plaintiffs," she
said.

The city now has 30 days to file an answer to the lawsuit.
Chattanooga city attorney Wade Hinton could not be reached for
comment on Sept. 13.


CHICAGO, IL: Polk Joins Class in "Gutierrez" Case
--------------------------------------------------
In the case, MARY GUTIERREZ, on her own behalf and on behalf of a
class of those similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. CITY OF EAST
CHICAGO and the HOUSING AUTHORITY OF THE CITY OF EAST CHICAGO,
Defendants, Case No. 2:16-CV-111-JVB-PRC, (N.D. Ind.), District
Judge Paul R. Cherry granted Sean Polk's Motion for Permissive
Intervention and to Join Pending Motion for Class Certification.

Sean Polk is a non-party to the March 31, 2016 Class Action
Complaint filed by Plaintiff Mary Gutierrez.

The case involves the Defendants' alleged policy and practice of
conducting warrantless and non-consensual criminal and
administrative searches of tenant apartments.

Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 24(b), permissive
intervention is within the discretion of the district court where
the applicant's claim and the main action share common issues of
law or fact and where there is independent jurisdiction. In the
case, the Court held that the standard is easily met, thus,
granting Polk's request.

Polk then filed his Complaint pursuant to the September 21, 2016
deadline set by the Court.

A copy of the Court's Order dated September 14, 2016 is available
at https://goo.gl/No5fd6 from Leagle.com.

Mary Gutierrez, Plaintiff, represented by Gavin M. Rose --
grose@aclu-in.org -- ACLU of Indiana.

Mary Gutierrez, Plaintiff, represented by Kenneth J. Falk --
kfalk@aclu-in.org -- ACLU of Indiana & Jan P. Kubicki-Mensz, ACLU
of Indiana.

Shawn Polk, Intervenor Plaintiff, represented by Gavin M. Rose,
ACLU of Indiana & Jan P. Kubicki-Mensz -- jmensz@aclu-in.org --
ACLU of Indiana.

City of East Chicago, Defendant, represented by Michael E. Tolbert
-- mtolbert@tolbertlegal.com -- Tolbert & Tolbert LLC & Shelice R.
Tolbert -- stolbert@tolbertlegal.com -- Tolbert & Tolbert LLC.

Housing Authority of the City of East Chicago, Defendant,
represented by Jewell Harris, Jr., Harris Law Firm PC, Joseph C.
Svetanoff, Harris Law Firm PC & Nicholas A. Snow, Harris Law Firm
PC.


CHINACAST EDUCATION: Jayhawk Private Seeks Certification of Class
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit IN RE CHINACAST EDUCATION CORPORATION SECURITIES
LITIGATION, Case No. V 12-4621-JFW (PLAx) (C.D. Cal.), Jayhawk
Private Equity Fund II, L.P. asks the Court to certify a class of:

     "all persons or entities that purchased or otherwise
     acquired common stock of ChinaCast Education Corporation
     ("CAST" or the ("Company") during the Period from February
     14, 2011 and April 2, 2012 inclusive (Class Period)".

Excluded from the Class are Defendants, the present and former
officers and directors of CAST and any subsidiary, members of
their immediate families and their legal representatives, heirs,
successors or assigns and any entity in which defendants have or
had a controlling interest.

The Plaintiff further asks the Court for an order:

     a. appointing Jayhawk Private Equity Fund II, L.P. as class
        representative;

     b. appointing The Rosen Law Firm, P.A. and Pomerantz LLP as
        Class Counsel; and

     c. granting other and further relief the Court may deem just
        and proper.

A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=JOB2Ht0M

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Laurence M. Rosen, Esq.
          Phillip Kim, Esq.
          THE ROSEN LAW FIRM, P.A.
          355 South Grand Avenue, Suite 2450
          Los Angeles, CA 90071
          Telephone: (213) 785 2610
          Facsimile: (213) 226 4684
          E-mail: lrosen@rosenlegal.com

               - and -

          Marc I. Gross, Esq.
          Jeremy A. Lieberman, Esq.
          Patrick V. Dahlstrom, Esq.
          POMERANTZ LLP
          600 Third Avenue - 20th Floor
          New York, NY 10016
          Telephone: (212) 661 1100
          Facsimile: (212) 661 8665
          E-mail: migross@pomlaw.com
                  jalieberman@pomlaw.com
                  pdahlstrom@pomlaw.com


CONOCOPHILLIPS: Class Certification Bid in "Cruz" Suit Granted
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit captioned Eric Cruz, the Plaintiff, v.
CONOCOPHILLIPS, et al., the Defendants, Case No. 4:15-cv-02573
(S.D. Tex.), the Hon. Judge Alfred H. Bennett entered an order
granting Plaintiff's motion for conditional class certification
of:

     "all Project Leads and those similarly situated who worked
     for Defendants and were paid a day rate at any time since
     three years prior to the filing of the complaint."

The Court also held that Defendant's motion for Protective Order
seeking postponement of depositions until after Court's ruling on
the motion for conditional certification is moot.

The Plaintiff stated that he and other Project Leads were
compensated on a day rate basis, paying them a flat rate sum of
every day worked regardless of the number of hours worked in the
day or workweek. The Plaintiff alleged that the policy -- to pay
Project Leads a day rate, regardless of how many hours they worked
-- violates the Fair Labor Standards Act overtime requirement.

A copy of the Order is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=qoo8Rsm3


CONTINENTAL CASUALTY: Faces "Dolins" Suit Alleging ERISA Breach
---------------------------------------------------------------
Jerrold Dolins, on behalf of himself, individually and on behalf
of all others similarly situated, v. CONTINENTAL CASUALTY COMPANY;
CONTINENTAL ASSURANCE COMPANY, CNA FINANCIAL CORPORATION,
INVESTMENT COMMITTEE OF THE CNA 401(k) PLUS PLAN, NORTHERN TRUST
COMPANY, AND DOES 1 THROUGH 10, Defendants, Case No. 1:16-cv-08898
(E.D. Ill., September 14, 2016), was brought on behalf of a class
of similarly situated participants in the CNA 401(k) Plus Plan
whose rights were allegedly violated under the Employee Retirement
Income Security Act.

Continental Casualty Company, Inc. provides property and casualty
insurance and underwriting services.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Jeffrey Lewis, Esq.
     Jacob Richards, Esq.
     KELLER ROHRBACK LLP
     300 Lakeside Drive, Suite 1000
     Oakland, CA 94612
     Phone: (510) 463-3900
     Fax: (510) 463-3901
     E-mail: jlewis@kellerrohrback.com
             jrichards@kellerohrback.com

        - and -

     Erin M. Riley, Esq.
     KELLER ROHRBACK LLP
     1201 Third Avenue, Suite 3200
     Seattle, WA 98101
     Phone: (206) 623-1900
     Fax: (206) 623-3384
     E-mail: eriley@kellerrohrback.com

        - and -

     Lawrence S. Goodman, Esq.
     LEVUN GOODMAN & COHEN, LLP
     500 Skokie Blvd., Suite 650
     Northbrook, IL 60062
     Fax: (847) 849-5686
     E-mail: LSGoodman@lgclaw.com


COOK COUNTY, IL: Williams, et al. Seek to Certify Subclasses
------------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit captioned Walter Williams and Montrell Carr,
individually and for a class, the Plaintiffs, v Sheriff of Cook
County and Cook County, Illinois, the Defendants, Case No. 1:16-
cv-07639 (N.D. Ill.), the Plaintiff asks the Court to certify the
following subclasses:

     "all persons confined at the Cook County Jail who have been
     referred by a dentist at the Jail for an extraction by an
     oral surgeon and are experiencing pain while awaiting
     treatment by an oral surgeon"; and

     "all persons currently confined at the Cook County Jail who,
     having complained of dental pain, have been prescribed
     successive course of treatments with antibiotics without
     having received the dental procedure required to permanently
     alleviate the dental pain".

The grounds for the motion are:

     1. Plaintiffs Walter Williams and Montrell Carr are
        presently confined as pre-trial detainees at the Cook
        County Jail.

     2. Plaintiff Williams began complaining of dental pain at
        the Jail in June of 2015.

     3. Williams was examined by a dentist at the Jail on January
        4, 2016 who, without noting any infection or other need
        for antibiotics, prescribed an antibiotic for Williams.

     4. Williams continued to complain about dental pain and was
        seen by a dentist at the Jail on April 13, 2016. The
        dentist, again without noting any infection or other need
        for antibiotics, prescribed an antibiotic for Williams.

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

The Plaintiff is represented by:

Kenneth N. Flaxman, Esq.
Joel A. Flaxman, Esq.
200 S. Michigan, Ste 202
Chicago, IL. 60604
Telephone: (312) 427 3200


CREDIT CONTROL: Illegally Collects Debt, "Freund" Suit Claims
-------------------------------------------------------------
Teri Freund, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated v. Credit Control Services, Inc., Case No. 2:16-cv-14415-
DMM (S.D. Fla., September 22, 2016), seeks to stop the Defendant's
unfair and unconscionable means to collect a debt.

Credit Control Services, Inc. specializes in credit control for
consumer and commercial businesses.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

CYTOSPORT INC: Plaintiff Seeks Certification of 4 Classes
---------------------------------------------------------
Andrea Tucker, writing for Legal Reader, reports that a Muscle
Milk class action lawsuit, Clay et al. v. CytoSport Inc., was
filed in January 2015 in the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of California. The plaintiffs in that case have now asked
the court to certify four different classes; a nationwide class,
and a class for California, Florida and Michigan consumers. Their
reasoning is that CytoSport has violated specific laws in those
particular states.

Muscle Milk is a popular line of products manufactured by
CytoSport. On its website, the company claims that the products
are aimed at "helping athletes recover and rebuild muscle".

The lawsuit alleges that CytoSport is guilty of false advertising.
Among the allegations, plaintiffs claim that it advertises that:

Its products contain more protein than they actually do.
Its sub-line of products are advertised as lean, even though the
products contain about the same amount of fat as other protein
products.

This is not the first lawsuit that has been filed against the
manufacturer of Muscle Milk. In 2010, a class action lawsuit was
filed against CytoSport that alleged the company's products,
including Muscle Milk, Monster Milk, Cytomax and Mighty Milk,
contained dangerous levels of heavy metals, arsenic, lead and
cadmium. It was also alleged that the company did not list those
ingredients on its labels in violation of California's Proposition
65 warning requirements. CytoSport's claimed that its products may
contain the metals, but they were safe to consume. Even so, it
settled the lawsuit in 2012.

In 2011, a class action lawsuit, Delacruz v. CytoSport, Inc., was
filed alleging false advertising. Specifically, Muscle Milk
products were advertised as containing healthy fats, when in fact,
they did not. That lawsuit was settled in 2013 when Cytosport
agreed to pay over $5 million to settle the case.

In addition to lawsuits, the Food and Drug Administration, FDA,
issued a warning letter to CytoSport in 2011. The letter warned
the company that its products were misbranded because the word
milk was used when, in fact, the products contain no milk. It
further stated that, even though the label contained wording that
indicated the products contained no milk, they did contain milk
derivatives. The claim "contains no milk" could mislead consumers
with allergies to believe they were consuming a product with no
milk and no milk derivatives. The letter also addressed other
issues including products mislabeled as low fat, and lack of
required nutritional information on the labels.

CytoSport was acquired by Hormel Foods in 2014 and new executive
staff were appointed to run the company. Since that time, other
than the January 2015 lawsuit, there have been no other lawsuits
or FDA warnings against the company.

The lawsuits do raise questions about the safety of the products
and whether they actually do what they are designed to do. Do the
products simply provide a placebo effect for athletes, or do they
really gain something from them that they could not gain from
other protein products? On its face, it appears that the company's
claims are, at a minimum, misleading and at a maximum, damaging to
consumers. It will be interesting to see the result of the latest
lawsuit, although it will more than likely be settled without the
company admitting any wrongdoing.


DANNEL P. MALLOY: "Wright" Suit Denied Class Status
---------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit titled IAN WRIGHT, the Plaintiff, v. DANNEL P.
MALLOY, et al, the Defendants, Case No. 3:16-cv-1179 (SRU) (D.
Conn.), the Hon. Judge Stefan R. Underhill entered an order
denying Wright's motions for class certification and appointment
of counsel.

The Court also denied Wright's motion for temporary restraining
order or preliminary injunction without prejudice.

According to the Court, "as a pro se litigant, Wright can only
represent himself. He cannot adequately represent a class of
prisoners. See Nieblas-Love v. New York City Housing Auth., F.
Supp. 3d, 2016 WL 796845, at 13 (S.D.N.Y. Feb. 26, 2016) (denying
motion for class certification because pro se litigant cannot
adequately represent class). Accordingly, the request for class
certification is denied. I also note that Wright seeks declaratory
and injunctive relief challenging a practice within the Department
of Correction. Should he prevail in this action, any relief
afforded him would also be applied to other inmates in the same
situation. Thus, class certification is not warranted."

The case will proceed on Wright's claims only. To facilitate the
Court's review of Plaintiff's claims, Wright is directed to file
an amended complaint listing only himself as Plaintiff and
alleging facts relating to his claims and the Defendants'
involvement in his claim.

A copy of the Order is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=db8jwthT


DAVE'S GOURMET: Faces "Kazemi" Suit Over ECJ in Pasta Sauces
------------------------------------------------------------
MOJAN KAZEMI, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. DAVE'S GOURMET, INC., a Virginia
corporation, Defendant, Case 4:16-cv-05269-SBA (N.D. Cal.,
September 14, 2016), alleges that the Defendant has unlawfully,
fraudulently, unfairly, misleadingly, and/or deceptively
represented that several varieties of its pasta sauces contain
Evaporated Cane Juice, despite the fact that ECJ is a term which
is prohibited from use on food labels under California, Florida,
and federal law.

Dave's Gourmet, Inc. -- http://www.davesgourmet.com/-- is a
specialty foods company that makes a wide range of products
including Gourmet Pasta Sauce, Hot Sauce, Condiments and Spices.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


DETROIT: 7 Schoolchildren Sue Over Right to Literacy Exclusion
--------------------------------------------------------------
Jennifer Chambers, writing for The Detroit News, reports that
seven Detroit schoolchildren, represented by a California public
interest law firm, sued state officials in what attorneys say is
an unprecedented attempt to establish that literacy is a U.S.
constitutional right.

The suit, brought against Michigan Gov. Rick Snyder and several
education officials, claims the state has functionally excluded
Detroit children from the state's educational system. It seeks
class-action status and several guarantees of equal access to
literacy, screening, intervention, a statewide accountability
system and other measures.

"Instead of providing students with a meaningful education and
literacy, the state simply provides buildings -- many in serious
disrepair -- in which students pass days and then years with no
opportunity to learn to read, write or comprehend," states the
133-page complaint by the Los Angeles-based firm Public Counsel.

Attorneys representing the students say the filing highlights
shocking problems in some Detroit schools and is the first of its
kind in the nation that seeks to secure students' legal right to
literacy under the 14th Amendment. Specifically, it seeks to build
on the notion of the landmark 1954 U.S. Supreme Court case, Brown
vs. Board of Education, that an educated citizenry is critical to
a well-functioning society.

Evan Caminker, former dean of the University of Michigan Law
school who is an attorney on the case, expects the filing to
"bring a new focus and new lens to the question of literacy."

Caminker said U.S. Supreme Court justices in Brown v. Board of
Education made it clear that all schoolchildren require a
minimally acceptable education.

"The court also made clear that the exclusion of any group of
students from that opportunity stamps them with a feeling of
inferiority that can reach deep into their hearts and minds and
last with them for their lifetimes," Caminker said.

The suit seeks class-action status on behalf of all children who
attend school in Detroit and alleges students in the city are
functionally excluded from Michigan's statewide system of
education.

The lawsuit, filed in U.S. District Court in Detroit, alleges that
decades of state disinvestment in and deliberate indifference to
the Detroit schools have denied schoolchildren access to the most
basic building block of education: literacy.


DISH NETWORK: To Pay $1.75MM to Settle FCRA Class Action Lawsuit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Thomas Ahearn, writing for ESR News Blog, reports that satellite
television company Dish Network has agreed to pay $1.75 million to
settle a class action lawsuit over alleged violations of the
federal Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA) for not providing proper
consent and disclosure forms needed to conduct background checks
for employment purposes, according to a report on the
TopClassActions.com website.

Top Class Actions reports Plaintiff Scott Ernst filed the lawsuit
against Dish Network and the company performing the background
checks in 2012 and claimed both companies used information in
consumer reports to conduct background checks on workers and
applicants which is subject to strict disclosure and authorization
requirements under the FCRA.

The lawsuit claimed Dish Network implemented a customer safety
program where third-party contractors obtained background check
reports on contractor technicians who entered the homes of
customers. However, Dish Network received only a summary that
included a rating of "high risk," "low risk," or "review" instead
of a complete background check report.3

Top Class Actions reports that the lawsuit claims Dish Network
used information as a basis for adverse employment actions by
rating some technicians as "high risk." Dish Network maintains it
did not intentionally or willfully violate the FCRA. However, the
plaintiff Ernst claims his rights as well as those of potential
Class Members were violated by:

  * Allegedly reporting on information from Class Members that
    was more than seven years old in violation of the FCRA.

  * Allegedly unlawfully procuring consumer reports without
    receiving proper authorization from Class Members in violation
    of the FCRA.

  * Allegedly failing to disclose their actions in procuring these
    reports to Class Members in violation of the FCRA.

  * Allegedly using undisclosed consumer report information
    without providing affected Class Members with a copy of the
    obtained information or a reasonable opportunity to correct
    any inaccuracies in violation of the FCRA.

The FCRA class action lawsuit is Ernst v. Dish Network LLC, et
al., Case No. 1:12-cv-08794, in the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of New York.

As reported earlier by ESR News, in November 2015 a New York
federal judge granted final approval to a $4.75 million settlement
against the company performing background checks for Dish Network
in Ernst v. Dish Network LLC, et al. for alleged violations of the
FCRA by providing outdated information to employers resulting in a
loss of employment.


E & L TRANSFER: Faces "Brown" Suit Over Alleged Violation of FLSA
-----------------------------------------------------------------
KENT BROWN, COLIN GRAFF, YOLANDA HANNIBAL, ERIC LINDQUIST, and
NESTOR MENDOZA, Individually and On Behalf of All Similarly
Situated Persons Plaintiffs, V. E & L TRANSFER, LLC, EDWARD J.
TWEED, and VERITAS PERSONNEL SERVICE, INC., Defendants, Case No.
4:16-cv-2783 (S.D. Tex., September 14, 2016), seeks to recover
unpaid overtime compensation, liquidated damages, and attorney's
fees under the Fair Labor Standards Act.

E & L Transfer Llc is a licensed and bonded freight shipping and
trucking company running a freight hauling business.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

     Josef F. Buenker, Esq.
     Vijay A. Pattisapu, Esq.
     2030 North Loop West, Suite 120
     Houston, TX 77018
     Phone: 713-868-3388
     Fax: 713-683-9940
     E-mail: jbuenker@buenkerlaw.com
             vijay@buenkerlaw.com


EDWARD BUKATY: Settlement in "Cobb" Case Has Initial OK
-------------------------------------------------------
In the case, SUSAN J. COBB, on behalf of herself and others
similarly situated, v. EDWARD F. BUKATY, III, PLC, Civil Action
No. 15-00335-BAJ-RLB (M.D. La.), Chief District Judge Brian A.
Jackson granted the Motion for Preliminary Approval of Class
Action Settlement.

The certified classes, for settlement purposes only, consist of:

     (1) In-Writing Notice Class: All persons (a) with a
         Louisiana address, (b) to whom Edward F. Bukaty, III,
         PLC mailed an initial debt collection communication that
         stated: Unless you notify us within 30 days after
         receipt of this communication that the validity of this
         debt, or any portion of it, is disputed, we will assume
         that the debt is valid. If you do notify us of a
         dispute, we will obtain verification of the debt and
         mail it to you, (c) from May 26, 2014 to May 26, 2015,
         (d) in connection with the collection of a consumer debt
         on behalf of Citibank, N.A.;

     (2) Interest Notice Class: All persons (a) with a Louisiana
         address, (b) to whom Edward F. Bukaty, III, PLC mailed
         an initial debt collection communication, (c) from May
         26, 2014 to May 26, 2015, (d) in connection with the
         collection of a consumer debt on behalf of Citibank,
         N.A., (e) that did not state (1) whether interest was in
         fact accruing on the subject debt, and, if interest was
         accruing, the amount of interest due as of the date of
         the initial communication, or (2) the effective date as
         of which an amount would suffice to pay off the subject
         debt in full, or (3) the date as of which any unpaid
         accrued interest was calculated, or (4) the applicable
         interest rate; and,

     (3) Amount Owed Class: All persons (a) with a Louisiana
         address, (b) to whom Edward F. Bukaty, III, PLC mailed a
         debt collection communication, (c) from May 26, 2014 to
         May 26, 2015, (d) in connection with the collection of a
         consumer debt on behalf of Citibank, N.A., (e) that
         stated the amount owed on the subject debt without any
         qualification or explanation of whether or not interest,
         late fees, or other charges were accruing.

The Plaintiff's request to appoint Jesse S. Johnson of Greenwald
Davidson Radbil PLLC as Class Counsel is granted and Plaintiff's
request to certify the class is denied as moot, in accordance with
the preliminary approval of the Settlement Agreement and the
certification of the class for the purpose of settlement.

Upon final approval from the Court, the class administrator will
mail a settlement check to each Class Member who does not exclude
himself or herself from the Classes. Each Class Member will
receive a pro-rata portion of the $8,000.00 settlement fund, in
the amount of no less than $52.28 per Class Member. Additionally,
Defendant will pay to the Class Representative the sum of $1,000
as statutory damages pursuant to the Fair Debt Collection
Practices Act, 15 U.S.C. Sec. 1692k(a)(2)(B)(i).

The Court will conduct a Final Approval Hearing on January 12,
2017.

A copy of the Court's Order dated September 14, 2016 is available
at https://goo.gl/B2gy8K from Leagle.com.

Susan J. Cobb, Plaintiff, represented by William J. Hamlin, Hamlin
&Griffin, LLC.

Susan J. Cobb, Plaintiff, represented by Aaron D. Radbil --
aradbil@gdrlawfirm.com -- pro hac vice & Jesse S. Johnson --
jjohnson@gdrlawfirm.com -- Greenwald Davidson Radbil PLLC, pro hac
vice.

Edward F. Bukaty, III, PLC, Defendant, represented by Lindsay
Leigh Meador -- lmeador@gallowayjohnson.com -- Galloway, Johnson,
Tompkins, Burr & Smith & Mark R. Pharr, III --
mpharr@gallowayjohnson.com -- Galloway, Johnson, Tompkins, Burr &
Smith.


EGS FINANCIAL: Court Approves Settlement in "Burns" Suit
--------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit captioned LANCE BURNS, et al., the Plaintiffs, v.
EGS FINANCIAL CARE, INC., the Defendant, Case No. 5:15-cv-6173-DGK
(W.D. Mo.), the Hon. Chief Judge Greg Kays entered an order:

     1. granting parties' joint motion for settlement approval as
        modified in their supplemental briefing; and

     2. denying as moot Plaintiffs' motion to conditionally
        certify a class.

This case arises out of plaintiffs' employment as telephone-
dedicated customer service representatives for Defendant EGS
Financial Care, Inc.  Plaintiffs allege that EGS violated the Fair
Labor Standards Act, by failing to compensate them for overtime
hours worked.

On December 15, 2015, Lance Burns, Cynthia Coons Annigan, Michael
Rudesal, and Susan Keller -- the Named Plaintiffs -- filed the
FLSA collective action against EGS on behalf of themselves and all
others similarly situated.  The remaining 110 plaintiffs (Unnamed
Plaintiffs) later joined this action by filing opt-in consent
forms. Before Plaintiffs' motion for conditional certification of
the class was ripe for review, the parties reached proposed
settlements of the Named Plaintiffs' and Unnamed Plaintiffs'
claims.

Claims of 13 unnamed plaintiffs that filed opt-in consent forms
are not included in the proposed settlement and have been
dismissed without prejudice.

There are two separate settlement agreements: one regarding the
four Named Plaintiffs' claims (the Named Plaintiff Settlement),
and another regarding the Unnamed Plaintiffs' claims (the Unnamed
Plaintiff Settlement).

Under the settlements, EGS will pay Named Plaintiffs and Unnamed
Plaintiffs using the following formula: (12 minutes per day x 5
days x the average hourly rate per minute x the number of weeks
worked between December 2012 and December 2015) -- (paid time off
("PTO") x 1.25). Additionally, each of the Named Plaintiffs will
receive a $250 enhancement award in consideration for their role
in the litigation. 30% of each individual's compensation will be
set aside for attorneys' fees. In return, the Named Plaintiffs and
Unnamed Plaintiffs agree to dismiss their FLSA claims against EGS
with prejudice, release EGS from future liability relating to
employee compensation, and set aside 30% of each award for
attorneys' fees.

Both settlements also contain confidentiality clauses. Named
Plaintiffs shall keep all non-public terms and conditions of the
settlement, non-public facts regarding EGS's business operations,
and the negotiations concerning the settlement confidential.
Unnamed Plaintiffs shall keep all non-public terms and conditions
of the settlement, the settlement amount, and nonpublic facts
regarding EGS's business operations confidential.

EGS operates a collection business and employs collectors who work
in its call centers and remotely from their home offices using the
business network.

A copy of the Order is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=072mr11t


FACEBOOK INC: Privacy Class Action Heads to EU's Court of Justice
-----------------------------------------------------------------
PCWorld reports that a class-action-style lawsuit accusing
Facebook of targeting advertising based on allegedly illegally
processed personal data is heading for the European Union's
highest court.

However, the Court of Justice of the EU is not being asked to rule
on the substance of the case.

Instead, the Austrian Supreme Court has asked the CJEU to clarify
whether someone who has become famous for their litigation of
privacy rights can sue a company as an ordinary consumer under
Austrian law.

The someone in question is Max Schrems, the man whose insistence
that the Irish Data Protection Commissioner pay attention to his
complaint against Facebook ultimately led to the biggest change in
European privacy regulation in recent history.  Unhappy with the
DPC's initial dismissal of his complaint, Mr. Schrems took his
appeal all the way to the High Court of Ireland, which referred
questions of law to the CJEU.  In its response, the CJEU
unexpectedly invalidated the Safe Harbor Framework governing
transatlantic transfers of personal information, forcing its
replacement by Privacy Shield.

Now another case initiated by Mr. Schrems is on its way to the
CJEU, he said on Sept. 12.

This one, filed in August 2014 his native Austria, accuses
Facebook of "unjust enrichment" by targeting advertising at its
users based on what Mr. Schrems says is illegal handling of their
personal data.

Mr. Schrems' complaint concerns Facebook's treatment of his
personal data -- but he also invited other Facebook users to
assign him the right to pursue Facebook for its treatment of their
personal data.  Over 25,000 people responded, according to the
site fbclaim.com, turning the case into an Austrian-style class-
action.

Over the last two years the case bounced from Commercial Court to
Regional Court in Vienna, through the Higher Regional Court and
then all the way to the Supreme Court, as Facebook sought to have
the case dismissed on technical and jurisdictional grounds.

Facebook's most recent argument has been that Mr. Schrems is not
eligible to sue it as a consumer in the Austrian courts because he
has become a professional litigant.  It says he has been paid to
write books and give lectures as a result of his lawsuits against
the company.

The Supreme Court thinks that Articles 15 and 16 of a December
2000 ruling from the Council of the EU, "on jurisdiction and the
recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial
matters," applies in this case.

Article 15 says, among other things, that a person is considered
to be a consumer if he has entered into a contract "for a purpose
which can be regarded as being outside his trade or profession."

The Supreme Court has asked the CJEU to determine whether
Mr. Schrems can still be considered a consumer in the light of the
activities highlighted by Facebook.

Pending the CJEU's ruling, the Supreme Court's decision on
jurisdiction is stayed. If it says that the case can go ahead,
then it's back to the lower courts to hear arguments about the
substance of the case.

By the time that happens, the EU's new General Data Protection
Regulation could well have entered force, changing once again the
rules on who has jurisdiction in European privacy cases.

Daniel Felz, Esq., of Alston & Bird, in an article for JDSupra,
reports that just under a year ago on Sept. 13, the European Court
of Justice (ECJ) issued its Schrems decision, which invalidated
Safe Harbor and led to substantial developments in US-EU data-
transfer mechanisms.  In parallel to the ECJ Safe Harbor
litigation, Mr. Schrems has maintained two further legal
proceedings in the EU: (1) a challenge in the Irish courts to EU
Standard Contractual Clauses, which permit data to be transferred
internationally between contract parties; and (2) an attempt to
certify an EU-wide consumer class action before the Austrian
courts.

On Sept. 13, the Austrian Supreme Court took a major step in
Mr. Schrems's attempted class action: it referred the matter to
the ECJ.  The Austrian consumer class action is not structured as
Americans would view a class action, i.e. by Mr. Schrems filing a
complaint, then having it certified for class consideration.  The
Austrian courts -- like most systems outside the US -- do not have
a certification mechanism akin to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure
23.  Instead, individual claimants must personally assign their
claims to Mr. Schrems, who appears as the single plaintiff in the
action asserting both his own claims, as well as those that have
been assigned to him.

Mr. Schrems has been (and is currently) actively soliciting claim
assignments from consumers throughout the EU, with the intent to
assert them in a single proceeding before the Austrian courts.  As
part of his solicitation efforts, Mr. Schrems maintains a "submit-
your-claim"-style website, accepts donations, gives paid speeches,
and has written a book.

This is an unusual procedural structure for EU courts.  Thus far,
the Austrian district court dismissed Mr. Schrems's class action
in full, while the intermediate appellate court determined that
Mr. Schrems could assert his own consumer claims, but not those
that had been assigned to him by others.

The Austrian Supreme Court has now determined the proceeding
raises questions of EU law that need to be decided by the ECJ.
The Court is raising the questions under Articles 15 and 16 of the
Brussels I Regulation, which regulate jurisdiction among EU member
states in the context of consumer suits.  The Court's questions
are:

1. Under the Brussels I Regulation, is Mr. Schrems still
considered a "consumer" entitled to raise consumer-rights claims
if he has operated a website, published books, delivered paid
speeches, and collected donations in connection with the
solicitation and purported assertion of 'consumer' claims?

The Austrian Supreme Court notes that Mr. Schrems's activities in
soliciting claim assignments could be characterized as
"commercial" or "professional."  Thus, it holds that the ECJ needs
to clarify whether Mr. Schrems is still a "consumer" for purposes
of bringing a purportedly consumer-rights action.  To the extent
the ECJ accepts this question, its answer may also have an impact
on rules in multiple EU states that generally prohibit the
'commercialized' assertion of third party rights, i.e. persons or
companies may not solicit the assignment of consumers' legal
claims, and assert such claims in court, as a regular part of a
for-profit business.

2. Under the Brussels I Regulation, is a consumer who resides in
one EU member state entitled to assert claims assigned by
consumers who reside in other EU member states or in non-EU
states, if (a) the claims are asserted against the same defendant,
and (b) the plaintiff is not asserting the claims as part of a
business or commercial activity?

The Austrian Supreme Court notes that if the ECJ considers
Mr. Schrems a "consumer," his claims will have to be asserted
before courts in Vienna.  However, the Court states that existing
ECJ jurisdiction and venue jurisprudence does not provide
sufficient clarity as to where other consumers' claims would have
to be adjudicated.

It is quite possible that the ECJ will accept the referral of
Mr. Schrems's Austrian suit.  ECJ cases generally hold that when a
member-state court refers a matter that arguably presents
questions of EU law, the ECJ is bound to accept and decide the
referral.


FARMERS INSURANCE: "Alvarez" Suit Gets Conditional Certification
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, MERCEDES ALVAREZ, et al., Plaintiffs, v. FARMERS
INSURANCE EXCHANGE, Defendant, Case No. 14-cv-00574-WHO (N.D.
Cal.), District Judge William H. Orrick granted conditional
certification of the Plaintiffs' Motion for Preliminary Approval
of Class and Collective Action Settlement.

The Court preliminarily certifies the Settlement Class, for
settlement purposes only as:

     (1) Liability Claims Representatives who performed work for
         Farmers Insurance Exchange in California at any time
         from February 6, 2010 through August 30, 2016;

     (2) Auto Physical Damage Claims Representatives who
         performed work for Farmers Insurance Exchange in
         California at any time from February 6, 2010 through
         August 30, 2016 and who were hired on or before October
         15, 2014;

     (3) Auto Physical Damage Claims Representatives who
         performed work for Farmers Insurance Exchange in
         California at any time from February 6, 2010 through
         August 30, 2016 and who were hired after October 15,
         2014 (except with respect to unpaid wages and overtime
         claims); and,

     (4) All current and former Liability Claims Representatives,
         Auto Physical Damage Claims Representatives, and
         Residential Property Claims Representatives who
         performed work in California at any time from September
         19, 2011, through August 30, 2016, who timely consented
         to join the conditionally certified collective action,
         and who have not withdrawn their consent to join the
         conditionally certified collective action or had their
         consent struck by the Court.

The Court need not inquire whether the case, if tried as a class
action, would present intractable management problems because the
certification of the Settlement Class is proposed in the context
of a settlement.

The Court then, appointed Mercedes Alvarez, Alfonzo Edwards, Todd
Gonsalves, Jeffrey Holloway, Brian Leigh, Brandi Lopez, Cedric
Martin, Matt Ohlson, and Krysta Ramos as Settlement Class
representatives.  Moreover, the Court appointed the Plaintiffs'
law firms of Rukin Hyland Doria & Tindall LLP and the Markham Law
Firm as Class Counsel for having extensive experience in
litigating complex employment class and collective actions.

The Court scheduled the Final Approval Hearing to take place on
January 11, 2017.

A copy of the Court's Order dated September 21, 2016 is available
at https://goo.gl/OR7O1K from Leagle.com.

Mercedes Alvarez, Plaintiff, represented by Jessica Lee Riggin --
jriggin@rhdtlaw.com -- Rukin Hyland Doria and Tindall LLP.

Mercedes Alvarez, et al., Plaintiffs, represented by David R.
Markham, The Markham Law Firm, Maggie K. Realin, The Markham Law
Firm, Peggy J. Reali, The Markham Law Firm, Rebecca Hilary
Stephens, Rukin Hyland Doria Tindall LLP, Thomas David Haklar --
haklar@aol.com -- Law Office of Thomas D. Haklar, Walter Lewis
Haines -- walter@whaines.com -- United Employees Law Group, P.C. &
Peter Scott Rukin -- prukin@rhdtlaw.com -- Rukin Hyland Doria &
Tindall LLP.

Farmers Insurance Exchange, Defendant, represented by Andrew Marc
Paley -- apaley@seyfarth.com -- Seyfarth Shaw LLP, Candace Sheri
Bertoldi -- cbertoldi@seyfarth.com -- Seyfarth Shaw LLP, Dean
Anthony Martoccia, Seyfarth Shaw, George Elias Preonas, Seyfarth
Shaw & Larry Manuel Lawrence - llawrence@seyfarth.com -- Seyfath
Shaw LLP.


FIGI'S COMPANIES: "Perez" Suit Seeks Certification of Two Classes
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit entitled SANDRA PEREZ, individually and on behalf
of herself and of all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v.
FIGI'S COMPANIES, INC. and CHARMING SALES CO. ONE, INC., the
Defendants, Case No. 5:15-cv-13559 (S.D.W.Va.), the Plaintiff asks
the Court to certify these classes:

The Charming Class:

     "all West Virginia consumers to whom Charming mailed debt
     collection letters internally labeled TE, TF, TG, TH, TI or
     TJ from July 1, 2011 to the present";

The Figi's Companies, Inc. Class:

     "all West Virginia consumers (i) to whom Figi's Companies,
     Inc. mailed letters internally labeled TE, TF, TG, TH, TI or
     TJ from October 14, 2013 to the present; or (ii) whose
     accounts were placed or continued to be placed with third
     party debt collectors by Figi's Companies, Inc. with a
     collection fee from October 14, 2013 through the present."

Figi's Companies was founded in 1944 and is based in Marshfield,
Wisconsin. As of October 16, 2013, Figi's operates as a subsidiary
of Mason Companies, Inc.

A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=BRUSSUN9

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Jonathan R. Marshall, Esq.
          Patricia M. Kipnis, Esq.
          BAILEY & GLASSER LLP
          209 Capitol Street
          Charleston, WV 25301
          Telephone: (304) 345 6555
          Facsimile: (304) 342 1110
          E-mail: jmarshall@baileyglasser.com
          pkipnis@baileyglasser.com

               - and -

          Ralph C. Young, Esq.
          Christopher B. Frost, Esq.
          Steven R. Broadwater, Jr., Esq.
          Jed R. Nolan, Esq.
          HAMILTON BURGESS
          YOUNG & POLLARD, PLLC
          P.O. Box 959
          Fayetteville, WV 25840
          Telephone: (304) 574 2727
          E-mail: ryoung@hamiltonburgess.com
                   cfrost@hamiltonburgess.com
                   sbroadwater@hamiltonburgess.com
                   jnolan@hamiltonburgess.com

Figi's Companies, Inc. is represented by:

          Bruce M. Jacobs, Esq.
          Neva G. Lusk, Esq.
          SPILMAN THOMAS
          & BATTLE, PLLC
          P.O. Box 273
          Charleston, WV 25321-0273
          E-mail: bjacobs@spilmanlaw.com
          nlusk@spilmanlaw.com

               - and -

          Rachna B. Sullivan, Esq.
          Aron J. Frakes, Esq.
          FREDRIKSON & BYRON, P.A.
          200 South Sixth Street, Suite 4000
          Minneapolis, MN 55402
          E-mail: rsullivan@fredlaw.com
                  afrakes@fredlaw.com

Charming Sales Co. One, Inc. is represented by:

          Peter J. Raupp, Esq.
          John J. Meadows, Esq.
          STEPTOE & JOHNSON PLLC
          P.O. Box 1588
          Charleston, WV 25326-1588
          E-mail: peter.raupp@steptoe-johnson.com
                  john.meadows@steptoe-johnson.com


FLUIDMASTER INC: Faces "Castillo" Lawsuit Over Toilet Fill Valve
----------------------------------------------------------------
BARBARA CASTILLO, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. FLUIDMASTER, INC., Defendant,
Case No. 8:16-cv-01743 (C.D. Cal., September 19, 2016), seeks
redress for the latent defects in Fluidmaster's toilet fill valve.

Fluidmaster, Inc. -- http://www.fluidmaster.com/-- manufactures
and supplies toilet repair products for professional plumbing
customers and do-it-yourselfers in the United States and
internationally.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Christopher R. Pitoun, Esq.
     HAGENS BERMAN SOBOL SHAPIRO LLP
     301 N. Lake Avenue, Suite 920
     Pasadena, CA 91101
     Phone: (213) 330-7150
     Fax: (213) 330-7152
     Email: christopherp@hbsslaw.com

        - and -

     Anthony D. Shapiro, Esq.
     Jeniphr Breckenridge, Esq.
     HAGENS BERMAN SOBOL SHAPIRO LLP
     1918 Eighth Avenue, Suite 3300
     Seattle, WA 98101
     Phone: (206) 623-7292
     Fax: (206) 623-0594
     Email: tony@hbsslaw.com
            jeniphr@hbsslaw.com

        - and -

     Simon Bahne Paris, Esq.
     Patrick Howard, Esq.
     Charles J. Kocher, Esq.
     SALTZ, MONGELUZZI, BARRETT & BENDESKY, P.C.
     One Liberty Place, 52nd Floor
     1650 Market Street
     Philadelphia, PA 19103
     Phone: (215) 575-3986
     Fax: (215) 496-0999
     Email: sparis@smbb.com
            phoward@smbb.com
            ckocher@smbb.com

        - and -

     Daniel E. Gustafson, Esq.
     Amanda M. Williams, Esq.
     Raina C. Borrelli, Esq.
     GUSTAFSON GLUEK PLLC
     650 Northstar East 608
     Second Avenue
     South Minneapolis, MN 55402
     Phone: (612) 333-8844
     Email: gustafson@gustafsongluek.com
            awilliams@gustafsongluek.com
            rborrelli@gustafsongluek.com

        - and -

     Joseph J. Tabacco, Jr., Esq.
     Todd. A. Seaver, Esq.
     BERMAN DEVALERIO
     One California Street, Suite 900
     San Francisco, CA 94111
     Phone: (415) 433-3200
     Fax: (415) 433-6282
     Email: jtabacco@bermandevalerio.com
            tseaver@bermandevalerio.com

        - and -

     Shanon J. Carson, Esq.
     Lawrence Deutsch, Esq.
     Glen L. Abramson, Esq.
     BERGER & MONTAGUE, P.C.
     1622 Locust Street
     Philadelphia, PA 19103
     Phone: (215) 875-3000
     Fax: (215) 875-4604
     Email: scarson@bm.net
            ldeutsch@bm.net
            gabramson@bm.net

        - and -

     Edward A. Wallace, Esq.
     Amy E. Keller, Esq.
     WEXLER WALLACE LLP
     55 West Monroe Street, Suite 3300
     Chicago, IL 60603
     Phone: (312) 346-2222
     Fax: (312) 346-0022
     Email: eaw@wexlerwallace.com
            aek@wexlerwallace.com

        - and -

     Gregory F. Coleman, Esq.
     Lisa A. White, Esq.
     GREG COLEMAN LAW PC
     First Tennessee Plaza
     800 S. Gay Street, Suite 1100
     Knoxville, TN 37929
     Phone: (865) 247-0080
     Fax: (865) 522-0049
     Email: greg@gregcolemanlaw.com
            lisa@gregcolemanlaw.com


FRANK ORTEGA: Faces "Zaragoza" Lawsuit Alleging FLSA Violation
--------------------------------------------------------------
JOEL LAGO ZARAGOZA and all others similarly situated under 29
U.S.C. 216(b), Plaintiff, vs. FRANK ORTEGA, Defendants, Case 1:16-
cv-23937-RNS (S.D. Fla., September 14, 2016), alleges violation of
the Fair Labor Standards Act.

Defendant FRANK ORTEGA is a corporate officer and/or owner and/or
manager of RADAR PL MANUFACTURING CORPORATION.  RADAR PL
MANUFACTURING -- http://www.radarpl.com/-- is a pharmaceutical
preparation company.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     J.H. Zidell, Esq.
     J.H. ZIDELL, P.A.
     300 71st Street, Suite 605
     Miami Beach, FL 33141
     Phone: (305) 865-6766
     Fax: (305) 865-7167
     Email: ZABOGADO@AOL.COM


GLOBE LIFE: Proctor Seeks to Certify Policyholders Class
--------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit styled MICHAEL PROCTOR, an Individual, on behalf of
himself and all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. GLOBE
LIFE AND ACCIDENT INSURANCE COMPANY, the Defendant, Case No. 5:15-
cv-00750-M (W.D. Okla.), seeks to certify a class of:

     "all Globe policyholders residing in the United States
     (including its Territories and the District of Columbia)
     that paid Globe life insurance policy premium payments,
     which Globe retained, at a time when that life insurance
     policy was already lapsed and was not reinstated with such
     payment."

Excluded from the proposed National Class are (i) Defendant Globe
Life and Accident Insurance Company, any parent, affiliate, or
subsidiary of Defendant, (ii) any entity in which Defendant has a
controlling interest; (iii) any of Defendant's officers or
directors; (iv) any successor or assign of Defendant (v) anyone
employed by counsel Plaintiff; (vi) any Judge to whom this case is
assigned, his or her spouse, and all members of their families;
(vii) persons who have settled with and validly released Defendant
from separate claims against Defendant based on the conduct
alleged herein; (viii) any and all federal, state or local
government entity, including but not limited to, their associated
departments, agencies, divisions, bureaus, boards, sections,
groups, councils, and/or any other subdivision, and any claim that
such governmental entity(ies) may have directly or indirectly;
(ix) class counsel; (x) the Judges of any court which this case is
assigned; (xi) any persons who Plaintiff's counsel are prohibited
from representing under Rule 1.7 of the Oklahoma Rules of
Professional Conduct.

According to the Complaint, the involved premium payments were all
submitted to Globe in the amount of the life insurance premium
payments specified and required by Globe for specific periods of
life insurance policy coverage. Globe cannot take such premiums
without providing the in force life insurance policy coverage for
which that premium payment was made.

A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=BH67T843

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Steven S. Mansell, Esq.
          Mark A. Engel, Esq.
          Kenneth G. Cole, Esq.
          Adam Engel, Esq.
          101 Park Avenue, Suite 665
          Oklahoma City, OK 73102
          Telephone: (405) 232 4100
          Facsimile: (405) 232 4140
          E-mail: mec@meclaw.net

The Defendant is represented by:

          Steven J. Adams, Esq.
          John D. Russell, Esq.
          Tammy D. Barrett, Esq.
          GABLE GOTWALS
          One Leadership Square, 15th Floor
          211 N. Robinson
          Oklahoma City, OK 73102
          Telephone: (405) 235 5500
          Facsimile: (405) 235 2875
          E-mail: sadams@gablelaw.com
                  jrussell@gablelaw.com
                  tbarrett@gablelaw.com
                  info@gablelaw.com


GREGG A WILLIAMS: Sued in N.Y. Over Alleged Sexual Harassment
-------------------------------------------------------------
Paola Rodriquez v. Gregg A. Williams, Gregg A. Williams, Esq.
Limited Liability Company, and John Does 1-5 and 6-10, Case No.
MDL-5350-16 (N.Y. Super. Ct., September 14, 2016), alleges that
the Plaintiff was subjected to unlawful sexual harassment.

The Defendants operates a law firm located at 197 State Route 18
South, Suite 3000, East Brunswick, New Jersey.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Kevin M. Costello, Esq.
      COSTE LO & MAINS, LLC
      18000 H rizon Way, Suite 800
      Mount Laurel, NJ 08054
      Telephone: (856) 727-9700


HARFORD COUNTY, MD: Judge Denies Inmate's Petitions
---------------------------------------------------
District Judge James K. Bredar denied the Plaintiff's second
motion to amend the complaint against the personnel of Harford
County Detention Center, including his motion for appointment of
counsel, request for class action certification, motion for
exclude/strike, and his injunctive relief for a greater access to
a proper legal library, in the case styled, LEONARD MICHAEL
SAVAGE, #132-625, Plaintiff, v. JEFFREY R. GAHLER, Sheriff,
Defendant, Civil Action No. JKB-16-1219 (D. Md.)

Judge Bredar found that none of the prerequisites for
certification set out in Fed.R.Civ.Proc. Rule 23(a) has been
demonstrated by the Plaintiff. He added that while the Plaintiff
is free to file a new complaint alleging the impact of poor
conditions of confinement have on him, the Plaintiff may not do so
on behalf for other detainees. The Plaintiff is a pro se litigant
and cannot represent a class.

Moreover, the Court ruled that the Plaintiff's request to expand
the scope of the lawsuit compels the denial of his request for
injunctive relief. The Court is under consideration of the
Defendant's motion to dismiss the amended complaint, on grounds
that the Defendant failed to exhaust administrative remedies.

A copy of the Court's Order dated September 13, 2016 is available
at https://goo.gl/dmph5z from Leagle.com.

Leonard Michael Savage, Plaintiff, Pro Se.

Jeffrey R. Gahler, Defendant, represented by Melissa Lambert --
mllambert@harfordcountymd.gov -- Harford County-Law Dept.


HARRAH'S LAS VEGAS: Settlement in "McDonagh" Suit Has Initial OK
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, NICOLE McDONAGH and DAVID GRUCELLO, on behalf of
themselves, and all other similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v.
HARRAH'S LAS VEGAS, INC., HARRAH'S ENTERTAINMENT, LLC; and DOES 1
through 50, inclusive, Defendants, Case No. 13-cv-01744 RFB CWH
(D. Nev.), Magistrate Judge Carl W. Hoffman granted the parties'
Joint Motion for Preliminary Approval of Class Action Settlement.

For purposes of settlement, the Court conditionally certifies the
class composed of all current and former hourly paid dealers
employed by Harrah's Las Vegas at any time from September 23, 2007
through June 30, 2010 and all current and former dual-rate
supervisors employed by Harrah's Las Vegas at any time from
September 23, 2007 through June 30, 2014.

The Court preliminarily finds that the gross settlement amount of
$850,000 falls within the range of reasonableness that is
necessary for preliminary approval.

The Court appointed the Plaintiffs, Nicole McDonagh and David
Grucello, as class representatives and the Court preliminarily
approves enhancement payments of $15,000 each for Nicole McDonagh
and David Grucello and $5,000 to plaintiff Kimberley Daprizio.

Moreover, the Court appointed Thierman Buck LLP and The Markham
Law Firm as class counsel and preliminarily approved their
attorney's fee request of $212,500 and litigation costs not to
exceed $50,000. Likewise, the Court confirmed CPT Group, Inc. as
the settlement administrator.

The Court ordered the Class Counsel to file its motion for
attorneys' fees, costs, and class representative enhancement
awards on November 21, 2016. A final approval hearing will be held
on December 13, 2016 to determine (1) whether the proposed
settlement is fair, reasonable, and adequate and should be finally
approved; (2) the amount of attorney's fees and litigation costs
to award to class counsel; (3) the amount to be paid to CPT; and
(4) the amount of the service payments for the class
representatives.

A copy of the Court's Order dated September 14, 2016 is available
at https://goo.gl/Yd4Ddz from Leagle.com.

Nicole McDonagh, Plaintiff, represented by David R. Markham, The
Markham Law Firm.

Nicole McDonagh, Plaintiff, represented by Janine R. Menhennet,
The Markham Law Firm, pro hac vice, Joshua D. Buck, Thierman Buck,
LLP & Mark R. Thierman, Thierman Buck, LLP.

David Grucello, Plaintiff, represented by David R. Markham, The
Markham Law Firm, Janine R. Menhennet, The Markham Law Firm, pro
hac vice, Joshua D. Buck, Thierman Buck, LLP & Mark R. Thierman,
Thierman Buck, LLP.

Harrah's Las Vegas, Inc., Defendant, represented by Dustin L.
Clark, Clark Law Counsel PLLC, Joel M. Cohn -- jcohn@akingump.com
-- Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld LLP, pro hac vice, Juliet E.
Gray, Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld, Rick D. Roskelley --
rroskelley@littler.com -- Littler Mendelson, PC & Wendy M. Krincek
-- wkrincek@littler.com -- Littler Mendelson, PC.


HATHAWAY DINWIDDIE: Faces "Moreno" Suit in California
-----------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been commenced against Hathaway
Dinwiddie Construction Company and Does 1 thru 50, inclusive.

The case is captioned Luis Moreno, individually and on behalf of
and others similarly situated v. Hathaway Dinwiddie Construction
Company and Does 1 thru 50, inclusive, Case No. CGC 16 554443
(Cal. Super. Ct., September 22, 2016).

Hathaway Dinwiddie Construction Company operates a construction
company located at 75 Battery St Ste 300. San Francisco, CA 94111.

HAUDENOSAUNEE DEVELOPMENT: Six Nations File Class Action Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
Jim Windle, writing for Two Row Times, reports that with lawsuits
and other legal bantering flying around Six Nations about the
Haudenosaunee Development Institute (HDI) and its finances, Six
Nations Bill Monture and Wilfred Davie recently launched a class
action against Aaron Detlor, Hazel Hill, Brian Doolittle and
Elvera Garlow, board members of the HDI or its numbered corporate
entities.

"Months ago, a lot of people in the community wanted to know about
what kind of deals HDI had made with developers or proponents,"
says Monture who along with Davie are members of the Men's Fire.
"We wanted to know who was on payroll, what they were being paid
and for doing what."

They are also very concerned about the long-range ramifications of
forming two corporations to handle the finances for the HDI.

There is case law, which stirs their concern further. In one such
case it was stated, "A corporation is not an Indian even if wholly
owned by Indians and land held under this section by a corporation
may be taxed under provincial law." Regarding what is and is not
an Indian, the law also states; "A corporation wholly owned by
registered Indians is not an Indian within the meaning of the
Act."

"We heard that the HDI and its corporations were picking their own
board members and that's just not right," says Monture. "They
should have gone to the community and asked the community if they
wanted to be a part of it."

Looking back on how HDI was supposed to be, the people in charge
were only to be there temporarily. That's why Hill has been, until
recently, called the interim director of the HDI.

That never happened despite being challenged to do so many times.

"People have gone to the HDI seeking answers and documents, which
they have been denied," says Monture. "They talk about being
transparent but are anything but."

According to Monture their lawyer has even asked for a meeting to
discuss the matter further with a mediator present, before it goes
to court, but there has been no response from any of the
defendants.

"Some people have said this action is in response to Aaron
Detlor's legal action against me and Lester (Green), but it's
not," says Monture.

Detlor has taken Monture and Lester Green to court on allegations
of assault, which occurred when Detlor was physically removed from
his office by members of the Men's Fire. This case is still making
its way through the system.

Why is this class action measure necessary? Monture believes that
if the HDI won't open itself to the community on its own, the
lawsuit will force them to reveal it in Canadian court.

"If he want's to talk I'm open to that," says Monture. "But I will
take it to the nines if I have to."

The action being put forward by the Monture and Davie is a class
action, which anyone can join. If the action is successful, the
men insist there will be no money changing hands, but it will
force open the files the HDI has been keeping closed.

"It's not about the money," insists Monture. "It's about stopping
what they are doing down there."


HOUSING AUTHORITY, CA: Final Settlement Hearing Set for Dec. 5
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, THANH HUYNH, et al., Plaintiffs, v. KATHERINE HARASZ,
et al., Defendants, Case No. 14-CV-02367-LHK (N.D. Cal.), District
Judge Lucy H. Koh ordered a Final Approval Hearing on December 15,
2016, following the approval of the Plaintiffs' motion for
preliminary approval of class action settlement. The approval
rendered all other pending motions as denied as moot.

The Court noted that prior to the scheduled Final Approval
Hearing, Plaintiffs shall file their motion in support of final
approval of the Settlement Agreement, and Class Counsel shall file
their motion for attorney's fees, costs, and service awards to the
Class Representatives. The motion for attorney's fees, costs, and
service awards must include (1) the number of hours spent on this
litigation by each biller, (2) detailed billing records showing
how much time was spent on each task, and (3) each biller's
billable rate and justification for such rate. For each biller who
worked on the action, Class Counsel must specify whether any court
within the Northern District of California has approved the
biller's billable rate.

Likewise, the parties are to notify the Court as soon as the U.S.
Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) approves the
Settlement Agreement. If HUD approves the Settlement Agreement,
the parties shall promptly file with the Court a schedule which
includes proposed dates for: (1) when the Notice shall be
disseminated; (2) when the parties shall file an affidavit stating
that the Notice has been disseminated; (3) when the motion for
attorney's fees, costs, and service awards and the motion for
final approval of class action settlement shall be filed; (4) the
deadline to mail objections; and (5) when the replies in support
of the motion for attorney's fees, costs, and service awards and
the motion for final approval of class action settlement shall be
filed. The motion for attorney's fees, costs, and service awards
should be filed at least two weeks before the deadline to mail
objections.

A copy of the Court's Order dated September 15, 2016 is available
at https://goo.gl/888bTe from Leagle.com.

Thanh Huynh, Plaintiff, represented by Annette D. Kirkham, Fair
Housing Law Project.

Thanh Huynh, et al., Plaintiffs, represented by Emily Petersen
Garff -- petersengarff@fr.com -- FISH and RICHARDSON P.C., Holly
Kathleen Victorson -- victorsh@cafc.uscourts.gov -- Fish and
Richardson PC, Jonathan Joseph Lamberson -- lamberson@fr.com --
Attorney at Law, Kara Elizabeth Brodfuehrer --
kara.brodfuehrer@lawfoundation.org -- Law Foundation of Silicon
Valley, Katherine Kelly Lutton, Fish & Richardson P.C., Katherine
Vidal -- vidal@fr.com -- Fish & Richardson P.O., Kyra Ann
Kazantzis -- kyrak@lawfoundation.org -- Law Foundation of Silicon
Valley, Meghana Chandrakant RaoRane -- raorane@fr.com -- FISH &
RICHARDSON PC, Michael Richard Headley -- headley@fr.com -- Fish &
Richardson P.C., Nadia Aziz -- nadia.aziz@lawfoundation.org --
Fair Housing Law Project Law Foundation of Silicon Valley & Thomas
Philip Zito, Law Foundation of Silicon Valley.

Housing Authority of the County of Santa Clara, et al.,
Defendants, represented by John Algot List -- jlist@pahl-mccay.com
-- John A List, Karen K. McCay, Pahl & McCay, Servando R. Sandoval
-- ssandoval@pahl-mccay.com -- Pahl & McCay, APC & Helene
Anastasia Simvoulakis -- hsimvoulakis@pahl-mccay.com -- Pahl and
McCay.


ILG TECHNOLOGIES: Mans Sue for Incorrect Bar Exam Results
---------------------------------------------------------
Steve King, writing for WJCL News, reports that a Richmond Hill
man is part of a class action lawsuit with about 90 others against
a company for incorrectly informing them they failed the bar exam.

The lawsuit was filed against ILG Technologies, which is a
California-based company.  ILG Technologies did not respond to
multiple calls from WJCL News for comment.

"It's the stuff nightmares are made of, it really is," said Lloyd
Dan Murray, Jr., who is the Richmond Hill man that is part of this
lawsuit.

Murray received an email in October no aspiring attorney ever
wants to see, that he failed the bar exam.

"It was probably the most painful because everything for me was
dashed like I couldn't do anything i worked my entire life for,"
Murray said.

Except in this case, he actually did pass the test he took in July
of last year.

He and about 90 other people found out they passed the bar when
they were notified recently by the Georgia Office of Bar
Admissions, ending what was a nightmare for Murray.

"This past year I've basically had a routine of I graduated,
study, took the bar, worked, cried, studied, took the bar the bar,
cried, studied," said Murray.

Because of this Murray is out thousands of dollars but he says
that doesn't compare to the embarrassment.  His father is a
successful attorney in Richmond Hill that LD Murray, Jr. was in
line for to work as an attorney.

"I was told that 'you know you should do something else, stop
trying to pretend to be your dad. It became this, 'well obviously
you don't want to be an attorney because you would've passed if
you really wanted it," Murray said.

"I'll never get back the fact that I had to spend an entire year
listening to people tell me I was stupid."

However, he says he's glad he and others are at least taking
action.

"Money is not a good way or a great way to try to make somebody
whole but it's the best way that our system has," said Murray.

But now, he's right around the corner from doing what he says he
was born to do.

"We've got a $10 million plus lawsuit coming up in a month and a
half. I get to be on those now. I'm not just on the sidelines. I
get to be an attorney and actually do it!" Murray said.


IMOTORSPORTS INC: Foley Seeks Certification of Class
----------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit captioned FOLEY MOTORS, INC., an Illinois
corporation, individually and as the representative of a class of
similarly-situated persons, the Plaintiff, v. IMOTORSPORTS INC.
and JOHN DOES 1-10, Case No. 1:15-cv-11767 (N.D. Ill.), the
Plaintiff asks the Court for class certification of:

     "all persons who (1) on or after four years prior to the
     filing of this action, (2) were sent telephone facsimile
     messages of material advertising the commercial availability
     or quality of any property, goods, or services by or on
     behalf of Defendants, and (3) which Defendants did not have
     prior express permission or invitation, or (4) which did not
     display a proper opt-out notice."

To avoid the risk of a defendant mooting a putative class
representative's individual stake in the litigation, the Seventh
Circuit in Damasco instructed plaintiffs to file a certification
motion with the complaint, along with a motion to stay briefing on
the certification motion until discovery could commence. Damasco
v. Clearwire Corp., 662 F.3d 891 (7th Cir. 2011), overruled,
Chapman v. First Index, Inc., 796 F.3d 783, 787 (7th Cir. 2015).

As this motion to certify a class is a placeholder motion as
described in Damasco, the parties and the Court should not be
burdened with unnecessary paperwork and the resulting expense when
a one paragraph, single page motion to certify and stay should
suffice until an amended motion is filed, the Plaintiffs contend.

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

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Brian J. Wanca, Esq.
          ANDERSON & WANCA
          3701 Algonquin Rd., Suite 500
          Rolling Meadows, IL 60008
          Telephone: (847) 368 1500
          Facsimile: (847) 368 1501
          E-mail: bwanca@andersonwanca.com


INTEGRATED PRODUCTION: Sued Over Failure to Pay Workers Overtime
----------------------------------------------------------------
Takoda Hlavaty, Landon Baker, Jose Baladez, Darrell Ballentine,
Christopher Barnard, Esteban Eduardo Barrera, Clinton Basoco,
Clayton Beatty, Jerome Beecham, James Bennett, Joseph Bess, David
Bochat, James Boriski, Christopher Boyle, Arthur Bralick, Bart
Brunkhurst, Richard Burke, Michael Caffey, Billy Call, Cole
Carney, Guy Henry Cole, Scott Cooper, Calvin Coppak, Jeremy Corl,
Terrell Cormier, Charles Cox, Nicholas Cox, Thomas Doyle,
Christopher Easter, Chad England, Paul Francis, Larry Freitas, Ray
Frum, Adrian Gonzalez, Rodrick Greer, Joshua Gusewelle, Michael
Gutierrez, Eltara Hallman, Willie Hamilton, Jared Harlow, Robert
Nathan Harrison, Gary Harsson, Michael Hensley, Anthony Henson,
Jaime Hernandez, Michael Hooker, Derrick Jackson, Roland Jackson,
Chad Kaminski, Timothy Kaminski, Joshua Kerr, Jake King, Patrick
Laqua, Zachary Link, Humberto Loera, Nicholas Lowman, Francisco
Martinez, Troy McFarland, Michael Muniz, Craig Nelson, Stephen
Palacios, Gabe Parker, Reginald Washington, Jimmy Webb, Aaron
Young and Chris Trevino, each individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. Integrated Production Services, Inc.,
Case No. 5:16-cv-00949 (W.D. Tex., September 22, 2016), is brought
against the Defendants for failure to pay overtime wages in
violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act.

Integrated Production Services, Inc. is a provider of oil and gas
well drilling, stimulation, cementing and coiled tubing services.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Josh Sanford, Esq.
      SANFORD LAW FIRM, PLLC
      One Financial Center
      650 S. Shackleford Road, Suite 411
      Little Rock, AR 72211
      Telephone: (501) 221-0088
      Facsimile: (888) 787-2040
      E-mail: josh@sanfordlawfirm.com


INTUITIVE SURGICAL: Court Conceals Pre-litigation Records
---------------------------------------------------------
In the case, IN RE INTUITIVE SURGICAL SECURITIES LITIGATION, Case
No. 5:13-cv-01920-EJD (HRL), (N.D. Cal.), Magistrate Judge Howard
R. Lloyd denied the Defendant's request to compel the production
of the notes and a memo concerning pre-litigation interviews of
the non-party Charles Endweiss, a former employee of the
Defendant, Intuitive Surgical, Inc. The Court noted that the
denial is without prejudice to revisiting the issue, should
circumstances warrant the request.

The case involves several individual defendants for alleged
securities fraud. Plaintiffs claim that the Defendants concealed
safety defects in the Defendant Intuitive's da Vinci Surgical
System and lied about the company's business metrics and financial
prospects.

The Defendants served the Plaintiffs with a document request
seeking all recordings -- audio or video, regardless of the media
upon which they are saved -- and transcriptions of any statements
provided by any former employee of Intuitive relating to the
allegations in the Complaint, including but not limited to
statements provided by Endweiss.

The Court held that the there is no indication that the documents
in question were disclosed during Endweiss' deposition. The Court
therefore does not find that the Plaintifffs' work product
protection was waived. An ordinary fact work product provides that
an attorney's notes and memoranda of statements are protected as
opinion work product because they reveal the attorney's mental
processes and show what facts the attorney deems legally
significant. Therefore, the Defendants' request warrants
dismissal.

A copy of the Court's Order dated September 19, 2016 is available
at https://goo.gl/UWY7B3 from Leagle.com.

Spencer Abrams, Plaintiff, represented by Arthur Charles Leahy --
artl@rgrdlaw.com -- Robbins Geller Rudman & dowd LLP.

Spencer Abrams, Plaintiff, represented by Mary K. Blasy --
mblasy@rgrdlaw.com -- Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP, Shawn A.
Williams -- shawnw@rgrdlaw.com -- Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP
& Danielle Suzanne Myers -- danim@rgrdlaw.com -- Robbins Geller
Rudman & Dowd LLP.

Greater Pennsylvania Carpenters' Pension Fund, Plaintiff,
represented by Carol C. Villegas -- cvillegas@labaton.com --
Labaton Sucharow LLP, Jonathan Gardner -- jgardner@labaton.com --
Labaton Sucharow LLP, Serena Hallowell -- shallowell@labaton.com -
- Labaton Sucharow LLP, Susannah Ruth Conn -- sconn@rgrdlaw.com --
Robbins Geller Rudman and Dowd LLP & Danielle Suzanne Myers --
danim@rgrdlaw.com -- Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP.

Public School Teachers' Pension and Retirement Fund of Chicago,
Plaintiff, represented by Jennifer Rae Crutchfield, Cotchett Pitre
and McCarthy LLP.

Intuitive Surgical, Inc., et al., Defendants, represented by
Alexander Barnes Dryer -- adryer@kvn.com -- Keker and Van Nest
LLP, Cody Shawn Harris -- charris@kvn.com -- Keker and Van Nest
LLP, Jo W. Golub -- jgolub@kvn.com -- Keker & Van Nest LLP, Kate
Ellis Lazarus -- katelaz@gmail.com -- Keker and Van Nest LLP,
Michael D. Celio -- mcelio@kvn.com -- Keker & Van Nest LLP, Philip
James Tassin -- ptassin@kvn.com -- Keker and Van Nest LLP & Reid
Patrick Mullen -- rmullen@kvn.com -- Keker and Van Nest LLP.


JESSE CASARES: JT's Frames Seeks Certification of Class
-------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit styled JT'S FRAMES, INC., an Illinois corporation,
individually and as the representative of a class of similarly-
situated persons, the Plaintiff, v. JESSE CASARES, JOE CASARES,
PATRICIA BEZABALETA a/k/a PATRICIA ZABELETA and JOHN DOES
1-10, the Defendants, Case No. 1:16-cv-02504 (N.D. Ill.), the
Plaintiff asks the Court to certify a class of:

     "all persons who (1) on or after four years prior to the
     filing of this action, (2) were sent telephone facsimile
     messages of material advertising the commercial availability
     or quality of any property, goods, or services by or on
     behalf of Defendants, and (3) which Defendants did not have
     prior express permission or invitation, or (4) which did not
     display a proper opt-out notice."

To avoid the risk of a defendant mooting a putative class
representative's individual stake in the litigation, the Seventh
Circuit in Damasco instructed plaintiffs to file a certification
motion with the complaint, along with a motion to stay briefing on
the certification motion until discovery could commence. Damasco
v. Clearwire Corp., 662 F.3d 891 (7th Cir. 2011), overruled,
Chapman v. First Index, Inc., 796 F.3d 783, 787 (7th Cir. 2015).

As this motion to certify a class is a placeholder motion as
described in Damasco, the parties and the Court should not be
burdened with unnecessary paperwork and the resulting expense when
a one paragraph, single page motion to certify and stay should
suffice until an amended motion is filed, the Plaintiffs contend.

A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=9fQjs2ZV

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Brian J. Wanca, Esq.
          ANDERSON & WANCA
          3701 Algonquin Road, Suite 500
          Rolling Meadows, IL 60008
          Telephone: (847) 368 1500
          Facsimile: (847) 368 1501
          E-mail: bwanca@andersonwanca.com


JOY GLOBAL: Nov. 7 Class Action Lead Plaintiff Deadline Set
-----------------------------------------------------------
Bronstein, Gewirtz & Grossman, LLC notifies investors that a class
action lawsuit has been filed against Joy Global Inc. and certain
of its officers, on behalf of shareholders who held Joy Global
securities on the record date, September 1, 2016.

This class action seeks to recover damages against Defendants for
alleged breaches of fiduciary duties, aiding and abetting breaches
of fiduciary duty, and violations of the federal securities laws
under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the "Exchange Act") in
connection with the acquisition of Joy Global by Komatsu Ltd. and
certain of its subsidiaries.

Joy Global Inc. is an American Fortune 100 company that
manufactures and services heavy machinery used in underground and
surface mining.

On July 21, 2016, Joy Global said it had entered into an Agreement
and Plan of Merger ("Merger Agreement") in which Joy Global will
merge with Pine Solutions, Inc., a wholly owned subsidiary of
Komatsu, and will thereafter continue as the surviving
corporation. Komatsu will purchase all of Joy Global's remaining
shares at a price of $28.30 per share.

The complaint alleges that defendants breached their fiduciary
duties by agreeing to the Proposed Acquisition. On September 2,
2016, in an attempt to secure shareholder support for the Proposed
Acquisition, defendants issued a materially false and misleading
Preliminary Proxy Statement on Schedule 14A (the "Proxy"). The
Proxy recommends that Joy Global shareholders vote in favor of the
Proposed Acquisition and omits and/or misrepresents material
information about the unfair sales process for Joy Global,
conflicts of interest that corrupted the sales process, the unfair
consideration offered in the Proposed Acquisition, and the actual
intrinsic value of the Company on a standalone basis and as a
merger partner for Komatsu, in contravention of Secs. 14(a) and
20(a) of the 1934 Act and/or defendants' fiduciary duty of
disclosure under state law. This substantial information was not
disclosed to the investing public, thus impending shareholders'
decisions whether or not to vote in favor of the Proposed
Acquisition.

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/joyor 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 Joy Global 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.

Bronstein, Gewirtz & Grossman, LLC is a corporate litigation
boutique.  Our primary expertise is the aggressive pursuit of
litigation claims on behalf of our clients.  In addition to
representing institutions and other investor plaintiffs in class
action security litigation, the firm's expertise includes general
corporate and commercial litigation, as well as securities
arbitration.  Attorney advertising. Prior results do not guarantee
similar outcomes.


KERYX BIOPHARMACEUTICALS: Misled Investors, Class Action Alleged
----------------------------------------------------------------
Robbins Arroyo LLP announced on Sept. 14 that a class action
complaint was filed against Keryx Biopharmaceuticals, Inc., in the
U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts. The
complaint is brought on behalf of all purchasers of Keryx
securities between September 2, 2013 and August 1, 2016, for
alleged violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 by
Keryx's officers and directors. Keryx is a biopharmaceutical
company that focuses on providing therapies for patients with
renal disease in the United States. Its product, Auryxia, is an
oral, absorbable iron-based compound designed to control serum
phosphorous levels in patients with chronic kidney disease on
dialysis.

View this information on the law firm's Shareholder Rights Blog:
www.robbinsarroyo.com/shareholders-rights-blog/keryx-
biopharmaceuticals-inc-sept-2016

Keryx Accused of Concealing Production Difficulties Surrounding
Its Drug Product

According to the complaint, throughout the class period, Keryx
officials schemed to mislead shareholders into believing that the
company would contract with multiple manufacturers to produce
Auryxia. For example, Keryx repeatedly referenced "third party
manufacturers" and "contract manufacturers" in its public filings.
In so doing, the company allegedly concealed the true risks
associated with the manufacturing and supply of Auryxia because
Keryx contracted with only a single manufacturer to produce its
only marketed drug.

The complaint further alleges that Keryx officials failed to
disclose: (1) that the company lacked adequate inventory controls;
(2) that at some point during the class period, Keryx officials
became aware but did not disclose that its contract manufacturer
was experiencing production difficulties; and (3) that these
production difficulties would deplete Keryx's Auryxia inventory.
On August 1, 2016, Keryx revealed that the company would halt the
distribution of Auryxia until at least October 2016 due to
production difficulties on the part of its only contract
manufacturer, and that Keryx was withdrawing its financial
guidance for 2016. On this news, Keryx stock fell $2.64 per share,
or 35.8%, to close at $4.72 per share on August 1, 2016.

Keryx Shareholders Have Legal Options

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

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


KERYX BIOPHARMACEUTICALS: Khang & Khang Files Class Action Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Khang & Khang LLP announced on Sept. 14, 2016, a class action
lawsuit has been filed against Keryx Biopharmaceuticals Inc.
Investors who purchased or otherwise acquired shares between
February 25, 2016 and August 1, 2016 inclusive (the "Class
Period"), are encouraged to contact the Firm prior to the
October 3, 2016 lead plaintiff motion deadline.

If you purchased Keryx 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, the Company
made false and misleading statements and/or failed to disclose:
that Keryx was experiencing production-related difficulties in
converting API to finished drug product; that the issue was
resulting in fewer production yields of finished drug product;
that the Company exhausted its reserve of finished drug product;
and as a result, Keryx's statements about its business, operations
and prospects were false and misleading and/or lacked a reasonable
basis at all relevant times. When the true details emerged, Keryx
shares 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 via e-mail at joon@khanglaw.com


LINCARE INC: Court Trims Down Notice Plan in "Culley" Suit
----------------------------------------------------------
In the case, CHRISTINA CULLEY, Plaintiff, v. LINCARE INC., ALPHA
RESPIRATORY INC., and DOES 1 THROUGH 50, Defendants, No. 2:15-cv-
00081-MCE-CMK (E.D. Cal.), District Judge Morrison C. England, Jr.
approved the Plaintiff's second version of the Notice of Pendency
of Class Action to be introduced to all of the individuals
employed by the Defendant, Alpha Respiratory Inc., a wholly owned
subsidiary of Defendant Lincare, Inc., as non-exempt employees
during October 21, 2010 to the present.

The Plaintiff fears that only naming Alpha Respiratory Inc. will
cause confusion among class members since many of the class
members' employment documents, such as paystubs, bore the Lincare
Inc. logo.

The Court ordered the Defendants to disclose all class members'
contact information to Class Counsel and the third-party
administrator within 15 days and further ordered that the Class
Notice shall be mailed within 30 days. The September 22, 2016,
hearing on the matter is vacated.

A copy of the Court's Order dated September 17, 2016 is available
at https://goo.gl/WSe5ZZ from Leagle.com.

Christina Culley, Plaintiff, represented by Norman Blumenthal --
norm@bamlawlj.com -- Blumenthal Nordrehaug & Bhowmik.

Christina Culley, Plaintiff, represented by Aparajit Bhowmik --
aj@bamlawlj.com -- Blumenthal, Nordrehaug & Bhowmik, Ruchira Piya
Mukherjee -- piya@bamlawlj.com -- Blumenthal, Nordrehaug & Bhowmik
& Victoria Bree Rivapalacio -- victoria@bamlawca.com --
Blumenthal, Nordrehaug & Bhowmik.

Lincare Inc., et al., Defendants, represented by David Cheng --
dcheng@fordharrison.com -- Ford & Harrison LLP, Todd S. Aidman --
taidman@fordharrison.com -- Ford and Harrison LLP, pro hac vice &
Alexandria M. Witte -- awitte@fordharrison.com -- Ford & Harrison
LLP.


LKQ CORPORATION: Class Certification Sought in "Wendell" Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit captioned WENDELL H. STONE COMPANY, INC. d/b/a
STONE & COMPANY, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. LKQ CORPORATION, a Delaware
corporation, the Defendant, Case No. 1:16-cv-07648 (N.D. Ill.),
the Plaintiff asks the Court to certify a class of:

     "all persons who (1) on or after four years prior to the
     filing of this action, (2) were sent, by Defendant or on
     Defendant's behalf, a telephone facsimile message
     substantially similar to Exhibits A and B, (3) from whom
     Defendant claims it obtained prior express permission or
     invitation to send those faxes in the same manner as
     Defendant claims it obtained prior express consent to fax
     the Plaintiff."

The Plaintiff further asks the Court to (1) allow for and schedule
discovery to take place on class-wide issues; (2) grant Plaintiff
leave to file an amended motion upon the conclusion of discovery
relating to certification issues; (3) grant Plaintiff's Motion for
Class Certification after full briefing; and (4) provide all other
and further relief that the Court deems reasonable and just.

To avoid the risk of a defendant mooting a putative class
representative's individual stake in the litigation, the Seventh
Circuit in Damasco instructed plaintiffs to file a certification
motion with the complaint, along with a motion to stay briefing on
the certification motion until discovery could commence. Damasco
v. Clearwire Corp., 662 F.3d 891 (7th Cir. 2011), overruled,
Chapman v. First Index, Inc., 796 F.3d 783, 787 (7th Cir. 2015).

As this motion to certify a class is a placeholder motion as
described in Damasco, the parties and the Court should not be
burdened with unnecessary paperwork and the resulting expense when
a one paragraph, single page motion to certify and stay should
suffice until an amended motion is filed, the Plaintiffs contend.

A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=cEvmU0dO

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Marc McCallister, Esq.
          GARY D. MCCALLISTER & ASSOCIATES
          120 North LaSalle St., No. 2800
          Chicago, IL 60602
          Telephone: (312) 345-0611
          E-mail: mmccallister@gmail.com

               - and -

          Steven L. Woodrow, Esq.
          WOODROW & PELUSO, LLC
          3900 East Mexico Ave., Suite 300
          Denver, Colorado 80210
          Telephone: (720) 213 0675
          Facsimile: (303) 927 0809

               - and -

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


LOS ANGELES, CA: LADWP Settles Class Action for Nearly $50-Mil.
---------------------------------------------------------------
Shelly Insheiwat, writing for FOX 11, reports that the landmark
class action settlement reached with the Los Angeles Department of
Water and Power (LADWP) on behalf of overbilled customers has now
grown to nearly $50,000,000.

Consumer rights attorney Jack Landskroner, of Landskroner Grieco
Merriman, said on Sept. 13: "Our efforts, have already identified
an additional $5,400,000 due back to customers who were overbilled
since the settlement with LADWP was conditionally approved by the
Court on a preliminary basis in December 2015."

Customers were overbilled as a result of the failed installation
of a new customer billing software in September, 2013.  Initial
conservative estimates only valued the settlement at approximately
$44,000,000.

"In working with our legal team, the court-appointed monitor is
conducting an exhaustive review of every possible defect in
LADWP's billing system," said Mr. Landskroner.  "As our efforts
continue, we expect the total amount owed to customers will
continue to rise."

Los Angeles Superior Court Judge Elihu Berle appointed utility
billing expert Paul Bender to independently monitor the
settlement.  Judge Bender's team of analysts is verifying the data
which will be used to determine how much each customer was
overbilled.  In an affidavit filed with the Court in August,
Bender reported that LADWP had given his team "unrestricted access
to necessary data, information and personnel."

"Bender's team is vetting every possible defect in the billing
system and the Department has been cooperating," said
Mr. Landskroner.  "Our commitment is to make sure every consumer
gets back every penny they are owed, so we appreciate the
monitor's methodical approach and careful analysis.  The monitor
is doing a tremendous job in his role for LADWP customers."

A hearing to finalize the Court's conditional preliminary approval
of the settlement is scheduled for November 18, 2016.  Mr.
Landskroner says the ultimate size of the settlement will not be
known until the review of overbilled amounts is completed and all
consumers have had the opportunity to make claims for any special
damages due under the agreement.


LUMBER LIQUIDATORS: "Chestnut" Suit Transferred to D. Maryland
--------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit captioned James Chestnut, an individual,
on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. Lumber
Liquidators Inc., Case No. 2:16-cv-06678, was transferred from
District of California Central to the U.S. District Court for the
District of Maryland (Greenbelt). The District Court Clerk
assigned Case No. 8:16-cv-03116-PX to the proceeding.

The case asserts product-liability claims.

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


LUMBER LIQUIDATORS: "Williams" Suit Transferred to N.D. Florida
---------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit captioned Chris Williams, an individual
on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. Lumber
Liquidators Inc., Case No. 2:16-cv-06570, was transferred from the
District of California Central to the U.S. District Court
Northern District of Florida (Panama City). The District Court
Clerk assigned 5:16-cv-00255-MW-GRJ to the proceeding.

The case asserts product-liability claims.

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


MACHINE ZONE: Court Rules Class Certification in "Mihajlo" Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit styled Mihajlo Ristic, the Plaintiff v. Machine
Zone, Inc., the Defendant, Case No. 1:15-cv-08996 (N.D. Ill.), the
Hon. Robert M. Dow Jr. entered an order granting Machine Zone's
motion to dismiss a first amended complaint.

According to the docket entry made by the Clerk on September 19,
2016, since Ristic has already amended his complaint once and does
not propose any additional pleadings that might save his claims,
the dismissal of the amended complaint is with prejudice and the
Court will enter a final judgment under Rule 58.

Ristic brings this class action complaint against Defendant for
alleged violations of the Illinois Loss Recovery Act and the
Illinois Consumer Fraud and Deceptive Business Practices Act.
Ristic seeks to recover gambling losses and damages that he
allegedly incurred by playing the "Casino" in Machine Zone's "Game
of War" videogame app.

The Court denied as moot Ristic's motion to certify a class and
Machine Zone's motion to dismiss Ristic's original complaint.

Machine Zone is a privately held technology company, founded in
2008 and based in Palo Alto, California.

A copy of the Order is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=lIPjd9Ap

A copy of the Court's Memorandum is available at
https://is.gd/2N87gP from Leagle.com.


MACY'S INC: Court Lifts Stay Order in "Tapia" Suit for Dismissal
----------------------------------------------------------------
District Judge Manuel L. Real lifted the stay entered on October
22, 2014, in the case, HUMBERTO TAPIA, an individual, and on
behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v.
MACY'S, INC.; MACY'S WEST STORES, INC.; BLOOMINGDALE'S, INC.;
BLOOMINGDALE'S, INC. dba FORTY CARROTS and DOES 1 through 100,
inclusive, Defendants, Case No. 2:14-CV-05163-R-AGR (C.D. Cal.),
and dismissed, with prejudice, the Plaintiff's wage and hour
complaint. Each party shall bear their own costs and fees.

Judge Real noted that all matters in controversy arising from
Plaintiff's wage and hour claims have been resolved.

A copy of the Court's Order dated September 14, 2016 is available
at https://goo.gl/SmzcR5 from Leagle.com.

Humberto Tapia, Plaintiff, represented by Matthew John Matern --
MMatern@maternlawgroup.com -- Matern Law Group PC.

Humberto Tapia, Plaintiff, represented by Shayna Elaine Dickstein
-- sdickstein@maternlawgroup.com -- Matern Law Group PC & Dalia
Khalili -- dkhalili@maternlawgroup.com -- Matern Law Group, PC.

Macy's Inc, et al., Defendants, represented by John Peter Schaedel
-- jschaedel@dykema.com -- Gonzalez Saggio and Harlan LLP, Rebecca
S. Raizman -- beckysnewman@gmail.com -- Gonzalez Saggio and Harlan
LLP & Catherine E. Sison, Macy's St Louis Regional Law Office, pro
hac vice.


MANNKIND CORP: Court Dismisses "Ardolino" Case
----------------------------------------------
In the case, ERIC ARDOLINO, individually and on Behalf of All
Others Similarly Situated, Plaintiff, v. MANNKIND CORPORATION,
ALFRED MANN, MATTHEW PFEFFER, and HAKAN EDSTROM, Defendants, Case
No. 2:16-CV-00348 RGK (GJSx), (C.D. Cal.), District Judge R. Gary
Klausner granted the Defendants' Motion to Dismiss the
Consolidated Amended Complaint with prejudice as to all claims and
without leave to amend.

The Court adjudged that it retains jurisdiction to enforce the
judgment and its previous orders.

A copy of the Court's Order dated September 19, 2016 is available
at https://goo.gl/YH9y3d from Leagle.com.

Eric Ardolino, Plaintiff, represented by Jacob A. Goldberg, The
Rosen Law Firm PA, pro hac vice.

Eric Ardolino, Plaintiff, represented by Laurence M. Rosen --
lrosen@rosenlegal.com -- The Rosen Law Firm PA.

Ketan A. Patel, Plaintiff, represented by Jennifer Pafiti,
Pomerantz LLP.

Vladimir Rivkin, Movant, represented by Laurence M. Rosen --
lrosen@rosenlegal.com -- The Rosen Law Firm PA & Jacob A. Goldberg
-- jgoldberg@rosenlegal.com -- The Rosen Law Firm PA, pro hac
vice.

Masoud Paydar, Movant, represented by Evan Jason Smith --
esmith@brodsky-smith.com -- Brodsky and Smith LLC, Jacob A.
Goldberg -- jgoldberg@rosenlegal.com -- The Rosen Law Firm PA, pro
hac vice & Laurence M. Rosen -- lrosen@rosenlegal.com -- The Rosen
Law Firm PA.

MannKind Corporation, Defendant, represented by Blake M. Zollar --
bzollar@cooley.com -- Cooley LLP, Koji F. Fukumura --
kfukumura@cooley.com -- Cooley LLP & Peter M. Adams --
padams@cooley.com -- Cooley LLP.


MARTHA P. MIMS: Court Denies Motion to Amend Complaint
------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit titled Emily-Jean Aguocha-Ohakweh, the Plaintiffs,
v. Martha P. Mims, the Defendants, Case No. 4:16-cv-01704 (S.D.
Tex.), the Hon Judge Vanesse D. Gilmore entered an order denying
Plaintiff's amended Ex Parte motion for leave to amend petition.

The Court further entered an order:

     a. denying Plaintiff's motion to consolidate;

     b. denying Plaintiff's motion to certify class without
        prejudice to re-urging; and

     c. denying Plaintiff's motion for partial declaratory
        judgment.

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


MASTERCARD: Faces GBP14-Bil. Consumer Class Action in UK
--------------------------------------------------------
Katerina Sharkova, writing for Lexoo, reports that MasterCard is
facing a legal claim of GBP14 billion, the largest claim in UK
history.

The claim was brought on behalf of around 46 million UK consumers
who were allegedly overcharged by the credit card group.

According to law firm Quinn Emanuel -- the firm which filed the
suit through the Competition Appeal Tribunal -- MasterCard had
been systematically imposing "interchange fees" on its customers
which were set at an unlawfully high level and served to push up
prices.

The claim follows on from a 10 year legal battle between
MasterCard and the European Commission, which culminated in 2014
with a ruling that the credit card group's cross-border
transactions were excessively high.

Quinn Emanuel commented:

"MasterCard lost this battle at every level and showed complete
disregard for its cardholders and consumers at large, focusing
instead on generating unlawful profits."

According to the claimants, the fact that MasterCard's fees have
been ruled unlawful in the European court, means that the claim
needs only to prove that consumers suffered loss as a result of
the fee policy.

MasterCard has released a statement stating that they intend to
oppose the claim vigorously and disagree with its basis.


MCDONALD'S CORP: Asks Court to Deny Class Cert. in "Salazar"
------------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit entitled GUADALUPE SALAZAR, GENOVEVA LOPEZ, and
JUDITH ZARATE, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly
situated, the Plaintiffs, v. MCDONALD'S CORP., a corporation,
MCDONALD'S U.S.A., LLC, a limited liability company, MCDONALD'S
RESTAURANTS OF CALIFORNIA, INC., a corporation, BOBBY O. HAYNES
SR. AND CAROL R. HAYNES FAMILY LIMITED PARTNERSHIP d/b/a
MCDONALD'S, a limited partnership, and DOES 1 through 100,
inclusive, the Defendants, Case No. 3:14-cv-02096-RS (N.D. Cal.),
the Defendants ask the Court to deny class certification of
Plaintiffs' claims based on an ostensible agency theory pursuant
to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure and strike Plaintiffs'
representative Private Attorneys General Act (PAGA) claims under
Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.

The Salazar case seeks to certify a class of:

     "more than 1,000 current and former employees -- who do not
     uniformly believe McDonald's controls their employment and
     have not uniformly relied on that belief in accepting and
     continuing employment with Haynes -- would mean every class
     action that is appropriately certified against a franchisee
     will automatically also be appropriate for classwide
     treatment against the franchisor."

McDonald's requests that the Court deny class certification of
Plaintiffs' claims against McDonald's on the grounds that: (i)
Plaintiffs' ostensible agency theory cannot satisfy the
commonality and predominance requirements of Rule 23 because it
requires individualized inquiries; and (ii) Plaintiffs cannot
prove that a class action would be the superior method of
resolving their claims.

A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=7ac6co6W

McDonald's Corporation, McDonald's USA, LLC and McDonald's
Restaurants of California, Inc. are represented by:

          Fred W. Alvarez, Esq.
          Allison B. Moser, Esq.
          Matthew W. Lampe, Esq.
          Lawrence C. DiNardo, Esq.
          JONES DAY
          1755 Embarcadero Road
          Palo Alto, CA 94303
          Telephone: 650.739.3939
          Facsimile: 650.739.3900
          E-mail: falvarez@jonesday.com
                  amoser@jonesday.com
                  mlampe@jonesday.com
                  emcree@jonesday.com


MDL 1658: Appeal Bond Set at $55,000 for One Objector
-----------------------------------------------------
In the case, IN RE MERCK & CO., INC. SECURITIES, DERIVATIVE &
"ERISA" LITIGATION, MDL No. 1658 (SRC), Civil Action No. 05-2367
(SRC), (D. N.J.), District Judge Stanley R. Chesler ordered the
Michael J. Rinis, who has objected to a settlement in the case, to
post an appeal bond in the amount of $55,000.00 within 14 days of
the date of entry of the Court's Order dated September 14, 2016.

Lead Plaintiffs asked the Court to order Rinis to post an appeal
bond in the amount of $55,000.00, contrary to the request of
Objector Rinis to set the appeal bond at $2,500.00.

Rule 7 of the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure states that in
a civil case, the district court may require an appellant to file
a bond or provide other security in any form and amount necessary
to ensure payment of costs on appeal. The determination of the
amount of the appeal bond is a matter entrusted to the discretion
of the district court.

Judge Chesler noted that in a related case styled, In re GE Co.
Secs. Litig., 998 F.Supp.2d 145, 150 (S.D.N.Y. 2014), Judge Coates
found no justification for interpreting the meaning of "costs" so
as to exclude settlement administration expenses. Judge Coates
then considered three factors in order to determine whether a bond
pursuant to Appellate Rule 7 should be imposed: 1) the appellant's
financial ability to post the bond; 2) whether the appeal is
frivolous; and 3) whether the appellant has engaged in vexatious
or bad faith conduct.  Judge Chesler agrees with Judge Coates'
policy rationale for requiring a serial objector to class action
settlements to post an appeal bond covering the administrative
costs of delay to the class.

Therefore, Judge Chesler concluded that the Lead Plaintiff's
motion will be granted, as to Rinis, requiring him to set an
appeal bond to include copying and record-compilation costs of
$5,000.00, and an additional $50,000.00 bond to cover the
administrative costs of the delay associated with an appeal.

A copy of the Court's Order is available at https://goo.gl/p1fbsw
from Leagle.com.

MERCK & CO., INC., et al., Defendants, represented by CHARLES
WILLIAM COHEN -- charles.cohen@hugheshubbard.com -- HUGHES HUBBARD
& REED LLP, DAN H. BALL -- dhball@bryancave.com -- COUNSEL NOT
ADMITTED TO USDC, EUGENE EDWARD MURPHY, COUNSEL NOT ADMITTED TO
USDC, EVAN R. CHESLER -- echesler@cravath.com -- COUNSEL NOT
ADMITTED TO USDC, JOHN N. POULOS -- poulos@pllawfirm.com -- POULOS
LOPICCOLO PC, MARK LEVINE, COUNSEL NOT ADMITTED TO USDC, RICHARD
C. STANLEY -- rcs@sfrlawfirm.com -- COUNSEL NOT ADMITTED TO USDC,
STEVEN G. STRAUSS, COUNSEL NOT ADMITTED TO USDC, THEODORE V.
WELLS, JR. -- twells@paulweiss.com -- PAUL, WEISS, RIFKIND,
WHARTON & GARRISON, LLP, WILFRED P. CORONATO --
wilfred.coronato@hugheshubbard.com -- HUGHES, HUBBARD & REED LLP,
ERIC K. BLUMENFELD -- eric.blumenfeld@hugheshubbard.com -- HUGHES,
HUBBARD & REED, LLP, ROBERT H. BARON -- rbaron@cravath.com --
COUNSEL NOT ADMITTED TO USDC & WILLIAM R. STEIN --
william.stein@hugheshubbard.com -- COUNSEL NOT ADMITTED TO USDC.


MEADOWBROOK MEAT: Settlement in "Taylor" Suit Granted Final Okay
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, THOMAS D. TAYLOR, JR., an individual, Plaintiff, v.
MEADOWBROOK MEAT COMPANY, INC.; AND DOES 1-100, inclusive,
Defendants, No. 3:15-cv-00132-LB (N.D. Cal.), Magistrate Judge
Laurel Beeler approved the Plaintiff's motion for final approval
of the settlement including fees, costs, and the incentive award
to the named plaintiff. The adjudged settlement came after the
September 15, 2016 fairness hearing.

The certified settlement class, for settlement purposes only,
consists of:

     (a) all current and former California employees of
         Defendant, other than those in the Driver Class, for the
         time period commencing on September 9, 2013, through the
         date of preliminary approval of the settlement (the Wage
         Statement Only Class); and,

     (b) All current and former truck drivers employed by the
         Defendant in California from December 3, 2010, through
         the date of preliminary approval of the settlement (the
         Driver Class).

The Court approved the class-action settlement for a total
settlement amount of $603,000, which is allocated as:

     (1) $410,750 to the class members, to be distributed
         according to the formula in the settlement agreement;

     (2) $7,500 to the California Labor and Workforce Development
         Agency (CLWDA) for its share of the settlement of the
         Private Attorneys General Act (PAGA) civil penalties of
         $10,000;

     (3) $150,750 for attorney's fees;

     (4) $10,000 for costs;

     (5) $19,000 to Simpluris, Inc., for administration fees;
         and,

     (6) $5,000 to Mr. Taylor as a service award for serving as
         the class representative.

A copy of the Court's Order dated September 15, 2016 is available
at https://goo.gl/PBryqO from Leagle.com.

Thomas D Taylor, Jr., Plaintiff, represented by Nicholas John
Scardigli -- nscardigli@mayallaw.com -- Mayall Hurley PC.

Thomas D Taylor, Jr., Plaintiff, represented by Salwa Khader
Haddad -- shaddad@mayallaw.com -- Mayall Hurley PC, Vladimir J.
Kozina -- vjkozina@mayallaw.com -- Mayall Hurley, P.C. & William
Joseph Gorham, III, Mayall Hurley Knutsen Smith & Green.

Meadowbrook Meat Company, Inc., Defendant, represented by Emily
Grace Camastra -- emilycamastra@gmail.com -- Swerdlow Florence
Sanchez Swerdlow Wimmer, Matthew C. Kane, McGuireWoods LLP & David
Alan Wimmer -- dwimmer@swerdlowlaw.com -- Swerdlow Florence
Sanchez Swerdlow & Wimmer.


MEDICAL & FINANCIAL: Illegally Collects Debt, "Cala" Suit Claims
----------------------------------------------------------------
Rosa G. Cala, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated v. Medical & Financial Management, Inc., Case No. 2:16-
cv-14416-RLR (S.D. Fla., September 22, 2016), seeks to stop the
Defendant's unfair and unconscionable means to collect a debt.

Medical & Financial Management, Inc. provides medical billing and
financial solution services to the healthcare industry.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

METAL PARTNERS: Class Certification Sought in "Wendell" Suit
------------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit styled WENDELL H. STONE COMPANY, INC. d/b/a STONE &
COMPANY, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, the Plaintiff, v. METAL PARTNERS REBAR, LLC d/b/a METAL
PARTNERS INTERNATIONAL, an Illinois limited liability company, the
Defendant, Case No. 1:16-cv-08285 (N.D. Ill.), the Plaintiff asks
the Court to certify a class of:

     "all persons who (1) on or after four years prior to the
     filing of this action, (2) were sent, by Defendant or on
     Defendant's behalf, a telephone facsimile message
     substantially similar to Exhibit A, (3) from whom Defendant
     claims it obtained prior express permission or invitation to
     send those faxes in the same manner as Defendant claims it
     obtained prior express permission or invitation to fax the
     Plaintiff."

Defendant Metal Partners Rebar allegedly sent numerous (perhaps
thousands) of unsolicited fax advertisements to Stone and other
consumers throughout the Country in violation of the federal
Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991, as amended by the Junk
Fax Prevention Act of 2005 (JFPA). The JFPA provides a private
right of action and provides statutory damages of $500 per
violation, which may be trebled where the Defendant is found to
have acted willfully.

A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=Gv6532Hs

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Marc McCallister, Esq.
          GARY D. MCCALLISTER & ASSOCIATES
          120 North LaSalle St., No. 2800
          Chicago, IL 60602
          Telephone: (312) 345 0611
          E-mail: mmccallister@gmail.com

               - and -

          Steven L. Woodrow, Esq.
          WOODROW & PELUSO, LLC
          3900 East Mexico Ave., Suite 300
          Denver, Colorado 80210
          Telephone: (720) 213 0675
          Facsimile: (303) 927 0809

               - and -

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


METALS USA: Court Approves Notice Plan in "Wilson" Suit
-------------------------------------------------------
District Judge Kimberly J. Mueller granted the parties'
Stipulation Regarding Notice of Pendency of Class Action the case
styled, JAMES WILSON, an individual, and JACK WHITE, an
individual, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiffs, v. METALS USA, INC., a Delaware Corporation;
and DOES 1-100, inclusive, Defendants, Case No. 2:12-CV-00568-KJM-
DB (E.D. Cal.).

The Court finds that the Notice Plan provides the class members
with the required information and provides the best notice that is
practicable under the circumstances of the case.

The court approved Rust Consulting, Inc., as the administrator to
implement the Notice Plan.

Within 30 days of the September 13, 2016 Court Order, the Court
orders:

     (a) class counsel to provide to the administrator the
         mailing addresses that it has for all persons identified
         as being a member of the class in the action;

     (b) the administrator to send to the updated mailing
         addresses by United States mail a postcard with prepaid
         postage containing the information on the Summary
         Notice;

     (c) the administrator to create and maintain a website for
         use by the class members. The website will include the
         Long-Form Notice, as well as links to case information
         and documents, including the Third Amended Class Action
         Complaint and the Class Certification Order. The website
         will also provide answers to frequently asked questions
         and contact information for the class counsel;

     (d) the administrator to create and maintain a toll-free
         telephone number for use by the class members. Class
         members who call the number will be able to choose
         options to receive a mailed copy of the Long-Form
         Notice, to hear basic case information and frequently
         asked questions, and to hear contact information for the
         class counsel; and,

     (e) the administrator to cause notice to be broadcasted
         online and will distribute a press release in California
         only. Online placement will be geo-targeted to
         California Facebook users. Approximately 1,974,432
         impressions will be purchased and delivered to reach the
         audience. A press release will be distributed on PR
         Newswire in California only to reach media outlets.

A copy of the Court's Order is available at https://goo.gl/c8Kgqs
from Leagle.com.

James Wilson, Plaintiff, represented by Gene Joseph Stonebarger
-- gstonebarger@stonebargerlaw.com -- Stonebarger Law.

James Wilson, Plaintiff, represented by Richard David Lambert --
rlambert@stonebargerlaw.com -- Stonebarger Law.

Jack White, et al., Plaintiffs, represented by Gene Joseph
Stonebarger -- gstonebarger@stonebargerlaw.com -- Stonebarger Law
& Richard David Lambert -- rlambert@stonebargerlaw.com --
Stonebarger Law.

Metals USA, Inc.,, Defendant, represented by Frank Busch --
busch@kerrwagstaffe.com -- Kerr & Wagstaffe, Adrian J. Sawyer --
sawyer@kerrwagstaffe.com -- Kerr & Wagstaffe, LLP & Bartholomew
Dalton -- Bdalton@kilpatricktownsend.com -- Kilpatrick Townsend &
Stockton, LLP.


NATIONAL MILK: NH Residents Have Until Jan. 31 to File Claims
-------------------------------------------------------------
Elodie Reed, writing for Concord Monitor, reports that residents
of New Hampshire, 14 other states and the District of Columbia can
now file a claim for part of a $52 million dairy anti-trust
settlement.

The settlement was reached in a federal class-action lawsuit
alleging that National Milk Producers Federation, through its
voluntary farmer-funded national program, Cooperatives Working
Together, artificially limited raw milk production by paying
farmers to send more than 500,000 cows to be slaughtered
prematurely.

The "herd retirement program" stipulated that farmers send a herd
for slaughter and not produce dairy for a year in exchange for
payment. This was one attempt to combat dairy farmers' struggle
with fluctuating milk prices.

The suit alleges that as a result of CWT's program running between
2003 and 2010, there was a cumulative increase in milk price
revenue of $9.55 billion. This, the suit claims, unfairly caused
indirect consumers -- grocery store customers -- to pay for dairy
products at unsustainable prices.

Animal welfare organization Compassion Over Killing spearheaded
the original research into CWT, and Hagens Berman law firm filed
the class action lawsuit in 2014.

As a result of the settlement, CWT -- which includes Dairy Farmers
of America, Land O' Lakes, Dairylea Cooperative and Agrimark -- is
providing $52 million. The money will be divided among the 18
plaintiffs named in the lawsuit, plus anyone in New Hampshire,
Washington, D.C., and 14 other states who files a claim.

Anyone who has purchased dairy products not intended for resale
(such as in a grocery store) in those states since 2003 is
eligible to file a claim up until Jan. 31, 2017. Claims can be
filled out online at boughtmilk.com


NATIONSTAR MORTGAGE: Court Stays Action over Dismissal
------------------------------------------------------
In the case, ANSARULLAH & DAPHNE DAWOUDI, on behalf of themselves
and a class, Plaintiffs, v. NATIONSTAR MORTGAGE, LLC, Defendant,
Case No. 16-cv-2356 (N.D. Ill.), District Judge John W. Darrah
granted the Plaintiffs' Motion to Stay All Proceedings in light of
pending appeal in a related action, and likewise, denied the
Defendant's Motion to Dismiss without prejudice with leave to
refile pending the outcome of the appeal.

The Plaintiff contended that the Defendant violated the Fair Debt
Collection Practices Act (FDCPA) by alleging in a state-court
foreclosure complaint that Plaintiff Ansarullah Dawoudi is
"claimed to be personally liable for the deficiency, if any,"
despite knowing that the Federal Housing Administration (FHA),
which insured the Plaintiffs' loan, had a longstanding policy of
not authorizing lenders to pursue deficiency judgments when the
borrower, like Plaintiffs, defaulted due to financial hardship.

The Court held that the power to stay proceedings is incidental to
the power inherent in every court to control the disposition of
the causes on its docket with the economy of time and effort for
itself, for counsel, and for litigants.

In the case, the Court ruled that granting a dismissal would not
result in any quicker resolution of the case if the Seventh
Circuit remands the pending consolidated appeal in the cases of
Heng v. Heavner Beyers Mihlar, LLC, No. 16-1668 (7th Cir.) (N.D.
Ill. Case No. 1:15-cv-8454, Norgle, C.); Gierke v. Codilis and
Associates, No. 16-2051 (7th Cir.) (N.D. Ill. Case No. 1:15-cv-
11618, Gettleman, J.)); and Zuniga v. Pierce and Associates, No.
16-2052 (7th Cir.) (N.D. Ill. Case No. 1:16-cv-1897 (Shadur, J.).

Moreover, if the Seventh Circuit reverses the cases, a stay will
have saved not only the parties' resources but the Court's as
well.

A copy of the Court's Order dated September 16, 2016 is available
at https://goo.gl/j3O4TQ from Leagle.com.

Ansarullah Dawoudi, Plaintiff, represented by Daniel A. Edelman,
Edelman, Combs, Latturner & Goodwin LLC.

Ansarullah Dawoudi, Plaintiff, represented by Cathleen M. Combs,
Edelman, Combs, Latturner & Goodwin LLC, James O. Latturner,
Edelman, Combs, Latturner & Goodwin LLC & Michelle A. Alyea,
Edelman, Combs, Latturner & Goodwin, Llc.

Daphne Dawoudi, Plaintiff, represented by Daniel A. Edelman,
Edelman, Combs, Latturner & Goodwin LLC, Cathleen M. Combs,
Edelman, Combs, Latturner & Goodwin LLC, James O. Latturner,
Edelman, Combs, Latturner & Goodwin LLC & Michelle A. Alyea,
Edelman, Combs, Latturner & Goodwin, Llc.

Nationstar Mortgage, LLC, Defendant, represented by Tyler Steven
Mertes -- tyler.mertes@troutmansanders.com -- Troutman Sanders
LLP.


NEW TECH GLOBAL: Class Certification Sought in "Clay" Suit
----------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit captioned MICHAEL D. CLAY, LARRE G. BUTLER, and
CLAYTON SHAMSIE, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, the Plaintiff, Case No. 6:16-cv-00296-RFD-CBW
(W.D. La.), the Parties ask the Court to issue an order granting
their stipulation and agreed motion for conditional certification
and Court-authorized notice, and authorize mailing to putative
class members the notice and consent form.

The Parties seek to certify a class of:

     "all current and former workers of Defendants retained as
     "Rig Clerks" during the period of March 3, 2013 to March 3,
     2016."

The Plaintiffs alleged that Defendant failed to pay overtime wages
to Plaintiffs during their employment with the Defendant as "Rig
Clerks" and violated the overtime provisions of the Fair Labor
Standards Act (FLSA).

A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=H0lGfdUV

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Kenneth D. St. Pe
          311 W. University Avenue, Suite A
          Lafayette, LA 70506
          Telephone: (337) 534 4043
          Facsimile: (337) 534 8379
          E-mail: Kennethstpe@aol.com

               - and -

          April L. Rolen-Ogden, Esq.
          Brittan J. Bush, Esq.
          LISKOW & LEWIS
          822 Harding Street
          Lafayette, LA 70506
          Telephone: (337) 232 7424
          Facsimile: (337) 267 2399
          E-mail: arolen-ogden@liskow.com
          bjbush@liskow.com

              - and -

          Kerry E. Notestine, Esq.
          LITTLER MENDELSON
          1301 McKinney Street, Ste 1900
          Houston, TX 77010
          Telephone: (713) 951 9400
          Facsimile: (713) 951 9212
          E-mail: knostine@littler.com


NORTHERN OIL: Glancy Prongay Files Securities Class Suit
--------------------------------------------------------
Glancy Prongay & Murray LLP announced that a class action lawsuit
has been filed on behalf of investors who purchased Northern Oil
and Gas, Inc. securities between March 1, 2013 and August 15,
2016, inclusive. Northern Oil investors have until October 17,
2016 to file a lead plaintiff motion.

Investors suffering losses on their Northern Oil investments are
encouraged to contact Lesley Portnoy of GPM to discuss their legal
rights in this class action at 310-201-9150 or by email to
shareholders@glancylaw.com.

On August 16, 2016, Northern Oil CEO Michael Reger ("Reger") was
fired after notifying the Company that he had received a Wells
Notice from the SEC, announcing their intent to bring an
enforcement action against Northern Oil. The Wells Notice comes in
response to prior SEC investigations from 2012 that revealed
questionable trade patterns in the securities of Dakota Plains
Holdings, Inc., a company Reger had invested with back in 2008.

The complaint filed in this lawsuit alleges that investors were
damaged by the sharp decline in Northern Oil shares following news
of the firing of Michael Reger.

If you purchased shares of Northern Oil during the Class Period
you may move the Court no later than October 17, 2016 to ask the
Court to appoint you as lead plaintiff if you meet certain legal
requirements. To be a member of the Class you need not take any
action at this time; you may retain counsel of your choice or take
no action and remain an absent member of the Class. If you wish to
learn more about this action, or if you have any questions
concerning this announcement or your rights or interests with
respect to these matters, please contact Lesley Portnoy, Esquire,
of GPM, 1925 Century Park East, Suite 2100, Los Angeles California
90067 at 310-201-9150, Toll-Free at 888-773-9224, by email to
shareholders@glancylaw.com, or visit our website at
http://glancylaw.com.If you inquire by email please include your
mailing address, telephone number and number of shares purchased.

This press release may be considered Attorney Advertising in some
jurisdictions under the applicable law and ethical rules.


NORTHSHORE UNIVERSITY: Faces Class Action Over High Park Merger
---------------------------------------------------------------
Erica Teichert, writing for Modern Healthcare, reports that a
group of managed-care organizations can sue NorthShore University
HealthSystem over allegations that they were charged
anticompetitive prices for healthcare after the 2000 merger that
created the system.

An Illinois federal judge largely preserved a class-action lawsuit
against NorthShore stemming from the 2000 merger of Evanston
(Ill.) Northwestern Healthcare and Highland Park (Ill.) Hospital
that created a three-hospital health system.  Although the
Chicago-area hospital group claimed the managed-care
organizations' allegations were untimely, U.S. District Judge
Edmond Chang said they were preserved thanks to a 2004 Federal
Trade Commission antitrust challenge of the deal.

According to the managed-care organizations, NorthShore publicly
maintained that its 2000 merger would benefit the communities
served by the three hospitals, but they started renegotiating
their managed-care organization agreements shortly after the deal
closed.

Typically, companies or individuals can only file private lawsuits
under federal antitrust law for four years after the allegedly
anticompetitive event.  But the clock stops ticking while the
government has a pending suit.

"This means that whatever rights the class had as of February 10,
2000 -- four years before the FTC instituted its action against
NorthShore -- still existed when the class filed its complaint on
August 7, 2007," Judge Chang wrote.

Although the managed-care organizations attempted to sue for
damages from before this period, Chang said there was no evidence
to support their claims that they were charged supracompetitive
prices earlier, as there were no renegotiated managed-care
organization contracts in effect at that time.

Ultimately, the FTC determined in 2007 that the three-hospital
merger was anticompetitive, but it allowed the hospitals to stay
together, even though an administrative law judge tried to unfurl
the merger in 2005.

NorthShore mergers are no stranger to legal challenges.  The
health system is currently fighting an FTC lawsuit against its
pending merger with Advocate Health Care in federal court.  The
FTC lost its battle to temporarily block the merger in lower
court, but it has asked the 7th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals to
reverse that decision, despite lingering questions over its market
definitions in the case.

The 7th Circuit held oral arguments for the Advocate-NorthShore
case in August, but no decision has been released yet.


NOVANT HEALTH: Agrees to $32MM Settlement in Class Action Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Richard Craver, writing for Winston-Salem Journal, reports that
Novant Health Inc. and the plaintiffs in a class-action lawsuit
over its defined-compensation retirement plan submitted a motion
on Sept. 14 for approval of a settlement valued at more than $100
million.

The filing presented to U.S. District Judge William Osteen Jr.
listed the final settlement fund at the initial amount of $32
million, down from a potential $37.95 million disclosed in a July
25 filing.

The complaint accuses Novant of breaching its fiduciary duties by
causing plan participants to pay millions of dollars in fees for
excessive record-keeping and administrative services to third-
party service providers Great West Life & Annuity Insurance Co.
and brokerage firm D.L. Davis & Co. of Winston-Salem.

According to the plaintiffs' law firm of Schlichter, Bogard &
Denton, there are about 25,000 affected Novant employees who had
been enrolled automatically in the retirement plan since 2009. The
lawsuit covered the period from Oct. 1, 1998, to Sept. 30, 2015,
and has 70,683 potential beneficiaries.

If the settlement is approved, current and former Novant employees
would benefit from three times the original financial settlement
value since it includes what the plaintiffs' attorneys call "an
unprecedented affirmative relief" of $69 million that "ensures
that class members will have a high-quality 401(k) plan for years
to come."

LawDictionary.com defines affirmative relief as a benefit or
compensation which may be granted to a defendant(s) in a judgment
or decree, in accordance with the facts established in their
favor.

In this instance, the $69 million represents "the value of the
reduction in administrative and investment management fees" of the
plans.

The lawsuit was filed March 12, 2014, by six current and former
employees, including Karolyn Kruger, a retired doctor who served
as the chief of staff at Thomasville Medical Center. The lawsuit
focuses on the system's defined-compensation retirement plan.

The settlement, which would be in effect for four year, was
reached through mediator Hunter Hughes.

Plaintiff attorneys are requesting $10.67 million in fees and
$68,997 in costs and expenses, which would come out of the $32
million settlement fund.

Each of the six named plaintiffs would receive $25,000. The
remaining money would be distributed among the class. The
settlement motion does not list when beneficiaries would get their
settlement.

The plan's assets more than doubled from $612 million in 2008 to
$1.42 billion as of March 2014, the latest total available.

Novant has agreed to:

   * Conduct a comprehensive request-for-proposal competitive
     bidding process led by an outside consultant.

   * Hire an independent consultant to assess its 401(k) plans on
     an annual basis for four years.

   * Revise investment options as needed.

   * Remove D.L. Davis from any involvement in the plans.

   * Not offer any Mass Mutual investments in the plans.

   * Not offer any brokerage services.
   * Provide accurate communications to beneficiaries.

Novant filed for dismissal of the complaint in May 2014, saying
the plaintiffs had failed to state a claim for excessive
investment and record-keeping fees. "Novant offers a 'sufficient
mix' of 23 different investment options which spanned the
risk/return spectrum," Novant said at the time.

Plaintiffs argued that the plan has different versions of the same
investment vehicle available with lower fees.

Novant said in a May 2016 statement that it believes the
settlement "is in the best long-term interests of our health
system and our retirement plan participants."

"If finally approved in September, the settlement will allow us to
put additional money toward eligible team members' retirement
accounts, rather than spending it on a long and costly legal
battle."

The complaint says Great West received excessive compensation of
$8.6 million between 2009 and 2012.

The complaint also alleges that D.L. Davis received a second
source of revenue in the form of "kickbacks" from the managers of
the plan investment options. The complaint claims that D.L. Davis
provided the plan with limited marketing and enrollment services,
but was paid excessive fees up to $9.6 million from 2009 to 2012
in the form of "commissions."

Novant denied the allegation of kickbacks.


NVIDIA: GeForce GTX 970 Settlement Claims Process Begins
--------------------------------------------------------
Paul Lilly, writing for PCGamer, reports that Nvidia GeForce GTX
970 settlement claims website is now open.

The time has almost come for Nvidia to pay the piper, and you're
the piper, provided you live in the U.S. and purchased a GeForce
GTX 970 graphics card sometime between September 1, 2014 and
August 24, 2016.  If so, you're entitled to a $30 refund per card
as part of a proposed settlement agreement.

This all has to do with the way Nvidia implemented 4GB of GDDR5
memory on the GeForce GTX 970 and its unique memory crossbar
configuration.  As designed, one of the card's ROP/L2 partitions
was disabled, which gave the card 56 ROPs rather than 64.  It also
meant that a 512MB segment of the onboard memory was significantly
slower than the remaining 3.5GB.

Nvidia was slow to disclose the memory arrangement and number of
ROPs.  Even with the funky configuration, the GeForce GTX 970 was
a high performing card for the money at the time, though in
situations where games would try to utilize more than 3.5GB of
RAM, slowdowns could occur. This caused an uproar among gamers who
felt Nvidia had mislead them.

This eventually led to a class action lawsuit, and the $30 refund
is the agreement that's been reached.  It applies to all GeForce
GTX 970 cards sold by authorized retailers in the U.S. between the
aforementioned dates and includes cards branded by Nvidia's
hardware partners, those being Gigabyte, Asus, EVGA, Innovision
Multimedia, Palit, PC Partner Group, Manli Technology Group, PNY,
and Zotac, along with each of their subsidiaries.

As part of the settlement, Nvidia denies any wrongdoing.  There's
no limit to the number of claims you can submit, though proof of
purchase is required.  This can be a sales receipt, credit card
statement, shipping manifest, purchase order, an email
confirmation, or some other similar documentation that shows you
bought the card(s).

You have until November 30, 2016 to file a claim, or you can opt
out by November 8, 2016 and retain your rights to sue Nvidia.  You
also have until November 8, 2016 to object or comment on the
proposed settlement.  If you do nothing you give up your right to
the proposed settlement along with your right to sue Nvidia.

The settlement is pending a final approval hearing scheduled to
take place December 7, 2016.


OCWEN FINANCIAL: "Weiner" Case Discovery, Other Deadlines Moved
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, DAVID WEINER, individually, and on behalf of other
members of the public similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. OCWEN
FINANCIAL CORPORATION, a Florida corporation and OCWEN LOAN
SERVICING, LLC, a Delaware limited liability company, Defendants,
Case No. 2:14-cv-02597-MCE-DB (E.D. Cal.), District Judge Morrison
C. England, Jr. granted the parties' Joint Stipulation to Continue
Case Deadlines, ordering that:

     (1) all discovery relevant to whether the action should be
         certified as a class action shall be completed by
         December 20, 2016;

     (2) the Plaintiff's Motion for Class Certification shall be
         filed no later than January 30, 2017;

     (3) the deposition of Plaintiff's Class Certification
         Expert(s) shall take place during the period February 13
         through February 22, 2017;

     (4) the Defendants' Opposition to Plaintiff's Motion for
         Class Certification shall be filed no later than March
         13, 2017;

     (5) the deposition of the Defendants' Class Certification
         Expert(s) shall take place during the period March 20
         through March 29, 2017;

     (6) the Plaintiff's Reply in support of his Motion for Class
         Certification shall be filed no later than April 6,
         2017; and,

     (7) the hearing on Plaintiff's Motion for Class
         Certification shall be held on April 20, 2017.

The Court noted that all the other previously established dates
and deadlines shall remain in full force and effect.

A copy of the Court's Order dated September 15, 2016 is available
at https://goo.gl/aEwlou from Leagle.com.

David Weiner, Plaintiff, represented by Daniel Alberstone --
dalberstone@baronbudd.com -- Baron & Budd, P.C..

David Weiner, Plaintiff, represented by Roland Karim Tellis --
rtellis@baronbudd.com -- Baron & Budd, P.C., Evan M. Zucker --
ezucker@baronbudd.com -- Baron & Budd, PC, Michael Isaac Miller
-- imiller@baronbudd.com -- Baron & Budd, P.C., Peter Klausner --
peter.klausner.esq@gmail.com -- Baron & Budd, P.C. & Mark Pifko
-- mpifko@baronbudd.com -- Baron & Budd.

Ocwen Financial Corporation, et al., Defendants, represented by
Elizabeth Lemond McKeen -- elemond@omm.com -- O'Melveny & Myers
LLP, Ashley Pavel -- apavel@omm.com -- O'Melveny & Myers LLP,
Catalina Joos Vergara -- cvergara@omm.com -- O'Melveny & Myers,
Erika Maki Rasch -- erasch@omm.com -- O'Melveny & Myers, LLP &
James Abbott Bowman -- jbowman@omm.com -- O'Melveny & Myers, LLP.


OCWEN LOAN: Court Narrows Claims in "Poynter" Suit
--------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit captioned DEAN A. POYNTER and LOIS M. POYNTER, the
Plaintiffs, v. OCWEN LOAN SERVICING, LLC, et al., the Defendants,
Case No. 3:13-cv-00773-DJH-CHL (W.D. Ken.), the Hon. Judge David
J. Hale entered an order:

     a. granting Ocwen Financial's motion to dismiss for lack of
        personal jurisdiction;

     b. grating Ocwen Mortgage's motion to dismiss for failure to
        state a claim;

     c. granting in part and denying in part Ocwen Loan and Wells
        Fargo's joint motion to dismiss (Counts Two, Three, Five,
        Seven, Eight, Nine, Ten, and Eleven of the First Amended
        Complaint are dismissed with prejudice. Counts One and
         Six remain pending.)

     d. granting motion for hearing with respect to the motion to
        strike the jury demand and the motion to certify the
        putative nationwide class; and

     e. administratively remanding motions to strike jury demand
        and to certify a class pending November 28 hearing.

The Plaintiffs' claims against Ocwen Mortgage are dismissed with
prejudice. The Clerk of the Court is directed to terminate Ocwen
Mortgage Servicing, Inc. as a Defendant in this matter. Within 14
days of the date of entry of this Memorandum Opinion and Order,
Plaintiffs shall file a more definite statement as to Counts Four
and Twelve. The Court will conduct a hearing on those motions on
November 21, 2016, at 2:00 p.m. at the Gene Snyder U.S. Courthouse
in Louisville, Kentucky. To the extent the motion for hearing
relates to the motions to dismiss is denied as moot.

A copy of the Order is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=7vqLMvKy


OCH-ZIFF CAPITAL: Court Certifies Class in "Menaldi" Suit
---------------------------------------------------------
In the case, ARTHUR MENALDI, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. OCH-ZIFF CAPITAL
MANAGEMENT GROUP LLC, et al., Defendants, No. 14-CV-3251 (JPO),
(S.D. N.Y.), District Judge J. Paul Oetken approves the Lead
Plaintiffs' move for class certification composed of all persons
who purchased Och-Ziff securities between February 9, 2012 and
August 22, 2014.

The Plaintiffs allege violations of the Defendants under the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 by misleading investors about an
investigation by the Securities and Exchange Commission and the
Department of Justice into Och-Ziff's investments in Africa.

The Court concludes that the proposed class certification is
appropriate. Excluded from the Class are Defendants, current and
former officers and directors of Och-Ziff, members of their
immediate families and their legal representatives, heirs,
successors or assigns, and any entity in which Defendants have or
had a controlling interest.

The Court further ordered the Lead Plaintiffs Ralph Langstadt and
Julie Lemond as the representatives of the Class. Pomerantz LLP
and The Rosen Law Firm, P.A. are appointed as co-lead counsel for
the Class for all purposes in the action.

A copy of the Court's Order dated September 14, 2016 is available
at https://goo.gl/BkJy2c from Leagle.com.

Ralph Langstadt, Lead Plaintiff, represented by Jeremy Alan
Lieberman, Pomerantz LLP.

Ralph Langstadt, Lead Plaintiff, represented by Phillip C. Kim --
pkim@rosenlegal.com -- The Rosen Law Firm P.A., Emma Gilmore,
Pomerantz LLP, Laurence Matthew Rosen -- lrosen@rosenlegal.com --
The Rosen Law Firm, P.A., Michele S. Carino, Pomerantz LLP & Sara
Esther Fuks -- sfuks@rosenlegal.com -- Milberg LLP.

Arthur Menaldi, Plaintiff, represented by Jeremy Alan Lieberman,
Pomerantz LLP, Michele S. Carino, Pomerantz LLP & Tamar Aliza
Weinrib, Pomerantz LLP.

Och-Ziff Capital Management Group LLC, et al., Defendants,
represented by Robert F. Serio, Gibson -- rserio@gibsondunn.com
-- Dunn & Crutcher, LLP, Aric Hugo Wu -- awu@gibsondunn.com --
Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher, LLP, Casey Kyung-Se Lee --
clee@gibsondunn.com -- Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher, LLP & Gabriel
Herrmann -- gherrmann@gibsondunn.com -- Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher,
LLP.


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


OMEGA NATURAL: California Court Dismisses ARL Class Action
----------------------------------------------------------
Russell Boniface, writing for Legal Newsline, reports that the
U.S. District Court for the Central District of California
dismissed a class action lawsuit against Omega Natural Science
alleging violations of California's Automatic Renewal (ARL) Law.

In Kissel v. Omega Natural Science, Judge George H. Wu dismissed
plaintiff Victoria Kissel's claim alleging that the nutritional
supplements company failed to provide her with an acknowledgment
of subscription terms at the time of renewal.  She claimed that
under the ARL law she and others in the class were entitled to a
refund of all amounts paid to Omega Natural.

The ARL law requires a business to disclose any offer and
cancellation policy terms in any automatic renewal offer.

"There has been a rash of litigation over the last couple of years
in which different companies have been sued under the Automatic
Renewal Law for allegedly failing to include the proper
information on their web sites or in email confirmations regarding
the nature of the automatic renewing of subscriptions," Brian
Willen -- bwillen@wsgr.com -- attorney at Wilson Sonsini Goodrich
& Rosati (WSGR), told Legal Newsline.  WSGR represented Omega
Natural in the case.

In the Omega case, the plaintiff claimed the email she received
after she subscribed didn't provide an acknowledgment including
the offer terms and cancellation policy.

WSGR argued that the terms were provided before the purchase was
made on the Omega website as part of the sign-up process, and that
the email linked to that information.

The plaintiff alleged that she suffered an "informational injury"
by failing to receive the acknowledgment of offer terms.  The U.S.
District Court dismissed the plaintiff's claims for failure to
allege concrete injury required by the U.S. Supreme Court's recent
decision in Spokeo Inc. v. Robins.

"The plaintiffs in these cases typically have shied away from
alleging any real injury associated with any violation,"
Mr. Willen said.

"In particular, they have tried to avoid making any claim that,
but for the alleged violation of the statute, they would have
canceled their subscriptions, not subscribed to the services in
the first place, or done anything differently.

"They are trying to avoid the reality that many of the consumers
who are part of the potential class might have been fully aware of
what they were buying and happy with those terms."

Many ALA law claims have been filed against companies doing
business in California. Other states have versions of the ALA law,
but California has the most detailed requirements and has spawned
the most litigation.


OMNICARE INC: Settlement Approval Bid Moved to Oct. 20
------------------------------------------------------
In the case captioned as, IJEOMA ESOMONU, on behalf of herself,
all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. OMNICARE, INC., a
Delaware corporation; and DOES 1-10 inclusive, Defendants, Case
No. 3:15-cv-02003-HSG (N.D. Cal.), District Judge Haywood S.
Gilliam, Jr. granted the parties' stipulation to move the deadline
for the filing of a supplemental briefing on October 20, 2016 in
support of the motion for preliminary approval of class
settlement.

A copy of the Court's Order dated September 21, 2016 is available
at https://goo.gl/4EiqzJ from Leagle.com.

Ijeoma Esomonu, Plaintiff, represented by Chaim Shaun Setareh --
shaun@setarehlaw.com -- Setareh Law Group.

Ijeoma Esomonu, Plaintiff, represented by Tuvia Korobkin --
tuvia@setarehlaw.com -- Setareh Law Group.

Omnicare, Inc., Defendant, represented by Chad Daniel Bernard --
bernardc@jacksonlewis.com -- Jackson Lewis P.C. & Scott Philip
Jang -- Scott.Jang@jacksonlewis.com -- Jackson Lewis P.C..


PAPHOS INC: Faces "McLamb" Suit Under FLSA, S.C. Wage Payment Act
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Rebecca S. McLamb, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. Paphos, Inc. d/b/a New York Diner and
Procopis Georghiou, Defendants, Case No. 4:16-cv-03109-RBH
(D.S.C., September 14, 2016), was filed under the Fair Labor
Standards Act, the South Carolina Payment of Wages Act.

Paphos, Inc. d/b/a New York Diner and Procopis Georghiou owns and
operates a restaurant at Inlet Square Drive in Murrells Inlet,
South Carolina.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Clay Hopkins, Esq.
     J. Clay Hopkins, Esq.
     William E. Hopkins, Jr., Esq.
     HOPKINS LAW FIRM, LLC
     12019 Ocean Highway
     Post Office Box 1885
     Pawleys Island, SC 29585
     Phone: (843) 314-4202
     Fax: (843) 314-9365
     Email: bill@hopkinsfirm.com
            clay@hopkinsfirm.com


PERMANENTE MEDICAL: "Brown" Suit Invokes FLSA, Cal. Labor Laws
--------------------------------------------------------------
DEBRA BROWN, SANDRA MORTON, and BARBARA LABUSZEWSKI, individually
and on behalf of all other similarly situated individuals,
Plaintiffs, v. THE PERMANENTE MEDICAL GROUP, INC., a California
corporation, Defendant, Case 4:16-cv-05272-KAW (N.D. Cal.,
September 14, 2016), was brought under the Fair Labor Standards
Act, the California Labor Code, the California Industrial Welfare
Commission Wage Order No. 4, and the California Business &
Professional Code.

Defendant offers call center services to its patients and employs
registered nurses as "Advice Nurses" to receive and respond to
patient phone calls, among other duties.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

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

        - and -

     Kevin J. Stoops, Esq.
     Jesse L. Young, Esq.
     SOMMERS SCHWARTZ, P.C.
     One Towne Square, Suite 1700
     Southfield, MI 48076
     Phone: (248) 355-0300
     Fax: (248) 436-8453
     E-mail: kstoops@sommerspc.com
             jyoung@sommerspc.com


PHH CORP: Court Spots No Reason to Seal Docs in "Munoz" Case
------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, EFRAIN MUNOZ, et al., individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. PHH CORPORATION, et
al., Defendants, No. 1:08-cv-00759-DAD-BAM (E.D. Cal.), District
Judge Dale A. Drozd denied the parties' joint administrative
motion for leave to file under seal as "confidential" the court
documents in support of the motions for summary judgment, the
motion to decertify the class, and the motion to strike
plaintiffs' experts.

The parties are seeking to seal a broad array of documents and
deposition transcripts that were disclosed during discovery and
designated by the parties as "confidential" pursuant to a
stipulated protective order issued by the assigned magistrate
judge on February 26, 2009.

Under the "compelling reasons" standard applicable to dispositive
motions, the court must conscientiously balance the competing
interests of the public and the party who seeks to keep certain
judicial records secret. After considering these interests, if the
court decides to seal certain judicial records, it must base its
decision on a compelling reason and articulate the factual basis
for its ruling, without relying on hypothesis or conjecture.

In the case, a review of the record points to the insufficiency of
the parties' motion to seal, which is based largely on conclusory
statements regarding the content of the documents. Moreover, the
parties have not yet made a "particularized showing" with respect
to the motion to seal the exhibits attached to the motion to
decertify the class. As regards the motion to strike Plaintiffs'
expert witnesses, the parties have not yet explained why the
information reflected in the documents is confidential other than
that the parties marked them as such.

The parties are granted leave to re-file their joint motion to
seal, identifying the specific portions of documents which they
believe must be filed under seal and providing the compelling
reason or other applicable reasons in support of the request to
seal.

Efrain Munoz, Plaintiff, represented by Alan R. Plutzik, Bramson
Plutzik Mahl & Birkhaeuser, LLP.

Efrain Munoz, et al., Plaintiffs, represented by Amanda R. Trask -
- atrask@ktmc.com -- Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check, LLP, pro hac
vice, Donna Siegel Moffa -- dmoffa@ktmc.com -- Kessler Topaz
Meltzer and Check LLP, pro hac vice, Eric G. Calhoun, Calhoun &
Associates, James Maro -- jmaro@ktmc.com -- Kessler Topaz Meltzer
& Check LLP, pro hac vice, Jennifer S. Rosenberg, Bramson,
Plutzik, Mahler & Birkhaeuser, Johnston Whitman, Kessler Topaz
Meltzer & Check, LLP, Natalie Lesser -- nlesser@ktmc.com --
Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check, Llp, pro hac vice, Robert M.
Bramson -- rbramson@bramsonplutzik.com -- Kessler Topaz Meltzer &
Check, LLP, Donna Siegel Moffa, Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check LLP,
Edward W. Ciolko -- eciolko@ktmc.com -- Kessler Topaz Meltzer &
Check LLP, pro hac vice, Joseph H. Meltzer -- jmeltzer@ktmc.com --
Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check LLP, Joshua A. Materese --
jmaterese@ktmc.com -- Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check, LLP, pro hac
vice & Terence S. Ziegler -- tziegler@ktmc.com --Kessler Topaz
Meltzer & Check LLP, pro hac vice.

PHH Mortgage Corporation, et al., Defendants, represented by David
M. Souders -- souders@thewbkfirm.com -- Weiner Brodsky Kider PC,
Joseph S. Genshlea, Joe Genshlea Law and Mediation, Michael S.
Trabon -- trabon@thewbkfirm.com -- Weiner Brodsky Kider PC, pro
hac vice & Sandra B. Vipond -- vipond@thewbkfirm.com -- Weiner
Brodsky Kider PC, pro hac vice.


PNC FINANCIAL: Settles Home Loan Class Action for $70 Million
-------------------------------------------------------------
Brian Bowling and Chris Fleisher, writing for TribLive, report
that PNC Financial Services Group Inc. has agreed to pay as much
as $70 million to end a 12-year-old class-action lawsuit that it
inherited when it bought a Virginia bank, according to court
documents.

About 26,000 people who took out secondary home loans with
Community Bank of Northern Virginia alleged the bank charged
excessive fees, including fees for services it didn't provide, and
paid kickbacks to a mortgage broker firm that steered them toward
the bank.

PNC assumed the liability for the class-action lawsuit when it
bought Mercantile Bankshares Corp. in 2006, a year after that
Baltimore-based bank bought Community Bank.

PNC spokesman Fred Solomon said the Downtown-based bank declined
to comment on litigation.

An attorney for the plaintiffs, Bruce Carlson --
bcarlson@carlsonlynch.com -- of the Uptown law firm Carlson Lynch,
said he was pleased to be nearing the end of the long-running
case.

"It feels great to get this piece of the case to the finish line,"
Carlson said.

In the proposed settlement, a three-arbitrator panel will decide
whether to set the settlement amount at the $24 million that PNC
is proposing or the $70 million that the plaintiffs are proposing.
U.S. District Judge Arthur Schwab's order creating the panel gives
it a deadline of March 31.

PNC has faced numerous lawsuits over shoddy lending practices
leading up to the financial crisis.

In 2013, PNC paid $69.4 million into a fund and agreed to provide
loss-mitigation and other foreclosure-prevention measures valued
at $111 million as part of a broad $9.3 billion settlement between
13 banks and federal regulators. It also paid $81 million to
government-backed mortgage giant Freddie Mac to resolve problem
loans made between 2000 and 2008.

And in a separate case that year, it agreed to pay $35 million in
restitution to some black and Hispanic customers to settle
allegations by the federal government that National City Bank
overcharged them for mortgage loans before it was acquired by PNC.


PROCTER & GAMBLE: Faces "Cornejo" Lawsuit Over Deodorant Product
----------------------------------------------------------------
PETER CORNEJO, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. THE PROCTER & GAMBLE COMPANY, an Ohio
Corporation, Defendant, Case No. 8:16-cv-01741 (C.D. Cal.,
September 19, 2015), alleges that Defendant's Old Spice deodorant
products contain chemicals that produce a significant risk of
injury when applied to the skin.

THE PROCTER & GAMBLE COMPANY -- http://us.pg.com/-- is an
American multinational consumer goods company.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     James R. Hawkins, Esq.
     Gregory Mauro, Esq.
     JAMES R. HAWKINS, APLC
     9880 Research Drive, Suite 200
     Irvine, CA 92618
     Phone: 949.387.7200
     Fax: 949.387.6676
     Email: james@jameshawkinsaplc.com
            greg@jameshawkinsaplc.com

        - and -

     Norman B. Blumenthal, Esq.
     Kyle R. Nordrehaug, Esq.
     Aparajit Bhowmik, Esq.
     Victoria Rivapalacio, Esq.
     BLUMENTHAL, NORDREHAUG & BHOWMIK
     2255 Calle Clara
     La Jolla, CA 92037
     Phone: (858)551-1223
     Fax: (858) 551-1232


PUBLIX SUPER: Faces "Chmielewski" Class Suit in M.D. Florida
------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been commenced against Publix Super
Markets, Inc.

The case is captioned Michael Chmielewski, individually and as the
representative of a class of similarly-situated persons v.
Publix Super Markets, Inc., Case No. 8:16-cv-02725-JDW-JSS (M.D.
Fla., September 22, 2016).

Publix Super Markets, Inc. operates a supermarket chain based in
Lakeland, Florida.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Phillip Bock, Esq.
      BOCK, HATCH, LEWIS & OPPENHEIM, LLC
      134 N La Salle St Suite 1000
      Chicago, IL 60602
      Telephone: (312) 658-5500
      E-mail: phil@bockhatchllc.com

PURE STORAGE: Faces Class Action, Nov. 11 Lead Plaintiff Deadline
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Goldberg Law PC disclosed that a class action lawsuit has been
filed against Pure Storage, Inc.  Investors who purchased or
otherwise acquired shares on or around the initial public offering
("IPO") on October 7, 2015, are encouraged to contact the Firm in
advance of the November 11, 2016 lead plaintiff motion deadline.

If you are a shareholder who suffered a loss during the Class
Period, we advise you to contact Michael Goldberg or
Brian Schall, of Goldberg Law PC, 1999 Avenue of the Stars, Suite
1100, Los Angeles, CA 90067, at 800-977-7401 to discuss your
rights without cost to you.  You can also reach us through the
firm's website at http://www.Goldberglawpc.com,or by email at
info@goldberglawpc.com.

The class in this case has not yet been certified, and until
certification occurs, you are not represented by an attorney.  If
you choose to take no action, you can remain an absent class
member.

According to the complaint, the Registration Statement that Pure
Storage filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for
its IPO contained materially false and misleading statements
and/or failed to disclose: that its sales personnel had
aggressively pulled sales forward into the quarters prior to the
IPO, resulting in less sales in the quarters ending after the IPO;
that general trends in the IT market, as well as Pure Storage's
own past sales trends, showed that its first quarter 2017 sales
growth for the quarter ending April 30, 2016, would be
significantly lower than prior quarters; and that the Company's
concomitant increases in sales and marketing and general and
administrative expenses, were not one-time expenses due to
increasing the size of its sales force, but would continue
indefinitely.

Goldberg Law PC represents shareholders around the world and
specializes in securities class actions and shareholder rights
litigation.


PVH CORP: Settlement Approval Hearing Moved to Nov. 3
-----------------------------------------------------
In the case, JODI SCOTT-GEORGE, individually, and on behalf of
other members of the general public similarly situated, Plaintiff,
v. PVH CORPORATION, a Delaware corporation, and DOES 1 through
100, inclusive, Defendants, Case No. 2:13-cv-00441-TLN-AC (E.D.
Cal.), District Judge Troy L. Nunley granted the parties'
stipulation to extend from September 16, 2016 to September 30,
2016 the deadline for filing of the Unopposed Motion for
Preliminary Approval.

Likewise, the hearing date for the Unopposed Motion for the
Preliminary Approval currently set for October 20, 2016, is
continued to November 3, 2016.

The parties have not yet finalized the terms of the Joint
Stipulation of Class Action Settlement due to several reasons,
including but not limited to the fact that there are numerous
terms that require extensive discussion and negotiation between
the counsels which then must be approved by counsel's respective
clients.

A copy of the Court's Order dated September 15, 2016 is available
at https://goo.gl/n8S99L from Leagle.com.

Jodi Scott-George, Plaintiff, represented by Ronald H. Bae --
rbae@aequitaslegalgroup.com -- Aequitas Legal Group.

Jodi Scott-George, Plaintiff, represented by Olivia D. Scharrer
-- oscharrer@aequitaslegalgroup.com -- Aequitas Legal Group.

Melissa Wiggs, Plaintiff, represented by Ronald H. Bae --
rbae@aequitaslegalgroup.com -- Aequitas Legal Group & Olivia D.
Scharrer -- oscharrer@aequitaslegalgroup.com -- Aequitas Legal
Group.

PVH Corporation, Defendant, represented by Robin J. Samuel --
robin.samuel@hoganlovells.com -- Hogan Lovells USA LLP, Samantha
Michele Kantor -- samantha.kantor@hoganlovells.com -- Hogan
Lovells LLP & Tao Leung -- tao.leung@hoganlovells.com -- Hogan
Lovells US LLP.


QUORUM HEALTH: November 8 Lead Plaintiff Motion Deadline Set
------------------------------------------------------------
The following statement is being issued by Levi & Korsinsky, LLP:

To: All persons or entities who purchased or otherwise acquired
securities of Quorum Health Corporation ("Quorum") (NYSE:QHC) (1)
pursuant and/or traceable to the Registration Statement issued in
connection with the Company's spinoff from Community Health
Systems, Inc. effective on or about April 29, 2016; and/or (2) on
the open market between May 2, 2016 and August 10, 2016. You are
hereby notified that a securities class action lawsuit has been
commenced in the USDC for the Middle District of Tennessee. To get
more information go to:

http://www.zlk.com/pslra/quorum-health-corporation

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 during the Class Period, Quorum made
false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that:
(a) several of Quorum's hospitals were under-performing at the
time of the spinoff from Community Health Systems, Inc.; (b) there
were numerous other signs of deficiency at the time of the
spinoff; (c) Quorum omitted/and or failed to inform investors of
the above-mentioned concerns; and (d) as a result, Quorum's public
statements were materially false and misleading at all relevant
times.

On August 10, 2016, Quorum filed a Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q,
decreasing its 2016 guidance revenues due to impairment charges,
goodwill loss from divesting certain hospitals, and carryover
allocation of goodwill at the time of the spinoff.

If you suffered a loss in Quorum Group you have until November 8,
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
represents investors in securities litigation.


R.J. REYNOLDS: Class Members Can Now Apply to Redeem 'C-Notes'
--------------------------------------------------------------
Jessica Karmasek, writing for Legal Newsline, reports that class
members who want to participate in a class action settlement
against cigarette maker R.J. Reynolds over the company's so-called
"Camel Cash" promotion can do so now.

Class members could start applying to redeem their "C-Notes" for
specified non-tobacco merchandise in August.

The Camel Cash promotion ran from Oct. 1, 1991 to March 31, 2007,
and rewarded consumers who purchased packs of Reynolds' Camel
brand of cigarettes with "C-Notes" they could use to redeem
merchandise listed in a catalogue. The C-notes were enclosed in
the cigarette packaging. The catalogue included merchandise like
ash trays, pool tables, NASCAR trading cards, apparel, computers
and pinball machines.

According to New York law firm Bragar Eagel & Squire PC, counsel
for the plaintiffs, class members who no longer have their C-Notes
may redeem up to 1,125 C-Notes if they attest to their possession
as of Oct. 1, 2006.

Class members who still possess C-Notes that were in their
possession as of Oct. 1, 2006 may redeem up to 3,000 C-Notes.

The settlement offer runs from Aug. 1 through Jan. 31, 2017.

The plaintiffs allege that R.J. Reynolds breached a contract
related to the consumer loyalty program by failing to offer as
Camel Cash rewards non-tobacco merchandise during the period Oct.
1, 2006 through March 31, 2007.

R.J. Reynolds denied the allegations and continues to assert that
it did nothing wrong.

In December 2014, Judge Christina A. Snyder for the U.S. District
Court for the Central District of California certified a class of
consumers.

Then, in May, Snyder granted final approval to a class action
settlement in the lawsuit.

Class counsel has asked the court for attorneys' fees and expenses
in the amount of $4.75 million.

Under the settlement, R.J. Reynolds has agreed to pay this amount;
the members of the settlement class will not have to pay anything
toward the fees or expenses of class counsel.

Also from that award, class counsel has agreed to pay the lead
plaintiffs certain incentive awards, ranging from $10,000 to
$15,000 each.

A separate but related class action lawsuit filed against R.J.
Reynolds was settled in January.


RANDSTAD US: Settlement in "Wright" Suit Has Final Approval
-----------------------------------------------------------
In the case, JUSTIN WRIGHT and JEAN-LAURENT POULIOT; on behalf of
themselves and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v.
RANDSTAD US, LP; PROMONTORY FINANCIAL GROUP, LLC and DOES 1-100,
inclusive, Defendants, Case No. SACV 8:13-cv-00815-CJC-AGR (C.D.
Cal.), District Judge Cormac J. Carney granted final approval of
the Plaintiffs' Class Action Settlement and Plaintiffs' Motion for
Attorneys' Fees and Costs.

Kawahito Westrick LLP and The Law Offices of Brett Szmanda are
approved as Class Counsel and are awarded $221,250.00 for
attorneys' fees and $17,231.07 for reimbursement of litigation
costs and expenses.

The Court also awarded Justin Wright with the amount of $10,000.00
and Jean-Laurent Pouliot at $5,000.00 for their unique services in
initiating and maintaining the litigation as Class
Representatives.

Moreover, the Claims Administrator, CPT Group, Inc. is awarded
$13,750.00 as payment for handling the administration of the
Settlement.

The Court approved the amount of $7,500 to the Labor and Workforce
Development Agency for the resolution of the claims brought in the
case under the Labor Code Private Attorneys General Act of 2004.

A copy of the Court's Order dated September 15, 2016 is available
at https://goo.gl/LeMpTa from Leagle.com.

Justin Wright, Plaintiff, represented by Brett D. Szmanda --
Brett@szmandalaw.com -- Law Offices of Brett Szmanda.

Justin Wright, Plaintiff, represented by James K. Kawahito --
jkawahito@kswlawyers.com -- Kawahito Westrick LLP, Shawn C.
Westrick -- swestrick@kswlawyers.com -- Kawahito Westrick LLP &
Steven L. Stern.

Jean-Laurent Pouliot, Plaintiff, represented by Brett D. Szmanda -
- Brett@szmandalaw.com -- Law Offices of Brett Szmanda, James K.
Kawahito -- jkawahito@kswlawyers.com -- Kawahito Westrick LLP,
Shawn C. Westrick -- swestrick@kswlawyers.com -- Kawahito Westrick
LLP & Steven L. Stern.

Randstad US LP, Defendant, represented by Brian P. Long --
bplong@seyfarth.com -- Seyfarth Shaw LLP & Sheryl L. Skibbe --
sskibbe@seyfarth.com -- Seyfarth Shaw LLP.

Promontory Financial Group LLC, Defendant, represented by
Christina N. Goodrich, K&L Gates LLP & Mary Beth Hickcox-Howard
-- mhickcox-howard@wc.com -- Williams and Connolly LLP.


RETRIEVAL-MASTERS: Illegally Collects Debt, Action Claims
---------------------------------------------------------
Sima Abenson-Lewi, on behalf of herself and all other similarly
situated consumers v. Retrieval-Masters Creditors Bureau, Inc.
d/b/a American Medical Collection Agency, Case No. 1:16-cv-05290
(E.D.N.Y., September 22, 2016), seeks to stop the Defendant's
unfair and unconscionable means to collect a debt.

Retrieval-Masters Creditors Bureau, Inc. operates a collection
agency located at 2269 Saw Mill River Rd, Elmsford, NY 10523.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

ROBERT HALF: $6.3MM Attorney's Fees Award Reasonable
----------------------------------------------------
Anthony J Oncidi -- aoncidi@proskauer.com -- of Proskauer Rose
LLP, in an article for National Law Review, reports that an
objecting class member in a wage and hour lawsuit challenged the
trial court's award of an attorney's fee calculated as a
percentage (one-third) of the overall settlement amount of $19
million. The objector asserted that pursuant to Serrano v. Priest,
20 Cal. 3d 25 (1977) ("Serrano III"), every attorney's fee award
must be calculated on the basis of time actually spent by the
attorneys in the case and cannot be a percentage of the common
fund. The California Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the
Court of Appeal, holding that Serrano III permits a trial court to
calculate an attorney's fee award from a class action common fund
as a percentage of the fund, while using the lodestar-multiplier
method as a cross-check on the selected percentage. In this case,
the trial court did not abuse its discretion by cross-checking the
reasonableness of the percentage award by calculating a lodestar
fee and approving a multiplier over the lodestar of 2.03 to 2.13.

The case is Laffitte v. Robert Half Int'l Inc., 1 Cal. 5th 480
(2016).


SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS: Sued Over U.S. Employee Recruiting Policies
----------------------------------------------------------------
Dan Levine, writing for Reuters, reports that Samsung Electronics
Co Ltd. and LG Electronics were accused of agreeing not to poach
each other's U.S. employees, according to a U.S. civil lawsuit in
what has become a familiar allegation in Silicon Valley.

The proposed class action, filed in a Northern California federal
court by a former LG sales manager, accuses Samsung and LG of
antitrust violations and driving down employee wages.  The case is
similar to one against Apple Inc., Google and other tech companies
which settled last year for $415 million.

An LG spokesman said "no such agreement has ever existed" and the
accusation was without merit.  Samsung declined to comment.

The plaintiff, A. Frost, says in the lawsuit that a recruiter
contacted Frost via LinkedIn in 2013, seeking to fill a position
with Samsung.

According to the lawsuit, the recruiter then informed Frost the
same day: "I made a mistake! I'm not supposed to poach LG for
Samsung!!! Sorry! The two companies have an agreement that they
won't steal each other's employees."

It is "implausible" that such a deal in the United States could
have been reached without the consent of each company's corporate
parent in South Korea, says the lawsuit, which does not state a
specific damages amount.

Joseph Saveri, an attorney for Frost who had also filed the
previous cases against Apple and Google, said the no-poaching
agreements are inherently anticompetitive.

"There is nothing more fundamental than the ability to get fairly
paid for one's worth and talents," he said.

The case in U.S. District Court, Northern District of California
is A. Frost vs. LG Corporation, LG Electronics Inc, Samsung
Electronics Co Ltd et al., 16-5206.


SAN PASQUAL: Carter, et al. Seek Certification of Class
-------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit captioned PAMELA CARTER, DEBORAH MARTIN, CHRISTINE
MORALES, STANLEY CARAKER, STANLEY NICKS, MICHAELA VECHT, BERT
SCHORLING, JEANETTE BREITEN, RAYMOND BACHAR, KATHERINE MITCHELL,
STEPHANIE CASTRO, BRUCE HINSLEY, ARLENE POUNDS individually and as
Representatives of the Participants and Beneficiaries of the Fleet
Card Fuels Employees Stock Ownership Plan, the Plaintiffs,
v. SAN PASQUAL FIDUCIARY TRUST COMPANY; FLEET CARD FUELS; WILLIAM
DAVIES; RICHARD DAVIES; STRATEGIC EQUITY GROUP; CHRISTOPHER
KRAMER; SHORELINE CAPITAL, INC.; EDGEWATER CAPITAL, LLC, the
Defendants, Case No. 8:15-cv-01507-JVS-JCG (C.D. Cal.), the
Plaintiffs ask the Court to certify a class of:

     "[a]ll individuals who were vested participants in the ESOP,
     had rights under the ESOP, and whose vested ESOP shares were
     purchased by Fleet Card Fuels pursuant to the Redemption
     Agreement."

Excluded from the class are Defendants and their affiliates; the
officers and directors of any Defendant or any entity in which a
Defendant has a controlling interest; and legal representatives,
successors, and assigns of any such excluded persons.

The Plaintiff requested Defendants stipulate to Class
Certification. Defendants would not agree to stipulate.

A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=2IAxOI1G

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Anthony W. Trujillo, Esq.
          Alexander H. Winnick, Esq.
          Jeffrey T. Belton, Esq.
          TRUJILLO & WINNICK, LLP
          2919 1/2 Main Street
          Santa Monica, CA 90405
          Telephone: (310) 210 9302
          Facsimile: (310) 921 .561
          E-mail: jbelton@trujillowinnick.com
          atrujillo@trujillowinnick.com
          awinnick@trujillowinnick.com

SANTA CLARA, CA: Class Certification Bid in "Chavez" Suit Granted
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, BRIAN CHAVEZ and BRANDON BRACAMONTE, on behalf of
themselves and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v.
COUNTY OF SANTA CLARA, Defendant, Case No. 1:15-cv-05277-NJV (N.D.
Cal.), Magistrate Judge Nandor J. Vadas granted the Parties' Joint
Motion for Class Certification.

The Class is defined as:

     All people who are now, or in the future will be,
     incarcerated in the Santa Clara County jails.

Moreover, the Subclass is defined as:

     All people who are now, or in the future will be,
     incarcerated in the Santa Clara County jails and who have
     psychiatric and/or intellectual disability, as defined under
     the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), 42 U.S.C. Sec.
     12101 et seq., and Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act, 29
     U.S.C. Sec. 794.

The Court appointed Plaintiffs Brian Chavez and Brandon Bracamonte
as representatives of the Class, and Plaintiff Bracamonte as a
representative of the Subclass. The parties shall submit a
proposed notice to the class and the method of distribution of the
notice shall be filed within 14 days of the Order dated September
20, 2016.

Cooley LLP, the Prison Law Office, and Kendall Dawson Wasley are
appointed as class counsel to represent the interests of the
plaintiff class.

A copy of the Court's Order is available at https://goo.gl/oDc4NI
from Leagle.com.

Brian Chavez, Plaintiff, represented by Donald H. Specter, Prison
Law Office.

Brian Chavez, et al., Plaintiffs, represented by Addison Mills
Litton -- alitton@cooley.com -- Cooley LLP, Jeffrey Michael Walker
-- jwalker@cooley.com -- Cooley LLP, Kendall Dawson Wasley --
kendall@dawsonwasleylaw.com -- Margot Knight Mendelson, Rosen Bien
Galvan and Grunfeld & Jessica Valenzuela Santamaria --
jsantamaria@cooley.com -- Cooley LLP.

County of Santa Clara, Defendant, represented by Aryn Paige
Harris, Office of County Cousel, Santa Clara.


SCOTT KERNAN: Class Certification Sought in "Hicks" Suit
-------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit captioned MICHAEL HICKS, the Plaintiff, v. Scott
Kernan, et al., the Defendants, Case No. 3:16-cv-00738-CRB (N.D.
Cal.), the Plaintiff asks the Court for class certification and
appointment of class counsel.

The class is defined as:

     "prisoner's litigants who for a variety of reasons are
     identified as sex offenders in unpublished court rulings."

A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=xAs2vaux


SONS OF DIVINE: Jackson Seeks to Recover Unpaid Wages of Nurses
---------------------------------------------------------------
KIMMY JACKSON, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated v. SONS OF DIVINE PROVIDENCE, INC., Case No. 16-2910 E
(Mass. Super. Ct., Suffolk Cty., September 19, 2016), seeks to
recover alleged unpaid wages for hourly nurses, who worked at the
Don Orione Nursing Home, located in East Boston and operated by
the Defendant at any time from January 2016 onwards.

Ms. Jackson, a resident of Quincy, Massachusetts, worked for the
Defendant as a nurse in the Don Orione Nursing Home.

Sons of Divine Providence, Inc., is a domestic corporation that
maintains a principal office in East Boston, Massachusetts.  The
Defendant operates Don Orione Nursing Home.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Stephen Churchill, Esq.
          Rachel Smit, Esq.
          FAIR WORK, P.C.
          192 South Street, Suite 450
          Boston, MA 02111
          Telephone: (617) 607-3260
          E-mail: steve@fairworklaw.com
                  rachel@fairworklaw.com


STARBUCKS CORP: Crittenden Joins Strumlauf-Robles Case
------------------------------------------------------
In the case, SIERA STRUMLAUF and BENJAMIN ROBLES, individually and
on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v.
STARBUCKS CORPORATION, Defendant, Case No. 16-CV-01306-THE (N.D.
Cal.), District Judge Thelton E. Henderson concurred on the
Plaintiffs' request for leave to file the proposed First Amended
Class Action Complaint, dismissing the complaint in the action
styled as Crittenden v. Starbucks Corporation, Case No. 16-cv-
05049-TEH (N.D. Cal.), and ordered the Defendant to respond the
amended complaint in Strumlauf within 14 days from the Order dated
September 20, 2016.

Plaintiffs seek to file a First Amended Class Action Complaint to
include Plaintiff Brittany Crittenden of another case styled,
Crittenden v. Starbucks Corporation, Case No. 16-cv-03496
(S.D.N.Y.), which was subsequently transferred to the District of
California. Plaintiff Crittenden agreed, upon filing of the
amended complaint, that the Court may dismiss without prejudice
the complaint she filed against the Defendant.

A copy of the Court's Order is available at https://goo.gl/hz3mCl
from Leagle.com.

Brittany Crittenden, Plaintiff, represented by Brittany Sloane
Weiner -- brittany@lawicm.com -- Imbesi Law PC.

Brittany Crittenden, Plaintiff, represented by Brittany Sloane
Weiner -- brittany@lawicm.com -- Imbesi Law P.C., Seth Asher
Nadler, Eisenberg & Baum & Murray Friedman, Imbesi Law PC.

Starbucks Corporation, Defendant, represented by Mark Edward
McGrath -- mmcgrath@sheppardmullin.com -- Sheppard, Mullin,
Richter & Hampton, LLP, Robert James Guite --
rguite@sheppardmullin.com -- Sheppard Mullin Richter & Hampton
LLP, Robin Andrea Achen -- rachen@sheppardmullin.com -- Sheppard
Mullin Richter & Hampton LLP & Sascha Von Mende Henry --
shenry@sheppardmullin.com -- Sheppard Mullin Richter & Hampton
LLP.


SUPERIOR PERFORMERS: Protective Order Entered in "Ritter" Case
--------------------------------------------------------------
Magistrate Judge Sheri Pym granted the parties' stipulated
Protective Order governing the production, use, and disclosure of
confidential information in the case styled, DALLAS R. RITTER,
Plaintiff, v. SUPERIOR PERFORMERS, INC. d/b/a NAA INSURANCE
AGENCY; and ANDY SPENCER ALBRIGHT; Defendants, Case No. 5:15-CV-
02607 (C.D. Cal.).

For purposes of the Stipulated Protective Order, a party or non-
party may designate information as "Confidential Information" if
the designating party or non-party reasonably believes the
information contains or discloses: personal information relating
to a party's or non-party's health or other private information,
personal information about employees; customer-confidential
information; proprietary information; confidential financial
information; agreements with non-parties relating to a party's or
a third-party's business; and or Defendants' internal processes
for the creation, development, and distribution of leads, all
consistent with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(c)(1)(G).

Moreover, for purposes of the Stipulated Protective Order, a party
or non-party may designate information as "Highly Confidential --
Attorneys' Eyes Only" Information if: (a) the designating party or
non-party reasonably believes such information satisfies the
criteria for designation as "Confidential Information", and (b)
the designating party or non-party believes, in good faith, the
disclosure of the information is likely to cause harm to the
competitive position of the designating party or non-party holding
proprietary rights. Such "Highly Confidential -- Attorneys' Eyes
Only" Information may include, without limitation: trade secrets,
including confidential technical information, practices, and
methods used in the development, production, distribution, and
pricing of leads; the specifics of Defendants' agreements with its
insurance carriers; Defendants' confidential commission
information.

Information designated as "Confidential" may be disclosed,
summarized, described, characterized, or otherwise communicated or
made available in whole or in part only to:

     (a) counsel for any party, including in-house counsel, and
         all partners, associates or of-counsel attorneys of
         counsel's law firm and all paralegal assistants,
         stenographic and clerical employees when operating under
         the direct supervision of the partners, associates or
         of-counsel attorneys;

     (b) court and Mediator personnel, including stenographic
         reporters engaged in the proceedings as are necessarily
         incident to the preparation for trial and/or trial of
         the action;

     (c) any party to the action, including but not limited to
         any partner, employee or representative;

     (d) persons noticed for depositions or designated as trial
         witnesses, or those whom counsel of record in good faith
         expect to testify at trial or deposition, only to the
         extent reasonably necessary in preparing to testify and
         who have, prior to the disclosure, signed the statement
         attesting to the fact that they have reviewed and agreed
         to be bound by the provisions of the Stipulated
         Protective Order. Such persons shall not be permitted to
         make copies of or otherwise have copies or duplicates of
         any documents or information designated as
         "Confidential";

     (e) persons whose depositions are being taken in the action,
         who have, prior to the commencement of their deposition,
         signed the statement (which is to be made part of the
         official transcript of that deposition) attesting to the
         fact that they have reviewed and agreed to be bound by
         the provisions of the Stipulated Protective Order. In
         the event a deponent does not sign the statment prior to
         the commencement of his or her deposition, no
         information designated as "Confidential" shall be shown
         to the deponent and his or her deposition shall not be
         considered complete until the deposing party has an
         opportunity to raise the issue with the Court;

     (f) independent experts or consultants (not regularly
         employed by or otherwise associated with a party) who
         are retained to assist in the handling of the action to
         furnish technical or expert advice or to give expert
         testimony at trial, only to the extent that the
         information is pertinent to the expert's or consultant's
         opinions, provided that disclosure of Confidential
         Information to such experts or consultants shall be made
         only on the following conditions:

         i. prior to any Confidential Information being disclosed
            to any expert or consultant, counsel of record shall
            be required to obtain from said expert or consultant
            a signed statement (which shall be maintained by
            counsel of record for that party), attesting to the
            fact that the expert or consultant has reviewed and
            agreed to be bound by the provisions of the
            Stipulated Protective Order.

        ii. in the event a consulting expert becomes a testifying
            expert, a copy of the expert's executed statement
            must be provided to opposing counsel in advance of
            the expert testifying at deposition or trial; and,

     (g) outside copy and litigation support vendors who have,
         prior to the disclosure of such information signed the
         statement attesting to the fact that they have reviewed
         and agreed to be bound by the provisions of the
         Stipulated Protective Order.

Information designated as "Highly Confidential -- Attorneys' Eyes
Only" may be disclosed, summarized, described, characterized, or
otherwise communicated or made available in whole or in part only
to:

     (a) counsel for any party, including in-house counsel, and
         all partners, associates or of-counsel attorneys of
         counsel's law firm and all paralegal assistants,
         stenographic and clerical employees when operating under
         the direct supervision of such partners, associates or
         of-counsel attorneys;

     (b) court and mediator personnel, including stenographic
         reporters engaged in the proceedings as are necessarily
         incident to the preparation for trial and/or trial of
         the action;

     (c) persons noticed for depositions or designated as trial
         witnesses, or those whom counsel of record in good faith
         expect to testify at trial or deposition, only to the
         extent reasonably necessary in preparing to testify and
         who have, prior to the disclosure, signed the statement
         attesting to the fact that they have reviewed and agreed
         to be bound by the provisions of the Stipulated
         Protective Order. Such persons shall not be permitted to
         make copies of or otherwise have copies or duplicates of
         any documents or information designated as "Highly
         Confidential -- Attorneys' Eyes Only";

     (d) persons whose depositions are being taken in the action,
         who have, prior to the commencement of their deposition,
         signed the statement (which is to be made part of the
         official transcript of that deposition) attesting to the
         fact that they have reviewed and agreed to be bound by
         the provisions of the Stipulated Protective Order. In
         the event a deponent does not sign the statement prior
         to the commencement of his or her deposition, no
         information designated as "Highly Confidential --
         Attorneys' Eyes Only" shall be shown to the deponent and
         his or her deposition shall not be considered complete
         until the deposing party has an opportunity to raise the
         issue with the Court;

     (e) independent experts or consultants (not regularly
         employed by or otherwise associated with a party) who
         are retained to assist in the handling of the action to
         furnish technical or expert advice or to give expert
         testimony at trial, only to the extent that the
         information is pertinent to the expert's or consultant's
         opinions, provided that disclosure of "Highly
         Confidential -- Attorneys' Eyes Only" Information to
         such experts or consultants shall be made only on the
         following conditions:

         i. prior to any "Highly Confidential -- Attorneys' Eyes
            Only" Information being disclosed to any expert or
            consultant, counsel of record shall be required to
            obtain from said expert or consultant a signed
            statement, (which shall be maintained by counsel of
            record for that party), attesting to the fact that
            the expert or consultant has reviewed and agreed to
            be bound by the provisions of the Stipulated
            Protective Order.

        ii. in the event a consulting expert becomes a testifying
            expert, a copy of the expert's executed statement
            must be provided to opposing counsel in advance of
            the expert testifying at deposition or trial;

     (f) plaintiff, to the limited extent that he may review at
         his counsel's office documents or information produced
         by Defendants and designated as "Highly Confidential --
         Attorneys' Eyes Only" solely for the purpose of aiding
         in the preparation of pleadings or filings or his own
         deposition in the litigation. Plaintiff shall not be
         permitted to make copies of or remove from his counsel's
         office any documents or information designated as
         "Highly Confidential -- Attorneys' Eyes Only";

     (g) representatives of Defendants (including employees), to
         the limited extent that such representative may review
         at Defendants' counsel's office documents or information
         designated as "Highly Confidential -- Attorneys' Eyes
         Only" solely for the purpose of aiding in the
         preparation of pleadings or filings or his/her own
         deposition in the litigation. Such representative shall
         not be permitted to make copies of or remove from
         counsel's office any documents or information produced
         by Plaintiff and designated as "Highly Confidential --
         Attorneys' Eyes Only";

     (h) the author of the document and any authorized recipient
         of the document in the ordinary course of business.

     (i) outside copy and litigation support vendors who have,
         prior to the disclosure of such information, signed the
         statement attesting to the fact that they have reviewed
         and agreed to be bound by the provisions of the
         Stipulated Protective Order.

     (j) any other person agreed to in writing by the designating
         Party or allowed through Court Order, who has, prior to
         the disclosure of such information, signed the statement
         attesting to the fact that they have reviewed and agreed
         to be bound by the provisions of the Stipulated
         Protective Order.

A copy of the Court's Order dated September 14, 2016 is available
at https://goo.gl/fXHjvy from Leagle.com.

Dallas R. Ritter, Plaintiff, represented by Nicholas W. Armstrong,
Price Armstrong, LLC.

Dallas R. Ritter, Plaintiff, represented by Gary A. Waldron --
gwaldron@weintraub.com -- Weintraub Tobin, James M. Terrell --
jterrell@mmlaw.net --  McCallum Methvin and Terrell PC, pro hac
vice, Perry M. Yancey -- myancey@mmlaw.net -- McCallum Methvin and
Terrell PC, pro hac vice & Sherry S. Bragg -- sbragg@weintraub.com
-- Weintraub Tobin.

Superior Performers, Inc., Defendant, represented by Jeffrey M.
Hammer -- hammer@caldwell-leslie.com -- Caldwell Leslie and
Proctor PC.

Superior Performers, Inc., et al., Defendants, represented by
Daniel F.E. Smith -- dsmith@brookspierce.com -- Brooks Pierce, pro
hac vice, Robert J. King -- rking@brookspierce.com -- Brooks
Pierce, pro hac vice, William P. Cary -- wcary@brookspierce.com
-- Brooks Pierce, pro hac vice & Linda M. Burrow --
burrow@caldwell-leslie.com -- Caldwell Leslie and Proctor PC.


SYRACUSE, NY: Class Certification Sought in Jailed Minor's Case
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit captioned V.W., a minor, by and through his parent
and natural guardian DERECK WILLIAMS; R.C., a minor, by and
through his parent and natural guardian SANDRA CHAMBERS; C.L., a
minor, by and through his parent and natural guardian VERTELL
PENDARVIS; M.R., a minor, by and through his parent and natural
guardian KAREN RAYMOND; F.K., a minor, by and through his parent
and natural guardian KASHINDE KABAGWIRA; and J.P., a minor, by and
through his parent and natural guardian ALISSA QUINONES; on behalf
of themselves and all others similarly situated, 16-CV-1150 (DNH)
(DEP) UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK,
the Plaintiffs, v. EUGENE CONWAY, Onondaga County Sheriff, in his
official capacity; ESTEBAN GONZALEZ, Chief Custody Deputy of the
Onondaga County Justice Center, in his official capacity; KEVIN M.
BRISSON, Assistant Chief Custody Deputy, in his official capacity;
and SYRACUSE CITY SCHOOL DISTRICT, the Defendants, Case No. 9:16-
cv-01150-DNH-DEP (N.D.N.Y), the Plaintiffs ask the Court to
certify class and subclass:

Class:

     "all 16- and 17-year-olds who are now or will be
     incarcerated at the Onondaga County Justice Center;"

Subclass:

     "all 16- and 17-year-olds with disabilities, as defined by
     the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act, who are now
     or will be incarcerated at the Onondaga County Justice
     Center, who are in need of special education and related
     services."

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

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Mariko Hirose, Esq.
          Mariana Kovel, Esq.
          Aimee Krause Stewart, Esq.
          Aadhithi Padmanabhan, Esq.
          Philip Desgranges, Esq.
          Christopher Dunn, Esq.
          NEW YORK CIVIL LIBERTIES
          UNION FOUNDATION
          125 Broad Street, 19th Floor
          New York, NY 10004
          Telephone: (212) 607-3300
          E-mail: mhirose@nyc1u.org

               - and -

          Joshua T. Cotter, Esq.
          Samuel C. Young, Esq.
          Susan M. Young, Esq.
          LEGAL SERVICES OF CENTRAL
          NEW YORK
          221 S. Warren Street, 3rd Floor
          Syracuse, NY 13202
          Telephone: (315) 703 6500
          E-mail: jcotter@lscny.org


TALMER BANCORP: Livonia Retirement Sys. Wins Lead Plaintiff Bid
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, LIVONIA EMPLOYEES' RETIREMENT SYSTEM, Plaintiff, v.
TALMER BANCORP, INC., ET AL., Defendants, Case No. 16-cv-12229
(E.D. Mich.), District Judge Thomas L. Ludington granted Plaintiff
Livonia's motion to proceed as lead plaintiff and motion to have
its counsel, Robbins Geller, appointed as lead class counsel in a
shareholders securities class action lawsuit.

The Court shall adopt a presumption that the most adequate
plaintiff in any private action when the person or group of
persons:

     (a) has either filed the complaint or made a motion in
         response to a notice under subparagraph (A)(i);

     (b) in the determination of the court, has the largest
         financial interest in the relief sought by the class;
         and,

     (c) has otherwise satisfies the requirements of Rule 23 of
         the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.

In the case, Plaintiff Livonia has satisfied all the requirements.
Moreover, Livonia's counsel, Robbins Geller, is a well-known firm
with extensive experience in complex securities litigation. Thus,
the Court appointed Robbins Geller as lead counsel.

A copy of the Court's Order dated September 14, 2016 is available
at https://goo.gl/Ke8ir6 from Leagle.com.

Livonia Employees' Retirement System, Plaintiff, represented by
David J. Shea, Shea Aiello, PLLC.

City of Livonia Employees' Retirement System, Movant, represented
by Danielle S. Myers -- danim@rgrdlaw.com -- Robbins Geller Rudman
& Dowd LLP.


TARGET CORP: Faces "Locicero" Suit Alleging Violation of FLSA
-------------------------------------------------------------
RICHARD LOCICERO and MICHAEL HART, Individually and on Behalf of
All Other Persons Similarly Situated, Plaintiffs, v. TARGET
CORPORATION and TARGET CORPORATION OF MINNESOTA, Defendants, Case
3:16-cv-05592 (D.N.J., September 14, 2016), seeks all available
relief under the Fair Labor Standards Act on behalf of current and
former Executive Team Leaders.

Target Corporation -- http://www.target.com/-- is an upscale
discount retailer.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

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

        - and -

     Marc S. Hepworth, Esq.
     Charlie Gershbaum, Esq.
     David A. Roth, Esq.
     Rebecca S. Predovan, Esq.
     HEPWORTH GERSHBAUM & ROTH, PLLC
     192 Lexington Avenue, Suite 802
     New York, NY 10016
     Phone: (212)545-1199
     Fax: (212)532-3801


TAXI AFFILIATION: Settles Chicago Taxi Surcharge Fee Class Actions
------------------------------------------------------------------
Scott Holland, writing for Cook County Record, reports that
lawsuits targeting Chicago taxi companies for adding a 50-cent
surcharge to nearly 410,000 credit card payments over three-plus
months this spring have been garaged, according to a settlement
agreement filed Sept. 9 in Cook County Circuit Court.

On Feb. 22, Chicago resident James Freeman-Hargis filed a class
action complaint against Taxi Affiliation Services, a Chicago-
based company affiliated with Yellow Group that "provides numerous
services, including credit card processing, to four Chicago taxi
affiliations," including Yellow Cab, American United Cab, Checker
Taxi and Blue Diamond Taxi.

Freeman-Hargis' complaint said the surcharge, which he noticed
Jan. 1, coincided with the city's decision to reduce the amount of
money credit card processors, like Taxi Affiliation Services,
could claim from a taxi driver's fare, from 5 percent of the
amount charged to only 4 percent. He further argued the companies
provided no notice to customers of the surcharge aside from
payment receipts after the fact.

The City Council on March 16 approved an ordinance allowing cab
companies to charge a 50-cent credit card processing fee and made
it effective April 13. In his complaint, Freeman-Hargis said the
city notified the companies they could not levy the surcharge
without council approval. The fact the companies were using the
charge despite it not being allowed via city ordinance, he argued,
constituted a violation of state consumer fraud protection laws.
He also alleged a claim of unjust enrichment.

On April 14, Aviva Patt filed a separate putative class-action
complaint against Taxi Affiliation Services, adding a federal
civil racketeering count to the consumer fraud and unjust
enrichment claims, and also including as defendants the four cab
operators Taxi Affiliation Services serves as clients.

On May 3, the two complaints were consolidated and assigned to
Cook County Circuit Judge Diane Larsen.

On June 9, the companies began refunding disputed charges assessed
from Jan. 1 through April 13, completing 99 percent of refunds --
$204,565.50 on top of $245.50 refunded before the lawsuits -- by
June 23. All that remained was $1,941, which the companies
attributed to circumstances beyond their control "such as closed
credit card accounts or expired cards," per the settlement
agreement.

While processing those refunds, on June 13 the defendant companies
filed a motion to dismiss and stay proceedings and conduct a
settlement conference. That pretrial conference took place July 29
in front of Larsen, with the only remaining issue being the legal
fees plaintiffs could request under federal racketeering laws, and
what to do with the remaining $1,941.

The agreement notes the parties could not agree on the legal fees
on July 29, though per the agreement filed Sept. 9, they
ultimately settled on $48,000. The $1,941 in remaining disputed
charges that couldn't be refunded will be split among the IIT
Chicago-Kent College of Law Consumer Law Program and Life Span
Center for Legal Services and Advocacy. The settlement also
provides for service awards of $1,000 each to Freeman-Hargis and
Patt.

Also as part of the agreement the parties mutually released each
other from all claims and counterclaims. There was no admission of
liability.

Freeman-Hargis was represented in the action by attorneys with the
firm of Wolf Haldenstein Adler Freeman & Herz, of Chicago.

Patt was represented by the firm of Krislov and Associates, of
Chicago.

Taxi Affiliation Services was defended by the firm of Michael Best
& Friedrich, of Chicago.


TOYOTA MOTOR: Class Action Alleges Rodents Chewing Car Wiring
-------------------------------------------------------------
Randy Mac and Matt Schrader, writing for NBC Los Angeles, report
that a months after a lawsuit was filed against Honda for using an
eco-friendly material experts say attracts rodents, a new lawsuit
filed in Los Angeles suggests there could be tens of millions of
defective Toyota vehicles and drivers left to pay for thousands of
dollars in repairs.

Al Heber says rodents -- in this case squirrels -- are gnawing
away at the wiring inside his Toyota pickup truck. Tired of paying
for repairs, Heber's getting creative.

"I've tried a lot of different things, from trapping them to
putting cayenne pepper," Heber said. "I've placed mothballs in the
vehicle. Finally, right now, we're using cats."

But nothing has worked.

The soy-based coating used to protect wires from the elements is
actually attracting the rodents, he says. The issue is causing
displays on his truck to malfunction, including the fuel gauge,
anti-lock brakes, four-wheel drive and check engine light. They're
recurring problems he says Toyota will not cover under his
warranty.

So far, he's out $2,200.

"I feel like it's a warranty issue because the materials are poor
quality," Heber said.

His attorney, Brian Kabateck, has filed a class action lawsuit
against Toyota, claiming many 2012 to 2016 used soy-based wiring
known to be a problem. While rodents have a documented history of
damaging vehicle wiring, he says the soy makes the wiring a food
source.

"It may have started out as a good idea, an eco-friendly idea.
It's just ill-conceived," Kabateck said.

The I-Team first uncovered the problem of rodents chewing through
wires in March. At that time only Honda was facing a class action
lawsuit. But Kabateck says that Honda lawsuit should have been a
wake-up call to Toyota.

"You don't make a product that is edible," he said. "A consumer
purchases a car, they don't know this is a problem."

Mechanic Mark Buche says it's not just Toyotas using soy wire
coating, though many of his repairs are.

"We've seen ground squirrels, raccoons, we've seen rats," Buche
said. "We've been pretty busy."

A repair can run up to $1,500 each time.

The I-Team reached out to Toyota about the soy wiring. The company
responded, "We decline to comment."

Toyota has not yet responded to Heber's lawsuit, either.
Uneasy about driving his own truck, Heber feels it's on Toyota to
fix this problem for its customers.

"I don't think I could sell this vehicle this way," Heber said.

Heber's attorney does not know how many vehicles Toyota has
produced with the soy wiring, but the company sells about 10
million new vehicles every year. The attorney says it's possible
this lawsuit could expand to include other years and even other
manufacturers using the soy wiring.

Honda said in a statement: "Since there is pending litigation
involved, we will not be able to offer detailed comments about
that suit at this time. However, before airing a story based on
plaintiff's allegations, please research, in general, the long-
known history of rodents chewing wires of all types. Rodents'
teeth grow throughout their lives, and they are compelled to chew
on things, wherever they nest, to keep the teeth filed down. They
are known to chew home wiring, car wiring or wires wherever they
nest, and, particularly in the winter, they try to find warm
locations, like a home or a vehicle's warm engine compartment.

"It is true that Honda has offered a potential solution to this
age-old problem by selling a rodent-deterrent tape infused with
capsaicin, the core element of spicy peppers, to use in cases
where a customer has experienced rodent damage. This is a good
solution for our customers who live in areas where rodents like to
nest in vehicles."


TRIPLE J: Judge Seals Documents in "Mateo-Evangelio" Suit
---------------------------------------------------------
District Judge Louise W. Flanagan ordered the Clerk of Court to
seal documents filed in the case, MANUEL MATEO-EVANGELIO, et al.,
on behalf of themselves and all other similarly situated persons,
Plaintiffs, v. TRIPLE J PRODUCE, INC., et al., Defendants, Civil
Action No. 7:14-cv-302-FL (E.D.N.C.).

The documents which the Court deemed classified are:

     (1) Plaintiff's Exhibit 12 to the Joint Memorandum in
         Support of Joint of Joint Motion for Final Approval of
         Collective Action and Class Action Settlement that was
         filed on September 2, 2016, and

     (2) Plaintiff's Exhibit 12 that is attached as pages 8
         through 14 to Doc. 80-7, the Declaration of Class
         Counsel Robert J. Willis In Support of Joint Motion for
         Final Approval of Collective Action and Class Action
         Settlement.

Upon the Defendants' suggestion in response to the motion, the
court directs the clerk to seal also DE 80-11. The court notes
that a redacted version of the document is filed at DE 84-2. The
court also notes the filing of DE 84-1 as a supplement to DE 80.

A copy of the Court's Order dated September 14, 2016 is available
at https://goo.gl/txkr9h from Leagle.com.

Manuel Mateo-Evangelio, et al., Plaintiffs, represented by Robert
J. Willis.

Triple J Produce, Inc., et al., Defendants, represented by R.
Daniel Boyce -- dboyce@nexsenpruet.com -- Nexsen Pruet, PLLC,
William H. Floyd, III -- wfloyd@nexsenpruet.com -- Nexsen Pruet,
LLC & Thomas J. Ludlam -- tludlam@nexsenpruet.com -- Nexsen Pruet,
PLLC.


U.S. BANCORP: Judge Orders Filing of Amended Suit in "Hopkins"
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, LOUIS HOPKINS, on behalf of himself and others
similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. U.S. BANCORP, et al.,
Defendants, Case No. 1:16-cv-552 (S.D. Ohio), District Judge
Timothy S. Black ordered the Plaintiff to file an Amended
Complaint identifying the specific terms of a valid, enforceable
agreement in order to plead a breach of contract claim. The Court
likewise, dismissed the Defendants' motion to dismiss.

The case is a class action involving the Defendants' alleged
failure to fully compensate its hourly paid employees for all
hours worked as agreed between the parties.

The Court further ordered to file the Amended Complaint within 21
days from the date of the Order dated September 21, 2016.

A copy of the Court's Order is available at https://goo.gl/v5lDwo
from Leagle.com.

Louis Hopkins, Plaintiff, represented by Wesley Matthew Nakajima.

Louis Hopkins, Plaintiff, represented by Carlos V. Leach, Morgan &
Morgan, P.A., pro hac vice & Barry David Jacobson Levy, O'Connor
Acciani & Levy.

U.S. Bancorp, et al., Defendants, represented by Tracy Stott Pyles
-- tpyles@littler.com -- Littler Mendelson, Andrew J. Voss --
avoss@littler.com -- Littler Mendelson PC, pro hac vice & Anthony
de Sam Lazaro -- adslazaro@littler.com -- Littler Mendelson, P.C.,
pro hac vice.


UNITEDHEALTHCARE: Expands Hep C Coverage to Settle Class Action
---------------------------------------------------------------
Alyssa Rege, writing for Becker's Hospital Review, reports that
Minnetonka, Minn.-based UnitedHealthcare agreed to expand its
coverage of hepatitis C medication in an effort to settle a $300
million class-action lawsuit brought against the company by
policyholders, according to The Daily Business Review.

The settlement agreement filed in a federal Miami court on
Sept. 9 resolves claims the insurer wrongfully denied
policyholders coverage of Harvoni, a drug used to treat hepatitis
C.  The medication is the only drug of its kind that cures
hepatitis C in 95 to 99 percent of cases, according to the
article.

Prior to the lawsuit, UnitedHealthcare would only cover the cost
of the drug for hepatitis C patients with severe liver fibrosis.
The insurer removed the stipulation seven months after the lawsuit
was filed.  The company also agreed to remove the stipulation that
policyholders prove they abstained from drug and alcohol use for
six months prior to the treatment, according to the article.

As part of the settlement, UnitedHealthcare agreed to create a
$500,000 fund to help former policyholders to buy insurance from
United or another insurer.

The settlement is currently awaiting approval by the district
attorney.


URBAN OUTFITTERS: Illegally Obtains Consumer Info, Action Claims
----------------------------------------------------------------
Whitney Hancock and Jamie White, individually and on behalf of all
other similarly situated v. Urban Outfitters, Inc. and
Anthropologie, Inc., Case No. 7061 (D.C. Super. Ct., September 22,
2016), seeks to prohibit retail stores Urban Outfitters and
Anthropologic from deceptively requesting and obtaining consumers'
private identification information, and seeks damages for this
unlawful act.

The Defendants own and operate various brands via retail stores
and direct-to-consumer marketing, such as e-commerce and
traditional catalogues.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Scott M. Perry, Esq.
      Mikhael D. Chamoff, Esq.
      PERRY CHARNOFF PLLC
      2300 Wilson Boulevard, Suite 240
      Arlington, VA 22201
      Telephone: (703) 291-6650
      Facsimile: (703) 563-6692
      E-mail: scott@perrychamoff.com
              mike@perrychamoff.com


WIDEOPEN WEST: "Thomas" Sues Over Deceptive Business Practices
--------------------------------------------------------------
Junious Thomas, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. WideOpen West Illinois LLC d/b/a Wow!
Internet, Cable and Phone, a Delaware Corporation, Case No.
2016CH12156 (Ill. Cir., Cook County, September 14, 2016), alleges
violation of the Illinois Consumer Fraud and Deceptive Business
Practices Act.

WideOpen West Illinois LLC is a broadband provider.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Karl Leinberger, Esq.
     Paul Markoff, Esq.
     MARKOFF LEINBERGER LLC
     134 N. LaSalle Street, Suite 1050
     Chicago, IL 60602
     Phone: (312) 726-4162
     E-mail: karl@markleinlaw.com


WYNDHAM VACATION: Court Thwarts Bid for Class Arbitration
---------------------------------------------------------
D. Matthew Allen -- mallen@carltonfields.com -- of Carlton Fields,
in an article for JD Supra, reports that on August 30, the
Northern District of California thwarted a disgruntled timeshare
owner's attempt to arbitrate her dispute against a timeshare
developer on a classwide basis. A timeshare purchaser alleged that
Wyndham, the timeshare developer, improperly changed her "use
year" and demanded an arbitration. Wyndham responded by filing a
declaratory judgment action against the purchaser and also filed a
motion to compel the purchaser to arbitrate her individual claims
and to preclude her from pursuing her class claims in arbitration.
The court ruled that this was a decision for the arbitrator to
make. The arbitrator found that the case could not proceed on a
classwide arbitration basis. The court affirmed.

The purchaser had not shown that the arbitrator's decision was
"completely irrational" or that it exhibited a "manifest disregard
of the law." The arbitrator had ruled that the parties' agreement
did not "reveal any expectations of the parties . . . that class
action arbitration was an option." Although the agreement did not
contain an explicit class action waiver, the Supreme Court in
Stolt-Nielsen declared that no party may be compelled to
arbitration unless there was a contractual basis to submit to
class arbitration. The arbitrator was not unreasonable in holding
that no such basis was present in the parties' contract.

This decision underscores how important it is for companies to
examine their contracts to ensure they contain (i) arbitration
clauses; and (ii) explicit class action arbitration waivers.

Wyndham Vacation Resorts, Inc. v. Garcia, 2016 WL 4529457 (N.D.
Cal. 2016).


XOMA CORP: Hearing on "Markette" Suit Dismissal Moved to Dec. 15
----------------------------------------------------------------
District Judge Haywood S. Gilliam, Jr. granted the parties'
stipulation to continue the hearing on the Defendant's motion to
dismiss the case, entitled, JOSEPH F. MARKETTE, on Behalf of
Himself and All Others Similarly Situated, Plaintiff, v. XOMA
CORPORATION, JOHN W. VARIAN, and PAUL D. RUBIN, Defendants, Case
No. 15-CV-3425 (HSG), (N.D. Cal.), on December 15, 2016.

The Defendant's motion to dismiss, originally scheduled for
November 3, 2016, is moved due to the Lead Plaintiff's
unavailability.

A copy of the Court's Order dated September 15, 2016 is available
at https://goo.gl/JD2u6Z from Leagle.com.

Joseph F. Markette, Plaintiff, represented by Mark Punzalan --
markp@punzalanlaw.com -- Punzalan Law, P.C..

Joseph Tarzia, Plaintiff, represented by Barbara Ann Rohr --
brohr@faruqilaw.com -- Faruqi and Faruqi, LLP, Katherine M.
Lenahan -- klenahan@faruqilaw.com -- Faruqi and Farqui, LLP, pro
hac vice, Nadeem Faruqi -- nfaruqi@faruqilaw.com -- Faruqi &
Faruqi, LLP, pro hac vice, Richard W. Gonnello --
rgonnello@faruqilaw.com -- Faruqi & Faruqi, LLP, pro hac vice &
Sherief Morsy -- smorsy@faruqilaw.com -- Faruqi and Faruqi, LLP,
pro hac vice.

John Varian, et al., Defendants, represented by Amanda Alison Main
-- amain@cooley.com -- Cooley LLP, Brett Hom De Jarnette --
bdejarnette@cooley.com -- Cooley LLP, Jessica Valenzuela
Santamaria -- jsantamaria@cooley.com -- Cooley LLP & John C. Dwyer
-- dwyerjc@cooley.com -- Cooley LLP.


YAHOO INC: Faces "Havron" Suit Over Alleged Security Breach
-----------------------------------------------------------
Christopher Havron and Katelyn Smith, individually and on behalf
of all others similarly situated v. YAHOO, Inc., Case No. 3:16-cv-
01075-MJR-DGW (S.D. Ill., September 22, 2016), is brought against
the Defendant for failure to adequately protect the private and
confidential personal information of its internet users in the
United States over a period of time during late 2014, and its
failure to disclose the 2014 security breach until 2016.

YAHOO, Inc. is an Internet Company that provides web-based
services to millions of users on a monthly basis.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Mark C. Goldenberg, Esq.
      Thomas P. Rosenfeld, Esq.
      Ann E. Callis, Esq.
      Kevin P. Green, Esq.
      GOLDENBERG HELLER & ANTOGNOLI, P.C
      2227 South State Route 157
      Edwardsville, IL 62025
      Telephone: (618) 656-5150
      Facsimile: (618) 656-6230
      E-mail: mark@ghalaw.com
              tom@ghalaw.com
              acallis@ghalaw.com
              kevin@ghalaw.com


* Sept. 3 Oklahoma Quake May Mean More Class Action Litigation
--------------------------------------------------------------
Thomas B. Alleman -- talleman@dykema.com -- Gavin E. Hill --
ghill@dykema.com -- and James M. Truss -- mtruss@dykema.com -- of
Dykema Gossett PLLC, in an article for Lexology, report that on
September 3, an earthquake measuring 5.8 on the Richter scale
shook Oklahoma and states as far away as Nebraska, Illinois and
Texas. The quake caused significant property damage in the area
and shook homes and buildings as far away as Dallas. Since
September 3, there have been 10 quakes measuring at least 3 on the
Richter scale in the same vicinity. There are news reports of U.S.
Geologic Survey officials warning persons in Oklahoma and Kansas
to "start preparing for earthquakes like Californians." The
Oklahoma Corporation Commission is "implementing a mandatory
directive to shut down all Arbuckle disposal wells within a 725
square mile area, based on the location of the earthquake that
occurred shortly after 7 a.m. on September 3, 2016, near Pawnee."

According to the USGS and OCC as well as academic studies, what
happened in Pawnee is an "induced" earthquake caused by high
volume injection of brine into injection zones. Whether or not
this is true and provable in a courtroom has not stopped the
plaintiffs' bar or green groups. Prior seismic activity generated
two class action lawsuits against operators that used disposal
wells near the epicenter of the last large quake. It also prompted
Sierra Club and Public Justice, two green groups, to file a
citizen suit under federal environmental statutes in an effort to
stop the disposal of fluids from hydraulic fracturing wells. It is
logical to assume that this new quake and aftershocks will
generate more litigation, and that the plaintiffs will cast a much
wider net in naming defendants.

What should you do as an upstream operator? At least the
following:

* Operators of disposal wells subject to closure under the OCC
  emergency order, the users of those wells and transporters of
  materials to the wells should be on the lookout for claims and
  demands.

* Alert employees to the possibility that they may be asked to
  provide information to the OCC or EPA (some of the affected
  wells are under EPA jurisdiction). You may receive official
  requests from OCC, Kansas, or EPA, to name a few, to produce
  records. These require careful responses.

* Records showing what wells were used, how much was disposed
  in each and when should be carefully preserved.

* A prompt check of liability insurance policies, especially
  policies covering oil and gas operations or environmental
  liability, is in order. If those policies are claims made
  policies, contain reporting requirements, or are near policy
  expiration or renewal, prompt or immediate reporting may be
  required to preserve coverage. This is an area where
  consultation with coverage professionals or coverage counsel
  likely will be beneficial.

This is not an exhaustive list but it is a start. We hope that
there will not be litigation over seismic issues, but prior
experience suggests that there will be. Now is the time to
prepare.


* Banner Ads Joke in Real World, But Not in Class-Action
--------------------------------------------------------
Daniel Fisher, writing for Forbes.com, reports that in the mid-
1990s, Remington Arms settled a class action lawsuit over
allegedly defective shotgun barrels, issuing $17.5 million in
checks to some 477,000 owners of more than 820,000 12-gauge
shotguns.

Last year the company, now owned by Cerberus Capital Management
and called Remington Outdoor, settled a similar class action over
7.5 million allegedly defective bolt-action rifles which,
according to a lengthy CNBC documentary, can fire accidentally
even with the safety on.  Remington denied liability but offered a
free fix to anyone who responded to the settlement. After several
months the grand total of participants was 2,327, leading U.S.
District Judge Ortrie D. Smith, who is overseeing the litigation,
to erupt: "The Court cannot conceive that an owner of an allegedly
defective firearm would not seek the remedy being provided
pursuant to this Settlement Agreement."

What changed in the intervening 20 years? Judge Smith blamed an
ineffective notice process, the forgotten stepchild of the class-
action system. After plaintiff lawyers have filed suit, after
they've convinced a judge to declare their case a class action,
and after they've negotiated a settlement and their own fees, they
need to tell their clients how to collect their winnings. The
Constitution requires notice, because even if class members don't
avail themselves of the benefits, they lose their right to bring
claims on their own unless they opt out of a settlement negotiated
on their behalf.

An entire industry has grown around the process of giving notice
to class actions, which depending on the size of the class can
cost $100,000 to millions of dollars. Where consultants used to
consider direct mail the gold standard, however, now a number of
them are touting Internet strategies they say can reach 80% or
more of a target audience at much lower cost. Some experts are
calling foul, saying notice vendors are overstating the
effectiveness of Internet campaigns -- the click-through rate on
banner ads, by some estimates is less than 0.05% -- and misleading
courts about how many people are actually being notified of their
rights.

Indeed, in a filing in the infamous Duracell case where lawyers
sought $5.3 million in fees and consumers filed for only $344,000
in benefits, an executive with Kurtzman Carson Consultants said
that after administering hundreds of class actions, "it is KCC's
experience that consumer class action settlements with little or
no direct mail notice will almost always have a claims rate of
less than one percent (1%)."

A poor notification process can benefit defendant companies, since
in a "claims-made" settlement, any money that isn't distributed to
class members reverts to the company. Plaintiff lawyers don't have
a financial incentive to push for better notification, since they
often negotiate "clear sailing" agreements under which defendants
agree not to challenge their fees, and judges almost never tie
their fees to the amount of money that actually winds up in their
clients' hands.

The result: "Defendants say `We'll pay any claim that is made,'
and you can imagine what happens: Engineer the notice program so
no one finds out about it," said Todd B. Hilsee, a consultant who
advises courts and the Federal Judicial Center on how to notify
class members.

Plaintiff lawyers rarely disclose the actual response rates in
class action settlements but the available data show they are
vanishingly small in consumer cases, where individual damages are
frequently too low to justify the time required to fill out a
settlement form. Participation rates are so predictably low that
defendants can buy insurance in claims-made cases where they pay a
single up-front premium and the insurer takes the risk that more
people than expected file claims.

"Everybody knows these notice schemes don't work, and they're
intended not to work," said Ted Frank with the Competitive
Enterprise Institute's Center for Class Action Fairness, which
frequently challenges what it believes are collusive settlements
and excessive fees.  "People intend the foreseeable consequences
of their actions. And they know when they do a notice program
without attempting to get the names of the class members, you're
not going to get a high response rate."

Hilsee thinks that's what happened in the second Remington
lawsuit. It represented a "claims process designed to fail," he
wrote in a July letter to Judge Smith. Internet ads probably
reached half the class, not 73% as the notice vendor told the
court, he wrote. The reach should be more like 95% in a case
involving a potentially deadly defect, Hilsee told me in an
interview.

After Judge Smith rejected the first settlement over concerns
about notice, plaintiff lawyers and Remington hired former Obama
campaign manager Jim Messina to run a broader plan including
targeted Facebook ads and 60-second radio spots on shows hosted by
Rush Limbaugh and Sean Hannity. Hilsee is still skeptical the
second plan will work.

"With the fragmentation of media there are more choices, more
options," said Hilsee, who doesn't compete with notice vendors but
has been hired by parties in class actions to critique their
methods . . . "The cost to gain attention is going up, but guess
what, these new firms are coming in and saying `We can put out
internet banners, send emails, and get the same reach.'"

The problem with Internet notice is there are no standards for
judging its effectiveness. Some vendors boast of reaching millions
of potential class members by running banner ads with "frequency
capping" limiting them to one view per Internet protocol address.
That supposedly guarantees one viewing per individual, but few
advertisers in the real world would buy that pitch. A frequency
cap of one, or even five or six, guarantees the majority of the
"engagements" are with non-human bots. Market research shows real
humans need to see a message several times for it to sink in and
even then the number of people who click through a banner ad to
investigate further is tiny. Google says more than half of Web ads
are not "seen" by industry standards, meaning at least 50% of the
ad's pixels are on screen for at least a second.

"Unfortunately what we see more and more is whoever can come up
with the cheapest bid and put an affidavit in that it meets
standards of due process, that firm will be hired," said Katherine
Kinsella, the recently retired founder of Kinsella Media, which
specializes in legal notification. "It is a reverse auction."

For a settlement of claims over allegedly fire-prone Conair hair
driers in California, KCC -- the firm that warned of low
participation rates without direct mail -- proposed a campaign
including 15 million Internet ads with frequency capping of one
that supposedly would reach 75% of adult women in California and
New York. The plan didn't account for the fact that many of the
viewers could be bots, half the ads would remain unseen even by
humans, and frequency capping of one doesn't eliminate the chance
one person with multiple devices will see the same banner ad more
than once. Consultants also tell courts they have increased their
reach by running ads in front of different groups of people --
women in their 20s, say, and women who purchase hair driers --
when standard practice in the advertising business is to account
for the strong potential for double-counting.

Such objections only come up when one of the parties in a class
action hire an expert like Hilsee or Kinsella to contest a notice
plan. Notice vendors rarely criticize each others' work because
that might cut them out of the next contract.

"You can't critique anybody else's work publicly," said Kinsella,
who in retirement feels more free to speak. "You're blackballed."

Hilsee has drawn fierce criticism from notice vendors for
denigrating the effectiveness of Internet ads. His letter to Judge
Smith in the Remington case "levels accusations that are
objectively false, rife with misinformation, and derived from a
foregone era of media  consumption -- the  only  era  during which
Mr.  Hilsee ever actually professionally planned or implemented
notice campaigns," said Steven Weisbrot, a vice president with
settlement administrators Angeion Group in a rebuttal to Hilsee's
unsolicited comments.

Non-human viewership "is generally regarded to be minimal,"
Weisbrot wrote, and Angeion hired outside firms to verify bots
weren't the only one seeing the notices. Direct mail would be more
effective, he said, but there are "enormous legal and practical
barriers" to getting names and addresses of gun owners from
firearms dealers, the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms or
the NRA. Such an expense is unnecessary anyway, Weisbrot said,
since "this is a case about the monetary value of a rifle,"
seeking economic damages not money for injuries and deaths.

A committee overseeing the revision of the Federal Rules of Civil
Procedure is considering loosening the rules for notice, allowing
"electronic means" instead of requiring direct mail whenever
possible.

Getting names and addresses of class members isn't impossible if
lawyers push hard enough to do it, however. After Frank and the
Center for Class Action Fairness objected to a settlement of
litigation over Bayer aspirin that would have paid lawyers $5
million and only a fraction of that amount to class members,
lawyers subpoenaed Safeway for customer sales data and found
enough class members to distribute another $5.8 million. In
another case involving baby products, lawyers paid an additional
$14.5 million to more than 1 million class members after they'd
originally told the court they couldn't find their clients and
would distribute the money to charity in what is known as cy pres.

"You can make the notice process very effective. It's sometimes
costly but in many instances the costs are worth bearing," said
Brian Wolfman, an associate professor at Georgetown Law School and
former director of litigation at Public Citizen, which frequently
intervenes in class actions.

One way to insure plaintiff lawyers push for the most effective
notice would be to tie their fees to the amount of money actually
distributed. That prospect concerns class-action lawyers, who
argue their pay shouldn't be hostage to the efforts of third-party
contractors. Wolfman disagrees. As a public-interest lawyer he
didn't collect a percentage of settlements he negotiated, but
still pushed forcefully to track down class members including in a
California case over illegal collection practices by a lender
affiliated with the government.

The lender mailed checks directly to class members but even so
some of them went uncashed. So Wolfman and a colleague convinced
the judge to spend more money locating the recipients of the
uncashed checks to make sure they had received them. The claim
rates rose past 90%.

This exposes a deep irony in the way the class-action system
works. Unique in American law, class actions are opt-out, meaning
class members are considered to be plaintiffs in the litigation
unless they notify the court they want out. Lawyers claim this is
necessary because they couldn't otherwise gather enough plaintiffs
to bring a case where individual damages are small.

But the whole system flips when it comes time to distributing the
proceeds of a settlement. Then the case becomes opt-in - class
members only get paid if they file a claim with the court.
Sometimes this is necessary when the case requires proof of
damages but critics including Wolfman say plaintiff lawyers should
push harder for settlements where benefits flow directly to their
clients.

"You can't have an opt-out class action and demand it is
effectively opt-in at the back end -- that's crazy," Wolfman told
me. "Whenever possible, you don't require people to file a claim.
You send them a check."


* JND Legal Successfully Closes Major Class Action Settlement
-------------------------------------------------------------
JND Legal Administration, a management and administration company
delivering service lines in class action, mass tort, corporate
restructuring, government services and eDiscovery, announced on
Sept. 14, 2016, the successful completion of several major complex
class action settlements. The cases were performed by JND's Class
Action Administration division, an award winning subsidiary of JND
Legal Administration.

Spanning large class sizes and substantial settlement funds, each
with nuanced allocation requirements, these completed settlement
administrations required deep experience to navigate each unique
case and ensure the best approach to achieve the class action
participation and successful settlement funds. JND's Class Action
Administration team worked closely with clients to develop a
tailored approach for each distinct case to successfully
structure, manage and close each settlement.

"Our goal is to do what we have always done in this business --
attract some of the largest, most intricate cases in the
industry," said Jennifer Keough, JND Legal Administration co-
founder and CEO of JND Class Action Administration. "Our primary
focus is following through with tangible results for our clients,
bringing to bear our innovation, excellent client service and
exhaustive attention to detail."

JND Class Action Administration allocated a settlement fund of
nearly $112 million to a class of 178,000 in Fitzgerald Farms LLC
v. Chesapeake Operating Inc. The claim related to the calculation
of royalties on natural gas wells, and the fees and expenses
previously deducted, including gathering, compression,
dehydration, treatment and processing.

Administering the settlement fund to individual well owners, the
team allocated the funds to claimants based on factors including
the gas volume and percent ownership of the wells. Balancing the
numerous variables in play within this complex settlement, JND
Class Action Administration successfully distributed more than
92,000 settlement checks.

In Holt v. HHH Motors, JND Class Action Administration helped
structure the settlement administration process of a claim brought
against an automobile dealership. Working with all parties, the
Class Action Administration team designed a settlement benefit
that incorporated both cash payments and vouchers for dealership
services for the 13,600 automobile purchasers who were members of
the class.

For the 107,000 claimants who applied for the General Relief
welfare program in Guillory v. Los Angeles County, JND Class
Action Administration exhausted all avenues to maximize class
participation.

Taking into consideration that most individuals within this class
were indigent, JND Class Action Administration knew a standard
notice and claims process would not be sufficient; instead, JND
installed poster notices in over 700 libraries and shelters,
updated the municipality's general relief website with settlement
information, and worked with the relief office to flag class
members and identify them whenever they visited an office.
JND's Class Action Administration subsidiary has been voted by the
National Law Journal as a Best Claims Administrator five years in
a row and is trusted by law firms and Fortune 500 companies to
manage their settlements. If you are interested in working with
JND Class Action Administration, contact info@JNDLA.com.

                   About JND Legal Administration

JND Legal Administration is a management and administration
company delivering service lines in class action, bankruptcy,
eDiscovery, government services and mass tort. JND's team of
industry veterans is passionate about providing outstanding
service to clients. Armed with decades of expertise and a powerful
set of tools, JND has deep experience expertly navigating the
intricacies of class action settlements, corporate restructuring,
eDiscovery, mass tort claims and government services. JND is
trusted by law firms, government agencies and Fortune 500
companies across the nation. The company is backed by Stone Point
Capital and has offices in Colorado, Minnesota, New York, North
Carolina, Washington and Washington, D.C. For more information
about JND, visit www.JNDLA.com.


* Judicial Conference Publishes Proposed Class Action Amendments
----------------------------------------------------------------
Tony Lathrop, Esq. -- tonylathrop@mvalaw.com -- of Moore & Van
Allen PLLC, in an article for JDSupra Business Advisor, reports
that federal class action jurisprudence has been evolving rapidly
over the course of the last 5-6 years, with several major U.S.
Supreme Court decisions defining and redefining many aspects of
class litigation.  With the first round of proposed amendments in
over a decade, the civil rule governing federal class litigation
is set to follow suit.  On August 12, 2016, the Judicial
Conference Advisory Committee on Civil Rules (Advisory Committee)
published proposed amendments to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure
23, which have been in the works since the 2011 formation of the
Rule 23 Subcommittee.

Proposed Amendments

The proposed amendments to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23
focus primarily on class action settlements, including notice
requirements, settlement approval criteria, and dealing with
objectors to settlements.

Rule 23(e)(1) Notice: The focus is on what information the court
needs in order to decide whether to require notice be given to the
class of a proposed settlement . The proposed amendment states
that the "parties must provide the court with information
sufficient to enable it to determine whether to give notice of the
proposal to the class."  Giving notice must be "justified by the
parties' showing that the court will likely be able to: (i)
approve the proposal under Rule 23(e)(2); and (ii) certify the
class for purposes of judgment on the proposal."

Rule 23(e)(2) Settlement Approval: The focus is on factors the
court should consider in determining whether to approve a
settlement, incorporating those developed by circuits courts in
interpreting the "fair, reasonable, and adequate" standard
established in 2003.  The proposed amendment requires the court to
consider whether a settlement proposal is fair, reasonable, and
adequate based on consideration of whether:

    -- the class representatives and class counsel have adequately
represented the class;

   -- the proposal was negotiated at arm's length;

   -- the relief provided for the class is adequate, taking into
account: the costs, risks, and delay of trial and appeal; the
effectiveness of the proposed method of distributing relief to the
class, including the method of processing class-member claims, if
required; the terms of any proposed award of attorney's fees,
including timing of payment; and any agreement [with objectors]
required to be identified under Rule 23(e)(3); and

   -- class members are treated equitably relative to each other.

Rule 23(e)(5) Objectors: The focus is on what objectors must
include in objections and requiring court approval of payment to
objectors and/or their counsel for backing down from their
challenge of a settlement approval.  The proposed amendment
requires objections to "state whether it applies only to the
objector, to a specific subset of the class, or to the entire
class, and also state with specificity the grounds for the
objection."  The proposed amendment also states that "no payment
or other consideration may be provided to an objector or
objector's counsel in connection with: (i) forgoing or withdrawing
an objection, or (ii) forgoing, dismissing, or abandoning an
appeal from a judgment approving the proposal," unless approved by
a court after a hearing.

Rule 23(c)(2)(b) Notice: notice is permissible by electronic or
other appropriate means,

Rule 23(f) Appeals: no immediate review of a court decision on
whether or not to send notice of a proposed settlement, and allows
additional time to seek interlocutory review if the U.S. is a
party.

Areas for Further Study

The Advisory Committee also approved two areas that had been
explored by the Rule 23 Subcommittee for further study: (1)
defendants' attempts to pick off named plaintiffs and moot class
actions with offers of complete relief and (2) whether members of
the proposed class are sufficiently ascertainable for purposes of
class certification.  Both issues continue to develop in the lower
courts, as the Supreme Court recently denied review of cases
presenting the ascertainability issue and the High Court's
Campbell-Ewald Co. v. Gomez decision held that an offer of
complete relief to a named plaintiff does not moot a putative
class action, but left open the question of whether depositing
money into plaintiffs' account changes the analysis.

The Comment & Approval Process

The proposed amendments will be open for public comment until
February 15, 2017.  For those interested in speaking on the issues
presented, several public hearings will be held to discuss the
proposed Civil Rules amendments:

Washington, D.C. (November 3, 2016)
Phoenix, Arizona (January 4, 2017)
Dallas/Fort Worth, Texas (February 16, 2017)

If approved, the proposed amendments would become effective on
December 1, 2018.





                            *********

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  * * *