CAR_Public/161006.mbx              C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

            Thursday, October 6, 2016, Vol. 18, No. 200




                            Headlines


A-S MEDICATION: Physicians Healthsource's TCPA Claims Certified
AIR CANADA: Faces Class Action Over Alleged Baggage Fee Collusion
ALBERTSON'S LLC: Court Rules Class Certification in "Moras" Suit
ALLTRAN FINANCIAL: Sievert Seeks Certification of Damasco Class
APOLLO RETAIL: "Danner" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Rest Periods

AUSTRALIA: Judge Adjourns Class Action Over Siev 221 Tragedy
BANKRUPTCY MANAGEMENT: McGarry Sues Over Software Price-fixing
BASHAM LUMBER: M Milkes' Bid to Certify Class to Be Heard Nov. 10
BRANDSTROM INC: Class Cert. Bid in "Torrent" Suit Denied
BROOKHAVEN RETREAT: Court OKs Bid to Certify in "Campbell" Suit

CAL-MAINE FOODS: Plaintiff's Summary Judgment Bid Granted in Part
CANADA: June 2017 Trial Set in Nova Scotia Data Breach Case
CAPITAL BANK: Reached Deal to Settle Overdraft Fees Class Action
CENTURY REALTY: Burns Seeks Certification of Homeowners Class
CERNER CORP: Classes of Missouri Workers Certified in "Speer"

CHESAPEAKE ENERGY: Gets Subpoena in Justice Dep't Antitrust Probe
CONVERSE INC: Class of Retail Workers Certified in "Chavez" Suit
CST BRANDS: Being Sold to Circle K Too Cheaply, Tex. Suit Says
CUNA MUTUAL: Ogrizovich Seeks Final Approval of Class Settlement
CYAN INC: Supreme Court Set to Weigh on Securities Class Action

DUN & BRADSTREET: Settles TCPA Class Action for More Than $10MM
DYNAMIC RECOVERY: Court Withdrawn Class Cert. Bid in "Stamer"
EASTMAN CHEMICAL: Must Face Corrosion Claims in Water Crisis Case
EMPIRE TODAY: Fails to Pay Commission and Bonus, "Wielgus" Alleges
EMPIRE TODAY: Status Hearing in "Wielgus" Suit Set for Nov. 22

FEDEX CORPORATION: Fairness Hearings Set for Jan. 23-24, 2017
FERRING PHARMACEUTICALS: Bravelle Drug Class Action Can Proceed
FLORIDA AUTO WHOLESALE: Class Certification Sought in Perez Suit
FORD MOTOR: Regulators Probe Power Steering, Warning Light Issues
FORD MOTOR: Judge Certifies MyFord, MyLincoln Touch Class Action

FULL CIRCLE: Faces Merger Class Action by William J. Russell
FULL CIRCLE: Faces Merger Class Action by Daniel Saunders
GANNETT SATELLITE: Motion to Dismiss VPPA Class Action Nixed
GATESTONE & CO: Certification of Class Sought in "Bower" Suit
GEORGIA: Class Suit Filed Over Opportunity School District Ballot

GERBER PRODUCTS: Plaintiff's Lawyers Seek $3MM in Legal Fees
GOLDEN STATE: Padron Seeks to Certify Non-exempt Employees Class
HALSTED FINANCIAL: Court Strikes Class Cert. Bid in "Lopez" Suit
HANSON AGGREGATES: Plaintiff's Bid for Injunctive Relief Nixed
HENNESSY PARK: Faces "Mendez" Lawsuit Under FLSA, NY Labor Law

HUMANADENTAL INSURANCE: Must Defend Against "Brodsky" Suit
HYPERDYNAMICS CORPORATION: One Shareholder Action Pending
INDIANA: Trial in Driving Fee Class Action Against BMV Set
ISORAY INC: Company, Former CEO Ink $3.5MM Deal to Settle Case
JEFFERSON CAPITAL: Faces Class Action Over Credit Violations

KELLY SERVICES: Certification of Two Classes Sought in Boergret
KOCH FOODS: Faces "Percy" Suit Over Sherman Act Violation
KOHL'S CORPORATION: Court Strikes Class Cert. Bid in "Ankcorn"
KOHL'S CORPORATION: Class Cert. Bid in "Ankcorn" Suit Continued
LANNETT CO: Sued by Velardi Over Prices of Digoxin & Doxycycline

LENDINGCLUB: Judge Declines to Appoint Class Action Lead Counsel
M+W U.S.: Court Grants Conditional Certification in "Boice"
MARUYASU INDUSTRIES: Faces "Landers" Anti-trust Suit
MEDICAL BUSINESS: Court Strikes Class Cert. Bid in "Rhone" Suit
MERIDIAN-HENDERSON: Joint Settlement Bid in "Zego" Suit Granted

MGT CAPITAL: November 21 Lead Plaintiff Motion Deadline Set
MIDLAND CREDIT: Bid to Certify Class in "Rice" Suit Stricken
MIDWEST MEDICAL: Faces Class Action Over Filing Motion Fees
MONSTER WORLDWIDE: WeissLaw LLP Files Securities Class Action
NATHANIEL D. LAWRENCE: Class Cert. Bid in "Edwards" Dismissed

NATIONAL COLLEGIATE: Dawson Files Class Action in San Francisco
NEIMAN MARCUS: Briefing in Class Action Appeals Complete
NEIMAN MARCUS: Briefing in Rubenstein Case Appeal Now Complete
NEIMAN MARCUS: Settlement Reached in Bergdorf Goodman Case
NEIMAN MARCUS: Oct. 24 Hearing on Reconsideration Bid in "Attia"

NEIMAN MARCUS: Court Stayed Nguyen Case Pending Attia Matter
NEIMAN MARCUS: Connolly Representative Action Filed in Calif.
NEIMAN MARCUS: Responses Due Oct. 26 in Data Breach Litigation
NEWFOUNDLAND: Residential School Victims Seek Settlement Approval
NRA GROUP: Certification of FDCPA Class Sought in "Gadime" Suit

OREGON: Two Groups File Class Action v. DHS Over Foster Care
PERMANENTE MEDICAL: "Brown" Suit Seeks Certification of Class
PIPEFITTERS ASSOCIATION: Class in Discrimination Case Certified
POLARIS INDUSTRIES: Nov. 15 Lead Plaintiff Motion Deadline Set
PRECOR INC: Class Certification Bid in "Mednick" Suit Denied

PROCTER & GAMBLE: Faces Class Action Over Deodorant Injury Risk
PROMOLOGICS INC: America's Health Seeks Class Certification
REVCLAIMS LLC: "Garrison" Suit Removed to E.D. Ark.
SAMSUNG: U.S. Regulators Warn Over Washing Machine Explosion
SERES THERAPEUTICS: Nov. 29 Lead Plaintiff Motion Deadline Set

SERVICE EMPLOYEES: Group Calls for Home Health Workers' Tax Case
SHAMROCK FOODS: "Branca" Class Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Wages
SILVERLEAF RESORTS: Washington's Bid to Certify Class Stricken
SOUTHERN OHIO MEDICAL: Hamm Seeks Certification of FLSA Class
STARKIST CO: $12MM Settlement in Hendricks Has Final OK

SUPREME SERVICE: Blake Seeks to Certify Class of Field Employees
SYNGENTA: Judge Certifies GMO Corn Seed Class Action
TAMINCO: Class Action Over Foul Odors at Pace Plant in Discovery
TOSHIBA: Judge Declined to Rule on Motions to Dismiss
TRANS OCEAN CARRIER: Cruz Seeks to Recoup Wages for Truck Drivers

TRANS ONE INC: Hearing on Matthis' Bid to Certify Set for Oct. 13
TRANSUNION CORP: Court Terminated Class Cert. Bid in "Sgouros"
TRI-STATE IMAGING: Faces "Wojtowicz" Suit Over Violation of ERISA
UGL LTD: Law Firm Mulls Class Action Over Ichthys Disclosure
TTC AMERIDIAL: Oliver Moves Certification of Class Under TCPA

UGL LTD: IMF Bentham May Fund Shareholder Class Action
ULTA SALON: Court Certifies Settlement Class in "Quinby" Suit
UNITED STATES: Judge Refuses to Dismiss PACER Class Action
US XPRESS: Certification of Drivers Class Sought in "Ayala" Suit
UTAH: Class of Mentally Unstable Inmates Certified

UTAH: Must Face Class Action Over Mentally Ill Inmates
VISTA ENERGY: Class Certification Bid in "Primack" Suit Denied
VIVENDI UNIVERSAL: 2nd Circuit Affirms Securities Class Action
VOCATION: ASIC Files Legal Action v. John Dawkins Over Collapse
WARREN, MI: Certification of Two Classes Sought in Nili 2011 Suit

WELLS FARGO: Faces Class Action, Nov. 25 Lead Plaintiff Deadline
WHITE OAK: Class Certification Bid in "Taylor" Suit Denied
WHITEWAVE FOODS: City of Dearborn Sues Over Danone Merger
WORLDWIDE ENTERTAINMENT: Promoter's Sentence Hearing Resumes
YAHOO INC: Faces Investigation Over Massive 2014 Data Hacking



                            *********


A-S MEDICATION: Physicians Healthsource's TCPA Claims Certified
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit styled Physicians Healthsource, Inc., Plaintiff, v.
A-S Medication Solutions LLC, et al., Case No. 1:12-cv-05105 (N.D.
Ill), the Hon. Judge Joan B. Gottschall entered an order
certifying Plaintiffs' TCPA claims as class action.

According to the docket entry made by the Clerk on September 27,
2016, the parties are ordered to meet and confer regarding the
identities and other pertinent information for all persons in the
class defined by Plaintiffs. The parties are also ordered to meet
and confer regarding a mutually agreeable notice that is to be
submitted to the Court on or before October 7, 2016. The matter is
set for status on October 12, 2016 at 9:30 a.m.

A-S Medication provides dispensing program solutions.

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


AIR CANADA: Faces Class Action Over Alleged Baggage Fee Collusion
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Ian Bickis, writing for The Canadian Press, reports that
Air Canada and WestJet are facing a potential class action lawsuit
after imposing checked baggage fees only days apart.

The proposed class action alleges that the two airlines colluded
to impose the fees and have unjustly enriched themselves in the
process.

"I just thought it was so wrong, what the airline companies were
doing," said Lorne Hodel, lead plaintiff of the lawsuit.

The statement of claim, filed in the Court of Queen's Bench for
Saskatchewan, says WestJet announced a $25 baggage fee on
Sept. 15, 2014, and Air Canada followed suit on Sept. 18.

The claim alleges it would have been "impossible" for Air Canada
to be ready to implement the fees only days after WestJet,
indicating collusion between the airlines.

Tony Merchant, the class action lawyer who filed the claim, said
it was also suspicious that Air Canada announced the same fee
structure as WestJet, with both adding a $25 fee for a first
checked bag for economy passengers in Canada.

"A coincidence we believe a court will find is highly suspicious,
and not believably coincidental," said Mr. Merchant.

In its 2014 announcement, WestJet said it would also start
charging for first checked bags on flights to the U.S. Air Canada
added Mexico and the Caribbean as destinations where passengers
have to pay for a first bag.

Air Canada began charging economy passengers fees for their first
checked bag on flights to the U.S. in 2011.

Merchant said the airlines charged more, without providing extra
services.

"What new did I get for the extra 25 dollars? Well I got nothing
new for the 25 dollars.  That's known as unjust enrichment," said
Merchant.

Air Canada and WestJet declined to comment because the matter is
before the courts.

Karl Moore, an aviation expert at McGill University's Desautels
Faculty of Management, found the collusion allegations far
fetched.

"I think it's highly unlikely they would collude, it's not the
nature of the beast, they're just fierce competitors," Mr. Moore
said.

He said both airlines had already been thinking about adding the
baggage fees and WestJet's move made it easier for Air Canada to
add the fee as well.

"Both were thinking about it," said Mr. Moore.  "This was on their
radar because it was happening elsewhere."

He said the baggage fees are part of a wider trend of unbundling
fees on airlines.

"You pay more for meals, you pay more for the seat you want, you
pay for bags.  They've unbundled, and this is just part of that
unbundling process," said Mr. Moore.

The proposed class action, which has yet to be certified, seeks to
have baggage fees refunded along with other damages.


ALBERTSON'S LLC: Court Rules Class Certification in "Moras" Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit styled DANIEL MORAS, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. ALBERTSON'S LLC
and ABS ID-O LLC, the Defendant, Case No. 1:15-cv-00093-BLW (D.
Idaho), the Hon. Judge B. Lynn Winmill entered an order:

     a. granting Defendants' motion for summary judgment; and

     b. mooting Plaintiff's motion for class certification.

The parties stipulated to a scheduling order, setting the deadline
for expert witness disclosures and a discovery cutoff date of
March 9, 2016. This deadline has passed and Moras has not
disclosed any expert witnesses who could testify or aid the
Court in determining what a valid ADA policy for Albertsons would
look like.

According to the Court, obviously, Moras is now precluded from
offering such testimony. In the absence of such evidence, Moras is
unable to establish that a genuine issue of material fact exists
regarding Albertsons' alleged ADA policy deficiency. There is
simply no evidence in the record that Albertsons's policy is
deficient. Accordingly, the Court will grant summary judgment in
favor of Albertsons on this claim as well.

The Defendant is a grocery chain which owns and operates retail
grocery stores in a number of states, including Idaho.

A copy of the Order is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=tV3l5jUT


ALLTRAN FINANCIAL: Sievert Seeks Certification of Damasco Class
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Plaintiff asks the Court to certify a class in the lawsuit
captioned GORDON SIEVERT, Individually and on Behalf of All Others
Similarly Situated, the Plaintiff, v. ALLTRAN FINANCIAL, LP, the
Defendant, Case No. 16-cv-1309 (E.D. Wisc.).

The Plaintiff further asks the Court for an order:

     a. appointing the Plaintiff as its representative, and
        appointing Ademi & O'Reilly, LLP as its Counsel;

     b. requesting to stay the class certification motion until
        an amended motion for class certification is filed; and

     c. granting the parties relief from the local rules'
        automatic briefing schedule and requirement.

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=nT1kJC3r

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Shpetim Ademi, Esq.
          John D. Blythin, Esq.
          Mark A. Eldridge, Esq.
          Denise L. Morris, Esq.
          ADEMI & O'REILLY, LLP
          3620 East Layton Avenue
          Cudahy, WI 53110
          (414) 482-8000
          (414) 482-8001 (fax)
          E-mail: sademi@ademilaw.com
                  jblythin@ademilaw.com
                  meldridge@ademilaw.com
                  dmorris@ademilaw.com


APOLLO RETAIL: "Danner" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Rest Periods
-----------------------------------------------------------------
GREGORY DANNER an individual, on behalf of himself and others
similarly situated v. APOLLO RETAIL SPECIALISTS, LLC; and DOES 1
thru 50, inclusive, Case No. BC634593 (Cal. Super. Ct., Los
Angeles Cty., September 20, 2016), alleges that the Defendants
have consistent policy of failing to pay employees for their rest
periods.

Apollo Retail Specialists, LLC, is a North Carolina corporation
operating and doing business within the state of California.  The
true names and capacities of the Doe Defendants are currently
unknown to the Plaintiff.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


AUSTRALIA: Judge Adjourns Class Action Over Siev 221 Tragedy
------------------------------------------------------------
Ben Doherty, writing for The Guardian, reports that the class
action over the Siev 221 disaster off Christmas Island has been
adjourned until this week, so documents from a coronial inquiry
can be provided to those bringing the case.

On the morning of December 15, 2010, an asylum seeker boat,
labelled Siev (suspected illegal entry vessel) 221, unpowered and
drifting off the coast of Christmas Island, was dashed into the
cliffs of the island by massive swell, breaking the boat up and
throwing dozens of the 89 asylum seekers on board into the sea and
onto the rocks.

Fifty people, including 15 children, died in Australia's worst
peacetime maritime disaster in more than a century.

Several of the survivors from the boat that day and others who
lost relatives in the disaster have launched a class action suing
the Australian government, alleging government agents were
negligent in failing to respond to the unfolding disaster quickly
enough.

The 2012 coronial inquest into the Siev 221 shipwreck criticized
the federal government for failing to provide rescue vessels on
Christmas Island despite the known likelihood of a maritime
disaster occurring as unseaworthy asylum seeker boats approached
the island.

Coroner Alastair Hope said the disaster was "generally
foreseeable" and he condemned the lack of systemic surveillance
focused on the protection of life at sea.

"I cannot accept that it would be beyond the capability of border
protection command to put in place a surveillance capability that
would be more effective than island residents coincidentally
looking out to sea."

Lawyers for the plaintiffs have sought access to documents from
the coronial inquiry.

Justice Geoffrey Bellew granted an adjournment so that documents
could be analysed for operational sensitivities and provided to
the plaintiffs.  The case will return to the NSW supreme court
this week.


BANKRUPTCY MANAGEMENT: McGarry Sues Over Software Price-fixing
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the case captioned MCGARRY & MCGARRY, LLC, Plaintiff, v.
BANKRUPTCY MANAGEMENT SOLUTIONS, INC., Defendant, Case No. 1:16-
cv-08914 (N.D. Ill., September 14, 2016), McGarry, on behalf of
itself and those similarly situated, alleges that BMS has
conspired with its two largest competitors to fix the manner of
charging Chapter 7 Bankruptcy Estates for bankruptcy software
services in violation of the Sherman Act and the Illinois
Antitrust Act.

BMS is the largest provider of bankruptcy software services in the
United States.  BMS also provides ancillary services, such as data
entry or check preparation.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Marianne C. Holzhall, Esq.
     120 North LaSalle Street, Suite 1100
     Chicago, IL 60602
     Phone: (312) 345-4600
     E-mail: mch@mcgarryllc.com

        - and -

     DUNNEGAN & SCILEPPI LLC
     350 Fifth Avenue
     New York, NY 10118
     Phone: (212) 332-8300


BASHAM LUMBER: M Milkes' Bid to Certify Class to Be Heard Nov. 10
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The Clerk of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of
Illinois made a docket entry on September 22, 2016, in the case
titled M Milkes Insurance Agency, Inc. v. Basham Lumber Co., Inc.,
et al., Case No. 1:16-cv-06855 (N.D. Ill.), relating to a hearing
held before the Honorable Jorge L. Alonso.

The minute entry states that:

   -- Plaintiff's motion to enter and continue Plaintiff's
      amended motion for class certification is granted;

   -- Plaintiff's amended motion for class certification is
      entered and continued to November 10, 2016, at 9:30 a.m.;

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

   -- Status hearing previously set for September 27, 2016, is
      stricken and reset to November 10, 2016, at 9:30 a.m.; and

   -- Parties will file a joint status report regarding a
      discovery schedule.

A copy of the Notification of Docket Entry is available at no
charge at http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=yzKMERF8


BRANDSTROM INC: Class Cert. Bid in "Torrent" Suit Denied
--------------------------------------------------------
The Hon. Judge Dean D. Pregerson in the lawsuit captioned NICOLAS
TORRENT, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated,
the Plaintiff, v. THIERRY OLLIVIER, NATIERRA, and BRANDSTROM,
INC., the Defendants, Case No. 2:15-cv-02511-DDP-JPR (C.D. Cal.),
entered an order denying Plaintiff's motion for class
certification of:

     "all California purchasers of Himalania brand goji berries."

Plaintiff alleges that Defendants sold goji berries using
packaging that created the impression that Defendants' berries are
harvested from the Himalaya mountains.

A copy of the Order is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=PR8ZBDo7


BROOKHAVEN RETREAT: Court OKs Bid to Certify in "Campbell" Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
U.S. Magistrate Judge H. Bruce Guyton granted the joint motion for
step one certification of the Plaintiffs' collective action claim
under Section 16(B) of the Fair Labor Standards Act filed in the
lawsuit entitled SUSAN CAMPBELL, SARAH BROOK BOHANNON, ANA GARCIA-
SMITH, CASANDRA HENLEY, and KRISTY MORICAL, individually,
collectively, and on Behalf of similarly situated employees v.
BROOKHAVEN RETREAT, LLC, et al., Case No. 3:16-cv-00424-JRG-HBG
(E.D. Tenn.).

In their Motion, the parties state that they agree to step one
certification of Plaintiffs' FLSA collection action and that the
Defendants do not oppose the Plaintiffs sending the opt-in notice
and consent forms to the "Potential Collection Action Members."
The Defendants have agreed to provide the Plaintiffs' counsel with
a spreadsheet containing certain information for each Potential
Collective Action Member.  As part of their Motion, the parties
submitted Exhibit A, a Notice of Lawsuit With Opportunity to Join.

A copy of the Order is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=3Q3VXHQE


CAL-MAINE FOODS: Plaintiff's Summary Judgment Bid Granted in Part
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Cal-Maine Foods, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on September 26, 2016, for the
quarterly period ended August 27, 2016, that in the Egg Antitrust
Litigation, a court has granted in part the plaintiffs' motion for
summary judgment as to the applicability of the Capper-Volstead
defense.

Since September 25, 2008, the Company has been named as one of
several defendants in numerous antitrust cases involving the
United States shell egg industry.  In some of these cases, the
named plaintiffs allege that they purchased eggs or egg products
directly from a defendant and have sued on behalf of themselves
and a putative class of others who claim to be similarly situated.
In other cases, the named plaintiffs allege that they purchased
shell eggs and egg products directly from one or more of the
defendants but sue only for their own alleged damages and not on
behalf of a putative class.  In the remaining cases, the named
plaintiffs are individuals or companies who allege that they
purchased shell eggs indirectly from one or more of the defendants
-- that is, they purchased from retailers that had previously
purchased from defendants or other parties -- and have sued on
behalf of themselves and a putative class of others who claim to
be similarly situated.

The Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation consolidated all of
the putative class actions (as well as certain other cases in
which the Company was not a named defendant) for pretrial
proceedings in the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Pennsylvania. The Pennsylvania court has organized the
putative class actions around two groups (direct purchasers and
indirect purchasers) and has named interim lead counsel for the
named plaintiffs in each group.

           The Direct Purchaser Putative Class Action

The direct purchaser putative class cases were consolidated into
In re: Processed Egg Products Antitrust Litigation, No. 2:08-md-
02002-GP, in the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Pennsylvania. As previously reported, in November
2014, the Court approved the Company's settlement with the direct
purchaser plaintiff class and entered final judgment dismissing
with prejudice the class members' claims against the Company.

           The Indirect Purchaser Putative Class Action

The indirect purchaser putative class cases were consolidated into
In re: Processed Egg Products Antitrust Litigation, No. 2:08-md-
02002-GP, in the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Pennsylvania.

On April 20-21, 2015, the Court held an evidentiary hearing on the
indirect purchaser plaintiffs' motion for class certification.  On
September 18, 2015, the Court denied the indirect purchaser
plaintiffs' motion for class certification of 21 separate classes
seeking damages under the laws of 21 states, holding that the
plaintiffs were not able to prove that their purported method for
ascertaining class membership was reliable or administratively
feasible, that common questions would predominate, or that their
proposed class approach would be manageable in a single trial.  In
addition to barring any right to pursue a class monetary remedy
under state law, the Court also denied indirect purchaser
plaintiffs' request for certification of an injunctive-relief
class under federal law.

However, the court allowed the indirect purchaser plaintiffs to
renew their motion for class certification seeking a federal
injunction. The plaintiffs filed their renewed motion to certify
an injunctive-relief class on October 23, 2015.

The Company joined the other defendants in opposing that motion on
November 20.  The plaintiffs filed their reply memorandum on
December 11, 2015. The plaintiffs requested oral argument on their
renewed motion for injunctive class certification.

The plaintiffs also filed a petition with the United States Court
of Appeals for the Third Circuit, asking the court to hear an
immediate appeal of the trial court's denial of the motion to
certify 21 state-law damages classes.

On December 3, 2015, the Third Circuit entered an order staying
its consideration of the plaintiffs' request for an immediate
appeal of the damages-class ruling pending the trial court's
resolution of the plaintiffs' renewed motion to certify an
injunctive-relief class.

On July 2, 2015, the Company filed and joined several motions for
summary judgment that sought either dismissal of the entire case
or, in the alternative, dismissal of portions of the case.  On
July 2, 2015, the indirect purchaser plaintiffs filed motions for
summary judgment seeking dismissal of certain affirmative defenses
based on statutory immunities from federal and state antitrust
laws.

The Court heard oral argument on the motions for summary judgment
on February 22 and 23, 2016. On September 9, 2016, the Court
granted in part the Company's motion for summary judgment on
liability, dismissing as a matter of law the plaintiffs'
allegations of a side agreement to cease construction of new
facilities and ruling that the plaintiffs' allegations against the
United Egg Producers (UEP) animal-welfare guidelines must be
evaluated at trial under the rule of reason.

On September 13, 2016, the Court granted in part the plaintiffs'
motion for summary judgment as to the applicability of the Capper-
Volstead defense, ruling that United States Egg Marketers (an
industry cooperative of which the Company is a member) may invoke
the defense at trial but that UEP (another industry cooperative of
which the Company is a member) cannot. The Capper-Volstead defense
is a defense pursuant to the Capper-Volstead Act (the Co-operative
Marketing Associations Act), enacted by Congress in 1922, which
gives certain associations of farmers certain exemptions from
antitrust laws.

                        The Non-Class Cases

Six of the cases in which plaintiffs do not seek to certify a
class have been consolidated with the putative class actions into
In re: Processed Egg Products Antitrust Litigation, No. 2:08-md-
02002-GP, in the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Pennsylvania. The court granted with prejudice the
defendants' renewed motion to dismiss the non-class plaintiffs'
claims for damages arising before September 24, 2004.

On July 2, 2015, the Company filed and joined several motions for
summary judgment that sought either dismissal of all of the claims
in all of these cases or, in the alternative, dismissal of
portions of these cases. On July 2, 2015, the non-class plaintiffs
filed a motion for summary judgment seeking dismissal of certain
affirmative defenses based on statutory immunities from federal
antitrust law.

The Court heard oral argument on the motions for summary judgment
on February 22 and 23, 2016. On September 6, 2016, the Court
granted the defendants' motion for summary judgment against the
plaintiffs' claims arising from their purchases of egg products,
dismissing those claims with prejudice.  On September 9, 2016, the
Court granted in part the Company's motion for summary judgment on
liability, dismissing as a matter of law the plaintiffs'
allegations of a side agreement to cease construction of new
facilities and ruling that the plaintiffs' allegations against the
UEP animal-welfare guidelines must be evaluated at trial under the
rule of reason.

On September 12, 2016, the Court granted in part the Company's
motion for summary judgment on damages, ruling that plaintiffs
cannot recover damages on purchases of eggs from non-defendants
and cannot recover any relief on eggs and egg products produced or
sold in Arizona after October 1, 2009, the date that Arizona
mandated that all eggs sold or produced in that state must be
produced in compliance with the 2008 version of the UEP animal-
welfare guidelines.

On September 13, 2016, the Court granted in part the plaintiffs'
motion for summary judgment as to the applicability of the Capper-
Volstead defense, ruling that United States Egg Marketers may
invoke the defense at trial but that UEP cannot.

                      Allegations in Each Case

In all of the cases, the plaintiffs allege that the Company and
certain other large domestic egg producers conspired to reduce the
domestic supply of eggs in a concerted effort to raise the price
of eggs to artificially high levels. In each case, plaintiffs
allege that all defendants agreed to reduce the domestic supply of
eggs by: (a) agreeing to limit production; (b) manipulating egg
exports; and (c) implementing industry-wide animal welfare
guidelines that reduced the number of hens and eggs.

The named plaintiffs in the remaining indirect purchaser putative
class action seek treble damages under the statutes and common-law
of various states and injunctive relief under the Sherman Act on
behalf of themselves and all other putative class members in the
United States. Although plaintiffs allege a class period starting
in October, 2006 and running "through the present," the Court
denied the plaintiffs' motion to certify classes seeking damages
under the laws of 21 states and denied without prejudice the
plaintiffs' motion to certify an injunctive-relief class, although
the plaintiffs have filed a renewed motion to certify an
injunctive-relief class.

Five of the original six non-class cases remain pending against
the Company. The principal plaintiffs in these cases are: The
Kroger Co.; Publix Super Markets, Inc.; SUPERVALU, Inc.; Safeway,
Inc.; Albertsons LLC; H.E. Butt Grocery Co.; The Great Atlantic &
Pacific Tea Company, Inc.; Walgreen Co.; Hy-Vee, Inc.; and Kraft
Food Global, Inc., General Mills, Inc., Nestle USA, Inc., and The
Kellogg Company.  In four of these remaining non-class cases, the
plaintiffs seek treble damages and injunctive relief under the
Sherman Act.  In one of those four cases, the plaintiffs purchased
only egg products, and as noted above, the Court dismissed with
prejudice all claims arising from the purchase of egg products.
The Company does not know whether those plaintiffs will appeal
that ruling. In the fifth remaining non-class case, the plaintiff
seeks treble damages and injunctive relief under the Sherman Act
and the Ohio antitrust act (known as the Valentine Act).

The Pennsylvania court has entered a series of orders related to
case management, discovery, class certification, summary judgment,
and scheduling.  The Court has also denied all four motions that
the plaintiffs filed to exclude testimony from certain expert
witnesses retained by the defendants. The Pennsylvania court has
not set a trial date for any of the Company's remaining
consolidated cases (non-class and indirect purchaser cases).

The Company intends to continue to defend the remaining cases as
vigorously as possible based on defenses which the Company
believes are meritorious and provable.  While management believes
that the likelihood of a material adverse outcome in the overall
egg antitrust litigation has been significantly reduced as a
result of the settlements and rulings described, there is still a
reasonable possibility of a material adverse outcome in the
remaining egg antitrust litigation. At the present time, however,
it is not possible to estimate the amount of monetary exposure, if
any, to the Company because of these cases. Accordingly,
adjustments, if any, which might result from the resolution of
these remaining legal matters, have not been reflected in the
financial statements.


CANADA: June 2017 Trial Set in Nova Scotia Data Breach Case
-----------------------------------------------------------
Jeremy McDonald and Diana Swain, writing for CBC News, report that
the personal health information of hundreds of patients is
breached every year, but most Canadians live in provinces where
health-care providers don't have to tell victims.

A CBC News investigation found six provinces, which have a
combined population of about 20 million, have no legislation in
place requiring hospitals, doctors and other health-care providers
notify patients of a breach of their medical files.

Willa Magee of Shelburne, N.S., knows how it feels to have someone
sneak through her private health information.

"I think it's very personal.  Even if you don't have some terrible
illness, it's just personal," she says.  "You go to a health
practitioner thinking that what you say to them is going to be
held in confidence one way or another."

Ms. Magee is retired and moved east from Montreal in the 1990s. In
the spring of 2012, she received a letter from the South West Nova
District Health Authority informing her that she was among 707
patients whose privacy had been breached.

A breach can be anything from someone accidentally sending records
to the wrong destination to someone stealing health information
and selling it.

In Ms. Magee's case, it was "snooping," a clerk inappropriately
accessed her medical records.

"I was pretty angry, to tell you the truth.  First of all because
I didn't know how badly they'd been breached or if . . . any of
the records had been changed or what it all meant," Ms. Magee
says.

But Ms. Magee actually has some cause for relief in an otherwise
unfortunate situation.  She lives in a province where hospitals
are required to notify individuals of serious breaches. Otherwise,
she might never have known.

You might never know

The legislative landscape across the country is uneven.

B.C., Alberta, Saskatchewan, Manitoba, Quebec and P.E.I. don't
have legislation that requires health-care providers to notify
patients of a breach.

In the jurisdictions that do have some form of notification
requirement, the legislation often has a minimum harm threshold.
In Yukon, for example, the bar for notification is "risk of
significant harm as a result of the security breach."

Ottawa-based lawyer Michael Crystal says notification is essential
"if you are to have a confident patient-hospital or patient-
medical health professional relationship."

Mr. Crystal is currently involved in five class action lawsuits
involving thousands of patient records and says personal health
information breaches are becoming more prevalent.

He says class action lawsuits are an important deterrent, but
there's also room for privacy commissioners and prosecutors to
take action.

"The prosecutions will play significant roles, because what really
needs to change is the behavior and the perception by hospitals as
to the priority which personal health information ought to
receive."

Reporting to privacy watchdogs

The information CBC News gathered from privacy watchdogs and
health authorities from across the country suggests there were
more than 1,300 breach reports in 2015, compared to 922 in 2014.
The numbers include provinces where custodians of health
information don't have to report breaches to their respective
privacy watchdogs.

These provinces include B.C., Alberta, Saskatchewan, Manitoba,
Ontario, Quebec and P.E.I., although Ontario, Alberta and P.E.I.
have passed legislation that, once implemented, will make it a
requirement.

Catherine Tully, Nova Scotia's information and privacy
commissioner, says if you look at jurisdictions where prosecutions
have occurred under privacy law, "it's almost always the privacy
commissioner who raises the issue with Crown or police based on
serious breach notifications."

Nova Scotia's law requires notifying the actual victims of serious
breaches, but health officials are only required to report minor
breaches to Tully.

"So without this information, I'm not able to assist the Crown and
police in prosecuting serious breaches," she says.

Court cases

Brian Beamish, Ontario's information and privacy commissioner,
says his preference wouldn't be to refer breach cases to the
attorney general for prosecution.

He's been in the role since 2014, and says prosecution is a tool
that should be used selectively.  He says losing one's job and the
bad publicity that can come along with violating privacy is
punishment enough in some cases.

Privacy breaches lead to 19 charges
Nonetheless, he's referred five cases for prosecution since 2015.
Three of those resulted in convictions for snooping.

Those numbers exceed what other jurisdictions reported to CBC
News, with the exception of Alberta where the privacy commissioner
has referred six cases since 2011 resulting in four convictions.

The clerk who snooped through Willa Magee's file was fired, and
Ms. Magee is now part of a class action lawsuit against the health
authority set to go to trial in June 2017.

She wants tough penalties for those who break the bond of trust
between patient and health-care provider.

"It's only the people whose records have been breached, whose
privacy's been breached, that are still in the dark and out in the
cold."


CAPITAL BANK: Reached Deal to Settle Overdraft Fees Class Action
----------------------------------------------------------------
Capital Bank Financial Corp. said in its Form 8-K Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on September 22, 2016,
that on September 16, 2016, Capital Bank Corporation, the wholly-
owned banking subsidiary of Capital Bank Financial Corp. (the
"Company") entered into a settlement agreement to settle a
purported class action litigation regarding the alleged improper
assessment and collection of overdraft fees (the "Settlement
Agreement"). The litigation was filed in the Chancery Court for
Tennessee, 20th Judicial District, on February 1, 2011 against
GreenBank ("GreenBank") regarding activity that occurred between
February 1, 2005 and June 30, 2011. The Company completed the
acquisition of GreenBank on September 8, 2011.

The Company agreed to the Settlement Agreement solely by way of
compromise and settlement and to avoid further litigation expense.
The Company's agreement is not in any way an admission of
liability, fault or wrongdoing by the Company or by GreenBank.

Pursuant to the terms of the Settlement Agreement, the Company
will pay $1.5 million to settle the litigation which will be
payable within fourteen days after preliminary court approval of
the settlement. In addition, the Company agreed not to use debit
re-sequencing, weekend and holiday high-to-low posting or weekend
and holiday batch processing for a period of at least 36 months
following final court approval of the settlement. The Company does
not currently engage in such re-sequencing or batching process
described.


CENTURY REALTY: Burns Seeks Certification of Homeowners Class
-------------------------------------------------------------
The Plaintiffs in the lawsuit styled RICHARD BURNS, BORDEN DEANE,
LESLIE JACOBSON, JOHN MCCLOSKEY, LEOPOLD OUELLETTE, and JOHN
SARDINA, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated
v. LAWRENCE W. MAXWELL; LAWRENCE T. MAXWELL; CENTURY REALTY FUNDS,
INC.; MARK SCHREIBER; et al., Case No. 8:14-cv-02793-MSS-TGW (M.D.
Fla.), filed with the Court their third motion for class
certification.  They also seek appointment as representatives of
this class:

     All persons who are or were homeowners in the Lake Ashton
     Community from 2002 to the present and have identical, or
     substantially similar underlying Homeowners Association
     Documents with identical or substantially similar
     restrictions or sub-parts requiring, inter alia, payment of
     the System Assessment and attendant sales taxes.  The Class
     includes those Plaintiffs who have paid the System
     Assessment or whom have received threats of liens or
     restrictions of their use of Community facilities or
     amenities for their nonpayment.

The Plaintiffs seek class-wide relief for a putative class of
1,200 elderly purchasers of a home in the Lake Ashton Community
subject to Homeowner Association Documents uniformly prepared by
the Defendants to compel the payment of an ever-increasing
(currently in excess of $80 per month) System Assessment for
CableTV and security monitoring to the Defendants until the end of
time.  The Plaintiffs contend that this element of control by the
Defendants is directly contrary to the prohibition enacted by the
Florida Legislature in Section 720.3075(1).

The Plaintiffs also move the Court to appoint Daniel W. Perry,
Esq., as Class Counsel.

A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=IOERETn4

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Daniel W. Perry, Esq.
          LAW OFFICE OF DANIEL W. PERRY
          4767 New Broad St., #1007
          Orlando, FL 32814-6405
          Telephone: (407) 894-9003
          E-mail: dan@danielperry.com


CERNER CORP: Classes of Missouri Workers Certified in "Speer"
-------------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit titled FRED SPEER and MIKE MCGUIRK, individually
and on behalf of a class of all others similarly situated, the
Plaintiffs, v. CERNER CORPORATION, the Defendant, Case No. 14-
0204-CV-W-FJG (W.D. Mo.), the Hon. Judge Fernando J. Gaitan, Jr.
entered an order granting Plaintiffs' motion for class
certification of:

     "(1) All non-exempt persons employed by Cerner in Missouri,
     at any time since March 5, 2012 through the final judgment
     in this matter, whose overtime compensation was not paid on
     the next regular payday for the period in which the overtime
     work was performed ("Late Payment of Overtime Class");

     (2) All non-exempt persons employed by Cerner in Missouri,
     at any time since March 5, 2012 through the final judgment
     in this matter, who received overtime compensation that was
     calculated based upon a "regular rate" of pay that excluded
     On-Call Pay, Wellness Incentive Bonuses, Night
     Differentials, Security Differentials -- ARM, Retro Wellness
     Incentives, and/or Holiday Differential Pay ("Miscalculated
     Overtime Class"); and

     (3) All non-exempt persons employed by Cerner in Missouri,
     at any time since March 5, 2012 through the final judgment
     in this matter, who were purportedly compensated based on
     the fluctuating workweek method of pay and: (i) whose
     overtime compensation was not paid on the next regular
     payday for the period in which the overtime work was
     performed; and/or (ii) who were paid additional compensation
     beyond their fixed salary ("Fluctuating Work Week Class")."

The Court further entered an order:

     a. appointing attorneys at Davis George Mook LLC (Tracey
        Flexter George and Brett A. Davis) and Reavey Law LLC
        (Patrick Gerard Reavey and Kevin C. Koc) as class
        counsel;

     b. appointing Fred Speer and Mike McGuirk as class
        representatives;

     c. granting plaintiffs motion to supplement Rule 23 reply
        brief with newly discovered evidence; and

     d. considering Plaintiffs' proposed supplemental brief as
        filed."

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


CHESAPEAKE ENERGY: Gets Subpoena in Justice Dep't Antitrust Probe
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The Associated Press reports that the U.S. Department of Justice
has issued a subpoena to Chesapeake Energy Corp. that seeks
information on the oil and natural gas producer's accounting
methods for the acquisition and classification of oil and gas
properties.

Oklahoma City-based Chesapeake disclosed the subpoena, which is
part of a Justice Department investigation, on Sept. 29 in a
regulatory filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission.  The filing says Chesapeake has been involved in
discussions with the Justice Department, the U.S. Postal Service
and representatives of state agencies and will continue to respond
to such subpoenas and demands.

Gordon Pennoyer, director of communications and investor relations
for Chesapeake, declined further comment on the filing on Sept.
30.

The Justice Department and other agencies asked Chesapeake for
documents, testimony and information related to the company's oil
and gas leases and purchases as part of its antitrust
investigation, the Journal Record reported.

Chesapeake alluded to being investigated in its 2015 annual
report, filed with the SEC on Feb. 25, 2016.

The company was named in several lawsuits alleging underpayment of
royalties and defended cases in Arkansas, Louisiana, Ohio,
Oklahoma, Pennsylvania and Texas.

University of Central Oklahoma economics professor Jeremy Oller,
an expert witness on antitrust legal matters, said the Justice
Department is likely examining other oil and gas companies as part
of the investigation.

Mr. Oller said there are two possible sections of antitrust law
the Justice Department could use.

One antitrust claim is a monopoly allegation, in which a company
engages in exclusionary or anti-competitive behavior in an attempt
to monopolize the market, he said.  The monopoly claim type, known
as Section 2, can also be applied if a company has a geographic
stranglehold on the market and has a dangerous probability of
achieving monopoly power, Mr. Oller said.


CONVERSE INC: Class of Retail Workers Certified in "Chavez" Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Hon. Nathanael M. Cousins entered an order in the lawsuit
titled ERIC CHAVEZ v. CONVERSE, INC., Case No. 5:15-cv-03746-NC
(N.D. Cal.), certifying this class: "All current and former non-
exempt retail store employees of Converse who worked in California
during the period from July 10, 2011, to the present."

Eric Chavez is a former employee of Converse.  He alleges that
Converse violated the California Labor Code by (1) failing to
properly calculate overtime pay; (2) not paying employees for time
spent on a mandatory bag check; and (3) failing to provide proper
meal breaks.

Judge Cousins also:

   -- appoints Mr. Chavez as a class representative;

   -- appoints Larry W. Lee, Esq., and Nick Rosenthal, Esq., of
      the Diversity Law Group, P.C.; Dennis S. Hyun, Esq., of
      Hyun Legal, APC; and William L. Marder, Esq., of Polaris
      Law Group LLP as Class Counsel;

   -- rules that the proposed class period is from July 10, 2011,
      through the date judgment is rendered;

   -- directs the parties to meet and confer about class notice;

   -- rules that by October 28, 2016, the parties must file a
      stipulated proposed order with (1) the method of obtaining
      class member contact information; (2) the method of notice;
      (3) a copy of the actual notice; and (4) the timeline and
      procedure for opting out or opting in to the class. If the
      parties cannot agree on a stipulated order, they must
      submit a joint letter brief of no more than five pages
      stating the basis of disagreement; and

   -- schedules a further case management conference on Nov. 9,
      2016, at 10:00 a.m., with an updated case management
      statement due on November 2, 2016.

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

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Larry W. Lee, Esq.
          Nicholas Rosenthal, Esq.
          DIVERSITY LAW GROUP, A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION
          550 South Hope Street, Suite 2655
          Los Angeles, CA 90071
          Telephone: (213) 488-6555
          Facsimile: (213) 488-6554
          E-mail: lwlee@diversitylaw.com
                  nrosenthal@diversitylaw.com

               - and -

          Dennis S. Hyun, Esq.
          HYUN LEGAL, APC
          550 S. Hope St., Suite 2655
          Los Angeles, CA 90071
          Telephone: (213) 488-6555
          Facsimile: (213) 488-6554
          E-mail: dhyun@hyunlegal.com

               - and -

          William L. Marder, Esq.
          POLARIS LAW GROUP LLP
          501 San Benito Street, Suite 200
          Hollister, CA 95023
          Telephone: (831) 531-4214
          Facsimile: (831) 634-0333
          E-mail: bill@polarislawgroup.com


CST BRANDS: Being Sold to Circle K Too Cheaply, Tex. Suit Says
--------------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reported that directors are selling CST
Brands (created when Valero Energy Corp. spun off its retail
business) to Circle K too cheaply through an unfair process, for
$48.53 a share or $3.6 billion, shareholders claim in San Antonio
Federal Court.


CUNA MUTUAL: Ogrizovich Seeks Final Approval of Class Settlement
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Plaintiffs in the lawsuit captioned RONALD ALLEN OGRIZOVICH
and DONNA LYNN OGRIZOVICH, Husband and Wife, BRENDA RENNER, and on
behalf of a group of similarly situated individuals v. CUNA MUTUAL
GROUP a/k/a CUNA MUTUAL INSURANCE SOCIETY, its affiliates and
subsidiaries, CLEARVIEW FEDERAL CREDIT UNION, and GNC COMMUNITY
FEDERAL CREDIT UNION, Case No. 2:09-cv-00371-DSC (W.D. Pa.), moves
for final approval of class settlement and certification of class
for settlement purposes.

Class Counsel and Counsel for the Defendants have negotiated a
proposed Settlement that provides substantial benefits to
individuals, who purchased monthly premium credit disability
insurance on or after July 9, 2003, from Defendant CMFG Life
through Defendant GNC in conjunction with a loan from GNC, who
were charged interest on the premiums for such credit
disability insurance from July 9, 2003 to July 1, 2012. This class
is represented by Plaintiff, Brenda
Renner.

The Settlement will pay $100 to each of the Settlement Class
Members, which is the minimum penalty provided under the Unfair
Trade Practices and Consumer Protection Law, as well as an
incentive payment of $ 1,500 to Plaintiff Brenda Renner.

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

Plaintiff Brenda Renner is represented by:

          Kenneth R. Behrend, Esq.
          BEHREND & ERNSBERGER, P.C.
          355 Fifth Avenue, 12th Floor
          Pittsburgh, PA 15222
          Telephone: (412) 391-2515
          E-mail: Behrendlawyers@aol.com


CYAN INC: Supreme Court Set to Weigh on Securities Class Action
---------------------------------------------------------------
Amy Park, Esq. -- amy.park@skadden.com -- of Skadden, Arps, Slate,
Meagher & Flom LLP, in an article for JDSupra, reports that in its
2016 fall term, the U.S. Supreme Court will have the opportunity
to consider two cases involving securities laws, one of which is
already on the calendar for oral argument.  The cases concern the
"personal benefit" required to establish liability for insider
trading and the jurisdictional requirements for class actions
under the Securities Act of 1933.  Depending on how the Court
rules, the implications for companies, their constituents and
practitioners could be profound.

Insider Trading: Salman v. U.S.

In its first insider trading case since 1997, the Supreme Court
will consider whether the personal benefit required to establish
insider trading liability must involve a pecuniary element, or
whether a gift or other social benefit is enough.  Legal observers
hope the Supreme Court's decision in Salman v. U.S. will resolve
the years-long uncertainty around the definition of personal
benefit first articulated in Dirks v. SEC.

Much of the confusion over what is required to establish insider
trading liability arises from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the
2nd Circuit's 2014 decision in United States v. Newman.  In
Newman, the 2nd Circuit substantially reduced the potential
liability of those who indirectly receive confidential information
by holding that someone who receives a tip cannot be convicted
unless he "knows of the personal benefit received by the insider
in exchange for the disclosure."  In addition, Newman held that
the personal benefit received by the person giving the tip must be
a quid pro quo and "of some consequence."  Although the 2nd
Circuit in Newman rejected the argument that friendship,
association or other relationship could provide the personal
benefit necessary to impose liability, the court did not clearly
define what constitutes a benefit "of some consequence." In 2014,
the Supreme Court declined to review the Newman decision, leaving
open for debate the question of what qualifies as a personal
benefit sufficient to establish insider trading liability.

The petition in Salman could resolve that question.  Bassam
Salman's petition seeks to overturn his conviction of trading on
information he received from his brother-in-law, Michael Kara.
Michael received trading tips from his brother, Maher Kara, an
investment banker.  In his petition, Salman stated that Maher gave
his brother Michael tips as gifts in order to get Michael "off his
back."  Salman argued that this gift did not constitute a personal
benefit "of some consequence" as described in Newman.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit declined to follow
Newman, holding that this exchange was sufficient to confer a
personal benefit under the Supreme Court's decision in Dirks.  The
9th Circuit relied on the Supreme Court's recognition in Dirks
that an insider can personally benefit from disclosing
confidential information when he "makes a gift of confidential
information to a trading relative or friend."  Thus, the 9th
Circuit held that Maher's disclosure of confidential information
to Michael was the type of "gift" referenced in Dirks.

In its response to Salman's petition, the government argued that
limiting insider trading liability for tippees to instances in
which the insider receives a "pecuniary gain" would "seriously
harm investors and damage confidence in the fairness of the
nation's securities markets [because] [f]avored tippees could reap
instant, no-risk profits at the expense of stockholders, free from
securities-law liability."

Given the scope of what could potentially constitute a personal
benefit "of some consequence," the Supreme Court's decision in
Salman is expected to bring much-needed clarity to the
requirements for establishing insider trading liability.  Oral
arguments on Salman's petition are currently set for October 5,
2016.

State Courts' Jurisdiction Over Securities Act Claims: Cyan Inc.
v. Beaver County Employees Retirement Fund

Petitioners in Cyan Inc. v. Beaver County Employees Retirement
Fund are seeking the Supreme Court's assistance in resolving a key
threshold issue in securities litigation: whether state courts
have jurisdiction over securities class actions that allege only
claims under the Securities Act.

In 2013, Cyan, a network support products provider, challenged a
California superior court's jurisdiction to hear a shareholder
class action involving alleged violations of Section 11 of the
Securities Act.  Cyan argued that the Securities Litigation
Uniform Standards Act (SLUSA) of 1988 deprived state courts of
jurisdiction over securities class actions brought on behalf of at
least 50 people under the Securities Act, compelling dismissal of
the case.

The superior court rejected Cyan's argument, holding that the
court was bound by a 2011 California appellate court decision,
Luther v. Countrywide Financial.  In Countrywide, the California
Court of Appeal held that SLUSA continued state court jurisdiction
over securities class actions brought under the Securities Act.
Cyan sought review of the superior court's decision by the
California Court of Appeal and the California Supreme Court.  Both
courts declined to review the decision.

Now, Cyan is asking the Supreme Court to resolve whether SLUSA
removes state courts' jurisdiction over class actions brought
under the Securities Act.  Cyan's petition argues that the court
in Countrywide misread SLUSA's requirements and that "chaos has
resulted from the lower courts' efforts to resolve the
jurisdictional question" of state courts' ability to hear
Securities Act claims.  Cyan pointed out that there is no
consistency among the courts on the issue, noting that conflicts
"have arisen not only between district courts in the same circuit,
but also between district judges of the same district, and even
between decisions of the same district judge."  In its petition,
Cyan pointed out that since Countrywide was decided, California
state court securities class action filings have spiked by 1,400
percent.

On August 24, 2016, respondents filed their brief in opposition to
Cyan's petition, arguing that the Supreme Court lacks jurisdiction
to hear the matter because the superior court's order was not a
final judgment.  Respondents further argued that contrary to
Cyan's assertion, SLUSA permits federal Securities Act claims to
remain in state court but allows for the removal and dismissal of
securities class actions brought under state law.  Respondents
asserted that Cyan overstated the division among federal district
courts on the question of state courts' ability to hear Securities
Act class actions.  Further, respondents attributed the increase
in California state court Securities Act class action filings to
the increase in the number of initial public offering filings, not
to the Countrywide decision.

The Supreme Court has not yet decided whether it will hear Cyan's
case.  A decision to grant Cyan's petition, and any subsequent
ruling on the jurisdictional question, could have significant
implications for the future of class action litigation.  A ruling
that SLUSA deprives state courts of jurisdiction over Securities
Act class actions would bring an abrupt (and for defendants, a
welcome) end to the recent proliferation of state court Securities
Act class actions.


DUN & BRADSTREET: Settles TCPA Class Action for More Than $10MM
---------------------------------------------------------------
Chandra Lye, writing for Legal Newsline, reports that Dun &
Bradstreet has settled a Telephone Consumer Protection Act class
action lawsuit for an amount that a Chicago attorney and professor
feels is significant.

Dun & Bradstreet recently agreed to pay more than $10 million to
end a class action lawsuit in California.  The lawsuit alleges the
company, which provides commercial data to businesses on credit
history, is accused of contacting plaintiffs without permission.

"Given the risk, uncertainties, burden and expense of continued
litigation, the defendant has agreed to settle the action," the
court document said.

The document also said Dun & Bradstreet has agreed to pay $10.5
million, inclusive of lawyer fees, incentive awards and
administration cots to settle the action.  Most class members will
receive $60 to $120 but no more than $1,500 for a valid claim.

Jason Gordon -- jgordon@reedsmith.com -- an attorney at Reed Smith
and adjunct profession at Chicago Kent College of Law, said it was
a substantially large settlement, adding "I think anything over $3
or $4 million is going to be quite significant."

Mr. Gordon said the cost of litigation would be a big deterrent to
those involved in the case.

"I think that is probably would be quite expensive, which is why
they settled," he said.  "Maybe both parties thought it would be
more expeditious to make it go away both from a timing
perspective, you know, put it behind them, but maybe from a cost
perspective as well."

Mr. Gordon also wrote an article on the settlement for his firm's
clients.

"I represent advertisers who engage in text message marketing," he
said.  "The purpose of the article was to advise my clients that
when they are engaging in text messaging and telemarketing
campaign they need to exercise a great deal of caution.

"Because the TCPA says, for example, that you need prior express
written consent to send text messages through an auto dialer.

"Auto dialing is the technology that most marketers use to send
text messages.  If there is going to be a campaign offered by one
of my clients, I want them to sort of think through the issues and
determine how they are getting consent to ensure compliance with
the TCPA."

Dun & Bradstreet has also notified the court that it has changed
the way it contacts consumers.

"Prior to and during the pendency of this lawsuit, the defendant
initiated certain practice changes that are designed to prevent
violations of the TCPA's provisions on dialing cell phones using
an automatic telephone dialing system," the document said.


DYNAMIC RECOVERY: Court Withdrawn Class Cert. Bid in "Stamer"
-------------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit entitled David Stamer, the Plaintiff, v. Dynamic
Recovery Solutions, LLC, Case No. 1:16-cv-05578 (N.D. Ill.), the
Hon. Judge is Elaine E. Bucklo entered an order withdrawing
Plaintiff's motion to certify class.

According to the docket entry made by the Clerk on September 27,
2016, the case is dismissed without prejudice and without costs
and disbursements. All pending dates and motions are terminated as
moot.

A copy of the Order is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=SsmUCKn7


EASTMAN CHEMICAL: Must Face Corrosion Claims in Water Crisis Case
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Ken Ward Jr., writing for Charleston Gazette-Mail, reports that,
in one of a series of rulings expected to define the scope of a
class-action trial scheduled to start in late October, a federal
judge on Sept. 26 declined to throw out allegations that partly
blame the January 2014 Elk River chemical spill on Eastman
Chemical, the maker of Crude MCHM that spilled from the Freedom
Industries facility just upstream from the region's drinking water
intake.

U.S. District Judge John T. Copenhaver Jr. issued another ruling,
though, that residents, businesses and workers suing over the
spill and the water crisis that followed cannot pursue claims
against American Water Workers Company Inc., the parent of West
Virginia American Water Co., whose customers' drinking water
supply was contaminated in the incident.

The rulings were among the first in a long list of decisions
expected from Judge Copenhaver in response to dozens of pre-trial
motions filed in the case.  Jury selection for the trial is
scheduled to start on Oct. 25.

In the case, lawyers for hundreds of thousands of residents,
businesses and wage earners in the Kanawha Valley allege that West
Virginia American did not adequately respond to the Jan. 9, 2014,
spill of Crude MCHM and other chemicals from the Freedom
Industries facility along the Elk River, just 1.5 miles upstream
from West Virginia American's regional drinking water intake.  The
suit also alleges that Eastman, which manufactured the chemical
MCHM and sold it to Freedom, did not properly test the chemical or
warn buyers or the public about any potential health impacts or
possible safety concerns related to the type of storage tanks
Freedom used.

Last year, Judge Copenhaver approved the case being pursued as a
class-action over the liability, or fault, of the water company
and Eastman.  The judge did not certify a damages class, meaning
damages would have to be determined later, on some case-by-case
basis.

In the ruling concerning American Water Works, Judge Copenhaver
concluded that the plaintiffs had not shown that the parent
company's "limited involvement in the affairs" of West Virginia
American "generated a duty" to the subsidiary's customers of that
"American carried out a specific act such that it was itself
liable for tortious conduct."

"Nor do plaintiffs show that American should be liable because it
committed a tort in concert with [West Virginia] American, or
directly and specifically 'forced' [West Virginia] American to
commit a tort," the judge wrote.

Lawyers for the class suing in the case had argued that American
Water Works had played a role in designing and under-financing the
Kanawha Valley water treatment and distribution facility,
including a decision decades ago to not maintain a second drinking
water intake, located upstream from the Freedom industrial site,
that could have provided a backup water supply following the 2014
spill.

Regarding Eastman Chemical, the plaintiffs allege that did not
properly instruct Freedom Industries officials about the proper
storage of Crude MCHM, a move that led to the chemical being
stored in a carbon steel tank that the chemical corroded, causing
the spill.

Eastman attorneys wanted those allegations thrown out, arguing
that the plaintiffs' expert testimony on the issue was not
scientifically sound and therefore not admissible in court. In
response, the plaintiffs had argued that an Eastman expert's
testimony was likewise not admissible.

Judge Copenhaver ruled that the testimony from both experts was
"sufficiently reliable and relevant as to be admissible," and
rejected Eastman's motion to rule in the company's motion for
summary judgment on the Crude MCHM issues.


EMPIRE TODAY: Fails to Pay Commission and Bonus, "Wielgus" Alleges
------------------------------------------------------------------
KEVIN WIELGUS, TOM RINGLESTEIN, MARK COSTIGAN, and SHERYL PASCOE
individually and on behalf of a class of others similarly situated
v. EMPIRE TODAY, LLC, a Delaware limited liability company, Case
No. 1:16-cv-09085 (N.D. Ill., September 20, 2016), arises from the
Defendant's alleged policy and practice to deny commission and
bonus payments that are owed to its retail sales employees and
shop-at-home independent contractors.

Empire is a Delaware limited liability company with its principal
place of business in Northlake, Illinois.  Empire employs employed
commissioned employees at retail stores in Illinois, New York,
Virginia, Florida, and Arizona.  Empire also contracts with
commissioned independent contractors through its shop-at-home
division in approximately 77 different markets throughout the
United States.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

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


EMPIRE TODAY: Status Hearing in "Wielgus" Suit Set for Nov. 22
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Clerk of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of
Illinois made a docket entry on September 22, 2016, in the case
captioned Kevin Wielgus, et al. v. Empire Today LLC, Case No.
1:16-cv-09085 (N.D. Ill.), relating to a hearing held before the
Honorable Robert M. Dow, Jr.

The minute entry states that:

   -- Plaintiffs' motion for class certification is entered and
      continued generally;

   -- Initial status hearing is set for November 22, 2016, at
      9:00 a.m. and parties are to report these:

      (1) Possibility of settlement in the case;

      (2) If no possibility of settlement exists, the nature and
          length of discovery necessary to get the case ready for
          trial.  Plaintiff is to advise all other parties of the
          Court's action herein.  Lead counsel is directed to
          appear at this status hearing.  The parties are
          requested to file a joint status report at least two
          days prior to the initial status.

A copy of the Notification of Docket Entry is available at no
charge at http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=rGKKWon4


FEDEX CORPORATION: Fairness Hearings Set for Jan. 23-24, 2017
-------------------------------------------------------------
Fedex Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on September 13, 2016, for the
quarterly period ended August 31, 2016, that fairness hearings are
scheduled for January 23 and 24, 2017, for the approval of
settlements in independent contractor class action lawsuits.

FedEx Ground is involved in numerous class-action lawsuits
(including 24 that have been certified as class actions),
individual lawsuits and state tax and other administrative
proceedings that claim that the company's owner-operators under a
contractor model no longer in use should have been treated as
employees, rather than independent contractors.

The Company said,"Most of the class-action lawsuits were
consolidated for administration of the pre-trial proceedings by a
single federal court, the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of Indiana. The multidistrict litigation court granted
class certification in 28 cases and denied it in 14 cases. On
December 13, 2010, the court entered an opinion and order
addressing all outstanding motions for summary judgment on the
status of the owner-operators (i.e., independent contractor vs.
employee). In sum, the court ruled on our summary judgment motions
and entered judgment in favor of FedEx Ground on all claims in 20
of the 28 multidistrict litigation cases that had been certified
as class actions, finding that the owner-operators in those cases
were contractors as a matter of the law of 20 states. The
plaintiffs filed notices of appeal in all of these 20 cases. The
Seventh Circuit heard the appeal in the Kansas case in January
2012 and, in July 2012, issued an opinion that did not make a
determination with respect to the correctness of the district
court's decision and, instead, certified two questions to the
Kansas Supreme Court related to the classification of the
plaintiffs as independent contractors under the Kansas Wage
Payment Act. The other 19 cases that are before the Seventh
Circuit were stayed."

"On October 3, 2014, the Kansas Supreme Court determined that a 20
factor right to control test applies to claims under the Kansas
Wage Payment Act and concluded that under that test, the class
members were employees, not independent contractors. The case was
subsequently transferred back to the Seventh Circuit, where both
parties made filings requesting the action necessary to complete
the resolution of the appeals. The parties also made
recommendations to the court regarding next steps for the other 19
cases that are before the Seventh Circuit. FedEx Ground requested
that each of those cases be separately briefed given the potential
differences in the applicable state law from that in Kansas. On
July 8, 2015, the Seventh Circuit issued an order and opinion
confirming the decision of the Kansas Supreme Court, concluding
that the class members are employees, not independent contractors.
Additionally, the Seventh Circuit referred the other 19 cases to a
representative of the court for purposes of setting a case
management conference to address briefing and argument for those
cases. During the second quarter of 2015, we established an
accrual for the estimated probable loss in the Kansas case. In the
second quarter of 2016 the Kansas case settled, and we increased
the accrual to the amount of the settlement. The settlement
requires court approval.

"During the third quarter of 2016, we reached agreements in
principle to settle all of the 19 cases on appeal in the
multidistrict independent contractor litigation. All of these
settlements require court approval. We recognized a liability for
the expected loss (net of recognized insurance recovery) related
to these cases and certain other pending independent-contractor-
related proceedings of $204 million.

"The Kansas case was remanded to the multidistrict litigation
court, and the other 19 cases remain at the Seventh Circuit;
however, approval proceedings will be conducted primarily by the
multidistrict litigation court. Plaintiffs filed motions for
preliminary approval between June 15 and June 30, 2016, and on
August 3 and 4, 2016, the multidistrict litigation court issued
orders indicating that it would grant preliminary approval if the
Seventh Circuit would remand the cases on appeal for the purpose
of entering approval orders. Upon the parties' joint motion, the
Seventh Circuit remanded the cases for this purpose on August 10,
2016, and the multidistrict litigation court entered orders
preliminarily approving the settlements on August 17, 2016.
Fairness hearings are scheduled for January 23 and 24, 2017.

"The multidistrict litigation court remanded the other eight
certified class actions back to the district courts where they
were originally filed because its summary judgment ruling did not
completely dispose of all of the claims in those lawsuits. Four of
these matters settled for immaterial amounts and have received
court approval. The case in Arkansas settled in the second quarter
of 2016, and we established an accrual for the amount of the
settlement. The court granted preliminary approval on September
15, 2016, and scheduled a final approval hearing for March 1,
2017.

                      Oregon & Calif. Cases

"Two cases in Oregon and one in California were appealed to the
Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, where the court reversed the
district court decisions and held that the plaintiffs in
California and Oregon were employees as a matter of law and
remanded the cases to their respective district courts for further
proceedings. In the first quarter of 2015, we recognized an
accrual for the then-estimated probable loss in those cases.

"In June 2015, the parties in the California case reached an
agreement to settle the matter for $228 million, and in the fourth
quarter of 2015 we increased the accrual to that amount. The court
entered final judgment on June 20, 2016, and two objectors to the
settlement filed appeals with the Ninth Circuit. We expect the
appeals to be briefed by the end of the third quarter of 2017 and
arguments to be scheduled thereafter. The settlement is not
effective until all appeals have been resolved without affecting
the court's approval of the settlement.

"The two cases in Oregon were consolidated with a non-
multidistrict litigation independent contractor case in Oregon.
The three cases collectively settled in the second quarter of
2016, and we increased the accrual in these cases to the amount of
the settlement. The settlement was preliminarily approved on April
20, 2016 and the court set a fairness hearing for October 20,
2016."


FERRING PHARMACEUTICALS: Bravelle Drug Class Action Can Proceed
---------------------------------------------------------------
Berger & Montague, P.C. on Sept. 28 disclosed that Judge Amy St.
Eve of the United States District Court for the Northern District
of Illinois issued a 31 page ruling on Sept. 27 permitting a
nationwide class action lawsuit to proceed against Ferring
Pharmaceuticals, Inc. related to the manufacture and sale of its
fertility drug, Bravelle.  The lawsuit contends that over an 18
month period Ferring knew or had reason to know that Bravelle was
sub-potent and could not deliver on its promised benefits.  The
plaintiffs allege that Ferring violated express and implied
warranties, state consumer protection laws, and engaged in
deceptive business practices.

Bravelle is a brand name version of the generic drug
urofollitropin designed to stimulate egg maturation and multiple
follicular development in women.  Bravelle is commonly used in
assisted reproductive technology including in vitro fertilization
and other fertility treatments.

The six plaintiffs allege that in October 2015, Ferring recalled
all Bravelle it sold in the U.S. between March 2014 and October
2015 after internal testing revealed that certain lots did not
meet potency specifications.  The plaintiffs contend that Ferring
failed to take appropriate steps to ensure the recalled Bravelle
was effective before selling it, and that it would deliver the
therapeutic dosage necessary to achieve the reproductive benefits
as claimed on the product's Patient Information insert.

On April 22, 2016, Ferring moved to dismiss the plaintiffs'
Complaint, but the Court on Sept. 27 held the case could proceed,
ruling the plaintiffs "have plausibly alleged that all of the
Recalled Lots were sub-potent or had the potential to be sub-
potent" and that the plaintiffs' allegations "raise a reasonable
inference that Defendant knew about the sub-potency issues well
before October 2015."

Ferring has instituted a program where patients can seek
reimbursement of the purchase price of the recalled Bravelle but
the program does not provide full compensation to affected
consumers.  To date, Ferring has refused to pay for any costs
related to the fertility treatments where recalled Bravelle was
used.  The class action lawsuit seeks damages for all out-of-
pocket money spent by women and families to purchase Bravelle, the
payments they made to medical providers for fertility treatments
utilizing Bravelle, and all associated costs.  The lawsuit is
brought on behalf of all persons in the United States who
purchased recalled Bravelle.

"We know even at this early stage that Ferring's own testing
revealed the sub-potency issues with Bravelle," said
Shanon Carson -- scarson@bm.net -- of Berger & Montague, P.C., one
of two Court-appointed Co-Lead Counsel for the plaintiffs. "The
cost of Bravelle is just a fraction of the overall costs of
fertility treatments which are often not fully covered by health
insurance, and therefore are borne by the families themselves.
Imagine shouldering such costs, which often run into the tens of
thousands of dollars, and undergoing the intense stress of IVF or
IUI, only to find out the drug you relied on may not have been
effective."

Katrina Carroll -- kcarroll@litedepalma.com -- of Lite DePalma
Greenberg, LLC, also Co-Lead Counsel for plaintiffs, stated, "we
believe we are going to be able to demonstrate serious
deficiencies in the manufacturing process for this drug which has
led to its removal from the market, and that Ferring was aware of
those deficiencies before it announced the recall.  Had Ferring
taken earlier steps, many of our clients who could not afford
multiple rounds of IVF could have used another fertility drug or
opted against this procedure altogether.  We look forward to
litigating this case on behalf of these women and their families."
More information about this case, Keith, et al. v. Ferring
Pharmaceuticals, Inc., No. 1:15-cv-10381 (N.D. Ill.), is available
at www.bergermontague.com/bravelle-case.

The national class action law firm, Berger & Montague, P.C., has
offices in Philadelphia and Minneapolis, and consists of 70
attorneys who represent plaintiffs in complex and class action
litigation.  The firm's attorneys have a long history of
successfully prosecuting consumer protection and defective product
cases, and the firm has played lead roles in major cases for
almost 50 years, recovering many billions of dollars for its
clients and the classes they represent.  On the Web:
www.bergermontague.com. Affected women and families can contact
Shanon Carson at scarson@bm.net or (215) 875-4693.

Lite DePalma Greenberg, LLC -- http://www.litedepalma.com-- has
offices in Newark and Chicago, and has extensive litigation
experience in state and federal courts in complex class action
litigation across a wide range of areas including consumer fraud
and products liability.  The firm has recovered more than $1
billion for aggrieved consumers.  On the Web: www.litedepalma.com.
Affected woman and families can contact Katrina Carroll at
kcarroll@litedepalma.com or (312) 750-1265.


FLORIDA AUTO WHOLESALE: Class Certification Sought in Perez Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit captioned DOMINIQUE PEREZ, individually and on
behalf of those similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. CENTRAL
FLORIDA AUTO WHOLESALE INC., d/b/a DEAL TIME CARS & CREDIT, HUDSON
INSURANCE COMPANY, and GREAT AMERICAN INSURANCE COMPANY, the
Defendants, Case No. 6:16-cv-01696-GKS-TBS (9th Cir.),
Ms. Perez asks the Court to certify a class:

     "(a) all persons or entities who purchased or leased a
     vehicle from the Dealership during the four year period
     prior to the filing of this action through class
     certification (b) who entered into a finance agreement with
     the Dealership that included as a line item in the finance
     agreement a "Document Processing" fee, or otherwise
     denominated predelivery service fee; and (c) the finance
     agreement containing the line item for the fee did not
     contain the statutorily required disclosure that "This
     charge represents costs and profit to the dealer for items
     such as inspecting, cleaning, and adjusting vehicles, and
     preparing documents related to the sale"."

Ms. Perez further asks the Court for an order:

     a. appointing herself, as class representative of the Class,

     b. appointing Roger D. Mason, II, Zachary Harrington of
        Roger D. Mason, II, P.A. as class counsel; and

     c. providing such other and further relief as the Court
        deems just and proper.

As an alternative to immediate certification of the Class, Ms.
Perez requests that the Court delay ruling on certification until
class discovery has been completed and her Motion can be
supplemented.

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

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Zachary A. Harrington, Esq.
          Roger D. Mason, II, Esq.
          Ashley V. Goodman, Esq.
          ROGER D. MASON, II, P.A.
          5135 West Cypress Street, Suite 105
          Tampa, Florida 33607
          Telephone: (813) 304 2131
          Facsimile: (813) 304 2136
          E-mail: rmason@flautolawyer.com
                  zharrington@flautolawyer.com
                  agoodman@flautolawyer.com


FORD MOTOR: Regulators Probe Power Steering, Warning Light Issues
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Tom Krisher, writing for The Associated Press, reports that two
Ford Motor Co. models are under investigation by U.S. safety
regulators for power steering and door ajar warning light issues
that are similar to those that have caused other Ford vehicles to
be recalled.

The probes cover about 643,000 vehicles including 380,000 Edge
SUVs from the 2011 to 2013 model years, and nearly 263,000 Fusions
from the 2010 model year.

About 1,560 people have complained to the National Highway Traffic
Safety Administration that the "door ajar" warning light won't
shut off on the Edges, and some have reported that the doors can
fly open while the SUVs are moving. One injury was reported.  But
Ford says the door problem is different from one that has forced
it to recall at least 3 million other vehicles during the past two
years.

In the second investigation, NHTSA said it has 547 complaints that
the electric power-assisted steering can fail on the 2010 Ford
Fusion.  Last year, the company recalled Fusions from the 2011 and
2012 model years, but did not recall the 2010 models even though
they have the same power steering system, the safety agency said
in documents posted on Oct. 3.  NHTSA said it has 12 reports of
crashes and four injuries due to the problem.

The investigations could lead further recalls, although that
decision has not been made.  The safety agency says it will
"assess the scope, frequency and consequence" of the alleged
defects.

Ford spokeswoman Elizabeth Weigandt said in a statement on Oct. 3
that the company would cooperate in the investigations.  "We
continuously evaluate our processes for potential improvements,
and when the data indicates a safety recall is needed, we move
quickly on behalf of our customers," the statement said.

The Edge problem involves a sensor that determines when the doors
are open or closed, Ms. Weigandt and NHTSA spokesman Bryan Thomas
said on Oct. 3.  The previous door recalls were to fix defective
latches that wouldn't hold the doors closed.

Last month, Ford announced that it would spend $640 million to
replace door latches on nearly 2.4 million cars, trucks and vans
this year because the doors can pop open while the vehicles are
moving.  That recall has become so costly that Ford had to cut its
estimated full-year pretax profit to $10.2 billion from at least
$10.8 billion.

Customers have complained about the problem, which has affected
much of Ford's North American model lineup, since 2014.  At least
3 million vehicles have been recalled to fix the latches, which
were installed in much of Ford's model lineup.

In the Edge investigation, a complaint filed Sept. 9 by an
unidentified owner from Franklin, Massachusetts, said the driver's
door will not latch, causing the dome light to stay on, draining
the battery and making it hard to drive at night. A fix by the
dealer didn't work, the person wrote.

"Reported safety consequences as a result of this include doors
opening while driving, doors cannot be locked while driving, and
the interior dome lights staying on continuously," the safety
agency said in documents.

In the Fusion investigation, NHTSA said that according to owner
complaints, the power steering failures significantly increased
the effort it takes to turn the steering wheel.

In May of 2015, Ford recalled 423,000 cars and SUVs in North
America, including the 2011 and 2012 Fusions, to update software
or replace the steering gear due to power steering failures.  That
recall also came after NHTSA opened an investigation. According to
a class-action lawsuit filed about the matter, the problem could
affect more Ford models, including the compact Focus.

Ms. Weigandt said that although the 2010 Fusions have the same
power steering system, they do not have the same condition that
caused the recall of 2011 and 2012 models.  She produced NHTSA
documents showing that an agency investigation found that the
recalled vehicles had projected 10-year failure rates of 8 to 14
percent, while non-recalled vehicles had about a 1 percent failure
rate.


FORD MOTOR: Judge Certifies MyFord, MyLincoln Touch Class Action
----------------------------------------------------------------
Marcy Kreiter, writing for IBTimes, reports that a San Francisco
federal judge on Sept. 28 certified a class-action lawsuit against
Ford Motor Co.'s MyFord Touch and MyLincoln Touch systems, which
the suit calls defective and dangerous.

U.S. District Judge Edward Chen approved the class-action status
for people who bought at least one Ford product with the system in
California, Colorado, Massachusetts, New Jersey, North Carolina,
Ohio, Texas, Virginia and Washington.  Attorneys said they hope to
expand the suit to more states.

The suit alleges the Touch "infotainment" touch-screen systems
crash or freeze while the vehicle is in motion, fail to respond to
repeated commands, provide inaccurate GPS information and fail to
connect to phones and other mobile devices.  A trial is currently
set for April.

"While we are appreciative of the court's careful consideration of
the class in this case against Ford, we will continue to fight for
the rights of all consumers who paid a heavy premium for
dangerous, defective in-car touchscreen systems," Steve Berman,
one of the attorneys in the case, said in a press release.

The Touch systems first were introduced in 2010, promising the
ability to operate audio controls, use a GPS navigation system,
make phone calls, manage climate systems and play music straight
from mobile devices.

"At best, what consumers paid for amounted to a pricey
inconvenience, failing to live up to even the most basic of Ford's
gilded promises," Mr. Berman said.  "But in the worst scenarios,
the failed MyFord Touch system's defects can be a hazardous
distraction to drivers."

The lawsuit filed in 2013 by owners of Fords and Lincolns alleges
Ford was aware of the problems before the vehicles were delivered.
Since then, Ford has implemented a number of updates, but the suit
alleges the problems persist, even affecting such functions as the
defroster and rear-view camera, posing a safety risk.

Ford dumped the Touch system in 2016 models in favor of "Sync 3,"
based on BlackBerry's platform.  Touch was based on Microsoft
technology since. Last year, Ford added Apple's Siri to the old
system.

Consumer Reports panned the Touch system in 2012, calling it
frustrating and saying it got worse as it got more advanced and
expensive.


FULL CIRCLE: Faces Merger Class Action by William J. Russell
------------------------------------------------------------
Full Circle Capital Corporation said in its Form 10-K Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on September 28, 2016,
for the fiscal year ended June 30, 2016, that William J. Russell,
Jr., has filed a class action lawsuit related to a merger deal.

The Company said, "On June 23, 2016, we and Great Elm Capital
Corp., a Maryland corporation ("GECC") entered into a definitive
merger agreement (the "Merger Agreement") under which we will
merge with and into GECC, with GECC as the surviving corporation
(the "Merger"). "

"A lawsuit challenging the Merger was filed in the Circuit Court
for Baltimore County, Maryland on September 12, 2016. It is a
putative stockholder derivative action filed by William J.
Russell, Jr., individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, against Full Circle Capital Corporation, Mark Biderman,
Edward H. Cohen, Gregg J. Felton, Terence Flynn, Thomas A. Ortwein
and John E. Stuart.

"The plaintiff claims to be a stockholder of Full Circle. He
alleges that Full Circle's directors breached their fiduciary
duties by failing properly to disclose certain purportedly
material information relating to the Merger in the registration
statement filed with the SEC with respect to the Merger. The
plaintiff seeks, among other relief, a preliminary and permanent
injunction enjoining the Merger, rescission or rescissory damages
in the event the Merger is consummated, an order directing the
defendants to account for damages, and costs and fees in
connection with the lawsuit."


FULL CIRCLE: Faces Merger Class Action by Daniel Saunders
---------------------------------------------------------
Full Circle Capital Corporation said in its Form 10-K Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on September 28, 2016,
for the fiscal year ended June 30, 2016, that Daniel Saunders has
filed a class action lawsuit related to a merger deal.

The Company said, "On June 23, 2016, we and Great Elm Capital
Corp., a Maryland corporation ("GECC") entered into a definitive
merger agreement (the "Merger Agreement") under which we will
merge with and into GECC, with GECC as the surviving corporation
(the "Merger"). "

A second lawsuit challenging the Merger was filed in the U.S.
District Court for the District of Maryland on September 23, 2016.
It is a putative class action filed by Daniel Saunders, on behalf
of himself and all others similarly situated, against Full Circle
Capital, Mark C. Biderman, Edward H. Cohen, Terence Flynn, Thomas
A. Ortwein, John E. Stuart, Gregg J. Felton, GECC, Great Elm
Capital Group, Inc. and MAST Capital Management, LLC. The
plaintiff claims to be a stockholder of Full Circle. He alleges
that Full Circle, Full Circle's directors, GECC and Mast Capital
Management, LLC violated the federal securities by failing
properly to disclose certain purportedly material information
relating to the Merger in the registration statement filed with
the SEC with respect to the Merger. The plaintiff seeks, among
other relief, a preliminary and permanent injunction enjoining the
Merger, rescission or rescissory damages in the event the Merger
is consummated, an order directing the defendants to issue a new
registration statement, a declaration that defendants have
violated the federal securities laws, and costs and fees in
connection with the lawsuit.


GANNETT SATELLITE: Motion to Dismiss VPPA Class Action Nixed
------------------------------------------------------------
Tara Mapes, writing for Legal Newsline, reports that Gannett
Satellite Information Network has suffered a second denial of a
motion to dismiss a class action lawsuit filed against it alleging
violations of the Video Protection Privacy Act (VPPA).

Alexander Yershov filed the class action lawsuit in Massachusetts
federal court in 2014.  The complaint states Mr. Yershov
downloaded a free USA Today app, provided by Gannett, to his
mobile phone.

He said each time he viewed a video through the app, Gannett
recorded the titles of the videos, his device ID and the GPS
coordinates of his phone and sent that information to Adobe,
Gannett's analytics vendor, without his permission, which is in
violation of the VPPA.

Mr. Yershov is seeking class certification and, among other
requests, statutory damages of $2,500 for each violation.

The first dismissal came in April from the U.S. Court of Appeals
for the First Circuit, which clarified the definitions of
"consumer" and Personally Identifiable Information (PII) under the
VPPA.

Gannett argued he was not a "consumer" as defined by the VPPA.
U.S. District Judge F. Dennis Saylor initially dismissed the
lawsuit, ruling that while Mr. Yershov's device ID was "personally
identifiable information" under the VPPA, his use of the app did
not make him a subscriber as defined by the VPPA, because he
didn't pay any fees to access the app.

Mr. Yershov appealed the decision to the First Circuit.  In its
ruling, a three-judge panel reversed the dismissal on grounds
that, under Mr. Yershov's complaint, he was a "consumer" as
intended by VPPA and monetary payment was not necessary to be
considered a consumer.

In its ruling to determine whether Mr. Yershov was a subscriber,
the court admitted the VPPA's definition was broad and to assist
in its interpretation referred to Merriam-Webster's Dictionary
citing it as, "to enter one's name for a publication or service."


GATESTONE & CO: Certification of Class Sought in "Bower" Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
Rhonda Bower moves the Court to certify the class described in the
lawsuit styled RHONDA BOWER, Individually and on Behalf of All
Others Similarly Situated v. GATESTONE & CO. INTERNATIONAL INC.,
Case No. 2:16-cv-01271-NJ (E.D. Wisc.), and further asks that the
Court both stay the Motion and grant the Plaintiff (and the
Defendant) relief from the Local Rules setting automatic briefing
schedules and requiring briefs and supporting material to be filed
with the Motion.

Damasco and decisions like it imposed significant burdens on the
Court and on Plaintiff's Counsel, the Plaintiff asserts, citing
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).

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, the
Plaintiff states.  The Plaintiff asserts that the Plaintiff is
obligated to move for class certification to protect the interests
of the putative class.

As the Motion 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 Plaintiff contends.

The Plaintiff also asks to be appointed as class representative
and further asks the Court to appoint Ademi & O'Reilly, LLP as
class counsel.

A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=4pNJvxUc

The Plaintiff is represented by:


          Shpetim Ademi, Esq.
          John D. Blythin, Esq.
          Mark A. Eldridge, Esq.
          Denise L. Morris, Esq.
          ADEMI & O'REILLY, LLP
          3620 East Layton Avenue
          Cudahy, WI 53110
          Telephone: (414) 482-8000
          Facsimile: (414) 482-8001
          E-mail: sademi@ademilaw.com
                  jblythin@ademilaw.com
                  meldridge@ademilaw.com
                  dmorris@ademilaw.com


GEORGIA: Class Suit Filed Over Opportunity School District Ballot
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Maureen Downey, writing for myAJC, reports that a class-action
lawsuit filed on Sept. 27 goes after Gov. Nathan Deal,
Lt. Gov. Casey Cagle and Secretary of State Brian Kemp over the
language in the Amendment 1 "Opportunity School District" ballot
question.

The three lead plaintiffs -- Atlanta parent Kimberly Brooks,
Rev. Timothy McDonald and public school teacher Melissa Ladd --
charge the language is "so misleading and deceptive that it
violates the due process and voting rights of all Georgia voters."

Proponents of state takeover called the lawsuit a stunt.  "This is
a last-minute media stunt engineered by outside special interest
groups in order to generate publicity," said Tom Willis, director
of the Opportunity for All Georgia Students coalition. "This
frivolous lawsuit demonstrates the depths to which some outside
groups will go to defend the status quo.  They are playing
political games with the futures of 68,000 students trapped in
failing schools.  It's unconscionable to hold these students
hostage simply to generate news headlines."

Among the contentions in the suit:

First, the language states that the constitutional amendment
"increase[es] community involvement" when it does the opposite.
Second, the language claims that impacted schools will be "fixed,"
when there is no research, data or evidence that state takeovers
of local public schools yields any better outcomes. Third, the
language describes the targeted schools as "failing" while many of
them have made as much or more progress on state school
assessments as traditionally high performing schools. Accordingly,
the ballot language by which the Proposed Amendment will be
presented to the Georgia electorate deprives voters of their due
process right to an effective vote in violation of the Georgia
Constitution.

All Georgia voters are entitled to have only those proposed
amendments that comply with the Constitution presented on the
ballot and also to have such amendments presented in a manner that
complies with the Constitution.  Accordingly, this lawsuit
addresses matters that both directly affect them as voters and
that also affect purely public rights, common to all voters in
this state, and seeks to enforce the performance of a purely
public duty, i.e., to have the Secretary of State place on the
ballot only language regarding those proposed amendments that
complies with the requirements of the Georgia Constitution.
Plaintiffs thus seek to have this Court enter judgment declaring
that the Proposed Amendment violates the Georgia Constitution and
the ballot language regarding the amendment is so misleading and
deceptive that it violates the due process and voting rights of
all Georgia voters and enjoining enforcement if passed.

Here is the press release on the suit:

On Sept. 26, a class action lawsuit alleging that the Amendment 1
"Opportunity School District" ballot language violates the Georgia
Constitution was filed in Fulton County Superior Court against
Gov. Nathan Deal, Lt. Gov. Casey Cagle and Sec. of State Brian
Kemp.

The complaint, filed on behalf of all Georgia voters, charges that
the school takeover amendment language "is misleading,
subjectively worded and propagandizes the very issue being decided
on the ballot."

The three lead plaintiffs in the lawsuit are outspoken about their
reasons for filing suit.

"You have to ask, 'opportunity for whom?' If you read the fine
print, you'll see this is an opportunity for the state to take our
voices away," said Kimberly Brooks of Atlanta, a parent of three
children who have attended metro Atlanta schools in a district
affected by the proposed Amendment.

Rev. Timothy McDonald, III, Senior Pastor at First Iconium Baptist
Church in Atlanta, added, "We as parents and teachers and
neighbors know what's best for our communities, not some
unaccountable political appointee."

"Public schools that serve all children in the surrounding
community are the foundation of democracy.  Taking away local
control and silencing parents' voices is contradictory to
democratic principles," said Dr. Melissa Ladd of Coweta County, a
public school teacher and lifelong political conservative who
recently became the first Georgia teacher to be named a finalist
for the Horace Mann Teaching Award.

The plaintiffs argue that the ballot language is intentionally
deceptive -- Amendment 1 will not "increase community
involvement," it will not "fix" failing schools and the Amendment
will not provide "greater flexibility" compared to current public
school models.  The "fatally flawed" wording would therefore
deprive Georgia voters of their due process right to an effective
vote as guaranteed by the Georgia Constitution.

The lawsuit comes after many Georgia parents, teachers and other
members of the Keep Georgia Schools Local Coalition have publicly
criticized the ballot language.  Georgia PTA president
Lisa-Marie Haygood told The Atlanta Journal-Constitution, "the
preamble, and indeed, the entire amendment question, is
intentionally misleading and disguises the true intentions of the
OSD legislation."


GERBER PRODUCTS: Plaintiff's Lawyers Seek $3MM in Legal Fees
------------------------------------------------------------
John Lovett, writing for Times Record, reports that lawyers
involved in the $3 million class-action labor lawsuit against
Gerber Products Co. in Fort Smith, settled last year by the
Arkansas Supreme Court, squared off in Sebastian County Circuit
Court again on Sept. 27 on a "fee shifting" request from the
plaintiff's counsel.

Circuit Judge James O. Cox heard from Gerber Products attorney
Bernard Bobber and plaintiffs' counsel Timothy A. Steadman over a
motion that seeks $1.35 million in legal fees be paid by Gerber
Products in addition to the $3 million in back pay set aside for
about 800 members of the class action suit.

"We don't want any of the worker's money," Mr. Steadman said
before pointing out they had originally asked for $6 million in
the suit.

In June 2012, five hourly employees at the facility called Gerber
out for requiring employees to work more than 40 hours per week
without overtime pay, and periodically required them to work
through lunch without pay.  David Hewitt II, Aaron Johnson,
James Lane, Ralph LaRosa Jr. and Jerry Osborne filed the case
because they were required to change into Gerber-supplied uniforms
and protective gear at the facility before they are allowed to
"clock in" and were required to "clock out" before they remove the
uniforms and protective gear at the end of their shift.
Plaintiffs' counsel said it amounted to an estimated four hours of
uncompensated time each week, according to the complaint.

Mr. Bobber argued that since the plaintiffs' legal team did not
produce the requested billing statements and only 260 Gerber
employees actually signed the class file, Gerber should only be
liable for a maximum of $625,000 in legal fees.  Mr. Bobber's math
accounted for the court's judgment that called for interest that
was roughly an additional $1 million and counting.

"We're ready to pay and anxious to pay," Mr. Bobber said,
explaining to Judge Cox a detailed spreadsheet was sent to workers
two weeks ago specifying the court-ordered amount of back pay to
June 2009.

On the plaintiffs' counsel motion for legal fees, Mr. Bobber
argued that no notice of a "contingent fee" was given and he
doubted 3,700 hours were logged by the attorneys over the course
of four years since his defense team logged roughly half the
number.

Mr. Steadman told Cox that he and fellow plaintiffs' attorneys Joe
D. Byars and John Holleman were "not trying to double dip," and
that 45 percent of the class action judgment was a "reasonable
contingent fee" that was agreed to by at least 260 Gerber
employees.

Messrs. Bobber and Steadman followed an eight-point criteria for
attorneys fees created from another case settled by the Arkansas
Supreme Court.  Mr. Steadman did not address why the attorneys
have not presented their billing statements that claim 3,700 hours
were logged.

Mr. Bobber said he received a letter from Mr. Holleman denying a
request for addresses of former Gerber Products employees for tax
return purposes because there was a "lien on payments."  This
presented defense with "a dilemma," Mr. Bobber said, since the
plaintiffs' attorneys are claiming they can't pay the class until
their attorneys fees are settled.

"I'm anxious to get the workers money because that's why they
filed the lawsuit," Judge Cox told the attorneys, indicating a
quick decision.


GOLDEN STATE: Padron Seeks to Certify Non-exempt Employees Class
----------------------------------------------------------------
Israel Padron moves the Court for an order conditionally
certifying the proposed collective action entitled ISRAEL PADRON,
as an individual and on behalf of all others similarly situated v.
GOLDEN STATE PHONE & WIRELESS, a California Corporation, and DOES
2 through 10, Case No. 5:16-cv-04076-BLF (N.D. Cal.), under the
Fair Labor Standards Act.  The Plaintiff seeks conditional
certification of this class pursuant the FLSA:

     All current and former non-exempt employees of Golden State
     Phone Wireless, throughout the United States who received
     sales commissions and/or performance-based bonuses and
     earned overtime wages during the corresponding workweeks
     during which these sales commissions and/or performance-
     based bonuses were earned, but were not included in the
     regular rate of pay for overtime purposes, from July 20,
     2013 to the present.

The Plaintiff also moves the Court to enter an order (i) requiring
that judicial notice be sent to all putative FLSA Collective Class
Members; (ii) approving the form and content of the Plaintiff's
proposed judicial notice and consent form; (iii) authorizing a
ninety-day notice period for the putative FLSA Collective
plaintiffs to join the case; and (iv) ordering Defendant Golden
State Phone & Wireless to produce to the Plaintiff's counsel the
contact information for each FLSA Collective Class Member.

The Court will convene a hearing on December 15, 2016, at 9:00
a.m., to consider the Motion.

A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=1Fz7xDPa

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Hernaldo J. Baltodano, Esq.
          Matthew K. Moen, Esq.
          BALTODANO & BALTODANO LLP
          733 Marsh Street, Suite 110
          San Luis Obispo, CA 93401
          Telephone: (805) 322-3412
          Facsimile: (805) 322-3413
          E-mail: hjb@bbemploymentlaw.com
                  mkm@bbemploymentlaw.com


HALSTED FINANCIAL: Court Strikes Class Cert. Bid in "Lopez" Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit styled Manuel C. Lopez Jr., the Plaintiff, v.
Halsted Financial Services, LLC, et al., the Defendant,
Case No. 1:16-cv-02539 (N.D. Ill.), the Hon. Judge John Z. Lee
entered an order striking an amended motion for class
certification without prejudice.

According to the docket entry made by the Clerk on September 27,
2016, a motion hearing is held on that day. The parties report
that they are proceeding with discovery. Another status hearing is
set for November 30, 2016 at 9:00 a.m.

A copy of the Order is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=aOMF1ELq


HANSON AGGREGATES: Plaintiff's Bid for Injunctive Relief Nixed
--------------------------------------------------------------
District Judge Cynthia Bashant of the United States District Court
for the Southern District of California entered judgment in favor
of Defendant Hanson Aggregates Pacific Southwest, Inc. and against
the Plaintiff in the case captioned, NEI CONTRACTING AND
ENGINEERING, INC., Plaintiff, v. HANSON AGGREGATES PACIFIC
SOUTHWEST, INC., Defendant, Case No. 12-CV-01685-BAS(JLB)(S.D.
Cal.).

In her Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law dated September 15,
2016 available at https://is.gd/f6sWEP from Leagle.com, Judge
Bashant found that NEI lacks standing to seek injunctive relief
because (1) NEI has failed to show a real and immediate threat
that it will be wronged again; and (2) NEI has failed to show that
Hanson recorded the November 21, 2011 call without NEI's consent.

NEI filed the case pursuant to the Class Action Fairness Act
alleging Hanson Aggregates Pacific Southwest, Inc. (Hanson)
unlawfully recorded and intercepted cellular telephone
communications pursuant to California Penal Code Section 632.7 and
requesting injunctive relief pursuant to California Penal Code
Section 637.2(b).

The Court previously denied Hanson's motion for summary judgment,
finding that Hanson's warning to callers that it was "monitoring"
calls is different than the fact that it was "recording" calls.
However, the Court also denied NEI's Motion for Class
Certification, finding that individual inquiries regarding the
consent to record defeated the predominance requirement under
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(b)(3).

Pursuant to a motion in limine filed by NEI, the Court ruled that
NEI could potentially recover $5000 for every one of the 44 calls
Hanson allegedly recorded without NEI's consent. However, the
morning of trial, NEI informed the Court and Hanson that it would
only be proceeding on one telephone call between NEI's principal
Eric Barajas and Hanson on November 21, 2011, and would,
therefore, only be seeking damages of $5,000 along with the
requested injunctive relief.

NEI seeks not only $5,000 in statutory damages but also injunctive
relief. Although Hanson, after the lawsuit was filed, changed the
admonition on its dispatch lines to say "This call may be
monitored or recorded for quality assurance," NEI claims this is
insufficient. Instead, it requests that the court order Hanson to
admonish all callers to the dispatch lines that "This call may be
monitored and will be recorded for quality assurance" because, in
fact, Hanson records all calls coming into the dispatch lines.

NEI Contracting and Engineering, Inc. is represented by Douglas J.
Campion, Esq. -- doug@djcampion.com -- LAW OFFICES OF DOUGLAS J.
CAMPION -- Richard Eron Grey, Esq. -- contact@richardegrey.com --
GREY LAW GROUP APC -- and Curtis Keith Greer, Esq. --
greerkeith@aol.com -- GREER AND ASSOCIATES APC

Hanson Aggregates Pacific Southwest, Inc. is represented by Fred
R. Puglisi, Esq. -- fpuglisi@sheppardmullin.com -- Jay T. Ramsey,
Esq. -- jramsey@sheppardmullin.com -- John C. Dineen, Esq. --
jdineen@sheppardmullin.com -- and Valerie E. Alter, Esq. --
valter@sheppardmullin.com -- SHEPPARD MULLIN RICHTER & HAMPTON LLP


HENNESSY PARK: Faces "Mendez" Lawsuit Under FLSA, NY Labor Law
--------------------------------------------------------------
MANUEL CARRETERO MENDEZ, on behalf of himself, FLSA Collective
Plaintiffs and the Class, Plaintiff, v. HENNESSY PARK MGMT, LLC
d/b/a VIS-A-VIS, ALEKSANDR FALIKMAN and KAREN AVANESOV,
Defendants, INDEX NO. 516434/2016 (N.Y. Sup., Kings County,
September 19, 2016), seeks to recover alleged unpaid minimum wage,
(2) unpaid overtime compensation, (3) liquidated damages and (4)
attorneys' fees and costs under the Fair Labor Standards Act; and
alleged (1) unpaid minimum wage, (2) unpaid overtime compensation,
(3) unpaid spread of hours premium, (4) statutory penalties, (5)
liquidated damages and (6) attorneys' fees and costs under the New
York Labor Law.

Defendants operate "Vis-a-vis" restaurant through Hennessy Park
Mgmt, LLC.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     C.K. Lee, Esq.
     Anne Seelig, Esq.
     LEE LITIGATION GROUP, PLLC
     30 East 39th Street, Second Floor
     New York, NY 10016
     Phone: (212) 465-1188
     Fax: (212) 465-1181


HUMANADENTAL INSURANCE: Must Defend Against "Brodsky" Suit
----------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit titled Lawrence S. Brodsky, the Plaintiff, v.
HumanaDental Insurance Company, the Defendant, Case No. 1:10-cv-
03233 (N.D. Ill), the Hon. Judge John Robert Blakey entered an
order:

     a. denying Defendant's motion to dismiss for lack of subject
        matter jurisdiction under Fed.R.Civ.Proc. 12(b)(1);

     b. denying as moot Defendant's motion for leave to file
        eighth and ninth affirmative defenses;

     c. granting in part and denying in part Plaintiff's motion
        for class Certification of:

        "all persons or entities who were successfully sent one
        or more faxes during the period from May 2007 through
        September 2008 that: (1) named "Humana Specialty
        Benefits" or "HumanaDental" on the bottom of the fax; (2)
        referred to, referenced, or discussed "HumanaDental"
        dental plans; (3) contained the following
        designation-GN-Fax 4/08; and (4) contained an "opt out"
        notice stating, "If you don't want us to contact you by
        fax, please call 1-800-U-CAN-ASK," or "If you don't want
        us to contact you by fax, please call 1-888-4-ASSIST."

     d. designating Plaintiff Lawrence S. Brodsky as the class
        representative;

     e. appointing Brian J. Wanca of Anderson and Wanca and
        Phillip A. Bock of Bock & Hatch, LLC as class counsel;
        and

     f. denying without prejudice HumanaDental Insurance
        Company's Renewed Motion to stay

According to the docket entry made by the Clerk on September 29,
2016, the Court has already allowed sufficient time for the legal
issue to develop in the courts. To the extent future rulings from
either the Federal Communications Commission or the United States
Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit prove
relevant to this case, the parties are encouraged to bring the
same to the Court's attention. The motion hearing previously set
for October 6, 2016 is stricken. The status hearing previously set
for October 5, 2016 at 10:00 a.m. in Courtroom 1725 to stand.

A copy of the Order is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=EmTsfJb0


HYPERDYNAMICS CORPORATION: One Shareholder Action Pending
---------------------------------------------------------
Hyperdynamics Corporation said in its Form 10-K Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on September 22, 2016, for
the fiscal year ended June 30, 2016, that the Company continues to
defend one shareholder class action lawsuit.

The Company said, "Beginning on March 13, 2014, two lawsuits
styled as class actions were filed in the U.S. District Court for
the Southern District of Texas against us and several then-current
officers of the Company alleging that we made false and misleading
statements that artificially inflated our stock prices. The
lawsuits allege, among other things, that we misrepresented our
compliance with the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act and anti-money
laundering statutes and that we lacked adequate internal controls.
The lawsuits seek damages based on Sections 10(b) and 20 of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934, although the specific amount of
damages is not specified."

"On May 12, 2014, a shareholder filed a motion for appointment as
lead plaintiff, which remains pending. One of the March 2014
lawsuits has now been dismissed voluntarily, and the parties to
the remaining suit await the issuance of a scheduling order in
that matter.

"We have assessed the status of the remaining March 2014 lawsuit
and have concluded that an adverse judgment remains reasonably
possible, but not probable. As a result, no provision has been
made in the consolidated financial statements. We are unable to
estimate a range of possible loss; however, in our opinion, the
outcome of this dispute will not have a material effect on our
financial condition and results of operations."


INDIANA: Trial in Driving Fee Class Action Against BMV Set
----------------------------------------------------------
Madeline Buckley, writing for IndyStar, reports that almost three
years after the Bureau of Motor Vehicles settled a class-action
lawsuit for $30 million, the agency could be on the hook for more
money as it goes to trial in a second lawsuit regarding inflated
driving fees for Indiana residents.

The class-action lawsuit alleges that the BMV overcharged Hoosiers
in its fees for a slew of licenses and titles offered by the
agency, such as motor vehicle registrations, semitrailer
registrations and personalized license plates.  The previous
class-action lawsuit solely dealt with fees associated with
driver's licenses.

Marion Superior Court Judge John Hanley was set to hear the case
on Sept. 28 in what is expected to be a one-day bench trial.

The biggest contention of the lawsuit is how much money the BMV
owes to Indiana drivers.  Attorneys for the plaintiffs are arguing
that the BMV overcharged residents by tens of millions of dollars.

The BMV, though, has countered that the amount is not that high,
and that the agency actually undercharged customers in some cases.

The trial marks another step in the yearslong saga of problems for
the BMV regarding overcharging drivers.

An outside audit released in 2015 indicated that the agency
overcharged customers by $60 million.  It also highlighted
problems that led to the overcharging, including a lack of
oversight and accountability of employees, as well as problems
with the computer system.

An IndyStar investigation published last year indicated that BMV
officials knew about the overcharging but ignored the problem
rather than face budget losses.

In September, the bureau announced that it refunded $29 million in
overcharged fees in the form of credits to customers' BMV accounts
to be applied to their next transaction.  This was in addition to
the refunds that stemmed from the class-action settlement.

The lawsuit, though, argues that refunds in the form of BMV
credits are insufficient because they discount people who no
longer live in the state or own a car.  The suit also asks the BMV
to comply with records requests that it says would reveal the true
amount the BMV owes in refunds.

The trial was scheduled to begin at 9:00 a.m.


ISORAY INC: Company, Former CEO Ink $3.5MM Deal to Settle Case
--------------------------------------------------------------
IsoRay, Inc. said in its Form 8-K Report filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on September 27, 2016, that the Company on
September 23, 2016, entered into a Stipulation of Settlement
pursuant to which IsoRay and Dwight Babcock (IsoRay's former CEO)
(together, the "Defendants") have, subject to certain conditions
and approvals, agreed to settle the previously-disclosed
consolidated securities class action litigation, In re IsoRay,
Inc. Securities Litigation, Case No. 4:15-cv-05046-LRS (the
"Litigation"), pending in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern
District of Washington.

If the Settlement becomes final, among other things, (i) the
claims against the Defendants will be dismissed with prejudice and
released, such that every member of the settlement class will be
barred from asserting against the Defendants any claims alleged in
the complaint or arising from the complaint, and (ii) a payment of
$3,537,500 will be made for the benefit of the settlement class,
which IsoRay expects to be funded entirely by its insurance
carriers. The Defendants have denied and continue to deny each and
all of the claims alleged by the plaintiffs in the Litigation.
Nevertheless, the Defendants have agreed to the Settlement to
eliminate the uncertainty, distraction, burden, and expense of
further litigation.

The proposed Settlement is subject to a number of conditions,
including, among other items, preliminary and final court
approval. Details regarding any proposed Settlement will be
communicated to potential class members prior to the final court
approval. At this time, there can be no assurance that the
conditions to effect the Settlement will be met or that the
settlement of the Litigation will receive the required court
approvals.


JEFFERSON CAPITAL: Faces Class Action Over Credit Violations
------------------------------------------------------------
Kyla Asbury, writing for West Virginia Record, reports that a
Raleigh County man is suing Jefferson Capital Systems LLC in a
class action lawsuit after he claims it violated the West Virginia
Consumer Credit and Protection Act.

D&A Services LLC; and Fenton & McGarvey Law Firm PSC were also
named as defendants in the suit.

Thomas Horton was indebted to Comenity Bank and its predecessor,
World Financial Network National Bank, upon a "KingSize" credit
card account upon which he made his last payment on Aug. 31, 2011,
according to a complaint filed Aug. 11 in Raleigh Circuit Court.

Mr. Horton claims the defendants claim there is a balance due upon
the account in the amount of $1,015 and Comenity Bank sold the
alleged debt to Jefferson Capital, who retained D&A and Fenton &
McGarvey to collect the debt.

D&A sent a collection letter to Mr. Horton on behalf of Jefferson
on Dec. 2, 2015, seeking to collect the debt, according to the
suit.  On May 3, Fenton & McGarvey sent a collections letter to
him on behalf of Jefferson.

Mr. Horton claims at the time the letters were sent, the
collection of the debt was barred by a three-year statute of
limitations.

The defendants violated the West Virginia Consumer Credit and
Protection Act, according to the suit.

Mr. Horton claims the class size is so numerous that joinder of
all class members is impracticable, but that his claims are
typical of the claims of the class.

Mr. Horton is seeking compensatory damages.  He is being
represented by Ralph C. Young, Christopher b. Frost, Steven R.
Broadwater Jr. and Jed R. Nolan of Hamilton, Burgess, Young and
Pollard PLLC.

Raleigh Circuit Court case number: 16-C-531


KELLY SERVICES: Certification of Two Classes Sought in Boergret
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit entitled SCOTT BOERGERT, Individually and on Behalf
of All Others, the Plaintiff, v. KELLY SERVICES, INC., the
Defendant, Case No. 2:15-cv-04185-NKL (W.D. Mo.), the Plaintiff
moves the Court for certification of two classes:

Adverse Action Class:

     "all natural persons residing in the United States
     (including all territories and other political subdivisions
     of the United States), who applied for an employment
     position with Defendant, upon whom the Defendant obtained a
     consumer report, and who were subjected to the Defendant's
     falsification process on or after July 22, 2013 through the
     present and to whom Defendant did not provide a copy of the
     consumer report as stated at 15 U.S.C. section
     1681b(b)(3)(A)(i) a reasonable period of time before the
     adverse action was taken, and to whom Defendants did not
     provide a written summary of the Fair Credit Reporting Act
     rights a reasonable period of time before the adverse action
     was taken as stated at 15 U.S.C. section 1681b(b)(3)(A)(ii);
     and

Improper Disclosure Class:

     "all natural persons residing in the United States
     (including all territories and other political subdivisions
     of the United States), who applied for employment with the
     Defendant at any of their United States locations, and as
     part of this application process, were provide with the form
     which Defendant has marked as bate stamped 000238 or 000241,
     and were the subject of a consumer report obtained by
     Defendant between July 22, 2013 through March 30, 2015, (a)
     where the defendant failed to provide a written disclosure
     as stated at 15 U.S.C. section 1681b(b)(2)(A)(i) to the
     applicant that they intended to obtain a consumer report for
     employment purposes, (b) and where as a result the
     Defendants failed to obtain a proper written authorization
     as stated at 15 U.S.C. section 1681b(b)(2)(A)(ii) signed by
     the applicant prior to obtaining the consumer report.

The Plaintiff further moves the Court to appoint Plaintiff's
counsel as Class counsel.

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

Plaintiff is represented by:

          Charles Jason Brown, Esq.
          Jayson A. Watkins, Esq.
          BROWN & ASSOCIATES LLC
          301 S. US 169 Hwy
          Gower MO 64454
          Telephone: (816) 505 4529
          Facsimile: (816) 424 1337
          E-mail: brown@brownandwatkins.com
                  watkins@brownandwatkins.com


KOCH FOODS: Faces "Percy" Suit Over Sherman Act Violation
---------------------------------------------------------
In the case captioned DANIEL M. PERCY, GLORIA J. LATHEN, and JONAS
DIMAS, Plaintiffs, v. KOCH FOODS, INC., JCG FOODS OF ALABAMA, LLC,
JCG FOODS OF GEORGIA, LLC, KOCH MEATS CO., INC., TYSON FOODS,
INC., TYSON CHICKEN, INC., TYSON BREEDERS, INC., TYSON POULTRY,
INC., PILGRIM'S PRIDE CORPORATION, PERDUE FARMS, INC., SANDERSON
FARMS, INC., WAYNE FARMS, LLC, MOUNTAIRE FARMS, INC., MOUNTAIRE
FARMS, LLC, MOUNTAIRE FARMS OF DELAWARE, INC., PECO FOODS, INC.,
FOSTER FARMS, LLC, HOUSE OF RAEFORD FARMS, INC., SIMMONS FOODS,
INC., FIELDALE FARMS CORPORATION, GEORGE'S, INC., GEORGE'S FARMS,
INC., O.K. FOODS, INC., O.K. FARMS, INC., O.K. INDUSTRIES, INC.,
Defendants, Case No. 1:16-cv-08931 (N.D. Ill., September 14,
2016), the Plaintiffs, on behalf of themselves and on behalf of
all others similarly situated, seeks to recover for the injury
caused by Defendant Producers' alleged conduct in restricting the
supply of Broilers and increasing the price of Broilers in
violation of the Sherman Act.

Koch Foods, Inc. -- http://www.kochfoods.com/-- is one of the
largest poultry processors in the U.S.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

     Steve W. Berman, Esq.
     HAGENS BERMAN SOBOL SHAPIRO LLP
     1918 8th Avenue, Suite 3300
     Seattle, WA 98101
     Phone: (206) 623-7292
     E-mail: steve@hbsslaw.com

        - and -

     Elizabeth A. Fegan, Esq.
     HAGENS BERMAN SOBOL SHAPIRO LLP
     455 N. Cityfront Plaza Drive, Suite 2410
     Chicago, IL 60611
     Phone: (708) 628-4949
     E-mail: beth@hbsslaw.com

        - and -

     Jeff D. Friedman, Esq.
     HAGENS BERMAN SOBOL SHAPIRO LLP
     715 Hearst Avenue, Suite 202
     Berkeley, CA 94710
     Phone: (510) 725-3000
     Fax: (510) 725-3001
     E-mail: Jefff@hbsslaw.com

        - and -

     J. Barton Goplerud, Esq.
     HUDSON MALLANEY SHINDLER & ANDERSON PC
     5015 Grand Ridge Drive, Suite 100
     West Des Moines, IA 50265
     Phone: (515) 223-4567
     E-mail: jbgoplerud@hudsonlaw.net

        - and -

     David Freydin, Esq.
     Timothy A. Scott, Esq.
     FREYDIN LAW FIRM
     8707 Skokie Blvd # 305
     Skokie, IL 60077
     E-mail: David.freydin@freydinlaw.com
             Timothy.scott@freydinlaw.com


KOHL'S CORPORATION: Court Strikes Class Cert. Bid in "Ankcorn"
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit styled Mark Ankcorn, the Plaintiff, v. Kohl's
Corporation, the Defendant, Case No.: 1:15-cv-01303 (N.D. Ill.),
the Hon. Judge Robert M. Dow Jr. entered an order striking
Plaintiff's prior motion to certify a class as it is replaced by
Plaintiff's new motion, according to the docket entry made by the
Clerk on September 29, 2016.

Kohl's Corporation, d.b.a. Kohl's, is an American department store
retail chain. The first Kohl's store was a supermarket founded by
Maxwell Kohl in Milwaukee in 1946. The company's first department
store opened in September 1962.

A copy of the Order is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=4kUx7Wg8


KOHL'S CORPORATION: Class Cert. Bid in "Ankcorn" Suit Continued
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit captioned Mark Ankcorn, the Plaintiff, v.
Kohl's Corporation, the Defendant, Case No.: 1:15-cv-01303 (N.D,
Ill.), the Hon. Judge Robert M. Dow Jr., entered an order
continuing generally Plaintiff's renewed preliminary motion to
certify a class.

According to the docket entry made by the Clerk on September 29,
2016, notice of October 5, 2016 motion date is stricken and no
appearances are necessary on that date.

Kohl's Corporation, d.b.a. Kohl's, is an American department store
retail chain. The first Kohl's store was a supermarket founded by
Maxwell Kohl in Milwaukee in 1946. The company's first department
store opened in September 1962.

A copy of the Order is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=N9u9S9qS


LANNETT CO: Sued by Velardi Over Prices of Digoxin & Doxycycline
----------------------------------------------------------------
VALERIE VELARDI, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated v. Lannett Company, Inc.; Impax Laboratories, Inc.; West-
Ward Pharmaceuticals Corporation; Mylan Pharmaceuticals, Inc.;
Actavis Inc.; Sun Pharmaceutical Industries, Inc.; and Par
Pharmaceutical Companies, Inc., Case No. 2:16-cv-05016-CMR (E.D.
Pa., September 20, 2016), arises from an alleged broad conspiracy
among manufacturers of generic drugs to fix the prices charged for
those drugs in recent years.

Lannett is a Delaware corporation headquartered in Philadelphia,
Pennsylvania.  Lannett is a distributor of generic digoxin and
generic doxycycline.

The Defendants are manufacturers or distributors of generic
digoxin and generic doxycycline.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Jeannine M. Kenney, Esq.
          HAUSFELD LLP
          1700 K Street, NW, Suite 650
          Washington, DC 20006
          Telephone: (202) 540-7200
          Facsimile: (202) 540-7201
          E-mail: jkenney@hausfeld.com

               - and -

          Terry Gross, Esq.
          Adam C. Belsky, Esq.
          Monique Alonso, Esq.
          GROSS BELSKY ALONSO LLP
          One Sansome Street, Suite 3670
          San Francisco, CA 94104
          Telephone: (415) 544-0200
          Facsimile: (415) 544-0201
          E-mail: terry@gba-law.com
                  adam@gba-law.com
                  monique@gba-law.com

               - and -

          R. Alexander Saveri, Esq.
          Lisa Saveri, Esq.
          Cadio Zirpoli, Esq.
          SAVERI & SAVERI, INC.
          706 Sansome Street
          San Francisco, CA 94111
          Telephone: (415) 217-6810
          Facsimile: (415) 217-6813
          E-mail: rick@saveri.com
                  cadio@saveri.com
                  lisa@saveri.com


LENDINGCLUB: Judge Declines to Appoint Class Action Lead Counsel
----------------------------------------------------------------
John S. "Terry" McMahon III, Esq. -- TMcMahon@mintz.com -- of
Mintz, Levin, Cohn, Ferris, Glovsky and Popeo, P.C., in an article
for The National Law Review, reports that in a recent decision in
the now-consolidated LendingClub class action cases, Judge William
Alsup of the Northern District of California appointed a lead
plaintiff but unexpectedly declined to appoint lead counsel at the
same time.  Instead, the judge ordered that candidates for lead
counsel must submit applications to the newly appointed lead
plaintiff, who will then move the court -- via their current
counsel, who is allowed to apply but not to receive special
treatment -- to approve the lead plaintiff's choice.

In Judge Alsup's August 15, 2016 decision and order ("Op."), the
Court first consolidated the pending  class actions against
LendingClub Corporation ("LendingClub"), a "'peer-to-peer' lender"
which "operates an online marketplace to connect borrowers to
investors."  (Op. at 2.)   In May 2016, LendingClub "disclosed in
an SEC filing" that defendant and former CEO Renaud Laplanche "had
previously failed to inform the board's Risk Committee of his
personal interest in a third-party fund called Cirrix Capital
while LendingClub was contemplating investing in the fund," and,
separately, that "an internal review found that the company had
sold $22 million in loans to a loan investor in violation of that
investor's 'express instructions.'" (Op. at 2.)  While "[s]everal
lead plaintiff candidates filed motions for appointment," all but
the Water and Power Employees' Retirement System, Disability and
Death Plan of the City of Los Angeles ("WPERP") either withdrew or
failed to oppose WPERP's motion.  (Op. at 2-3.)  The Court issued
to each lead plaintiff candidate a questionnaire, to which WPERP
responded, and held a hearing on the appointment of lead
plaintiff, where the Court questioned WPERP on its qualifications.
(Op. at 3.)

In this opinion, the Court appointed WPERP as lead plaintiff but
opted for an unusual strategy with regard to lead counsel for the
class.  Typically, the Court appoints a lead plaintiff and lead
counsel at the same time, but here that was not the case.  Even
though WPERP had already selected its own choice for lead counsel,
the Court noted that "[a]ny important decision made by a fiduciary
should be preceded by due diligence," and since '[a] lead
plaintiff is a fiduciary for the investor class . . . [n]o
decision by the lead plaintiff is more important than the
selection of class counsel."  (Op. at 8.)  Thus, the Court ordered
WPERP to "immediately proceed to perform its due diligence in the
selection of class counsel, and to interview appropriate
candidates."  (Op. at 8.)  The Court held that WPERP "may consider
its current counsel along with all other candidates but it may not
give them special preference."  (Op. at 8.)  "Considerations
should include their fee proposal, their track record, the
particular lawyers assigned to the case, their ability and
willingness to finance the case, and their proposals for the
prosecution of the case, or the factors set forth in the
questionnaire." (Op. at 8.)

The Court directed a schedule for the application period for class
counsel and for WPERP to make its decision.  The Court also
directed that, "[t]hrough counsel, WPERP shall move for the
appointment and approval of their selected counsel no later than
September 29, 2016," for which the Court will require declarations
from WPERP explaining their due diligence in the selection process
and the rationale for their final decision.  (Op. at 8.)  WPERP
will then file those declarations under seal and not serve them to
defendants, and the Court will only hold a hearing if "the Court
determines that it would be beneficial." (Op. at 9.)

The Court's opinion is not clear as to whether WPERP's motion for
appointment of lead counsel will be filed publicly, although,
unlike with the accompanying declarations, the motion itself
"should be served on defense counsel." (Op. at 9.)  Thus, we will
have to wait until either September 29, 2016 for the filing, or on
whatever date the Court issues an order appointing lead counsel,
to see whom the lead plaintiff selected.  It will be interesting
to see whether WPERP selects its existing counsel (and, if so, if
the Court approves), or if WPERP elects to go in a different
direction.

The decision to separate the appointments of lead plaintiff and
lead counsel into separate processes is rare, but it is unclear
whether it will have a significant impact.  Indeed, Judge Alsup
has done so before.  Nonetheless, the LendingClub case is a good
reminder that parties and their counsel should not take it as a
given that lead plaintiff and lead counsel will be appointed at
the same time.


M+W U.S.: Court Grants Conditional Certification in "Boice"
-----------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit captioned VINCENT E. BOICE, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. M+W
U.S., INC.; TOTAL FACILITY SOLS., INC.; and M+W ZANDER NY
ARCHITECTS, P.C., the Defendants, Case No. 1:14-cv-00505-GTS-CFH
(N.D.N.Y.), the Hon. Chief Judge Glenn T. Suddaby entered an
order:

     a. accepting and adopting Magistrate Judge Hummel's Report
        and Recommendation in its entirety;

     b. granting Plaintiff's renewed motion to conditionally
        certify as a collective action pursuant to Fair Labor
        Standards Act;

     c. accepting Plaintiff's proposed notice and consent form
        (Notice) with Magistrate Judge Hummel's modifications;

     d. permitting period of time in the Notice of three years
        within the date of Plaintiff's filing his original
        Complaint (i.e., April 30, 2014); and

     e. granting Plaintiff's renewed motion for equitable tolling
        insofar as the statue of limitations is tolled from
        December 2, 2015--the date on which Plaintiff filed his
        renewed motion to certify--to the date of entry of the
        decision and order;

The Court ordered that Defendants:

     "(1) provide Plaintiff with the phone numbers, if within
     their possession, of the thirty-three (33) potential
     plaintiffs whom Plaintiff has described as having
     "undeliverable" addresses, within 14 days of the date of the
     decision and order; and

     (2) review their records to ascertain whether there are any
     additional current or former designers who fall within the
     proposed class beyond the three hundred seven (307) names
     already provided to Plaintiff, and, if such review reveals
     additional persons, provide Plaintiff with the names,
     addresses, and phone numbers within 14 days of the date of
     this decision and order, and, if such search reveals no
     additional names, make such a representation to Plaintiff in
     writing within 14 days of the date of this decision."

According to Judge Suddaby, while delays caused by a Defendant may
warrant equitable tolling even without any evidence of bad faith,
Magistrate Judge Hummel is correct that extraordinary circumstance
cases often consider whether a defendant genuinely believed its
position did not violate the laws. Simply stated, it is a factor
that may be considered, and was here considered properly.

Moreover, Plaintiff's second argument for rejecting the Report-
Recommendation glosses over the word "may" in Magistrate Judge
Hummel's additional language, and ignores the misleading nature of
a notice that does not advise potential opt-in Plaintiffs of the
risks in question. The Notice is proper.

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

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Carlo Alexandre C. de Oliveira, Esq.
          Phillip G. Steck, Esq.
          COOPER ERVING & SAVAGE LLP
          39 North Pearl Street, 4th Floor
          Albany, New York 12207

The Defendant is represented by:

          Peter M. Torncello, Esq.
          Stephanie L. Goutos, Esq.
          Vincent E. Polsinelli, Esq.
          William J. Anthony, Esq
          JACKSON LEWIS, P.C.
          18 Corporate Woods Boulevard
          Albany, New York 12211


MARUYASU INDUSTRIES: Faces "Landers" Anti-trust Suit
----------------------------------------------------
Landers Auto Group No. 1, Inc., dba Landers Toyota, Empire Nissan
of Santa Rosa, LLC, V.I.P. Motor Cars Ltd., Lee Pontiac-
Oldsmobile-GMC Truck, Inc., Panama City Automotive Group, Inc. dba
John Lee Nissan, McGrath Automotive Group, Inc., Green Team of
Clay Center Inc., Lee Auto Malls-Topsham, Inc. dba Lee Toyota of
Topsham, Lee Oldsmobilecadillac, Inc. dba Lee Honda, Commonwealth
Volkswagen, Inc., dba Commonwealth Volkswagen, Hodges Imported
Cars, Inc. dba Hodges Subaru, Patsy Lou Chevrolet, Inc.,
Superstore Automotive, Inc., Cannon Nissan of Jackson, LLC,
Hammett Motor Company, Inc., John O'Neil Johnson Toyota, LLC,
Ancona Enterprise, Inc. dba Frank Ancona Honda, Landers McLarty
Lee's Summit MO, LLC dba Lee's Summit Chrysler Dodge Jeep Ram And
dba Lee's Summit Nissan, Archer-Perdue, Inc., dba Archerperdue
Suzuki, Table Rock Automotive, Inc., dba Todd Archer Hyundai, Bill
Pearce Honda, Reno Dodge Sales, Inc. dba Don Weir's Reno Dodge,
Pitre, Inc., dba Pitre Buick GMC, Hartley Buick GMC Truck, Inc.,
Westfield Dodge City, Inc., John Greene Chrysler Dodge Jeep, LLC,
Capitol Chevrolet Cadillac, Inc., Capitol Dealerships, Inc., dba
Capitol Toyota, Landers Mclarty Fayetteville Tn, LLC, Central Salt
Lake Valley GMC Enterprises, LLC, dba Salt Lake Valley Buick Gmc,
Stranger Investments dba Stephen Wade Toyota, Apex Motor
Corporation, Shearer Automotive Enterprises III, Inc. Ramey
Motors, Inc. Thornhill Superstore, Inc., dba Thornhill GM
Superstore and Dave Heather Corporation, dba Lakeland Toyota Honda
Mazda Subaru, on Behalf of themselves and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. Maruyasu Industries Co., Ltd. and Curtis-
Maruyasu America, Inc., 5:16-cv-13424 (E.D. Mich., September 21,
2016), seeks damages, injunctive relief and other relief pursuant
to the Clayton Act and the Sherman Antitrust Act for unfair
competition and unjust enrichment.

Defendants are accused of engaging in a conspiracy to unlawfully
fix, raise, maintain and/or stabilize prices, rig bids for, and
allocate the market and customers in the United States for
automotive steel tubes.

Plaintiff is represented by:

     Gerard V. Mantese, Esq.
     MANTESE HONIGMAN, P.C.
     1361 E. Big Beaver Road
     Troy, MI 48083
     Telephone: (248) 457-9200
     Email: gmantese@manteselaw.com
            ablum@manteselaw.com

            - and -

     Don Barrett, Esq.
     David McMullan, Esq.
     BARRETT LAW GROUP, P.A.
     P.O. Box 927
     404 Court Square
     Lexington, MS 39095
     Telephone: (662) 834-2488
     Email: dbarrett@barrettlawgroup.com
            dmcmullan@barrettlawgroup.com

            - and -

     Jonathan W. Cuneo, Esq.
     Joel Davidow, Esq.
     Daniel Cohen, Esq.
     Victoria Romanenko, Esq.
     Yifei Li, Esq.
     CUNEO GILBERT & LADUCA, LLP
     507 C Street, N.E.
     Washington, DC 20002
     Telephone: (202) 789-3960
     Email: jonc@cuneolaw.com
            joel@cuneolaw.com
            danielc@cuneolaw.com
            vicky@cuneolaw.com
            evelyn@cuneolaw.com

            - and -

     Shawn M. Raiter, Esq.
     LARSON KING, LLP
     2800 Wells Fargo Place
     30 East Seventh Street
     St. Paul, MN 55101
     Telephone: (651) 312-6500
     Email: sraiter@larsonking.com


MEDICAL BUSINESS: Court Strikes Class Cert. Bid in "Rhone" Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Hon. Judge Samuel Der-Yeghiayan entered an order in the
lawsuit styled Diane Rhone, the Plaintiff, v. Medical Business
Bureau, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 1:16-cv-05215 (N.D. Ill.),
striking Plaintiff's motion to certify class without prejudice.

According to the docket entry made by the Clerk on September 27,
2016, all dates previously set on June 21, 2016 are to stand.

MBB is a debt collection and A/R revenue cycle management firm
with 100% focus on the healthcare sector.

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


MERIDIAN-HENDERSON: Joint Settlement Bid in "Zego" Suit Granted
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Hon. Judge Algenon L. Marbley entered an order in the lawsuit
captioned RUTH ZEGO, the Plaintiff, v. MERIDIAN-HENDERSON, et al.,
the Defendants, Case No. 2:15-cv-03098-ALM-EPD (S.D. Ohio),
granting a joint motion for settlement.

The Court entered an order:

     a. dismissing Plaintiff Zego's claims and Defendants'
        counterclaims with prejudice; and

     b. mooting Plaintiff's motion for preliminary certification
        under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA).

The parties reached a settlement after almost nine months of
contested litigation. The Defendants will pay a settlement amount
of $30,000.00 to Plaintiff, of which $149.00 constitutes
compensation for alleged unpaid overtime and the remainder
constitutes compensation for Plaintiff's pain and suffering due to
conditions resulting from her disability, which worsened as a
result of alleged conditions of her employment with Defendants.
Plaintiff's counsel, experienced wage-and-hour litigators, support
the settlement agreement.

The disputed issues in the case are fact-intensive and would
likely lead to prolonged litigation absent a settlement. No other
plaintiffs have opted into or out of the suit.

On December 21, 2015, the Plaintiff commenced the action on behalf
of herself and all others similarly situated to her, alleging that
Defendants violated the FLSA by failing to pay putative class
members minimum wage and overtime compensation and discharging
Plaintiff in retaliation for her complaints about violations of
the FLSA.

A copy of the Order is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=UVK0Lmpc


MGT CAPITAL: November 21 Lead Plaintiff Motion Deadline Set
-----------------------------------------------------------
The securities litigation law firm of Brower Piven, A Professional
Corporation, on Sept. 27 disclosed that a class action lawsuit has
been commenced in the United States District Court for the
Southern District of New York on behalf of purchasers of MGT
Capital Investments, Inc. (MGT) ("MGT" or the "Company")
securities during the period between May 9, 2016 and September 20,
2016, inclusive (the "Class Period").  Investors who wish to
become proactively involved in the litigation have until November
21, 2016 to seek appointment as lead plaintiff.

If you wish to choose counsel to represent you and the Class, you
must apply to be appointed lead plaintiff and be selected by the
Court.  The lead plaintiff will direct the litigation and
participate in important decisions including whether to accept a
settlement for the Class in the action.  The lead plaintiff will
be selected from among applicants claiming the largest loss from
investment in MGT securities during the Class Period.  Members of
the Class will be represented by the lead plaintiff and counsel
chosen by the lead plaintiff.  No class has yet been certified in
the above action.

The complaint accuses the defendants of violations of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 by virtue of the defendants'
failure to disclose during the Class Period the risk that its
stock to be issued in connection with the acquisitions of D-
Vasive, Inc. and Demonsaw LLC may not be listed by the New York
Stock Exchange ("NYSE") and that MGT was under inquiry by the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission ("SEC") prior to September 19,
2016.

According to the complaint, following a September 19, 2016
announcement that the Company had received a subpoena from the SEC
days earlier, and a September 20, 2016 announcement that the NYSE
was refusing to list the newly-issued stock of MGT required to
complete the acquisitions, the value of MGT shares declined
significantly.

If you have suffered a loss in excess of $100,000 from investment
in MGT securities purchased on or after May 9, 2016 and held
through the revelation of negative information during and/or at
the end of the Class Period and would like to learn more about
this lawsuit and your ability to participate as a lead plaintiff,
without cost or obligation to you, please visit our website at
http://www.browerpiven.com/currentsecuritiescases.html. You may
also request more information by contacting Brower Piven either by
email at hoffman@browerpiven.com or by telephone at (410) 415-
6616.  Brower Piven also encourages anyone with information
regarding the Company's conduct during the period in question to
contact the firm, including whistleblowers, former employees,
shareholders and others.

Attorneys at Brower Piven have extensive experience in litigating
securities and other class action cases and have been advocating
for the rights of shareholders since the 1980s.  If you choose to
retain counsel, you may retain Brower Piven without financial
obligation or cost to you, or you may retain other counsel of your
choice.  You need take no action at this time to be a member of
the class.


MIDLAND CREDIT: Bid to Certify Class in "Rice" Suit Stricken
------------------------------------------------------------
The Clerk of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of
Illinois made a docket entry on September 22, 2016, in the case
titled Linda Rice v. Midland Credit Management, Inc., et al., Case
No. 1:12-cv-01395 (N.D. Ill.), relating to a hearing held before
the Honorable Robert M. Dow, Jr.

The minute entry states that the Plaintiff's renewed motion for
class certification is stricken without prejudice in light of the
entry of the preliminary approval order.

A copy of the Notification of Docket Entry is available at no
charge at http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=b0bxerwq


MIDWEST MEDICAL: Faces Class Action Over Filing Motion Fees
-----------------------------------------------------------
Dan Churney, writing for Cook County Record, reports that a Cook
County judge has shot down a class action suit brought by a
suburban medical records company, which alleged the Cook County
Circuit Clerk's Office wrongly charged litigants with fees for
filing certain types of motions, ruling the company should have
paid the fee under protest and pursued other options, rather than
lodge a lawsuit.

The Sept. 15 decision was rendered by Judge Sophia Hall against
Schaumburg-based Midwest Medical Records Association Inc.
According to the company, it provides "information release
services for medical facilities."

The company filed suit in November 2015 in Cook County Circuit
Court against Cook County, alleging Cook County Circuit Clerk
Dorothy Brown's office improperly collected filing fees for
interlocutory motions.  Such motions are submitted by litigants
seeking answers to legal questions arising while cases are in
progress.

The suit claimed Ms. Brown overreached her authority, as state law
only permits her to charge fees ranging from $50 to $90 --
depending at what point in proceedings the motion is filed -- for
a motion to "vacate or modify any final judgment or order of the
court."  Plaintiffs argued interlocutory orders are not "final,"
so Brown has no power to exact the fee.

Midwest Records said its attorney had to pay a $60 fee in 2013 to
lodge a motion asking that an interlocutory order be reconsidered.
The company said thousands of people could join the suit,
considering the number of interlocutory motions regularly filed.
Plaintiffs wanted the county to refund the fees allegedly
collected in violation of the law and pay plaintiffs' legal costs,
as well as unspecified damages.

Midwest Records' class action was consolidated earlier this year
with similar suits brought by Renx Group and Tomica Premovic.

On June 1, Cook County filed a motion to dismiss, making several
arguments, all of which found favor with Judge Hall in August.

Cook County maintained Midwest Records wrongly relied on a 2011
ruling from First District Illinois Appellate Court in making its
case.  Judge Hall agreed, noting the appellate ruling concerned
the amount of a filing fee, not whether the fee should be charged
in the first place, so the ruling did not apply.

Judge Hall also agreed with the county's reasoning that plaintiffs
knowingly paid the fee without protest.  By doing so, they
forfeited the right to turn around and sue.

Midwest Records tried to slip around this thorn by claiming
duress, in that if they had not paid the fee, they would have lost
their chance to be heard in court.  However, Ms. Hall said the
facts plaintiffs presented on this score were weak, especially
given plaintiffs were not operating on their own, but were
represented by an attorney when the disputed fee was paid.
Midwest Records also had to defend their right to sue, by showing
they were directly injured by the fee requirement, rather than
they suffered in some indefinite sense.  Midwest made their pitch
in this regard by contending they were the intended beneficiaries
of the law, because the law limited the fee amount to protect
parties, such as Midwest, from excessive fees.

Ms. Hall concluded that on the contrary, the county is the party
who is supposed to reap the benefit, and consequently Midwest has
no footing to sue.  Going beyond this, Ms. Hall said the proper
way for plaintiffs to contest the interlocutory motion fee was to
pay it under protest, then pursue other available remedies short
of a lawsuit.

Ms. Hall dismissed the suit, but set a status hearing for Oct. 5
to address any further moves.

Midwest Medical Records is represented by the Chicago firm of
Myron M. Cherry & Associates.  Cook County was defended by the
Cook County State's Attorney's Office.


MONSTER WORLDWIDE: WeissLaw LLP Files Securities Class Action
-------------------------------------------------------------
WeissLaw LLP on Sept. 27 disclosed that it commenced a class
action in the United States District Court for the District of
Massachusetts on behalf of shareholders of Monster Worldwide, Inc.
("Monster"), seeking to pursue remedies under the Securities and
Exchange Act of 1934 (the "Exchange Act") in connection with the
proposed acquisition of Monster by affiliates of Randstad Holding
NV.

On August 9, 2016, Monster and Randstad announced that they had
entered into a definitive agreement pursuant to which a Randstad
affiliate will commence a tender offer to purchase all of the
outstanding shares of Monster common stock for $3.40 per share.
The complaint seeks injunctive relief on behalf of the named
plaintiff and all Monster shareholders.  The plaintiff is
represented by WeissLaw which has expertise in prosecuting
investor class actions and extensive experience in actions
involving financial fraud.

The complaint alleges that in an attempt to secure shareholder
approval for the merger, the defendants filed a materially false
and/or misleading Solicitation/Recommendation Statement with the
SEC in violation of the Exchange Act.  The omitted and/or
misrepresented information is believed to be material to Monster
shareholders' ability to make an informed decision whether to
approve the proposed transaction.

If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no
later than sixty days from September 27, 2016.  If you wish to
discuss this action or have any questions concerning this notice
or your rights or interests, please contact plaintiff's counsel,
Joshua M. Rubin of WeissLaw at 888.593.4771, or by e-mail at
stockinfo@weisslawllp.com

Any member of the putative class may move the Court to serve as
lead plaintiff through counsel of their choice, or may choose to
do nothing and remain an absent class member.

WeissLaw LLP has litigated hundreds of stockholder class and
derivative actions for violations of corporate and fiduciary
duties.


NATHANIEL D. LAWRENCE: Class Cert. Bid in "Edwards" Dismissed
-------------------------------------------------------------
The Hon. Judge is Harry D. Leinenweber in the lawsuit titled
Scheneka Edwards, Plaintiff, v. Nathaniel D. Lawrence, d/b/a
Lawrence and Morris, et al., the Defendants, Case No. 1:15-cv-
00449 (N.D. Ill.), dismissing Plaintiff's motion to certify class
as moot, according to the docket entry made by the Clerk on
September 27, 2016.

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


NATIONAL COLLEGIATE: Dawson Files Class Action in San Francisco
---------------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reported that former USC linebacker Lamar
Dawson filed a federal class action in San Francisco accusing the
NCAA and Pac-12 Conference of violating a slew of labor laws by
underpaying their student football players.

Lamar Dawson on Sept. 26 sued the National Collegiate Athletic
Association (NCAA) and the Pac-12 Conference claiming that they
are joint employers of football players at the University of
Southern California, University of California Los Angeles,
Stanford University and the nine other schools in the conference.


NEIMAN MARCUS: Briefing in Class Action Appeals Complete
--------------------------------------------------------
Neiman Marcus Group LTD LLC said in its Form 10-K Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on September 27, 2016,
for the fiscal year ended July 30, 2016, that briefing on the
appeals related to two class action lawsuits is complete, and a
judicial panel has been assigned. The parties have requested oral
argument, but no date has been set.

On April 30, 2010, a Class Action Complaint for Injunction and
Equitable Relief was filed against the Company, Newton Holding,
LLC, TPG Capital, L.P. and Warburg Pincus LLC in the U.S. District
Court for the Central District of California by Sheila Monjazeb,
individually and on behalf of other members of the general public
similarly situated.

The Company said, "On July 12, 2010, all defendants except for the
Company were dismissed without prejudice, and on August 20, 2010,
this case was dismissed by Ms. Monjazeb and refiled in the
Superior Court of California for San Francisco County. This
complaint, along with a similar class action lawsuit originally
filed by Bernadette Tanguilig in 2007, sought monetary and
injunctive relief and alleged that the Company has engaged in
various violations of the California Labor Code and Business and
Professions Code, including without limitation, by (i) asking
employees to work "off the clock," (ii) failing to provide meal
and rest breaks to its employees, (iii) improperly calculating
deductions on paychecks delivered to its employees and (iv)
failing to provide a chair or allow employees to sit during
shifts. The Monjazeb and Tanguilig class actions were deemed
"related" cases and were then brought before the same trial court
judge."

"On October 24, 2011, the court granted the Company's motion to
compel Ms. Monjazeb and Juan Carlos Pinela (a co-plaintiff in the
Tanguilig case) to arbitrate their individual claims in accordance
with the Company's Mandatory Arbitration Agreement, foreclosing
their ability to pursue a class action in court. However, the
court's order compelling arbitration did not apply to Ms.
Tanguilig because she is not bound by the Mandatory Arbitration
Agreement.  Further, the court determined that Ms. Tanguilig could
not be a class representative of employees who are subject to the
Mandatory Arbitration Agreement, thereby limiting the putative
class action to those associates who were employed between
December 2003 and July 15, 2007 (the effective date of our
Mandatory Arbitration Agreement).  Following the court's order,
Ms. Monjazeb and Mr. Pinela filed demands for arbitration with the
American Arbitration Association ("AAA") seeking to arbitrate not
only their individual claims, but also class claims, which the
Company asserted violated the class action waiver in the Mandatory
Arbitration Agreement. This led to further proceedings in the
trial court, a stay of the arbitrations, and a decision by the
trial court, on its own motion, to reconsider its order compelling
arbitration. The trial court ultimately decided to vacate its
order compelling arbitration due to a recent California appellate
court decision.

"Following this ruling, the Company timely filed two separate
appeals, one with respect to Mr. Pinela and one with respect to
Ms. Monjazeb, with the California Court of Appeal, asserting that
the trial court did not have jurisdiction to change its earlier
determination of the enforceability of the arbitration agreement.

"On June 29, 2015, after briefing and oral argument, the
California Court of Appeal issued its order affirming the trial
court's denial of our motion to compel arbitration and awarding
Mr. Pinela his costs of appeal.

"On July 13, 2015, we filed our petition for rehearing with the
California Court of Appeal, which was denied on July 29, 2015. On
August 10, 2015, we filed our petition for review with the
California Supreme Court, and Mr. Pinela filed his answer on
August 31, 2015.

"On September 16, 2015, the California Supreme Court denied our
petition for review. On October 6, 2015, the case was transferred
back to the trial court. On November 16, 2015, Mr. Pinela filed a
motion to stay the proceedings in the trial court until after the
appellate court resolves Ms. Tanguilig's appeal. On December 10,
2015, the hearing on Mr. Pinela's motion to stay and a case
management conference were held, and the trial court judge issued
an order granting the motion and issuing a stay, which currently
remains in effect.

"The appeal with respect to Ms. Monjazeb was dismissed since final
approval of the class action settlement had been granted.

"With respect to Ms. Tanguilig's case, the trial court decided to
set certain of her civil penalty claims for trial on April 1,
2014. In these claims, Ms. Tanguilig sought civil penalties under
the Private Attorneys General Act based on the Company's alleged
failure to provide employees with meal periods and rest breaks in
compliance with California law.

"On December 10, 2013, the Company filed a motion to dismiss all
of Ms. Tanguilig's claims, including the civil penalty claims,
based on her failure to bring her claims to trial within five
years as required by California law. After several hearings, on
February 28, 2014, the court dismissed all of Ms. Tanguilig's
claims in the case and vacated the April 1, 2014 trial date. The
court awarded the Company its costs of suit in connection with the
defense of Ms. Tanguilig's claims, but denied its request of an
attorneys' fees award from Ms. Tanguilig.

"Ms. Tanguilig filed a notice of appeal from the dismissal of all
her claims, as well as a second notice of appeal from the award of
costs, both of which are pending before the California Court of
Appeal. Should the California Court of Appeal reverse the trial
court's dismissal of all of Ms. Tanguilig's claims, the litigation
will resume, and Ms. Tanguilig will seek class certification of
the claims asserted in her Third Amended Complaint. If this
occurs, the scope of her class claims will likely be reduced by
the class action settlement and release in the Monjazeb case;
however, that settlement does not cover claims asserted by Ms.
Tanguilig for alleged Labor Code violations from approximately
December 19, 2003 to August 20, 2006 (the beginning of the
settlement class period in the Monjazeb case). Briefing on the
appeals is complete, and a judicial panel has been assigned. The
parties have requested oral argument, but no date has been set.

"In Ms. Monjazeb's class action, a settlement was reached at a
mediation held on January 25, 2014, and the court granted final
approval of the settlement after the final approval hearing held
on September 18, 2014. Notwithstanding the settlement of the
Monjazeb class action, Ms. Tanguilig filed a motion on January 26,
2015 seeking to recover catalyst attorneys' fees from the Company.
A hearing was held on February 24, 2015, and the court issued an
order on February 25, 2015 allowing Ms. Tanguilig to proceed with
her motion to recover catalyst attorneys' fees related to the
Monjazeb settlement. On April 8, 2015, Ms. Tanguilig filed her
motion for catalyst attorneys' fees. A hearing on the motion was
held on July 23, 2015 and the motion was denied by the court on
July 28, 2015.

"Based upon the settlement agreement with respect to Ms.
Monjazeb's class action claims, we recorded our currently
estimable liabilities with respect to both Ms. Monjazeb's and Ms.
Tanguilig's employment class actions litigation claims in fiscal
year 2014, which amount was not material to our financial
condition or results of operations. With respect to the Monjazeb
matter, the settlement funds have been paid by the Company and
have been disbursed by the claims administrator in accordance with
the settlement. We will continue to evaluate the Tanguilig matter,
and our recorded reserve for such matter, based on subsequent
events, new information and future circumstances."


NEIMAN MARCUS: Briefing in Rubenstein Case Appeal Now Complete
--------------------------------------------------------------
Neiman Marcus Group LTD LLC said in its Form 10-K Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on September 27, 2016,
for the fiscal year ended July 30, 2016, that the appeal related
to the Rubenstein class action lawsuit remains pending and
briefing is now complete.

The Company said, "On August 7, 2014, a putative class action
complaint was filed against The Neiman Marcus Group LLC in Los
Angeles County Superior Court by a customer, Linda Rubenstein, in
connection with the Company's Last Call stores in California. Ms.
Rubenstein alleges that the Company has violated various
California consumer protection statutes by implementing a
marketing and pricing strategy that suggests that clothing sold at
Last Call stores in California was originally offered for sale at
full-line Neiman Marcus stores when allegedly, it was not, and is
allegedly of inferior quality to clothing sold at the full-line
stores. Ms. Rubenstein also alleges that the Company lacks
adequate information to support its comparative pricing labels."

"On September 12, 2014, we removed the case to the U.S. District
Court for the Central District of California. On October 17, 2014,
we filed a motion to dismiss the complaint, which the court
granted on December 12, 2014. In its order dismissing the
complaint, the court granted Ms. Rubenstein leave to file an
amended complaint. Ms. Rubenstein filed her first amended
complaint on December 22, 2014.

"On January 6, 2015, we filed a motion to dismiss the first
amended complaint, which the court granted on March 2, 2015. In
its order dismissing the first amended complaint, the court
granted Ms. Rubenstein leave to file a second amended complaint,
which she filed on March 17, 2015.

"On April 6, 2015, we filed a motion to dismiss the second amended
complaint. On May 12, 2015, the court granted our motion to
dismiss the second amended complaint in its entirety, without
leave to amend, and on June 9, 2015, Ms. Rubenstein filed a notice
to appeal the court's ruling. The appeal is pending and briefing
is now complete."


NEIMAN MARCUS: Settlement Reached in Bergdorf Goodman Case
----------------------------------------------------------
Neiman Marcus Group LTD LLC said in its Form 10-K Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on September 27, 2016,
for the fiscal year ended July 30, 2016, that a putative class
action complaint was filed on February 2, 2015, against Bergdorf
Goodman, Inc. in the Supreme Court of the State of New York,
County of New York, by Marney Zaslav. Ms. Zaslav seeks monetary
relief and alleges that she and other similarly situated
individuals were misclassified as interns exempt from minimum wage
requirements instead of as employees and, therefore, were not
provided with proper compensation under the New York Labor Law.
Bergdorf Goodman has vigorously denied these allegations. The
parties recently reached a settlement in principle regarding this
matter.


NEIMAN MARCUS: Oct. 24 Hearing on Reconsideration Bid in "Attia"
----------------------------------------------------------------
Neiman Marcus Group LTD LLC said in its Form 10-K Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on September 27, 2016,
for the fiscal year ended July 30, 2016, that a hearing is
currently set for October 24, 2016, on plaintiffs' motion for
reconsideration of the court's order regarding the arbitration in
the case by Holly Attia.

A putative class action first amended complaint was filed on
February 11, 2016, against The Neiman Marcus Group, Inc. in the
Superior Court of California, Orange County, by Holly Attia and
seven other named plaintiffs. They allege claims for failure to
pay overtime wages, failure to provide meal and rest breaks,
failure to reimburse business expenses, failure to timely pay
wages due at termination and failure to provide accurate itemized
wage statements. Plaintiffs also allege derivative claims for
restitution under California unfair competition law and a
representative claim for penalties under the California Labor Code
Private Attorney General Act ("PAGA"). Plaintiffs seek to certify
a class of all nonexempt employees of the Company in California
since December 31, 2011. Plaintiffs seek damages for the alleged
Labor Code violations as well as restitution, statutory penalties
under PAGA, and attorneys' fees, interest and costs of suit.

The Company removed this matter to the U.S. District Court for the
Central District of California on March 17, 2016, and subsequently
filed a motion to compel arbitration as to all named plaintiffs
and requested to stay the PAGA claim. On June 27, 2016, the court
granted the motion and compelled arbitration of the individual
claims. The court retained jurisdiction of the PAGA claim and
stayed that claim pending the outcome of arbitration. None of the
named plaintiffs have yet filed a demand for arbitration.

On September 8, 2016, the plaintiffs filed a motion for
reconsideration of the court's order regarding the arbitration.
The hearing on that motion is currently set for October 24, 2016.


NEIMAN MARCUS: Court Stayed Nguyen Case Pending Attia Matter
------------------------------------------------------------
Neiman Marcus Group LTD LLC said in its Form 10-K Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on September 27, 2016,
for the fiscal year ended July 30, 2016, that on June 1, 2016, a
PAGA representative action was filed against The Neiman Marcus
Group, Inc. in the Superior Court of California, Orange County, by
Xuan Hien Nguyen pleading only PAGA claims and asserting the same
factual allegations as the plaintiffs in the Attia matter. On July
21, 2016, Ms. Nguyen filed an amended complaint with no material
differences from the original complaint. On August 25, 2016, the
Company filed a motion to dismiss or to stay the case. The motion
was heard on September 23, 2016. At the hearing, the court granted
the Company's motion and stayed the Nguyen case in light of the
Attia matter.


NEIMAN MARCUS: Connolly Representative Action Filed in Calif.
-------------------------------------------------------------
Neiman Marcus Group LTD LLC said in its Form 10-K Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on September 27, 2016,
for the fiscal year ended July 30, 2016, that former employee
Milca Connolly filed on July 28, 2016, a representative action
alleging only PAGA claims against The Neiman Marcus Group in the
Superior Court of California, Orange County. Ms. Connolly's
complaint raises PAGA claims substantially identical to those
raised in Attia and Nguyen based on allegations of failure to pay
overtime and minimum wages, unlawful deductions from wages,
failure to provide meal and rest breaks, failure to reimburse
business expenses, failure to timely pay wages due at termination
and failure to provide accurate itemized wage statements. The
Company was served with the Complaint in Connolly on September 8,
2016.


NEIMAN MARCUS: Responses Due Oct. 26 in Data Breach Litigation
--------------------------------------------------------------
Neiman Marcus Group LTD LLC said in its Form 10-K Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on September 27, 2016,
for the fiscal year ended July 30, 2016, that in the Cyber-Attack
Class Actions Litigation, the parties' time for filing a
responsive pleading is currently due on October 26, 2016.

The Company said, "Three class actions relating to a cyber-attack
on our computer systems in 2013 (the "Cyber-Attack") were filed in
January 2014 and later voluntarily dismissed by the plaintiffs
between February and April 2014. The plaintiffs had alleged
negligence and other claims in connection with their purchases by
payment cards and sought monetary and injunctive relief. Melissa
Frank v. The Neiman Marcus Group, LLC, et al., was filed in the
U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York on
January 13, 2014 but was voluntarily dismissed by the plaintiff on
April 15, 2014, without prejudice to her right to re-file a
complaint. Donna Clark v. Neiman Marcus Group LTD LLC was filed in
the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Georgia on
January 27, 2014 but was voluntarily dismissed by the plaintiff on
March 11, 2014, without prejudice to her right to re-file a
complaint. Christina Wong v. The Neiman Marcus Group, LLC, et al.,
was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of
California on January 29, 2014, but was voluntarily dismissed by
the plaintiff on February 10, 2014, without prejudice to her right
to re-file a complaint.

Three additional putative class actions relating to the Cyber-
Attack were filed in March and April 2014, also alleging
negligence and other claims in connection with plaintiffs'
purchases by payment cards. Two of the cases, Katerina Chau v.
Neiman Marcus Group LTD Inc., filed in the U.S. District Court for
the Southern District of California on March 14, 2014, and Michael
Shields v. The Neiman Marcus Group, LLC, filed in the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of California on April 1,
2014, were voluntarily dismissed, with prejudice as to Chau and
without prejudice as to Shields. The third case, Hilary Remijas v.
The Neiman Marcus Group, LLC, was filed on March 12, 2014 in the
U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois.

On June 2, 2014, an amended complaint in the Remijas case was
filed, which added three plaintiffs (Debbie Farnoush and Joanne
Kao, California residents; and Melissa Frank, a New York resident)
and asserted claims for negligence, implied contract, unjust
enrichment, violation of various consumer protection statutes,
invasion of privacy and violation of state data breach laws. The
Company moved to dismiss the Remijas amended complaint on July 2,
2014.

On September 16, 2014, the court granted the Company's motion to
dismiss the Remijas case on the grounds that the plaintiffs lacked
standing due to their failure to demonstrate an actionable injury.
On September 25, 2014, plaintiffs appealed the district court's
order dismissing the case to the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals.
Oral argument was held on January 23, 2015.

On July 20, 2015, the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals reversed
the district court's ruling and remanded the case to the district
court for further proceedings. On August 3, 2015, we filed a
petition for rehearing en banc. On September 17, 2015, the Seventh
Circuit Court of Appeals denied our petition for rehearing. The
district court held a status conference on October 29, 2015 and
set a supplemental briefing schedule on the remaining portion of
our previously filed motion to dismiss that had not been addressed
by the court, and scheduled a status hearing for December 15,
2015. The parties completed supplemental briefing on December 21,
2015.

On January 13, 2016, the court denied the Company's motion to
dismiss. The parties jointly requested, and the Court granted, an
extension of time for filing a responsive pleading, which is
currently due on October 26, 2016.


NEWFOUNDLAND: Residential School Victims Seek Settlement Approval
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Mark Quinn, writing for CBC News, reports that Sept. 27 was a
proud day, coloured by decades of powerful emotions, for
Newfoundland and Labrador residential school survivors, as they
inched closer to a long-sought goal.

The day marked the first of a two-day hearing at the Supreme Court
in St. John's, with lawyers asking Justice Robert Stack to approve
a $50-million dollar settlement for more than 800 survivors of
residential schools in the province.

That settlement was reached in May, but requires Justice Stack's
approval before any money can be paid out.

Toby Obed of Hopedale barely contained his sobs as class action
lawyer Kirk Baert praised survivors who told their stories in
court.

Last fall, Mr. Obed testified that he was physically and
psychologically abused as a child at a residential school in
Labrador.

He's one of the people who started the class action almost a
decade ago to acknowledge and compensate Newfoundland and Labrador
residential school survivors.

In court on Sept. 27, he stage whispered "no, sir," when Justice
Robert Stack asked if anyone objected to the settlement.

Mr. Baert called on Stack to approve the settlement, that lawyers
reached after the class action trial was halted last winter.

"If this matter had proceeded it would be September 2021 before it
would be finished.  Many hundreds of people would have died by the
time it was concluded.  Many have already died.  It's important to
settle this matter now and get compensation out as soon as
possible," Mr. Baert said.

A new adventure

Cindy Dwyer is one of the estimated 800 residential school
survivors who stand to benefit from the settlement, if it's
approved.

She's been living in Mount Pearl for the past few years but is
travelling to Labrador to start a new job there.  She believes the
lawsuit helped make her return to Labrador possible.

"It maybe gave me a bit more confidence in myself -- everything
I've been doing over the last year fighting for this, getting up
and speaking for myself.  Maybe it's built my confidence up.  It's
a new adventure, of course," she said.

Lawyers hope to start getting cheques to class action lawsuit
members this year.

Members won't all receive the same amount: those who boarded at a
residential school for less than five years will receive $15,000
compensation, while those who spent more than five years at school
will receive $20,000.

All plaintiffs can also apply for more compensation if they
believe they suffered more abuse than their peers.

High priority for federal government

A federal lawyer representing the Attorney General of Canada said
reconciliation with Canada's Indigenous people is a high priority
for the Liberal government since it came to power, and that's why
a settlement was reached.

But it's not a done deal yet.

Lawyers were due back in court on Sept. 28 to explain how they
will be paid by the settlement.

They say they've literally devoted thousands of hours to this case
and are asking for a third of the $50-million settlement to cover
their fees.


NRA GROUP: Certification of FDCPA Class Sought in "Gadime" Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Aylin Gadime moves the Court for an order certifying the case
titled AYLIN GADIME, an individual; on behalf of herself and all
others similarly situated v. NRA GROUP, LLC, a Pennsylvania
Limited Liability Company, d/b/a NATIONAL RECOVERY AGENCY, a
fictitious entity, Case No. 2:15-cv-04841-SJF-AKT (E.D.N.Y.), to
proceed as a class action and granting preliminary approval of the
Parties' class settlement agreement, on behalf of this class:

     All persons with addresses in the State of New York, to whom
     NRA Group LLC mailed a collection letter, which directed the
     consumer to make a payment using NRA's telephone service
     and/or website, and who paid their alleged debt(s) and were
     charged a "processing fee," between August 8, 2014, and
     August 15, 2016.

The Plaintiff's amended complaint alleges that NRA engaged in
false, deceptive, and unfair collection practices and, thereby,
violated the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act by mailing
consumers collection letters which encourage, but which fail to:
(i) disclose a processing fee will be charged when making
payments; and (ii) explain how to make a payment without incurring
such fees.

A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=pi5l83ZL

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Philip D. Stern, Esq.
          Andrew T. Thomasson, Esq.
          STERN THOMASSON LLP
          150 Morris Avenue, 2nd Floor
          Springfield, NJ 07081-1329
          Telephone: (973) 379-7500
          E-mail: philip@sternthomasson.com
                  andrew@sternthomasson.com

               - and -

          Abraham Kleinman, Esq.
          KLEINMAN LLC
          626 RXR Plaza
          Uniondale, NY 11556-0626
          Telephone: (516) 522-2621
          Facsimile: (888) 522-1692
          E-mail: akleinman@kleinmanllc.com


OREGON: Two Groups File Class Action v. DHS Over Foster Care
------------------------------------------------------------
Nigel Jaquissm writing for Willamette Week, reports that two
groups on Sept. 27 filed a federal lawsuit in U.S. District Court
in Portland against the Oregon Department of Human Services,
seeking to end the alleged practice of warehousing foster
children.

"Tonight, some of the most vulnerable children in the state of
Oregon will sleep on temporary cots in state offices; in hotel
rooms; in hospitals, despite being cleared for discharge; or in
juvenile detention facilities, despite the absence of any criminal
charge against them.  Some may have spent the day sitting in a DHS
office, missing school," the lawsuit says.

"These are children over whom the state has custody.  Some are as
young as two years old; many are children with disabilities; all
have experienced trauma.  The state has removed these children
from their homes despite not having any home to move them to.  As
experts in the field agree, the state's practice of rendering
foster children functionally homeless is unconscionable.  It is
also unlawful."

Lawyers from the Oregon Law Center and Youth Rights and Justice
filed the complaint on behalf of two unnamed foster children from
Multnomah County who are represented by Portland lawyer Richard
Vangelisti and are seeking class action status for an unspecified
number of foster children whom they allege have been similarly
warehoused.

The lawsuit continues a tumultuous period for DHS, which has been
the subject of intense scrutiny by the press, legislators and
outside investigators appointed by Gov. Kate Brown over the past
year.

Gene Evans, a spokesman for DHS, says the agency does not comment
on pending litigation.


PERMANENTE MEDICAL: "Brown" Suit Seeks Certification of Class
-------------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit titled DEBRA BROWN, SANDRA MORTON, and BARBARA
LABUSZEWSKI, individually and on behalf of all other similarly
situated individuals, the Plaintiffs, v. THE PERMANENTE MEDICAL
GROUP, INC., a California corporation, the Defendant, Case No.
3:16-cv-05272-VC (N.D. Cal.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court to
enter an order:

     (1) granting conditional certification and approving a
         sixty-day opt-in period for the following proposed
         Collective:

         "all current and former hourly Advice Nurses who work or
         have worked for Defendant at any time from September 14,
         2013 through judgment";

     (2) requiring Defendant to identify all potential Collective
         Members within 14 days of the granting of conditional
         certification by providing a list in electronic and
         importable format, of the full names, job titles,
         addresses,  non-work telephone numbers, e-mail
         addresses, dates of employment, locations of employment,
         and dates of birth, of each potential Collective Member;

     (3) approving the attached proposed form of Notice and
         Consent to Join form and authorizing both forms to be
         sent by U.S. Mail and e-mail to all potential Collective
         Members, with one reminder postcard and email to be sent
         30 days thereafter to anyone who has not responded; and

      (4) permitting potential collective members to file consent
          to Join Forms, by mail, fax, e-mail, or website
          submission, until 60 days after the date of Plaintiff's
          mailing of notice to the class.

The Plaintiffs filed the case on September 14, 2016, seeking
recovery for Permanente Medical Group, Inc.'s alleged willful
violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA), among other
laws. Specifically, the Plaintiffs challenge Defendant's company-
wide policy and practice of failing to pay its hourly call center
Advice Nurses for all time worked, including overtime wages at the
rate of 150% of these employees' regular rates of pay for all time
worked in excess of 40 hours per week.

Permanente Medical Group operates as a multispecialty group
medical practice offering health care service to the Northern
California region.

A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=cS5px1xq

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

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

               - and -

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


PIPEFITTERS ASSOCIATION: Class in Discrimination Case Certified
---------------------------------------------------------------
Gerald L. Maatman, Jr., Esq., and John S. Marrese, Esq. of
Seyfarth Shaw LLP, in an article for Lexology, report that
African American pipefitters filed a class action against their
labor union based on its allegedly discriminatory system for
referring jobs to union members.  Despite the fact that
third-party employers retained sole discretion in deciding whether
to hire a union referral, the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of Illinois found that such discretion, and the
individual hiring determinations resulting therefrom, did not
destroy commonality for the claims of the class members.  The
Court based its conclusion on the notion that union's job referral
system was "the first allegedly discriminatory step that tainted
the entire job assignment and hiring process."  The ruling is an
important one for employers on discrimination liability for
policies delegating decision-making authority to local managers or
third parties.

In Porter et al. v. Pipefitters Ass'n Local Union 597, No. 12-CV-
9844 (N.D. Ill. Sept. 20, 2016), a group of African American
pipefitters filed a class action against their labor union,
alleging racial discrimination in the union's job referral system.
Under the system, while third-party employers retained sole
discretion in the ultimate decision to hire a union referral,
union members were supposed to obtain employment based on race-
neutral factors like length of time spent waiting for a job and
having the requisite skills.  However, Plaintiffs alleged that the
union's policies enabled employers to circumvent the system and
hire union members directly, which resulted in white members
disproportionately obtaining employment over African American
members.

In granting Plaintiffs' motion and certifying a class, Judge Sara
Ellis of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of
Illinois rejected the union's argument that individual issues
relating to the hiring decisions of third-party employers
precluded a finding of commonality.  The union's referral system,
which enabled employers to circumvent race-neutral criteria for
hiring, was "the first allegedly discriminatory step that tainted
the entire job assignment and hiring process" and "allowed and
endorsed" discrimination.  Plaintiffs could prove the
discriminatory nature of the policy across the class with
statistical evidence.

The ruling is significant in that it limits the impact of
Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Dukes, 564 U.S. 338 (2011), wherein the
U.S. Supreme Court found that an employer's policy of giving
discretion to local managers in employment decisions destroyed
commonality among employees' discrimination claims.

Case Background

In Porter, Plaintiffs filed a class action lawsuit against their
union based on its allegedly discriminatory system for referring
jobs with third-party employers to Union members. Id. at 1.
Plaintiffs alleged that the Union's policies enabled employers to
bypass the race-neutral referral system negotiated and hire Union
members directly.  According to Plaintiffs, this resulted in
African American members receiving fewer work hours than their
white counterparts. Id.

The Union's job referral system had a history of discriminating
against African Americans.  In 1990, a jury found that rather than
operate, as negotiated, a system by which members received jobs on
a first-come, first-serve basis, the Union actually operated a
word-of-mouth referral system disproportionately favoring whites.
Id. at 2-3.  Based on the jury's finding, the Court issued a
consent decree requiring the Union to assign jobs from an out-of-
work list on a first-on, first-off basis. Id. at 3-4. However,
employers retained sole discretion in deciding whether to hire
referrals. Id. at 4.  In addition, written exceptions to the
system allowed employers to circumvent the out-of-work list and
continue to hire Union members directly. Id. In 1996, the court
terminated the consent decree. Id. at 5. Evidence showed that, by
2004, less than 20% of jobs were filled from the out-of-work list.
Id.

In 2004-2005, the Union negotiated a new job referral system
whereby members could either find employment directly with an
employer or find employment through the out-of-work list. Id.
While the Union implemented quotas to ensure appropriate levels of
hiring from the out-of-work list, evidence showed those quotas
were not met. Id. at 5-6.

Based on the above, Plaintiffs alleged discrimination in violation
of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and 42 U.S.C. Sec.
1981 as well as breach of the union's duty of fair representation
under the Labor Management Relations Act of 1947. Id. at 1.
Plaintiffs moved to certify a class of current and former African
American members of the Union who had faced and continued to face
such violations. Id.

The Decision

Judge Ellis certified a class of current and former African
American members of the union pursuant to Rule 23(b)(3) to recover
money damages.  The Court withheld ruling on certification of a
class under Rule 23(b)(2) for injunctive relief.

The Court's Analysis Under Rule 23(a)

The Court's analysis under Rule 23(a) focused on Plaintiffs'
showing of "commonality," which required Plaintiffs to identify an
issue central to all class members' claims that the Court could
decide "in one stroke" for the entire class. Id. at 12 (internal
quotations and citations omitted).  The Court explained that
challenging the existence of a discriminatory policy may provide
commonality, depending on the degree of discretion involved in the
policy's application. Id. at 12-13 Relying in particular on the
U.S. Supreme Court opinion in Wal-Mart along with recent Seventh
Circuit precedent, the Court opined that commonality is absent
where the policy is "highly discretionary and plaintiffs do not
identify a common way in which defendants exercise that
discretion." Id. at 13.  However, if plaintiffs show that a
defendant enforces the policy at the corporate level and the
policy affects class members in a common manner, some discretion
by employees or third parties in actually applying the policy will
not necessarily defeat commonality. Id. at 13.

Based on those principles, the Court ruled that Plaintiffs had
shown commonality based on the existence of the union's job
referral system, which "allowed," "endorsed," and "exacerbated"
discrimination against African American pipefitters. Id. at
14-15.  The Court rejected the union's contention that the
independent hiring decisions of third-party employers destroyed
commonality.  Indeed, such discretion did "not matter because
Plaintiffs challenge [the union]'s overarching policies, which
influenced the entire job assignment and hiring process." Id. at
15 (citation omitted). Such policies were "the first allegedly
discriminatory step that tainted the entire job assignment and
hiring process." Id.

In addition, the Court found that Plaintiffs had easily satisfied
the remaining requirements of numerosity, typicality, and adequacy
of representation under Rule 23(a). Id. at 11-12, 17-19.

The Court's Analysis Under Rule 23(b)

Having found Plaintiffs satisfied Rule 23(a), the Court addressed
whether Plaintiffs had satisfied Rule 23(b)(2) for certification
of an injunctive relief class and Rule 23(b)(3) for monetary
relief.

The Court explained that Rule 23(b)(2) allows certification of an
injunctive relief class where the defendant "has acted or refused
to act on grounds that apply generally to the class" such that the
Court can appropriately fashion relief for the class as a whole.
Id. at 20 (quoting Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(b)(2)).  Injunctive relief
is not appropriate if a court must make individual determinations
to fashion relief for individual class members. Id. Plaintiffs'
proposed injunctive relief -- a ban on the current job referral
system and implementation of a new system -- "appear[ed] proper."
Id.  However, because Plaintiffs did not appear to be current
members of the Union and, thus, would not suffer the Union's
policies going forward, they had no basis to request injunctive
relief. Id. at 20-21.  Accordingly, the Court reserved ruling on
certification under 23(b)(2) to allow Plaintiffs to show that they
were current Union members or to substitute someone who is a
current member. Id. at 22.

The Court next addressed whether Plaintiffs satisfied the
"predominance" and "superiority" requirements under Rule 23(b)(3).
In particular, class certification is proper if "questions of law
or fact common to class members predominate over any questions
affecting only individual members, and . . . a class action is
superior to other available methods for fairly and efficiently
adjudicating the controversy." Id. (quoting Fed. R. Civ. P.
23(b)(3)).

The Court determined that Plaintiffs can satisfy Rule 23(b)(3)'s
predominance requirement by showing that "common questions [among
class members] represent a significant aspect of a case" and can
be proved by common evidence. Id. at 22-23.  Plaintiffs argued
that they could demonstrate the discriminatory impact of the job
referral system on all class members by using statistical evidence
adduced by its expert. Id. at 23.  The union argued that
predominance did not exist because: (a) Plaintiffs' statistical
evidence was "unrepresentative, inaccurate, [and would only]
undermine" Plaintiffs' claims; and (b) the union did not have a
uniform policy because third-party employers made hiring
decisions. Id.  The Court agreed with Plaintiffs, finding that the
Union's arguments only underscored the predominance of common
issues because, even if the Union was correct, the claims of the
entire class would fail together. Id. at 24.

The Court also found that Plaintiffs had shown the "superiority"
of a class action under the circumstances because it "would be
more efficient than proceeding with hundreds of individual suits"
challenging the same job referral system. Id. at 24.  As such, the
Court certified a class of current and former African American
Union members to seek monetary relief under Rule 23(b)(3).

Implication For Employers

Jude Ellis' decision is decidedly friendly for Plaintiffs.  Based
on the ruling in Porter, even after Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v.
Dukes, an employer may be held liable for the discretionary
decisions of local managers or third parties if those decisions
are discriminatory and the product of an employer's policy which
"allowed" or "exacerbated" the discrimination.  Such a policy can
provide the "glue" to hold together a class action where the
independent decisions of local managers or third parties would
otherwise destroy it.  While the facts in Porter -- namely, that a
predecessor of the challenged policy had been found discriminatory
by a jury -- may limit its impact, employers would be wise to
monitor policies giving lower level employees decision-making
authority to ensure such policies are not allowing or contributing
to a pattern of discrimination.


POLARIS INDUSTRIES: Nov. 15 Lead Plaintiff Motion Deadline Set
--------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check, LLP on Sept. 27
disclosed that a shareholder class action lawsuit has been filed
against Polaris Industries, Inc. (NYSE:PII) ("Polaris" or the
"Company") on behalf of purchasers of the Company's securities
between January 26, 2016 and  September 11, 2016, inclusive (the
"Class Period").

Polaris shareholders who purchased their securities during the
Class Period may, no later than November 15, 2016, petition the
Court to be appointed as a lead plaintiff representative of the
class.

Shareholders who wish to discuss this action or request additional
information about the lawsuit are encouraged to contact Kessler
Topaz Meltzer & Check attorneys D. Seamus Kaskela or Adrienne O.
Bell at (888) 299-7706 or online at: https://www.ktmc.com/new-
cases/polaris-industries-inc#join

Polaris, together with its subsidiaries, designs, engineers,
manufactures and markets off-road vehicles, snowmobiles,
motorcycles, and on-road vehicles in the U.S. and worldwide.

In July 2015, Polaris issued a recall for the Company's model-year
2016 Youth RZR off-highway vehicle, citing fire hazards.  On
September 12, 2016, Polaris issued a press release disclosing that
it was lowering its fiscal 2016 earnings guidance from $6.00 to
$6.30 per diluted share to $3.30 to $3.80 per diluted share --
$2.50 to $2.70 per diluted share lower than the Company's prior
guidance.  The Company attributed the lowered guidance to the
impact of RZR thermal-related problems, citing, in part, the
Company's inability "to sufficiently validate the initially
identified RZR Turbo recall repair, necessitating a more complex
and expensive repair solution."

On this news, Polaris stock fell $4.05, or over 5%, to close on
September 12, 2016 at $76.79 per share, on heavy trading volume.

The shareholder complaint alleges that Polaris and certain of its
executive officers made a series of false and misleading
statements and/or failed to disclose to investors during the Class
Period that: (i) the Company was unable to sufficiently validate
the initially identified repair for certain of its recalled RZR
vehicles; (ii) as a result, the Company would ultimately need to
implement a more complex and expensive repair solution; (iii) the
financial impact of RZR vehicle recalls was therefore greater than
the Company had disclosed to investors; and (iv) consequently, the
Company had overstated its full-year 2016 guidance.  The complaint
further alleges that, as a result of the foregoing, Polaris's
public statements during the Class Period were materially false
and misleading at all relevant times.

Polaris shareholders may, no later than November 15, 2016,
petition the Court to be appointed as a lead plaintiff
representative of the class through Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check
or other counsel, or may choose to do nothing and remain an absent
class member.  A lead plaintiff is a representative party who acts
on behalf of all class members in directing the litigation.  In
order to be appointed as a lead plaintiff, the Court must
determine that the class member's claim is typical of the claims
of other class members, and that the class member will adequately
represent the class in the action.  Your ability to share in any
recovery is not affected by the decision of whether or not to
serve as a lead plaintiff.  For additional information, or to
learn how to participate in this action, please visit
https://www.ktmc.com/new-cases/polaris-industries-inc#join.

Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check -- http://www.ktmc.com-- prosecutes
class actions in state and federal courts throughout the country.
Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check is a driving force behind corporate
governance reform, and has recovered billions of dollars on behalf
of institutional and individual investors from the United States
and around the world.  The firm represents investors, consumers
and whistleblowers (private citizens who report fraudulent
practices against the government and share in the recovery of
government dollars).  The complaint in this action was not filed
by Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check.


PRECOR INC: Class Certification Bid in "Mednick" Suit Denied
------------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit entitled Gary Mednick, Plaintiff, v. Precor Inc.,
the Defendant, Case No. 1:14-cv-03624 (N.D. Ill.), the clerk of
court made a docket entry providing that Plaintiff's motion to
certify class is denied, pursuant to the Court's order on June 10,
2016.

The Hon. Judge Harry D. Leinenweber oversees the case.

A copy of the Notification of Docket Entry is available at no
charge at http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=FZz5CdnT


PROCTER & GAMBLE: Faces Class Action Over Deodorant Injury Risk
---------------------------------------------------------------
Jenie Mallari-Torres, writing for Northern California Record,
reports that a Fountain Valley man has filed a class-action
lawsuit against a personal care company alleging a brand of its
deodorant is defective and causes skin injuries.

Peter Cornejo filed a complaint individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated on Sept. 19 in the U.S. District Court
for the Central District of California, Southern Division against
The Procter & Gamble Co. alleging unfair competition, breach of
implied warranty and other counts.

According to the complaint, the plaintiff alleges that the
defendant's Old Spice deodorant was found to contain chemicals
that produce significant risk of injury when applied to skin, such
as acute forms of contact dermatitis, burns, rashes, blisters,
redness and scarring.  He alleges he purchased the Old Spice High
Endurance Original deodorant in January, which caused a chemical
burn that required medical treatment.

The plaintiffs hold The Procter & Gamble Co. responsible because
the defendant allegedly failed to include appropriate warnings
should use of the products pose a significant risk, misled
consumers into believing that its products are safe to use, failed
to disclose that its products were not in merchantable condition
and introduced a defective product in the stream of commerce.

The plaintiff requests a trial by jury and seeks to certify case
as a class action; declaratory, injunctive, and other equitable
relief as necessary; damages or restitution; interest; attorneys'
fees; costs and further relief as deemed just.  He is represented
by James R. Hawkins and Gregory Mauro of James R. Hawkins APLC in
Irvine and Norman B. Blumenthal, Kyle R. Nordrehaug, Aparajit
Bhowmik and Victoria Rivapalacio of Blumenthal, Nordrehaug &
Bhowmik in La Jolla.

U.S. District Court for the Central District of California,
Southern Division Case number 8:16-cv-01741


PROMOLOGICS INC: America's Health Seeks Class Certification
-----------------------------------------------------------
The lawsuit styled AMERICA'S HEALTH & RESOURCE CENTER, LTD, an
Illinois Corporation, individually and as the representative of a
class of similarly-situated persons, the Plaintiff, v.
PROMOLOGICS, INC., d/b/a HEALTH-SCRIPTS, JANSSEN PHARMACEUTICALS,
INC., and JOHN DOES 1-12, the Defendants, Case No. 1:16-cv-09281
(N.D. Ill.), seeks to certify a class consisting of:

     "each person that was sent one or more facsimiles from
     Health-Scripts and Janssen Pharmaceuticals inviting them to
     participate in a promotional educational program that did
     not state on its first page that the fax recipient may
     request that the sender not send any future fax and that the
     failure to comply with such a request within 30 days would
     be unlawful."

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=pjf03CHu

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Phillip A. Bock, Esq.
          BOCK, HATCH, LEWIS & OPPENHEIM, LLC
          134 N. La Salle St,, Ste. 1000
          Chicago, IL 60602
          Telephone: (312) 658 5500
          Facsimile: (312) 658 5555


REVCLAIMS LLC: "Garrison" Suit Removed to E.D. Ark.
---------------------------------------------------
Sue Garrison, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, v. Revclaims, LLC, A Vectus Health Care Solutions, LLC,
St. Bernard's Hospital, Inc., St. Bernard's Community Hospital
Corporation, Shelby County Healthcare Corporation dba Regional
Medical Center and dba Regional One Health, Baptist Health,
Baptist Health Hospitals, Lawrence Memorial Hospital, White River
Health System, Inc., and John Does 1-100, Case No. CV-2016-601
(Ark. Cir, August 19, 2016), has been removed to the United States
District Court, Eastern District of Arkansas, Jonesboro Division
on September 21, 2016.

Plaintiff seeks damages, reasonable attorneys' fees and costs
incurred and such further relief for breach of contract, unjust
enrichment, conversion, breach of fiduciary duty, abuse of
process, civil conspiracy, acting in concert and in violation of
the Arkansas Fair Debt Collection Practices Act and the Arkansas
Deceptive Trade Practices Act.

St. Bernard's Hospital and St. Bernard's Community Hospital is
represented by:

      Paul Waddell, Esq.
      Sam Waddell, Esq.
      WAD DELL, COLE & JONES, PLLC
      310 East Street, Suite A
      Jonesboro, AR 72403

RevClaims, LLC and Avectus Healthcare Solutions, LLC is
represented by:

      Jeffrey W. Puryear, Esq.
      Mark Mayfield, Esq.
      Ryan Wilson, Esq.
      WOMACK PHELPS PURYEAR MAYFIELD & McNEIL, P.A.
      P.0. Box 3077
      Jonesboro, AR 72403
      Tel: (870) 932-0900

White River Health Systems, Inc. is represented by:

      Tom Thompson, Esq.
      Casey Castleberry, Esq.
      MURPHY, THOMPSON, ARNOLD, SKINNER & CASTLEBERRY
      555 East Main Street, Suite 200
      Batesville, AR 72503

Baptist Health is represented by:

      Robert L. Henry, III, Esq.
      James D. Robertson
      BARBER LAW FIRM PLLC
      3400 Simmons Tower
      425 West Capitol Avenue
      Little Rock, AR 72201-3483
      Tel: (501) 372-6175
      Email: rhenry@barberlawfirm.com

Shelby County Healthcare Corporation is represented by:

      John I. Houseal, Jr., Esq.
      Don L. Hearn, Jr., Esq.
      GLANKLER BROWN, PLLC
      6000 Poplar A venue, Suite 400
      Memphis, TN 38119

            - and -

      John I. Houseal, III, Esq.
      EASLEY & HOUSEAL, P.A.
      P.O. Box 1115
      Forrest City, AK 72336


SAMSUNG: U.S. Regulators Warn Over Washing Machine Explosion
------------------------------------------------------------
Jill Disis, writing for CNN Money, reports that Samsung, maker of
the troubled Galaxy Note 7 smartphone, has another problem on its
hands.

U.S. regulators on Sept. 28 warned owners of certain top-loading
Samsung washing machines of "safety issues" following reports that
some have exploded.

The warning, from the Consumer Product Safety Commission, covered
machines made between March 2011 and April 2016.  It did not
specify a model.

The commission suggested people use only the delicate cycle to
wash bedding and water-resistant and bulky items because the lower
spin speed "lessens the risk of impact injuries or property damage
due to the washing machine becoming dislodged."

The agency said it is working with Samsung on a remedy.

The warning comes more than a month after Samsung was hit with a
federal class-action lawsuit by customers who said their machines
had exploded during use.

Customers in Texas, Georgia and Indiana all said they were washing
clothes when they heard a violent boom.

A washer belonging to a McAllen, Texas, woman "exploded with such
ferocity that it penetrated the interior wall of her garage,"
according to court filings.  A woman in Dallas, Georgia, said it
felt and sounded as if "a bomb went off."

The lawsuit, filed in federal court in New Jersey, references
similar reports collected by local news and filed online with
regulators.  It also claims Samsung "has moved aggressively to
collect and destroy all evidence of the defective machines" after
they exploded.

"We're very glad that CPSC is getting involved here," said
Jason Lichtman, an attorney representing the plaintiffs.  "We
think it's important that the scope of the problem be identified
as quickly as possible."

Samsung declined comment on the litigation.  It directed CNNMoney
to a statement on its website that says the company is talking to
U.S. authorities about how to address potential safety problems.

"In rare cases, affected units may experience abnormal vibrations
that could pose a risk of personal injury or property damage when
washing bedding, bulky or water-resistant items," the statement
says.

Samsung also said its customers "have completed hundreds of
millions of loads without incident since 2011."

Samsung (SSNLF) in early September said it would replace 2.5
million of its Galaxy Note 7 smartphones after reports of battery
fires.  And recently, a tech worker in China, which was not part
of the recall, told CNNMoney that his device burst into flames
while charging.


SERES THERAPEUTICS: Nov. 29 Lead Plaintiff Motion Deadline Set
--------------------------------------------------------------
Holzer & Holzer, LLC on Sept. 28 disclosed that a securities class
action lawsuit has been filed against Seres Therapeutics, Inc.
("Seres Therapeutics" or the "Company") on behalf of investors
that purchased its common stock between June 25, 2015 and July 29,
2016.  Investors who wish to file a motion to become the lead
plaintiff in the litigation must do so not later than November 29,
2016.

The lawsuit alleges Seres Therapeutics omitted material facts when
discussing the potential and efficacy of its drug candidate SER-
109.  On July 29, 2016, Seres Therapeutics announced the Phase 2
clinical trial of SER-109 did not achieve its primary endpoint.

If you purchased Seres Therapeutics common stock between June 25,
2015 and July 29, 2016 and suffered a significant loss on that
investment, you are encouraged to contact Corey D. Holzer, Esq. at
cholzer@holzerlaw.com or Marshall P. Dees, Esq., at
mdees@holzerlaw.com, or via toll-free telephone at (888) 508-6832,
to discuss your legal rights before the lead plaintiff deadline of
November 29, 2016.

Holzer & Holzer, LLC -- http://www.holzerlaw.com-- is an Atlanta,
Georgia law firm that dedicates its practice to vigorous
representation of shareholders and investors in litigation
nationwide.


SERVICE EMPLOYEES: Group Calls for Home Health Workers' Tax Case
----------------------------------------------------------------
Greg Bishop, writing for Alton Daily News, reports that a national
workers' rights group said taxpayers should care about a case
seeking class-action status for home health workers because the
fight is over tax money that should go to the employees, not to a
private lobbying group.

The case stems from the U.S. Supreme Court case Harris v. Quinn,
which found home care workers were improperly forced into the
Service Employees International Union (SEIU) Healthcare Illinois
by a scheme signed onto by former Gov. Rod Blagojevich.  Forced
dues were taken from approximately 80,000 home care workers over
the span of several years.  Approximately $32 million taken by the
union for dues is at stake.

National Right to Work Foundation President Mark Mix said the home
health care workers who were forced to pay dues to SEIU Healthcare
Illinois should get their money back.

Mr. Mix said taxpayers should care because "this is a significant
pile of money that has been going to a private organization that
is out there redressing government and speaking, quote, un-quote,
on behalf of these people for policies that many taxpayers
probably wouldn't support."

Mr. Mix said his organization filed an appeal to the 7th Circuit
after a lower court rejected class-action status for the home care
workers.

"And if anyone wants to leave it with the union, they should be
able to opt out of the class action and let the union keep their
money," Mr. Mix said.  "But there's no way that people that never
authorized this or never knew about it in some cases should be
compelled to have that money taken from them and not be able to
get it back."

Calls seeking comment from SEIU Healthcare Illinois were not
immediately returned.


SHAMROCK FOODS: "Branca" Class Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Wages
-----------------------------------------------------------------
T. BRANCA, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. SHAMROCK FOODS COMPANY, an Arizona Company, and Does 1
to 100, inclusive, Case No. BC634753 (Cal. Super. Ct., Los Angeles
Cty., September 20, 2016), seeks to recover alleged unpaid wages,
continuing wages, liquidated damages, civil penalties and
attorneys' fees and costs as may be authorized by the California
Labor Code.

Shamrock Foods Company is an Arizona Company that conducted
substantial and regular business throughout California.  Shamrock
"specializes in the manufacturing and distribution of quality food
and food-related products," according to its Web site.  The true
names and capacities of the Doe Defendants are unknown to the
Plaintiff.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Alan Harris, Esq.
          David Garrett, Esq.
          Rebecca Lee, Esq.
          HARRIS & RUBLE
          655 North Central Avenue, 17th Floor
          Glendale, CA 91203
          Telephone: (323) 962-3777
          Facsimile: (323) 962-3004
          E-mail: HarrisA@harrisandruble.com
                  dgarrett@harrisandruble.com
                  rlee@harrisandruble.com


SILVERLEAF RESORTS: Washington's Bid to Certify Class Stricken
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Clerk of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of
Illinois made a docket entry on September 22, 2016, in the case
captioned Lamel Washington, et al. v. Silverleaf Resorts, Inc.,
Case No. 1:14-cv-03772 (N.D. Ill.), relating to a hearing held
before the Honorable Robert M. Dow, Jr.

The minute entry states that in view of the report that the
parties reached a resolution through private mediation, the
pending motion to strike and motion for conditional certification
are stricken without prejudice and with leave to refile if
necessary to facilitate the resolution or if the resolution is not
fully consummated for any reason.

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


SOUTHERN OHIO MEDICAL: Hamm Seeks Certification of FLSA Class
-------------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit captioned JEREMY HAMM, et al. for himself and
others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. SOUTHERN OHIO MEDICAL
CENTER, the Defendant, Case No. 1:16-cv-00935-TSB (S.D. Ohio), the
Plaintiff moves the Court, pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards
Act (FLSA), for an entry of an order:

     (1) conditionally certifying a collective FLSA class
         defined as:

         "all current and former Security Officers employed by
         Defendant who, during the previous three years, worked
         more than forty hours in any workweek but were not
         properly compensated for all of overtime hours worked
         under the FLSA because of Defendant's automatic 30-
         minute meal deduction policy";

     (2) implementing a procedure whereby Court-approved Notice
         of Plaintiff's FLSA claims is sent (via U.S. Mail and
         e-mail); and

     (3) requiring Defendant to, within 14 days of this Court's
         order, identify all potential opt-in plaintiffs by
         providing a list in electronic and importable format, of
         the names, addresses, and e-mail addresses of all
         potential opt-in plaintiffs who worked for Defendant at
         any time between September 19, 2013 and the present."

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

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Greg R. Mansell, Esq.
          Carrie J. Dyer, Esq.
          MANSELL LAW, LLC
          1457 S. High St.
          Columbus, OH 43207
          Telephone: (614) 610 4134
          Facsimile: (513) 826 9311
          E-mail: Greg.Mansell@Ohio-EmploymentLawyer.com
                  Carrie.Dyer@Ohio-EmploymentLawyer.com


STARKIST CO: $12MM Settlement in Hendricks Has Final OK
-------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit styled PATRICK HENDRICKS, the Plaintiff, v.
STARKIST CO, et al., the Defendants, Case No. 3:13-cv-00729-HSG
(N.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Haywood S. Gilliam, Jr., entered an
order:

     1. granting Plaintiff's renewed motion for final approval of
        Settlement;

     2. granting in part and denying in part Plaintiff's motion
        for attorneys' fees and costs;

     3. approving settlement amount of $12 million, payments of
        attorneys' fees in the amount of $3,445,012.35, and
        service award in the amount of $5,000 for Plaintiff
        Hendricks;

     4. approving $155,779.96 in reimbursement for class
        counsel's expenses;

     5. granting Objectors' motion for attorneys' fees, awarding
        a combined total of $154,987.65 in fees and costs to the
        Kralowec Law Group and Robert Taylor-Manning; and

     6. denying motion to remove class counsel and conduct
        discovery.

The Court further entered an order denying the following motions
as moot: motion to certify class, and related motions to file
under seal; motion to intervene; administrative motion to file
joint case management statement under seal; discovery letter
briefs; Plaintiff's administrative motion to file under seal; and
Plaintiff's motion for sanctions and related motions to file under
seal.

The Settlement Class consists of:

     "residents of the United States who, from February 19, 2009
     through October 31, 2014, purchased any of the StarKist
     Products (i.e., 5 oz. Chunk Light in Water, 5 oz. Chunk
     Light in Oil, 5 oz. Solid White in Water, and 5 oz. Solid
     White in Oil".

A copy of the Order is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=cpL7VeFm


SUPREME SERVICE: Blake Seeks to Certify Class of Field Employees
----------------------------------------------------------------
Michael Blake moves the Court to conditionally certify a putative
class of plaintiffs in the collective action entitled MICHAEL
BLAKE, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF ALL OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED
v. SUPREME SERVICE & SPECIALTY COMPANY, INC., Case No. 2:16-cv-
12713-SM-JCW (E.D. La.), and facilitate notice of the action to
the putative class.

Defendant Supreme Service agrees to conditional certification of
the Putative Class of "Field Employees" or "Offshore Employees" of
Supreme Service & Specialty Company, Inc. with the job titles or
job duties of Pumping Operators/Specialists, Flowback
Operators/Specialists, Pumping Supervisors/Specialists, Flowback
Supervisors/Specialists, Wireline Operators/Specialists, Thru
Tubing Specialists, Frac Assist Operators/Specialists, Frac Assist
Supervisors/Specialists, Fast Service Supervisors/Specialists,
Well Testing Service Supervisors/Specialists, and Well Testing
Supervisors/Specialist who worked for Supreme Service & Specialty
Company, Inc.'s U.S. Land Division or Offshore Division and were
paid a fixed salary plus non-discretionary job bonuses rather than
an hourly wage and who were not paid overtime at any time from
September 22, 2013, through the present, excluding all managerial
employees of Supreme Service and further excluding any individual
who joined as a plaintiff in the previously-filed collective
action styled Brandon Kervin et al., v. Supreme Service &
Specialty Co., Inc., Case No. 2:15-cv-01172-SM-KWR (E.D. La.) or
any individual who joined as a plaintiff in the previously-filed
collective action styled Gomez, et al. v. Supreme Service &
Specialty Co., Inc., Case No. 2:15-cv-05264-MLCF-SS.

Supreme Service will provide the names, addresses, e-mail
addresses (if known), and telephone numbers for the Putative Class
Members no later than seven days following the Court's granting of
the order for conditional certification.

A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=VGE576Sx

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Clif Alexander, Esq.
          ANDERSON2X, PLLC
          819 North Upper Broadway
          Corpus Christi, TX 78401
          Telephone: (361) 452-1279
          Facsimile: (361) 452-1284
          E-mail: clif@a2xlaw.com

               - and -

          Michael T. Tusa, Jr., Esq.
          SUTTON, ALKER & RATHER, LLC
          4080 Lonesome Road, Suite A
          Mandeville, LA 70448
          Telephone: (985) 727-7501
          Facsimile: (985) 727-7505
          E-mail: mtusa@sutton-alker.com

Defendant Supreme Service & Specialty Company, Inc., is
represented by:

          R. Scott Hetrick, Esq.
          ADAMS AND REESE LLP
          11 North Water Street, Suite 23200
          Mobile, AL 36602
          Telephone: (251) 650-0852
          E-mail: scott.hetrick@arlaw.com

               - and -

          Brooke Duncan III, Esq.
          Lauren L. Tafaro, Esq.
          ADAMS AND REESE LLP
          4500 One Shell Square
          New Orleans, LA 70139
          Telephone: (504) 581-3234
          Facsimile: (504) 566-0210
          E-mail: Brooke.duncan@arlaw.com
                  Lauren.Tafaro@arlaw.com


SYNGENTA: Judge Certifies GMO Corn Seed Class Action
----------------------------------------------------
A Kansas federal judge has ruled that hundreds of thousands of
corn farmers' claims against Syngenta may proceed as a class
action.  Plaintiffs allege that Syngenta prematurely and
irresponsibly sold Agrisure Viptera and Duracade, causing
significant losses to corn farmers across the country.  It is
estimated by the plaintiffs that U.S. corn producers lost between
$5-7 billion in current and future revenue because China stopped
importing U.S. corn when Syngenta's new genetically modified trait
contaminated export shipments from the United States.  China had
not yet approved that corn for import when Syngenta started
selling its seed on a wide-spread basis across the U.S.  Those
losses were suffered by all corn producers (including crop-share
landlords) who marketed corn in the fall of 2013 or later,
according to attorneys for the plaintiffs.

"The Court's ruling will make it easier and less expensive for
farmers to pursue their claims against Syngenta," said
Scott Powell who, along with Don Downing, William Chaney and
Patrick Stueve, was appointed by the Court as attorneys to
represent the class.  "Instead of having to retain and pay
individual counsel, file their own lawsuit, produce voluminous
farm records, sit for a deposition and appear at trial, the Court
found that all class members may attempt to prove their claims
through a limited number of class representatives.  If those class
representatives win, all class members win.  No individual farmer
has to file a lawsuit to seek a recovery."  In his ruling
certifying the class, the Honorable John W. Lungstrum, a United
States District Judge for the District of Kansas, found that a
class action was superior to hundreds of thousands of individual
lawsuits: "Tens of thousands of putative class members have not
brought individual actions, and the great efficiencies that may be
achieved make class actions superior to individual actions,
despite the fact that so many individuals actions have been
filed."

Mr. Downing, who was appointed co-lead counsel in the Bayer
genetically modified rice litigation and led the negotiations that
resulted in a $750 million global cash settlement for farmers,
said that class certification is a significant win for the
farmers.  "Syngenta vigorously opposed our motion.  The Court
considered thousands of pages of argument and evidence, heard live
testimony from our damages experts, and oral argument from
counsel.  Although not a decision on the merits, it is a
significant win for the farmers."  In assessing the strength of
the plaintiffs' evidence that all corn producers were injured, the
Court found that "it would defy logic if the overall demand for
corn, as reflected in the centralized exchange price for the
commodity, did not bear on local prices."

In response to the Court's order, William Chaney addressed the
thousands of solicitations that lawyers have been sending to
farmers about the litigation.  "Lots of lawyers are out there
soliciting clients.  Now that a class is certified, the Court will
authorize mailing of a notice to corn producers within the class
describing the benefits and consequences of remaining in the
class.  I urge any farmer considering whether to retain an
individual lawyer to wait for the Court's notice before making a
decision."  The Court has not yet set a deadline for farmers to
decide whether they want to be excluded from the class.

Messrs. Downing, Stueve, Powell and Chaney have been working
virtually full time on the case since they were appointed as
co-lead counsel for the federal multi-district litigation (MDL) by
Judge Lungstrum in January 2015.  There are lawsuits pending in
Kansas, Minnesota and Illinois.  As Patrick Stueve explained, "Our
group has taken the lead in getting discovery from Syngenta and in
developing the expert witnesses that will be needed to prove both
liability and damages.  Our law firms have taken hundreds of hours
of depositions all across the globe -- in the United States, Hong
Kong, London, and Australia.  Our team has reviewed millions of
pages of responsive documents."  In appointing them to represent
the class, the Court found that that the "history of this
litigation has demonstrated that [these lawyers] will diligently
and ably prosecute the class claims." It is anticipated that Judge
Lungstrum will try the first MDL case against Syngenta in June
2017.  "We are very excited about the strength of the case and
look forward to presenting our evidence to a jury," said Mr.
Stueve.

The class certified by Judge Lungstrum covers farmers in every
state.  A copy of the order is available at
www.syngentacornlitigation.com and provides specific information
about the corn farmers covered by the certified classes.  Agrisure
Viptera and Duracade purchasers are excluded.  The attorneys
appointed to represent the class are with the law firms of: Gray
Reed & McGraw, P.C.; Gray, Ritter & Graham, P.C.; Hare Wynn Newell
& Newton; and Stueve Siegel Hanson LLP.

To interview an attorney about the judge's ruling to certify the
case, contact:

   -- Don Downing, 314-241-5620, ddowning@grgpc.com
   -- Patrick Stueve, 816-714-7110, stueve@stuevesiegel.com

For more information and background on the case, go to
www.syngentacornlitigation.com

                         About the Firms

Gray, Ritter & Graham, P.C. -- http://www.grgpc.com-- is a
St. Louis, Missouri based firm representing individuals and
companies since the firm's founding in 1946.  They represent
farmers and consumers who have been harmed by the actions of
others.

Gray Reed & McGraw, P.C. -- http://www.grayreed.com-- is a
full-service Texas based law firm founded in 1985 with more than
120 lawyers practicing in Dallas and Houston.

Hare Wynn Newell & Newton -- http://www.hwnn.com-- is in its
second century representing plaintiffs and offers a broad range of
legal services from offices in Alabama, Arkansas and Kentucky.

Stueve Siegel Hanson LLP -- http://www.stuevesiegel.com-- is a
Kansas City, Missouri based law firm representing businesses and
individuals in high stakes litigation on a contingency fee model.
The firm includes over 30 lawyers in Kansas City, New York and San
Diego and represents plaintiffs and defendants nationwide in
complex business, class action, wage and hour, environmental, and
product liability litigation and trials.


TAMINCO: Class Action Over Foul Odors at Pace Plant in Discovery
----------------------------------------------------------------
Anne Delaney, writing for PNJ, reports that the class-action
lawsuit filed late last year against the Taminco chemical plant
continues with potential members trickling in weekly to report
foul odors associated with the Pace facility.

Complaints from area residents on the quality of air surrounding
the plant date back several decades, and in November, a Miami-area
law firm filed a class-action lawsuit with approximately 150
residents signing on for damages from the company's failure "to
properly construct, maintain and operate" the plant.

Aronfeld Trial Lawyers filed the suit and lead counsel
Spencer Aronfeld said on Sept. 26 the potential members to the
suit are now approaching 200.

"We're still in the discovery phase where we're trying to
determine the damages and injuries that people are claiming and to
see if there is similar harm or loss," Mr. Aronfeld said.  "We
want to verify and it's not something we just rely on.  It's a
vetting process."

Mr. Aronfeld said the firm, working with class action attorneys in
Detroit, is receiving two or three inquiries a week from people
who want to join the suit.  He said damages could range from loss
of home value to physical ailments to a quality of life issue. The
monetary value of the latter would be difficult to quantify.

"That's often for a jury to answer," Mr. Aronfeld said.

In April 2015, the firm sent out a round of letters to residents
in the vicinity of the plant requesting they contact the firm for
a free consultation if the odors "may be interfering with your use
and enjoyment of your home."

Residents received another round of letters in early August.

Brandy M. Smith, a spokeswoman from the Northwest District of the
Florida Department of Environmental Protection, said 41 complaints
against Taminco were lodged with the agency in the past two years.
A comprehensive report is pending from the FDEP on Taminco's
compliance status.

"We're working to investigate the claims with help from the
defendant," Mr. Aronfeld said.  "They've been cooperative, very
cooperative and they're eager to give us the information we're
asking for."

Since 2014, Taminco has been owned by Tennessee-based Eastman
Chemical Company.  Eastman manufactures chemicals, fibers and
plastics materials used as ingredients in a variety of products.

In a statement on the lawsuit released from an Eastman spokeswoman
via email, the company questioned the merit of the case.

"Regarding facility operations, the Pace facility has always
striven for operational improvement, and reducing the potential
for off-site odors has been a significant part of those efforts,"
the company stated.  "This was true years before Eastman acquired
Taminco in 2014, and after the acquisition, Eastman has devoted
substantial engineering resources from its corporate headquarters
to assist Pace facility personnel in enhancing the operation of
this facility.  These enhancements have included measures to
reduce the potential for offsite odors to occur."

Area residents said the potency of the odors have lessened since
Eastman took over the plant.

Spears Street resident Jan Harnish said she's noticed fewer odors
recently, but she wouldn't hesitate to sign as a potential member
of the lawsuit if she receives a second letter.

The 72-year-old Harnish, who's lived in the home for seven years
with her husband, John, said she received one letter about six or
eight months ago.

"If I get one, I'll join," Ms. Harnish said.  "What I care about
is what's in the environment."

John Harnish, 69, doesn't share his wife's concern and answered
Jan's question on what goes into the environment.

"Nothing more than you've been putting into your body," he said.

John Harnish said he didn't know if the letter was addressed to
one of them or both.  While Jan said she'd make an effort to get
in touch with the Aronfeld firm, John said he'd put the
correspondence directly into the trash.

"If I see something like that, I'd think it's a bunch of lawyers
trying to make a buck."

Mr. Aronfeld said the firm would likely allow another 90 days to
receive inquiries before proceeding with the suit, which is not an
official class action lawsuit until it is certified by a judge.


TOSHIBA: Judge Declined to Rule on Motions to Dismiss
-----------------------------------------------------
Helen Christophi, writing for Courthouse News Service, reported
that a federal judge in Oakland, Calif. declined to rule on
Toshiba's motions to dismiss or send to arbitration Dell's price-
fixing antitrust complaint involving lithium ion batteries, but
indicated she would reject both motions.

U.S. District Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers heard arguments on
Toshiba's motions to dismiss Dell's claims accusing it, Samsung
and 11 other defendants of conspiring to fix the prices of lithium
ion batteries, and a second motion to compel Dell to arbitrate its
sole claim against Toshiba. Gonzalez did not say when she would
rule.

The June 2015 lawsuit, in which Dell also accused four defendants
of breaching master purchase agreements with it, is related to a
multidistrict class action pending in the Northern District of
California. That antitrust complaint claims the defendants rigged
battery prices from Jan. 1, 2000 to May 31, 2011.

In its motion to dismiss, Toshiba said Dell did not provide enough
information about the antitrust claim assignments it received from
its subsidiaries. It said Dell failed to identify the assignors,
what they bought, from whom they bought them, and where they
bought them, rendering the complaint too "indefinite and
unintelligible" to file a response.

Toshiba asked for an order requiring Dell to provide that
information if Gonzalez rejects its motion to dismiss.

"We believe Dell has to say what they purchased, from who and
when," Toshiba attorney J. Frank Hogue said at the hearing on
Sept. 27. "Dell has to establish that it is at least a direct
purchaser. None of that is disclosed in its one-sentence
paragraph."

Dell said in its opposition to dismissal that it gave all of that
information to Toshiba in July, and that when Dell asked Toshiba
to withdraw its motion, Toshiba refused.

Gonzalez was irked by that.

"You filed your motion and counsel immediately responded with
assignments and asked you to withdraw, and you refused," she told
Toshiba's Hogue. "I do not take kindly to churning cases."

Hogue said Toshiba did not withdraw its motion because Dell hadn't
provided enough information to determine which assignments came
from its foreign subsidiaries. That information is crucial, Hogue
said, because the Seventh Circuit has dismissed claims based on
foreign assignments.

Dell attorney Debra Bernstein countered that any deficiencies
related to assignments should be cured in discovery, not by
dismissal.

Gonzalez seemed to agree.

"This isn't fraud," she told Hogue in reference to his concerns
about foreign commerce. "That's what discovery is for."

Bernstein told Gonzalez that Dell's complaint meets pleading
requirements and that giving Toshiba more detailed information
won't make a difference to the case.

In its opposition to dismissal, Dell said Toshiba is the only
defendant that has attacked the specificity of its assignments,
and that Samsung and LG Chem "encountered no difficulty in
answering Dell's complaint and the allegations made regarding
assignments."

Dell settled or dismissed its claims against Panasonic, Sony,
Sanyo and GS Yuasa this year. In addition to Toshiba, it is still
pursuing claims against Samsung and LG Chem.

Sony agreed in September to pay $19 million to settle claims in
the related multidistrict class action. It was the first to settle
in that case.

"We think they have everything they need," Bernstein told
Gonzalez. "Frankly, if they really looked at the complaint, they
would have all of the information they say they are seeking."

As for Toshiba's motion to compel Dell to arbitrate its antitrust
claim, Gonzalez asked whether she should interpret Dell's master
purchase agreements for the batteries with Panasonic and Sanyo
based on Texas law or Ninth Circuit law.

Both parties agree that the master purchase agreements contain
arbitration clauses.

Bernstein told Gonzalez that Dell has interpreted the agreements
based on Texas law, where, it says, the defendants negotiated
their price-fixing scheme. Toshiba indicated it would support
interpretation under either set of laws.

At issue is Dell's contention that all of the defendants are
responsible for the batteries Dell bought from any other defendant
during the price-fixing scheme, including purchases it made under
the Panasonic and Sanyo agreements.

But Toshiba says it is not a signatory to the agreements, and if
it is to be held responsible for the inflated battery purchases
under them, it can compel Dell to arbitrate without being a
signatory based on equitable estoppel.

Dell said in its opposition to compel arbitration that it never
agreed to arbitrate with Toshiba, and that equitable estoppel does
not apply to the case.

"Toshiba has failed to identify a single equitable reason why it,
as a stranger to the [master purchase agreements] and the sole
defendant seeking arbitration, should be allowed to destroy the
unity of this litigation by invoking an arbitration right that
none of the signatories chose to invoke," Dell said in its
opposition.

Debra Bernstein -- debra.bernstein@alston.com -- is with Alston &
Bird of Atlanta; Hogue is based in Washington, D.C.


TRANS OCEAN CARRIER: Cruz Seeks to Recoup Wages for Truck Drivers
-----------------------------------------------------------------
MERARDO ATILIO CRUZ, CARLOS DE LA CRUZ, LUIS ARMANDO ESPANA, MARIO
ELLAS GARCIA, MARIO ELLAS GARCIA, JR., SANTOS GONZALO ESCOBAR,
FRANCISCO SAUL HERNANDEZ,JEURY JOSUE MARTINEZ, VICTOR ANTONIO
SANCHEZ, ERICK ADIEL TENAS, AND ON BEHALF OF ALL UNAMED PLAINTIFFS
SIMILARLY SITUATED v. TRANS OCEAN CARRIER INC., and DOES 1 through
50, inclusive, Case No. BC634606 (Cal. Super. Ct., Los Angeles
Cty., September 20, 2016), alleges that the Company failed to pay
its truck drivers one hour of pay at their regular rate of
compensation for each instance that it failed to provide
statutorily-mandated rest periods and off-duty meal periods.

Trans Ocean Carrier Inc. is doing business in Los Angeles County,
and maintained offices in Los Angeles.  The Plaintiffs are
currently ignorant of the true names and capacities of the Doe
Defendants.  The Defendants provide various shipping services
throughout California.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Alvin M. Gomez, Esq.
          GOMEZ LAW GROUP
          2725 Jefferson Street, Suite 7
          Carlsbad, CA 92008
          Telephone: (858) 552-0000
          Facsimile: (760) 720-5217
          E-mail: alvingomez@thegomezlawgroup.com


TRANS ONE INC: Hearing on Matthis' Bid to Certify Set for Oct. 13
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The Clerk of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of
Illinois made a docket entry on September 21, 2016, in the case
entitled Phillip Matthis v. Trans One Incorporated, Case No. 1:15-
cv-07607 (N.D. Ill.), relating to a hearing held before the
Honorable Susan E. Cox.

The minute entry states that motion hearing was held and continued
to October 13, 2016, at 9:30 a.m., to provide parties time to
ensure that class notice is only sent to the appropriate
employees.

A copy of the Notification of Docket Entry is available at no
charge at http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=hgNo8xM8


TRANSUNION CORP: Court Terminated Class Cert. Bid in "Sgouros"
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit captioned Gary W. Sgouros, the Plaintiff, v.
TransUnion Corp., et al. the Defendants, Case No. 1:14-cv-01850
(N.D. Ill.), the Hon. James B. Zagel entered an order:

     1. terminating Plaintiff's motion to certify and stay in
        light of the parties' agreed scheduling order; and

     2. granting motion for leave to withdraw.

According to the docket entry made by the Clerk on September 29,
2016, the hearing set for October 13, 2016, is stricken and no
appearance is necessary.

TransUnion is an American company that provides credit information
and information management services to approximately 45,000
businesses and approximately 500 million consumers worldwide in 33
countries.

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


TRI-STATE IMAGING: Faces "Wojtowicz" Suit Over Violation of ERISA
-----------------------------------------------------------------
JOYCE WOJTOWICZ AND ALL THOSE SIMILARLY SITUATED PARTICIPANTS IN
THE TRI-STATE IMAGING PR, LLC FLEXIBLE BENEFITS PLAN NO. 501 v.
RICHARD MILLER; MICHAEL A. CAR, M.D.; KENNETH E. BRUMBERGER, M.D.;
MICHAEL R. CLAIR, M.D.; WILLIAM H. HARTZ, M.D.; PHILLIP J.
MOLDOFSKY, M.D.; JAY S. ROSENBLUM, M.D.; TRI-STATE IMAGING
CONSULTANTS, LLC; TRI-STATE IMAGING PR, LLC; TRI-STATE IMAGING PR,
LLC EMPLOYEE WELFARE BENEFIT PLAN; and JOHN DOES 1-15, Case No.
2:16-cv-05029-GEKP (E.D. Pa., September 20, 2016), is brought on
behalf of participants in the Tri State Imaging PR, LLC Employee
Welfare Benefit Plan to secure their personal contributions to the
Plan that were allegedly deducted and taken from their
compensation, but not transferred to the their health plan account
or other benefit plans and providers.

The Plan is designated as the "Flexible Benefit Plan 501," which
is an employee welfare benefit plan for employees and former
employees of Tri State Imaging Consultants, LLC, Tri-State Imaging
PR, LLC, and their subsidiaries and affiliates, commonly and
collectively referred to as the Tri-State Imaging Group.

The Plan is sponsored by Tri-State Imaging Consultants, LLC and
was administered by Richard Miller and is subject to and governed
by the Employee Retirement Income Security Act.  The Individual
Defendants are administrators or trustees of the Plan and are
ERISA fiduciaries.  The Corporate Defendants are Pennsylvania
limited liability companies with a principal place of business in
Jenkintown, Pennsylvania.


UGL LTD: Law Firm Mulls Class Action Over Ichthys Disclosure
------------------------------------------------------------
The Australian Financial Review reports that Slater and Gordon is
considering a class action lawsuit against UGL over allegations
that it breached its continuous disclosure obligations in late
2014 by delaying informing investors about cost blow-outs on a
power plant contract for INPEX's Ichthys gas project.

As previously reported by The Australian Financial Review, UGL was
aware that its American joint venture partner, CH2M Hill, was
considering taking provisions on the troubled $550 million power
plant project at least a month before the Australian contractor
informed shareholders on November 6 2014 that it was facing cost
blowouts due to delays

CH2M Hill had revealed in a filing to the US Securities and
Exchange Commission in August 2014 that it was worried about
rising costs and the potential for liquidated damages on the power
plant contract.

UGL's stock slumped almost 15 percent on November 6, losing $1.01
to $5.89, after the company revealed the cost blow-outs and said
the joint venture had taken a US$170 million provision.

The November 6 statement came as UGL, which was then run by former
chief executive Richard Leupen, confirmed it had completed the
sale of its DTZ property arm to private equity group TPG for $1.2
billion.

Some analysts said that at the time that if UGL had revealed the
power plant problems earlier, it could have hurt the sale
negotiations, making it look like a forced seller of DTZ.

Slater and Gordon said on Sept. 28 that they had been contacted by
"numerous aggrieved shareholders," including both retail and
institutional investors, following UGL's November 6 statement.

It is understood several hundred investors have indicated they are
willing to be part of the class action, with thousands of
investors expected to be eligible.

"The proposed class action will allege that UGL failed to disclose
that the construction of a power plant for the Ichthys LNG project
in the Northern Territory was running behind schedule and was
subject to increased project costs," said Slater and Gordon
principal lawyer Tim Finney.

"This conduct is alleged to amount to misleading or deceptive
conduct, and a breach of UGL's obligations to disclose to the ASX
all information that a reasonable person would expect to have a
material impact on the price of its securities.

Investors who bought shares in UGL from August 8 2014 to
November 5 2014 have been asked to register their interest in the
class action.  If there is enough interest, the action will be
funded by IMF Bentham.

New UGL CEO Ross Taylor said in February 2015 that UGL would write
down the Ichthys power plant by $175 million.

Mr. Taylor subsequently said in June 2016 that UGL was considering
taking an additional $200 million of writedowns on both the power
plant and the company's other contract with Ichthys, a $740
million structural, mechanical and piping contract in a joint
venture with Canadian-owned engineering group Kentz.

Both contracts are with JKC, a consortium of Japanese engineering
groups JGC and Chiyoda and US engineering group KBR, which is
overseeing the engineering and construction of onshore LNG
facilities for the Ichthys project.

UGL and CH2M Hill have previously tried to settle claims with JKC
for earlier delays to the power project.  Mr Taylor said a year
ago he believed the $175 million provision would be sufficient.

UGL's shares closed down 5õ at $2.17. UGL was not immediately
available for comment.


TTC AMERIDIAL: Oliver Moves Certification of Class Under TCPA
-------------------------------------------------------------
Kristina Oliver moves the Court for an order certifying the case
styled KRISTINA OLIVER, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. TTC AMERIDIAL, LLC, an Illinois limited
liability company, and AMERIDIAL, INC., an Ohio corporation, Case
No. 1:16-cv-05177 (N.D. Ill.), as a class action, but asks the
Court to enter and continue the Motion until after the completion
of discovery on class-wide issues, at which time the Plaintiff
will submit a more detailed memorandum of points and authorities
in support of class certification.

In her complaint, Ms. Oliver alleges violations of the Telephone
Consumer Protection Act and seeks certification of a class of
similarly situated individuals, defined as:

     Autodialed No Consent Class: All persons in the United
     States who from May 12, 2012 to the present (1) Defendants
     (or a third person acting on behalf of Defendants) caused to
     be called; (2) on the person's cellular telephone number;
     (3) using an automatic dialing system; and (4) who
     Defendants claim they obtained prior express consent in the
     same manner as Defendants claim they obtained prior express
     consent to call the Plaintiff.

A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=UiFuwdF2

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Marc McCallister, Esq.
          GARY D. MCCALLISTER & ASSOCIATES
          120 North LaSalle St., #2800
          Chicago, IL 60602
          Telephone: (312) 345-0611
          E-mail: mmccallister@gmail.com

               - and -

          Steven L. Woodrow, Esq.
          Patrick H. Peluso, Esq.
          WOODROW & PELUSO, LLC
          3900 East Mexico Ave., Suite 300
          Denver, CO 80210
          Telephone: (720) 213-0675
          Facsimile: (303) 927-0809
          E-mail: swoodrow@woodrowpeluso.com
                  ppeluso@woodrowpeluso.com

               - 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


UGL LTD: IMF Bentham May Fund Shareholder Class Action
------------------------------------------------------
Stuart McKinnon, writing for The West Australian, reports that
IMF Bentham is planning to fund a shareholder class action against
UGL over its handling of a trouble-plagued power station contract
on Inpex's Ichthys LNG project in Darwin.

In June, UGL warned losses on the project could reach $375 million
because of lengthy delays and disruptions on work and a dispute
with head contractor JKC Australia LNG.

The losses triggered sharp falls in UGL's share price.

UGL announced it had reached a commercial settlement with JKC on
claims up to May 31.

IMF said claims against the company revolved around alleged
misleading and deceptive conduct and alleged breached of
continuous disclosure obligations on the project between
August 8, 2014 and November 5, 2014.

Slater & Gordon will conduct the action against the company, but
IMF's support is conditional upon enough claimants with valid
claims coming forward to take part.


ULTA SALON: Court Certifies Settlement Class in "Quinby" Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
The Hon. William H. Orrick entered an order provisionally
certifying settlement class and preliminarily approving class
settlement in the lawsuit captioned JAIMIE QUINBY, LINDA GOMES,
and ERIC FONTES, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly
situated v. ULTA SALON, COSMETICS & FRAGRANCE, INC., Case No.
3:15-cv-04099-WHO (N.D. Cal.).

The Court provisionally certifies this class under Rule 23(e) of
the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure for settlement purposes:

     All current and former General Managers employed by
     Defendant in its California retail store locations at any
     time from September 9, 2011 to September 19, 2016 or the
     date of this Order, whichever occurs first (the "Class" or
     "Class Members").

Provisional certification of the settlement class will be solely
for settlement purposes and without prejudice to any party, in the
event that the Settlement Agreement is not finally approved.

Judge Orrick appointed The Liu Law Firm, P.C., and Rosen Bien
Galvan & Grunfeld LLP as Class Counsel, and approved the Proposed
Notice and directs its distribution to Class Members.

The Court will hold a final fairness hearing on January 18, 2017,
at 2:00 p.m.

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

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Gay Crosthwait Grunfeld, Esq.
          Jenny S. Yelin, Esq.
          ROSEN BIEN GALVAN & GRUNFELD LLP
          50 Fremont Street, 19th Floor
          San Francisco, CA 94105-2235
          Telephone: (415) 433-6830
          Facsimile: (415) 433-7104
          E-mail: ggrunfeld@rbgg.com
                  jyelin@rbgg.com

               - and -

          Jennifer L. Liu, Esq.
          Sherri M. Hansen, Esq.
          THE LIU LAW FIRM, P.C.
          1170 Market Street, Suite 700
          San Francisco, CA 94102-4991
          Telephone: (415) 896-4260
          Facsimile: (415) 231-0011
          E-mail: jliu@liulawpc.com
                  shansen@liulawpc.com


UNITED STATES: Judge Refuses to Dismiss PACER Class Action
----------------------------------------------------------
June Williams, writing for Courthouse News Service, reported that
a federal judge refused on September 26, to dismiss a class action
accusing the U.S. government of systematically overcharging for
access to court records through its system PACER, short for Public
Access to Court Electronic Records.

Bryndon Fisher sued the United States for a putative class,
claiming that "PACER overcharges users because of a faulty pricing
formula," U.S. Court of Federal Claims Judge Thomas Wheeler wrote
in his order refusing the government's motion to dismiss.

PACER charges users 10 cents a page for a docket report, up to a
maximum of $3. The dockets are displayed in HTML format, so PACER
uses a formula based on the number of bytes in a docket to
calculate billable pages.

The program contains an error causing too many bytes to be
counted, Fisher said in his December 2015 complaint against the
Administrative Office of U.S. Courts and its director James C.
Duff.

Fisher says he was overcharged for two years -- paying $109.40 to
the AO, though he should have been charged only $72.40 -- an
overcharge of 51 percent. He seeks class certification, refunds
and an injunction against illegal exaction that violates the Fifth
Amendment.

The government sought dismissal on June 15, saying Fisher should
have submitted disputes directly to the PACER service center
within 90 days of receiving the bill, as required in user
contracts, so he failed to exhaust administrative remedies before
suing.

Wheeler disagreed, saying it was "not even clear from the language
in the PACER documents that parties must submit claims before
filing suit."

After receiving briefs and hearing oral argument on Sept. 15,
Wheeler found that Fisher met the burden of pleading subject
matter jurisdiction over his contract claims.

Fisher properly sued for breach of contract because he alleges the
government charged more than the agreed-upon price, forcing a
contract modification on Fischer without his knowledge or consent.

The court has jurisdiction over Fisher's illegal exaction claims,
Wheeler said, despite the government's contention to the contrary.

"Fisher has sufficiently alleged that the government illegally
overcharged him contrary to PACER's governing statutes and
policies, and his complaint states a claim for illegal exaction,"
the judge wrote.

He ordered the government to respond to Fisher's claims by Oct.
11.

Should Fisher prevail, though damages may be small for each
attorney, they would add up. More than 2 million people use PACER.

The case is captioned, BRYNDON FISHER, Plaintiff, v. THE UNITED
STATES, Defendant No. 15-1575C (Fed. Cl.).


US XPRESS: Certification of Drivers Class Sought in "Ayala" Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Anthony Ayala moves the Court for an order certifying the action
styled ANTHONY AYALA, individually and on behalf of all those
similarly situated v. U.S. XPRESS ENTERPRISES, INC., U.S. XPRESS,
INC., and DOES 1-100, Case No. 5:16-cv-00137-GW-KK (C.D. Cal.), as
a class action on behalf of a class consisting of all truck
drivers, who have worked in California for U.S. Xpress after the
completion of training at any time since four years before the
filing of the legal action until such time as there is a final
disposition of the lawsuit.

Mr. Ayala also asks the Court to appoint him as Class
Representative and to appoint his counsel -- Goldstein, Borgen,
Dardarian & Ho; Law Offices of James M. Sitkin; and Swartz Swidler
LLC -- as Class Counsel.

The Court will commence a hearing on December 15, 2016, at 8:30
a.m., to consider the Motion.

A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=hPy1snkY

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          David Borgen, Esq.
          James Kan, Esq.
          Raymond A. Wendell, Esq.
          GOLDSTEIN, BORGEN, DARDARIAN & HO
          300 Lakeside Drive, Suite 1000
          Oakland, CA 94612
          Telephone: (510) 763-9800
          Facsimile: (510) 835-1417
          E-mail: dborgen@gbdhlegal.com
                  jkan@gbdhlegal.com
                  rwendell@gbdhlegal.com

               - and -

          James M. Sitkin, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF JAMES M. SITKIN
          1 Kaiser Plaza, Suite 505
          Oakland, CA 94612
          Telephone: (415) 318-1048
          Facsimile: (415) 362-3268
          E-mail: jsitkin@sitkinlegal.com

               - and -

          Justin L. Swidler, Esq.
          Richard S. Swartz, Esq.
          SWARTZ SWIDLER LLC
          1878 Marlton Pike East, Suite 10
          Cherry Hill, NJ 08003
          Telephone: (856) 685-7420
          Facsimile: (856) 685-7417
          E-mail: jswidler@swartz-legal.com
                  rswartz@swartz-legal.com


UTAH: Class of Mentally Unstable Inmates Certified
--------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit styled DISABILITY LAW CENTER, a Utah nonprofit
corporation; S.B., an individual, by and through his next friend
Margaret Goodman; A.U., by and through his next friend Mary Eka;
and S.W., an individual, the Plaintiffs, v. STATE OF UTAH; UTAH
DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN SERVICES; ANN WILLIAMSON, in her official
capacity as Executive Director of the Utah Department of Human
Services; UTAH DIVISION OF SUBSTANCE ABUSE AND MENTAL HEALTH;
DOUGLAS THOMAS, in his official capacity as Director of the Utah
Division of Substance Abuse and Mental Health; UTAH STATE
HOSPITAL; DALLAS EARNSHAW, in his official capacity as
Superintendent of Utah State Hospital, the Defendants, Case No.
2:15-cv-00645-RJS-BCW (D. Utah), the Hon Judge Robert J. Shelby
entered an order granting Plaintiffs' motion to certify a class
of:

     "all individuals who are now, or will be in the future, (a)
     charged with a crime in Utah, (b) are determined by the
     court in which they are charged to be mentally incompetent
     to stand trial, and (c) are ordered to the custody of the
     executive director of [DHS] or a designee for the purpose of
     treatment intended to restore the defendant to competency
     but remain housed in a Utah county jail."

The Court also entered an order granting appointment of class
counsel.

The State urged the court to deny Plaintiffs' request for
certification of a Rule 23(b)(2) class for the same reason class
certification was inappropriate in the case, Shook v. Board of
County Commissioners of El Paso ("Shook II"), 543 F.3d 597 (10th
Cir. 2008).  In Shook II, jail inmates brought a class action
seeking declaratory and injunctive relief to address a variety of
conditions at the jail alleged to violate the Eighth Amendment
rights of inmates with mental health issues. The Tenth Circuit
held that the district court was within its discretion when it
declined to certify a Rule 23(b)(2) class because "there was no
single policy or procedure to which all [plaintiffs] were
subject." Indeed, some plaintiffs asserted "claims for denial of
medication, some for lack of supervision, and others for use of
excessive force."

The Court, however, held that in the instant case, all class
members are seemingly held in county jails for extended periods
after a court declares them incompetent and commits them to the
custody of DHS's director or a designee. It appears this occurs
not because the States uses a procedure in which a qualified
professional recommends this course of action, but because USH is
full. Moreover, all named Plaintiffs assert claims based on their
substantive due process right to be free from conditions or
restrictions of confinement that amount to punishment absent a
criminal conviction. Shook II poses no barrier to class
certification.

A copy of the Order is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=WY35bE1F


UTAH: Must Face Class Action Over Mentally Ill Inmates
------------------------------------------------------
Ben Winslow, writing for FOX13, reports that a federal judge has
granted class action status to potentially dozens of mentally ill
inmates currently incarcerated in jails across the state, waiting
for treatment at the state hospital.

In an order issued on Sept. 27, U.S. District Court Judge Robert
Shelby allowed the Disability Law Center to proceed with a class
action lawsuit against the state of Utah.  The legal advocacy
group is suing Utah on behalf of mentally ill people incarcerated
in county jails, waiting for treatment at the Utah State Hospital.

The Disability Law Center is not naming its clients, who have been
incarcerated in county jails awaiting treatment.  They have been
arrested for a variety of crimes from minor shoplifting violations
to serious assaults.  They have appeared before judges, found
incompetent to stand trial and then ordered to go to the Utah
State Hospital for mental health treatment to restore them to
competency.

But the Utah State Hospital is full and has been for years, said
Aaron Kinikini, the legal director of the Disability Law Center.
So the defendants are then forced to stay in jail where they do
not get any treatment.  Some, with serious mental illness issues
like schizophrenia, are kept in solitary confinement.

"In our view, it's unconstitutional for people to wait this long
for treatment in a jail when they haven't been convicted of a
crime," Mr. Kinikini said in an interview on Sept. 28 with
FOX 13.

Mr. Kinikini claimed that one of his clients spent nine months in
jail just waiting to get into the state hospital for treatment
while facing charges for shoplifting -- an offense that would only
merit a few days in jail at most, if convicted.  The Utah
Department of Human Services has tried some fixes in the past,
including sending state hospital workers to jails to begin
competency treatment.

"It couldn't be called treatment either legally or
professionally," Mr. Kinikini said.

In his ruling, Judge Shelby noted the long waiting list to get
into the state hospital for mental health treatment.

"Here, over 50 incompetent criminal defendants were on USH's wait
list in late July 2015, while 39 were on the wait list in early
June 2016.  The proposed class also includes future criminal
defendants who are declared incompetent, but remain housed in a
county jail after being placed in the custody of DHS's director or
a designee to receive restorative treatment," he wrote.

The Utah Attorney General's Office, which represents the Utah
Department of Human Services, declined to comment on the ruling.
The Disability Law Center said it is seeking changes to the system
to keep mentally ill inmates from being incarcerated for lengthy
periods of time.

"The state needs to figure out a way that people who are judged
incompetent in the criminal courts do not wait this long in a
county jail before receiving treatment," Mr. Kinikini said.


VISTA ENERGY: Class Certification Bid in "Primack" Suit Denied
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit titled Merrill Primack, the Plaintiff, v.
Vista Energy Marketing, L.P., et al., the Defendants,
Case No. 1:16-cv-01740 (N.D. Ill.), the Hon. Judge Jorge L. Alonso
entered an order denying Plaintiff's motion for class
certification without prejudice, with the understanding that
plaintiff's request for class certification remains pending as a
placeholder, and no rights are waived, according to the docket
entry made by the Clerk on September 27, 2016.

Vista Energy was founded in 2009. The company's line of business
includes providing management consulting services.

A copy of the Order is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=PTZV8vho


VIVENDI UNIVERSAL: 2nd Circuit Affirms Securities Class Action
--------------------------------------------------------------
Vivendi on Sept. 27 disclosed that the United States Court of
Appeals for the Second Circuit affirmed the judgment entered
against Vivendi on December 23, 2014 in In re Vivendi Universal,
S.A. Securities Litigation.  The Court of Appeals rejected,
however, the class action plaintiffs' arguments in their cross-
appeal seeking to expand the class of plaintiffs and the scope of
their claim.

Although Vivendi is gratified that the Court of Appeals properly
rejected the class action plaintiffs' cross-appeal, Vivendi
strongly disagrees with the Court of Appeals' decision affirming
the judgment and continues to assert that it did nothing wrong.
Vivendi is analyzing its options, both in seeking further review
before the Court of Appeals and in filing a petition for review
with the Supreme Court of the United States.

Vivendi continues to maintain a reserve of EUR100 million with
respect to any damages it may have to pay in this case.  The value
of the affirmed judgment is approximately $50 million.

In a related decision, the Court of Appeals affirmed the judgment
entered for Vivendi on February 28, 2013 in GAMCO Investors, Inc.
v. Vivendi, S.A.  In its opinion, the Court of Appeals found that
"the record at the trial simply does not establish that it was
clearly erroneous for the district court to find that GAMCO, had
it known of the liquidity problems at Vivendi, would have made the
choice to buy the same securities it purchased."

This decision by the Court of Appeals confirms that Vivendi is not
liable to GAMCO Investors, Inc. or its affiliates under the United
States securities laws.  Vivendi is pleased that the Court of
Appeals, like the district court, rejected GAMCO's claim against
Vivendi for approximately $3.5 million, exclusive of interest.

                         About Vivendi

Vivendi -- http://www.vivendi.com-- is an integrated media and
content group.  The company operates businesses throughout the
media value chain, from talent discovery to the creation,
production and distribution of content.  The main subsidiaries of
Vivendi comprise Canal+ Group and Universal Music Group. Canal+ is
the leading pay-TV operator in France, and also serves markets in
Africa, Poland and Vietnam.  Canal+ operations include
Studiocanal, a leading European player in production, sales and
distribution of film and TV series.  Universal Music Group is the
world leader in recorded music, music publishing and
merchandising, with more than 50 labels covering all genres.  A
separate division, Vivendi Village, brings together Vivendi
Ticketing (ticketing in the UK, the U.S and France), MyBestPro
(experts counseling), Watchever (subscription video-on-demand),
Radionomy (digital radio), Olympia Production, the L'Olympia and
the TheÉtre de L'Oeuvre venues in Paris and the CanalOlympia
venues in Africa.  With 3.5 billion videos viewed each month,
Dailymotion is one of the biggest video content aggregation and
distribution platforms in the world.  Gameloft is a worldwide
leading video games on mobile, with 2 million games downloaded per
day.


VOCATION: ASIC Files Legal Action v. John Dawkins Over Collapse
---------------------------------------------------------------
Elysse Morgan and Ian Verrender, writing for ABC, report that
former federal education minister John Dawkins' woes have
intensified after class action lawyers seized upon news he was
facing legal action from the corporate regulator.

Law firms Maurice Blackburn and rival Slater & Gordon are in
negotiations to join forces for a combined attack against
collapsed private education group Vocation over alleged disclosure
failures during his time as chairman.

The ABC earlier revealed the Australian Securities and Investments
Commission (ASIC) was pursuing Mr. Dawkins, the former Hawke
government education minister, with civil charges of "misleading
and deceptive conduct".

The accusations relate to an alleged failure by the company to
disclose the full potential of a withdrawal of Victorian
Government funding to Vocation in the lead-up to a $72.5 million
capital raising in September 2014.

"I was one of four non-executive directors -- although I am the
only one part of this action -- and I believe we all diligently
and collectively fulfilled our disclosure obligations,"
Mr. Dawkins wrote in a statement through public relations firm
GRACosway, of which he is chairman.

"ASIC's proceedings will be vigorously defended."

Both Maurice Blackburn and Slater & Gordon have launched actions
over the same issues.

Dawkins paid $1.2m on Vocation's ASX listing

In August and September of 2014, shortly before the capital
raising, market rumors began to circulate that the company could
lose lucrative Victorian Government contracts as a result of a
government review.

The company, however, assured investors that if that occurred, it
would not be "material".

Maurice Blackburn's Brooke Dellavedova alleges that was
misleading.

"Ultimately, the review resulted in the government withholding $20
million and Vocation had to review its services," she said.
Around 80 per cent of Vocation's revenue came from state and
federal government funding.

At its peak, Vocation had a market capitalization of $700 million,
before its collapse in November 2015, which left up to 15,000
students in limbo and investors and creditors significantly out of
pocket.

The Victorian Government is one of the biggest creditors, with $8
million owing.

The company had many brands, including Avana, Buildit Learning and
Real Institute, providing training to corporate and government
clients.

Vocation listed on the Australian Securities Exchange in 2013
after the merger of several privately run education businesses.

On its listing, Mr. Dawkins was paid $1.2 million for services
rendered to one those entities and was awarded more than half a
million Vocation shares.

Federal Government considers funding shake-up

The legal action comes as the Federal Government considers a
shake-down of vocational education providers, after revelations
some have left thousands of would-be students heavily in debt and
without useful qualifications.

The Australian Competition and Consumer Commission (ACCC) is also
investigating numerous operators.

Federal Education Minister Simon Birmingham has frozen payments to
all private providers at 2015 levels and earlier this year
released a discussion paper on redesigning the scheme.

Mr. Dawkins called for a massive overhaul of the tertiary
education system, including fee deregulation.

He reportedly wrote a letter to Vicki Thomson, the head of the
Group of Eight Universities, saying his own 1987 reforms were "out
of date" and praised Christopher Pyne's attempts at deregulating
the sector.

Mr. Dawkins has spoken out previously about the collapse of
Vocation, reportedly telling a conference of the Australian
Council of Private Education and Training that when floating a
company, it is wise not to bet on government money.

"When readying the business for sale it's best to ensure that
revenue from government is not nominated," he said.


WARREN, MI: Certification of Two Classes Sought in Nili 2011 Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The Plaintiffs in the lawsuit styled NILI 2011, LLC, EETBL, LLC
and INVESTMENT REALTY SERVICES, LLC D/B/A SBYC GARNER, LLC v. CITY
OF WARREN, Case No. 2:15-CV-13392-GAD-RSW (E.D. Mich.), move for
certification of these two classes:

     A) All persons and entities who currently own or at one time
        owned any parcel of real property located within the city
        of Warren who has been issued civil infractions for
        failing to obtain a certificate of occupancy/compliance,
        and subsequently paid them, stemming from an inspection
        under the IPMC and the City Code, at any time since
        September 28, 2009 and through the date of final
        judgment, or such longer amount of time as may be allowed
        by law; and

     B) All persons and entities who have made repairs pursuant
        to a deficiency report issued by the City without being
        provided with notice of the violation or their ability to
        appeal such determination to an impartial board.

The Plaintiffs are real estate investment and management companies
with numerous properties within the City of Warren.  They accuse
Warren of violating the International Property Maintenance Code
and the Constitution, which resulted in damages to Plaintiffs and
the proposed class.

A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=fVlo3Sqy

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Aaron D. Cox, Esq.
          Andrew T. Strahan, Esq.
          THE LAW OFFICES OF AARON D. COX, PLLC
          23380 Goddard Rd.
          Taylor, MI 48180
          Telephone: (734) 287-3664
          E-mail: aaron@aaroncoxlaw.com
                  andrew@aaroncoxlaw.com

               - and -

          Mark K. Wasvary, Esq.
          MARK K. WASVARY, P.C.
          2401 W. Big Beaver Rd., Suite 100
          Troy, MI 48084
          Telephone: (248) 649-5667
          E-mail: markwasvary@hotmail.com

               - and -

          John Gillooly, Esq.
          GARAN, LUCOW, MILLER, P.C.
          1155 Brewery Park Blvd, Ste 200
          Detroit, MI 48207
          Telephone: (313) 446-5501
          E-mail: jgillool@garanlucow.com


WELLS FARGO: Faces Class Action, Nov. 25 Lead Plaintiff Deadline
----------------------------------------------------------------
Bronstein, Gewirtz & Grossman, LLC on Sept. 27 notified investors
that a class action lawsuit has been filed against Wells Fargo &
Company ("Wells Fargo" or the "Company") and certain of its
officers.  The class action is on behalf of a class consisting of
all persons or entities who purchased Wells Fargo securities
between February 26, 2014 and September 15, 2016, inclusive (the
"Class Period").

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

The Complaint alleges that throughout the Class Period, Defendants
made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose
that Wells Fargo's cross-selling efforts to retail customers was
part of a carefully designed plan to illegally open millions of
deposit and credit card accounts for customers without their
knowledge or consent, in an effort to generate fee income for
Wells Fargo and compensation rewards for defendants.

Wells Fargo also failed to disclose that the continuing internal
investigation had determined by the beginning of the Class Period
that employees in the Community Banking division were engaged in a
mass scheme to expand Wells Fargo's financial performance figures
by opening millions of unauthorized deposit and credit card
accounts, resulting in over 5,000 employee terminations.
Consequently, defendants' statements about Wells Fargo's business,
operations, and prospects were false and misleading and/or lacked
a reasonable basis as Wells Fargo stock traded at artificially
inflated prices, at a high of over $58 per share, which allowed
some defendants to sell more than $31 million worth of their own
Wells Fargo stock at artificially inflated prices.

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/wfcor 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
Wells Fargo you have until November 25, 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.  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.


WHITE OAK: Class Certification Bid in "Taylor" Suit Denied
----------------------------------------------------------
The Hon. Judge Leslie J. Abrams entered an order in the lawsuit
entitled TRAVIS TAYLOR, on behalf of himself and all others
similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. WHITE OAK PASTURES, INC.,
the Defendant, Case No. 1:15-cv-00156-LJA (M.D. Ga.), denying
Plaintiff's motion for conditional certification of collective
action and issuance of court-approved notice.

Plaintiff seeks to certify a class of:

     "all persons who are or were employed by Defendant in its
     red meat abattoir during the period September 23, 2012 to
     the present and who were not paid an overtime premium for
     all hours worked in excess of 40 in a single workweek."

After comparing the complaint with the motion to certify and the
proposed notice of lawsuit, the Court finds that the description
of the similarly-situated individuals alleged in Plaintiff's
complaint impermissibly differs from the descriptions proffered in
the motion to certify and proposed notice of lawsuit. Notably,
Plaintiff's complaint does not include employees working in order
processing, the loading docks, or the beef plant. These
"incongruities" in the descriptions of the similarly-situated
individuals Plaintiff seeks to represent "prove fatal for
Plaintiff's motion to certify."

The Plaintiff may file an amended complaint or an amended motion
to certify within 21 days of the entry of the Order.

A copy of the Order is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=kLLXcK6K


WHITEWAVE FOODS: City of Dearborn Sues Over Danone Merger
---------------------------------------------------------
The WhiteWave Foods Company said in its Form 8-K Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on September 23, 2016, that
a putative class action lawsuit was filed on September 19, 2016,
in the United States District Court for the District of Colorado
challenging the proposed merger between WhiteWave and Danone by
City of Dearborn Heights Act 345 Police & Retirement System, a
purported stockholder of WhiteWave, against WhiteWave, its
directors, Danone, and Merger Sub. The complaint alleges that the
directors of WhiteWave breached their fiduciary duties in
connection with the proposed merger by, among other things,
conducting an allegedly unfair and inadequate sale process,
agreeing to an allegedly unfair and inadequate price, agreeing to
deal protection devices that allegedly preclude other potential
bidders from making competing bids for WhiteWave, allegedly
failing to protect against certain purported conflicts of
interest, and allegedly failing to disclose all material
information to WhiteWave stockholders in connection with the
proposed merger, and that WhiteWave, Danone, and Merger Sub aided
and abetted such alleged breaches of fiduciary duty. The complaint
further asserts a claim for violations of Section 14(a) of the
Exchange Act and SEC Rule 14a-9 against WhiteWave and its
directors, and a claim for violations of Section 20(a) of the
Exchange Act against the WhiteWave directors, Danone, and Merger
Sub for allegedly disseminating a materially misleading proxy
statement in connection with the proposed merger. The complaint
seeks, among other things, to enjoin the consummation of the
proposed merger, rescissory damages, and costs, including
attorneys' and experts' fees. WhiteWave believes the lawsuit is
without merit.


WORLDWIDE ENTERTAINMENT: Promoter's Sentence Hearing Resumes
------------------------------------------------------------
The Associated Press reports that a sentencing hearing is resuming
for a former concert promoter convicted in a fraud scheme that
fleeced thousands of investors out of $200 million.

The hearing for 73-year-old Jack Utsick enters a third day on Oct.
4 in Miami federal court.  Mr. Utsick was extradited from Brazil
in 2014 and pleaded guilty to mail fraud in June.

Prosecutors say Mr. Utsick defrauded nearly 3,000 investors by
hiding a decade of losses by Worldwide Entertainment Inc. and
promising double-digit returns.

Worldwide promoted tours by numerous top-level acts including the
Rolling Stones, Fleetwood Mac and David Bowie.  Mr. Utsick's
attorney says he never intended to defraud investors and hoped to
turn the company's fortunes around.

Prosecutors want Mr. Utsick sentenced to more than 17 years in
prison.  Mr. Utsick seeks a lenient sentence of about six years.


YAHOO INC: Faces Investigation Over Massive 2014 Data Hacking
-------------------------------------------------------------
Paul Szoldra, writing for Business Insider, reports that Yahoo is
having a rough week, and it's not getting much better, since the
company is refusing to answer the most important question about
its massive hack.

The company revealed on September 22 that it had been hacked by
what it said it believed was a "state-sponsored actor" that stole
information for at least 500 million accounts.

It's still investigating the breach along with the FBI.
Meanwhile, it's now the subject of at least three proposed class-
action lawsuits, and US senators are asking the company to explain
itself and the Securities and Exchange Commission to investigate.

The onslaught of negative attention comes at a particularly bad
time for Yahoo, which is currently working on its sale to Verizon
after it agreed in July to purchase Yahoo for $4.8 billion.

Sen. Al Franken (D-Minnesota) and his colleagues wrote in a letter
to Yahoo CEO Marissa Mayer: "We are even more disturbed that user
information was first compromised in 2014, yet the company only
announced the breach last week.  That means millions of Americans'
data may have been compromised for two years.  This is
unacceptable."

The most pressing question asked in the letter is: When and how
did Yahoo first learn that it had been breached? Sen. Franken
asked the company to provide a timeline.

A Yahoo spokesperson told Business Insider the company had
"received the letter and will work to respond in a timely and
appropriate manner."

On Sept. 26, Sen. Mark Warner (D-Virginia) sent a letter to SEC
Chairwoman Mary Jo White urging the agency to open an
investigation to see whether Yahoo had "made complete and accurate
representations" about its security.

Judy Burns, a spokeswoman for the SEC, declined to comment on
Warner's letter or whether it would be investigating Yahoo.

Meanwhile, a Los Angeles man has filed a proposed class-action
lawsuit against Yahoo that alleges negligence, breach of contract,
and violations of California's state civil and business codes. Two
other suits filed in San Francisco are also seeking class-action
status.

Besides its potential legal troubles, Yahoo could also lose
customers over the breach.

Why it matters when the hack happened

So far, Yahoo has not said when it found it had been hacked, but
that question is central to what happens next.

That's because Yahoo filed documents with the SEC on September 9
indicating there had "not been any incidents" of security breaches
that could have an adverse affect on its business.

If it knew it had been hacked before that filing, the agency could
rake the company over the coals over a lack of disclosure.

And if knowledge of the hack goes back even further than that --
like before July, when Verizon agreed to buy Yahoo -- the $4.8
billion deal could be in jeopardy.

On Sept. 28, Business Insider asked Yahoo when it learned it had
been hacked.  As with previous inquiries, Yahoo declined to
provide a date and said, "Our investigation into this matter is
ongoing and the issues are complex."

A person familiar with the matter told Business Insider the
company initiated an investigation after apparent credentials from
Yahoo customers appeared on the dark web in August, but it later
found that the data being sold was not legitimate.

But during a deeper look into its networks, Yahoo found the much
larger breach of at least 500 million user accounts.

This person said Yahoo had "a high degree of confidence" the theft
was carried out by a state-sponsored actor, which has still not
been named, and occurred sometime in 2014.

Some insiders say Yahoo didn't take security seriously

In the wake of the event, insiders have come forward to criticize
Yahoo's stance on security over the last few years.

Although its security team worked to mitigate potential threats,
six current and former Yahoo employees told The New York Times on
Sept. 28 that security took a backseat at the company, often
because Ms. Mayer worried that enhanced security features could
cause users to stop using its services.

The latest breach was one of "a number of previous incidents that
were not managed swiftly" by Mayer, according to internal sources
who spoke with Recode.

These arguments over security may also explain Yahoo's unusually
high turnover in its chief information security officer role.

Its first CISO, Justin Somaini, joined the company in 2011 and
stayed until January 2013, leaving in part because he was "unhappy
with the new regime" of Ms. Mayer, according to a report from All
Things Digital.  After his departure, the company didn't have a
full-time CISO until March 2014, when Alex Stamos was hired.

One executive told Recode that Mr. Stamos tried unsuccessfully to
have top management respond more strongly to such security
incidents.

But Mr. Stamos and Ms. Mayer repeatedly clashed, according to the
sources who spoke with The Times.  Its report said Ms. Meyer
"denied Yahoo's security team financial resources and put off
proactive security defenses, including intrusion-detection
mechanisms for Yahoo's production systems."

Mr. Stamos left for Facebook a little over a year later.  His
interim replacement, Ramses Martinez, moved to Apple only about a
month after being put in the role.  Yahoo's current CISO,
Bob Lord, has been on the job for 11 months.

Yahoo declined to answer specific questions from Business Insider,
but provided this statement in regard to its security practices:

"Over the course of our more than 20-year history, Yahoo's
executive management and entire team have focused on and invested
in security programs and talent to protect our users.  For
example, we invested more than $10 million to encrypt our platform
in early 2014, and our investment in security initiatives from
2015 to 2016 will have increased by 60 percent.

"We routinely conduct red team exercises, where we adopt the tools
and methods of adversaries to test and improve our defenses.  In
the last two years, a vibrant Yahoo bug bounty program has
resulted in $1.8 million in cash payouts to security researchers
from around the world and enabled Yahoo to meaningfully strengthen
our security posture.

"Today's security landscape is complex and ever-evolving, but, at
Yahoo, we have a deep understanding of the threats facing our
users and continuously strive to stay ahead of these threats to
keep our users and our platforms secure."



                            *********

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  * * *