CAR_Public/161011.mbx              C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

            Tuesday, October 11, 2016, Vol. 18, No. 203




                            Headlines

A10 CAPITAL: Faces "Ison" Suit in Western District of Arkansas
ABSOLUTE RESOLUTIONS: Status Hearing in "Aguirre" Set for Oct. 13
ACX PACIFIC: Court Approves Belaire Notice to Class Members
ALLIEDBARTON SECURITY: "Williams" Class Suit Tossed
ANGL INC: Faces "Vandermark" Suit Over Lack of Rest Periods

ASSET MANAGEMENT: Faces Class Action Over Unfair Collection in La.
AUTOHAUS ON EDENS: Illegally Deducts Workers' Wages, Action Says
AW COLLISION: Faces "Cano" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
BANC CERTIFIED: Faces Family Health Chiropractic Suit in Ohio
BANNER HEALTH: Faces Class Action Over Hacking in Arizona

BERKSHIRE HATHAWAY: Hearing on Gonzalez's Bid for Counsel Oct. 17
BMW: "Casper" Suit Transferred from D.N.J. to S.D. Fla.
C&S WHOLESALE: Court Dismisses "Bicek" Wage & Hour Case
CARESOUTH HEALTH: Faces "Parham" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT
CLEARSPRING LOAN: Court Certifies FDCPA Class in "Babbitt" Suit

COBALT MORTGAGE: Fails to Pay Employees Overtime, Action Claims
CONOPCO INC: Paulino May Renew Class Cert. Bid After Discovery
COOK COUNTY, IL: Hearing on Williams' Bid to Certify Continued
CORRECT CARE: Denial of Bishop's Class Cert. Bid Recommended
CUSTOM COMMUNICATIONS: Court Certifies Class in "Beasley" Suit

DELIZIA INC: Faces "Martinez" Suit in Cal. Over Sexual Harassment
DENTAL EQUITIES: Bid to Certify Scoma Suit Class Denied as Moot
DESERT CHAMPIONS: Settlement in "Gamache" Case Has Final Okay
DIAMOND DETAIL: "Stryhn" Suit Seeks Overtime Pay, Unpaid Bonus
DINING ENTERTAINMENT: N.Y. Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Wages

EARTH ISLAND: Faces "Garcia" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
FAMILY DOLLAR: "Godoy" Suit Remains in Federal Court
FAMILY HOUSING: Sued in Cal. Over Failure to Provide Breaks
FLOWERS FOODS: Does Not Properly Pay Employees, Robinson Claims
FLOWERS FOODS: Rodriguez Seeks to Certify Class of Distributors

FLOWERS FOODS: Zapata Seeks Certification of Distributors Class
FPMC SERVICES: Illegally Terminates Workers, "Parker" Suit Says
GENEX HOLDINGS: Faces "Taylor-Thomas" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT
GERAWAN FARMING: Court Approves Notice Plan in "Amaro" Suit
GREAT AMERICAN LIFE: Goertzen Seeks to Certify Class & Subclass

GREAT LAKES EDUCATION: Court Refuses to Certify Class in "Dawson"
HAIR CLUB: Settlement in "Clemens" Suit Gets Final Approval
HAPPY DAYS: Fails to Pay Employees Overtime, "Busgith" Suit Says
HARTE HANKS: Blythe Sues Over Funding of Restoration Pension Plan
HIGHER ONE INC: Court Refuses to Approve "Hall" Suit Class Deal

HOME TEAM: Hearing on Class Cert. Bid in "Garnica" on Nov. 17
IMANGO CORP: "Zapata" Suit Seeks to Recover Overtime Pay
IMOTORSPORTS INC: Foley's Bid to Certify Taken Under Advisement
INT TECHNOLOGIES: Faces "Noto" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
JESSE CASARES: JT's Frames' Bid to Certify Taken Under Advisement

KEY ENERGY: Faces "Pruitt" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
KEYES EUROPEAN: Accused of Wrongful Conduct Over Payment Packing
KOHL'S CORP: Certification of TCPA Class Sought in "Ankcorn" Suit
LA ENTERTAINMENT: Goers Seeks Approval of Amended Class Notice
LG CHEM: Stipulation on Deposition of Experts Approved

LINCARE INC: Court Amends Class Definition in "Culley" Suit
LUMBER LIQUIDATORS: Faces "Perel" Suit in E.D. Va.
MARRONE BIO: Court Approves $3.4MM in Attorney's Fees, Expenses
MARRONE BIO: Courts Approves Class Action's Plan of Allocation
MCDONALD'S USA: Sued in Fla. Over Additional Drink Upcharge Fee

MDL 2591: Court Certifies Nine Classes in MIR 162 Corn Litigation
MULTI CABLE: Does Not Properly Pay Employees, "Galvez" Suit Says
NATIONAL FOOTBALL: 2nd Suit to Block Concussion Settlement Filed
NATIONAL FOOTBALL: Concussion Deal Challenged at High Court
NATIONWIDE CREDIT: Bid to Certify Class in "Torres" Suit Nixed

NAVIENT SOLUTIONS: Class Certification Sought in "Masson" Suit
NCB MANAGEMENT: Williams Seeks Certification of FDCPA Class
NCB MANAGEMENT: Parties Agree to Terminate "Kaleel" Class Suit
NEW TECH GLOBAL: Court Certifies Rig Clerks Class in "Clay" Suit
NISSAN MOTOR: Baron & Budd Sues on Behalf of U.S. Customers

NRA GROUP: N.Y. Court Certifies Settlement Class in "Gadime" Suit
OP PROPERTY: Sued in Cal. Over Tenants Privacy Rights Breach
PACIFIC COAST: March 2 Securities Settlement Fairness Hearing Set
PLAYTEX PRODUCTS: Sued for Misrepresenting Banana Boat Kids SPF
PRIME COMMUNICATIONS: Espinoza Seeks to Recover Overtime Pay

PROCARE MEDICAL: Faces "Torres" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
PTZ INSURANCE: Court Refuses to Certify Class in "Legg" Suit
PUBLIX SUPER: Faces "Tamayo" Class Action Over False Advertising
QUANTUM LEARNING: Feb. 2017 Fairness Hearing on "Johnson" Deal
RANDSTAD US: Settlement in "Wright" Case Has Final Approval

RESULTS COS: Call Center Agents Class Certified in Mulligan Suit
REWALK ROBOTICS: Faces Securities Class Action in California
ROTHENBERG VENTURES: Ex-Chief of Staff Sues Over Unpaid Wages
SAN JOAQUIN COLLEGE: "Benedy" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Wages
SBARRO LLC: Does Not Properly Pay Workers, "Fernandez" Suit Says

SBOCA LLC: Class Certification Sought in Gorss Motels Suit
SCHLUMBERGER TECH: Class of Specialists Certified in "Levy" Suit
SCHNUCK MARKETS: Ill. Judge Dismisses Data Breach Class Action
SCOREBIG INC: Sued in Cal. Over Failure to Pay Ticket Brokers
SEAS & ASSOCIATES: Stamer's Cert. Bid Nixed, Dec. 2 Hearing Set

SERES THERAPEUTICS: Nov. 28 Lead Plaintiff Motion Deadline Set
SHULTZ STEEL: "Rojas" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Wages
SIGMA PHARMACEUTICALS: Sues Former Executives Amid Class Action
SIN LIMITE WIRELESS: "Cisneros" Suit Seeks to Recover Overtime Pay
SONY CORP: Beats Lawsuit Over Non-Captioning of Song Lyrics

SPANGLES INC: "Yanes" Suit Seeks Overtime Pay
SPECTRUM PHARMA: November 21 Lead Plaintiff Motion Deadline Set
SQUARETWO FINANCIAL: Hallom Seeks to Certify Classes, Subclasses
STEWART'S SHOPS: Court Certifies FLSA Class in "Gregory" Suit
STOCKTON TELECOM: "Lee" Seeks Overtime Pay, Unpaid Bonus

SUPERIOR ENERGY: Myers Seeks Certification of Operators Class
SUPREME SERVICE: Field Workers Class Certified in "Blake" Suit
UNITED ROAD: Blumenthal Sues Over Unpaid Tow Truck Drivers' Wages
UNITED STATES: Thrivent Financial Sues DOL Over BIC Exemption
UNIVERSITY OF PHOENIX: Faces Telephone Harassment Class Action

VOLKSWAGEN AG: Cabraser Responds to Diesel Settlement Objections
VOLKSWAGEN AG: Majority of Diesel Owners to Take Settlement Offer
WATER & STREET INC: Guit et al. Seek Overtime Pay
WELLS FARGO: Bill Mulled to Ban Forced Arbitration in Sales Case
WELLS FARGO: Veach Sues Over Creation of Unauthorized Account

WEST VIRGINIA: Spill Class Action Heads to Jury Trial on Oct. 25
WTS DISTRIBUTORS: "Tejada" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT Wages
YAHOO! INC: Sventek Sues Over Data Breach
ZENITH SPECIALTY: Faces "Valdez" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT
ZILICON ACCESSORIES: Misleads Equity Investors, Suit Claims

* Poultry Producers Face Class Action Over Overpriced Chicken
* SCOTUS Set to Tackle Pending Cases on Class Action Waivers
* SCOTUS Grapples with Article III "No Injury" Class Actions


                            *********


A10 CAPITAL: Faces "Ison" Suit in Western District of Arkansas
--------------------------------------------------------------
A lawsuit has been filed against A10 Capital, LLC. The case is
captioned Michael Ison, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. A10 Capital, LLC, a Delaware
limited liability company, the Defendant, Case No. 2:16-cv-02241-
PKH (W.D. Ark., Oct. 4, 2016). The case is assigned to Hon. Judge
P. K. Holmes, III.

A10 Capital provides non-recourse perm loans and bridge loans for
middle-market commercial real estate nationwide.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          David Westbrook Doss, Jr., Esq.
          DOSS LAW FIRM, PA
          121 N. School
          Fayetteville, AR 72701
          Telephone: (479) 303 5500
          Facsimile: (800) 986 1136
          E-mail: west@dosslaw.biz


ABSOLUTE RESOLUTIONS: Status Hearing in "Aguirre" Set for Oct. 13
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The Clerk of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of
Illinois made a docket entry on September 26, 2016, in the case
entitled Carmen Aguirre v. Absolute Resolutions Corp., et al.,
Case No. 1:15-cv-11111 (N.D. Ill.), relating to a hearing held
before the Honorable Rebecca R. Pallmeyer.

The minute entry states that:

   -- Plaintiff's motion for class certification is entered and
      continued;

   -- Affidavit will be filed within 14 days; and

   -- Status hearing set for October 6, 2016, is stricken and
      re-set to October 13, 2016, at 9:00 a.m.

A copy of the Notification of Docket Entry is available at no
charge at http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=ybpal37P


ACX PACIFIC: Court Approves Belaire Notice to Class Members
-----------------------------------------------------------
In the case, MIGUEL ROJAS-CIFUENTES on behalf of himself, on
behalf of all other similarly situation and in interest of the
general public, an individual, Plaintiff, v. ACX PACIFIC NORTHWEST
INC., PACIFIC LEASING, LLC, JOHN M. GOMBOS, JOHN E. GOMBOS and
DOES 1-20 Defendant, Case No. 2:14-cv-00697-JAM-CKD (E.D. Cal.),
Magistrate Judge Carolyn K. Delaney approved the parties' request
to attach a so-called "Belaire" notice giving putative class
members the option of objecting to the disclosure of their contact
information.

The English and Spanish Belaire Notice will be mailed for
dissemination to the putative class members of the case. The Court
appointed CAC Services Group, LLC as Notice Administrator, who
shall collect the objections received from the class members. The
putative class members shall have 30 days from the date of mailing
to submit an objection.

Within five business days of the deadline for putative class
members to object to the disclosure of their contact information,
for those putative class members who did not submit valid, timely
objections, the Notice Administrator shall designate as
confidential and provide such putative class members' contact
information to Plaintiff's counsel, subject to the Stipulated
Protective Order.

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

Miguel Rojas-Cifuentes, Plaintiff, represented by Hector Rodriguez
Martinez -- hectorm@themmlawfirm.com -- Mallison & Martinez.

Miguel Rojas-Cifuentes, Plaintiff, represented by Joseph Donald
Sutton -- JSutton@TheMMLawFirm.com -- Mallison & Martinez, Marco
A. Palau -- mpalau@themmlawfirm.com -- Mallison & Martinez &
Stanley S. Mallison -- stanm@mallisonlaw.com -- Mallison &
Martinez.

ACX Pacific Northwest Inc., et al., Defendants, represented by
Kevin Dennis Sullivan -- ksullivan@ebglaw.com -- Epstein Becker &
Green, P.C. & Matthew Ames Goodin -- mgoodin@ebglaw.com -- Epstein
Becker and Green.


ALLIEDBARTON SECURITY: "Williams" Class Suit Tossed
---------------------------------------------------
In the case, DARRELL EUGENE WILLIAMS, on behalf of himself and all
others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. ALLIEDBARTON SECURITY
SERVICES, Defendant, Civil Action No. 15-1348 (W.D. Pa.), District
Judge Nora Barry Fischer adopted the August 22, 2016 Report and
Recommendation of Magistrate Judge Cynthia Reed Eddy dismissing
the Plaintiff's class claim with prejudice.

Magistrate Judge Eddy's Report and Recommendation recommended the
dismissal of the Plaintiff's claim as it was barred by a two-year
statute of limitations. Following the dismissal, the Report
concluded that it would be unnecessary for the Plaintiff to
address the Defendant's argument.

A copy of the Court's Order dated September 23, 2016 is available
at https://goo.gl/SQamYd from Leagle.com.

Darrell Eugene Williams, Plaintiff, represented by Darrell Eugene
Williams.

AlliedBarton Security Services, Defendant, represented by Brian T.
Ortelere -- brian.ortelere@morganlewis.com -- Morgan Lewis &
Bockius, LLP, pro hac vice & Mary Pat Stahler --
marypat.stahler@morganlewis.com -- Morgan Lewis & Bockius LLP


ANGL INC: Faces "Vandermark" Suit Over Lack of Rest Periods
-----------------------------------------------------------
Kelly R. Vandermark, an individual on behalf of herself and others
similarly situated v. Angl, Inc., Blue Bee, Inc., and Does 1 to
50,inclusive, Case No. BC635742 (Cal. Super. Ct., September 29,
2016), arises out of the Defendants' policy of failing to inform
employees of their right to take rest periods by way of a lawful
policy and of failing to provide rest periods of at least 10
minutes per 4 hours worked or major fraction thereof and failing
to pay such employees 1 hour of pay at the employee's regular rate
of compensation for each workday that the rest period was not
provided, as required by California state wage and hour laws.

Angl, Inc. operates a clothing company located at 2301 E. 51st
Street, Vernon, CA 90058.

Blue Bee, Inc. is an e-commerce website and small group of
specialty designer and contemporary clothing and accessories
stores located on State Street in Santa Barbara, California.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Eric B. Kingsley, Esq.
      Darren M. Cohen, 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
              dcohen@kingsleykingsley.com


ASSET MANAGEMENT: Faces Class Action Over Unfair Collection in La.
------------------------------------------------------------------
Michael Abella, writing for Louisiana, reports that a Bossier
Parish woman has filed a class-action lawsuit against debt
collectors, citing alleged unfair and unconscionable means of
collection practices.

Denise Wade filed a complaint on Sept. 14 in the U.S. District
Court for the Western District of Louisiana Shreveport Division
against Asset Management Services Group LLC, Silverpoint Ltd.,
Mentoli Trade Corp., Natalia Kabanova, Mark Smekhov, Ron Wood, Ken
Braddock and John Does 1-10, alleging that they violated the Fair
Debt Collection Practices Act and the Telephone Consumer
Protection Act.

According to the complaint, the plaintiff alleges that on
April 12, she advised the defendants that she was being
represented by counsel. On May 24, she received a collection call
on her cell phone using an artificial pre-recorded automated
message and without her prior express consent, she alleges, adding
that she has suffered humiliation, anger, anxiety, emotional
distress and embarrassment. The plaintiff holds the defendants
responsible because they allegedly have asserted that she owed a
financial obligation arising out of a certain HSBC account,
misrepresented the balance on the account and attempted to collect
the non-existent debt.

The plaintiff requests a trial by jury and seeks an order
certifying this instant matter as a class action and appointing
the plaintiff and her attorneys as class representatives, an award
for all damages, attorneys' fees, costs, pre- and post-judgment
interest and for such other relief as the court deems equitable.
She is represented by Scott E. Brady of Bohrer Brady LLC in Baton
Rouge and Lesa G. Pascal of Charles, Pascal, Cohen P.C. in
Uniondale, New York.

U.S. District Court for the Western District of Louisiana
Shreveport Division Case number 5:16-cv-01291


AUTOHAUS ON EDENS: Illegally Deducts Workers' Wages, Action Says
----------------------------------------------------------------
Igor Gorkov, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. Autohaus On Edens, LLC, Michael Rosen Garden and Mark
Tames, Case No. 2016-CH-12972 (Ill. Cir. Ct., September 30, 2016),
seeks to put an end on the Defendant's practice of making unlawful
deductions from employees' wages.

Autohaus on Edens, LLC is an automotive dealership that sells and
services Mercedes-Benz automobiles.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      James X. Bonnes, Esq.
      Catherine P. Sons, Esq.
      LAW OFFICE OF JAMES X. BORMES, P.C.
      8 South Michigan Avenue, Suite 2600
      Chicago, IL 60603
      Telephone: (312) 201-0575
      Facsimile: (312) 332-0600
      E-mail: jxbormes@bormeslaw.com
              cpsons@bormeslaw.com

         - and -

      Kasif Khowaja, Esq.
      THE KHOWAJA LAW FIRM, LLC
      70 East Lake St. Suite 1220
      Chicago, IL 60601
      Telephone: (312) 356-3200
      Facsimile: (312) 386-5800
      E-mail: kasif@khowajalaw.com


AW COLLISION: Faces "Cano" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
------------------------------------------------------------
Hugo Cano, Zhilbert Khanyan, and Zhirayr Ekimyan, on behalf of
themselves and all others similarly situated v. AW Collision,
Inc., AW Collision of SSF, AW Collision Autobahn, AW Collision
SCl, AW Collision NCI, and AW Collision NC2, Case No. BC635959
(Cal. Super. Ct., September 30, 2016), is brought against the
Defendants for failure to pay overtime wages in violation of the
California Labor Code.

The Defendants operate an auto-body repair shop in Los Angeles,
California.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Eric A. Boyajian, Esq.
      LAW OFFICES OFERIC A. BOYAJIAN, APC
      12100 Wilshire Blvd., Suite 800
      Los Angeles, CA 90025
      Telephone: (424) 744-8441
      Facsimile: (866) 396-2777


BANC CERTIFIED: Faces Family Health Chiropractic Suit in Ohio
-------------------------------------------------------------
A lawsuit has been filed against Banc Certified Merchant Services,
LLC. The case is styled Family Health Chiropractic, Inc.,
Individually and as the representative of a class of similarly
situated persons, the Plaintiff, v. Banc Certified Merchant
Services, LLC, and John Does 1-5, the Defendants, Case No. 5:16-
cv-02433-SL (N.D. Ohio, Oct. 4, 2016). The case is assigned to
Hon. Judge Sara Lioi.

Banc Certified provides merchant services, credit card processing,
and merchant accounts.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          George D. Jonson, Esq.
          Matthew Elton Stubbs, Esq.
          MONTGOMERY, RENNIE
          & JONSON-CINCINNATI
          36 East Seventh Street, Ste. 2100
          Cincinnati, OH 45202
          Telephone: (513) 241 4722
          Facsimile: (513) 241 8775
          E-mail: gjonson@mrjlaw.com
                  mstubbs@mrjlaw.com


BANNER HEALTH: Faces Class Action Over Hacking in Arizona
---------------------------------------------------------
Jenie Mallari-Torres, writing for Legal Newsline, reports that an
Arizona woman is suing a Phoenix-based health system, alleging
breach of contract, fraud and negligence.

Jane Reader of Pinal County filed a class action complaint on
behalf of herself and all others similarly situated Sept. 7 in
U.S. District Court for the District of Arizona against Banner
Health alleging failure to exercise reasonable care in protecting
its members personal information.

According to the complaint, on Aug. 3, Banner Health announced
that hackers had infiltrated its systems and compromised a broad
spectrum of personal information, affecting more than 3.7 million
individuals including the plaintiff. The suit says because Reader
was a Banner patient in approximately 2013-2014, she and the other
plaintiffs were exposed to heightened risks of identity theft and
fraudulent activity on their financial accounts.

The lawsuit states they have also suffered economic damages,
including the purchase of credit monitoring services.

The plaintiff alleges Banner Health failed to employ security
protocols to detect the unauthorized network activity, failed to
provide timely and adequate notice of the data breach and breached
its contractual promises to adequately protect class members'
personal information.

Reader and the other plaintiffs seek trial by jury, to certify the
case as a class action, declaratory, injunctive, and other
equitable relief, restitution, damages, attorney fees, interest
and all relief justice requires. They are represented by attorneys
Robert A. Mosier of Sanders Phillips Grossman LLC in Irvine,
California, and by Eric H. Gibbs and David M. Berger of Girard
Gibbs LLP in Oakland, California.

U.S. District Court for the District of Arizona Case number 2:16-
cv-02994


BERKSHIRE HATHAWAY: Hearing on Gonzalez's Bid for Counsel Oct. 17
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The Hon. Andrew J. Guilford granted the Plaintiff's request to
take her motion for class certification off calendar without
prejudice to rescheduling for a later date in the lawsuit styled
ADELA GONZALEZ, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated v. BERKSHIRE HATHAWAY HOMESTATE COMPANIES, a Nebraska
Corporation, et al., Case No. 2:16-cv-02690-AG-JEM (C.D. Cal.).

The Plaintiff's motion to appoint class counsel remains on
calendar for October 17, 2016, at 10:00 a.m.

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

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Robert S. Green, Esq.
          James Robert Noblin, Esq.
          GREEN & NOBLIN, P.C.
          4500 East Pacific Coast Highway, Fourth Floor
          Long Beach, CA 90804
          Telephone: (562) 491-2487
          Facsimile: (415) 477-6710
          E-mail: rsg@classcounsel.com
                  jrn@classcounsel.com

               - and -

          Mark Ravis, Esq.
          David Martin, Esq.
          Ivo Genchev, Esq.
          LAW OFFICE OF MARK RAVIS & ASSOCIATES
          1875 Century Park East, Suite 700
          Los Angeles, CA 90067
          Telephone: (310) 295-4145
          Facsimile: (310) 388-5251
          E-mail: mravis99@gmail.com
                  dhmartin99@gmail.com
                  Ivo1914@yahoo.com


BMW: "Casper" Suit Transferred from D.N.J. to S.D. Fla.
-------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit titled Lawrence E. Casper, Individually
and on Behalf of all Others Similarly Situated, the Plaintiff, v.
BMW of North America, LLC, the Defendant, Case No. 2:16-cv-02961,
was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the District of
New Jersey, to the U.S. District Court for the Southern District
of Florida (Miami). The Florida Southern District Court Clerk
assigned Case No. 1:16-cv-24221-FAM to the proceeding. The case is
assigned to Hon. Judge Federico A. Moreno.

BMW of North America engages in the import and distribution of BMW
luxury/performance vehicles.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Bruce Daniel Greenberg, Esq.
          LITE, DEPALMA GREENBERG, LLC
          570 Broad Street, Suite 1201
          Newark, NJ 07102
          Telephone: (973) 623 3000
          E-mail: bgreenberg@litedepalma.com

The Defendant is represented by:

          Christopher J. Dalton, Esq.
          BUCHANAN, INGERSOLL & ROONEY, PC
          550 Broad Street, Suite 810
          New York, NY 07102-4599
          Telephone: (973) 273 9800
          E-mail: christopher.dalton@bipc.com


C&S WHOLESALE: Court Dismisses "Bicek" Wage & Hour Case
-------------------------------------------------------
District Judge Morrison C. England, Jr. ordered the dismissal of
the case styled, DENNIS BICEK; individually, and on behalf of
other members of the general public similarly situated, and on
behalf of aggrieved employees pursuant to the Private Attorneys
General Act ("PAGA"), Plaintiff, v. C&S WHOLESALE GROCERS, INC., a
Vermont corporation; TRACY LOGISTICS, LLC, an unknown business
entity; and DOES Before The 1 through 100, inclusive, Defendants,
Case No. 2:13-cv-00411-MCE-KJN (E.D. Cal.).

The case alleges state law claims for unpaid overtime wages,
unpaid meal period premiums, unpaid rest period premiums, unpaid
minimum wages, wages not timely paid during employment, non-
compliant wage statements, failure to keep requisite payroll
records, and violations of the California Business and Professions
Code Sec. 17200, et seq.

The dismissal is pursuant to the Plaintiffs' statutory offer of
compromise to the Defendants pursuant to California Code of Civil
Procedure section 998, offering to dismiss all of their claims in
the lawsuit with prejudice in exchange for Defendants waiving
costs and attorneys' fees.

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

Dennis Bicek, Plaintiff, represented by Douglas Han --
dhan@justicelawcorp.com -- Justice Law Corporation.

Dennis Bicek, Plaintiff, represented by Edwin Aiwazian --
edwin@lfjpc.com -- Lawyers for Justice, PC, Jill Jessica Parker
-- jill@lfjpc.com -- Lawyers for Justice, PC & Jonathan Michael
Lebe, Lawyers for Justice, PC.

Jose Chan, et al., Plaintiff, represented by Alexander Russell
Wheeler -- awheeler@rrexparris.com -- R. Rex Parris Law Firm,
Edwin Aiwazian -- edwin@lfjpc.com -- Lawyers for Justice, PC, Jill
Jessica Parker -- jill@lfjpc.com -- Lawyers for Justice, PC,
Jonathan Michael Lebe, Lawyers for Justice, PC, R. Rex Parris, R.
Rex Parris Law Firm & Danielle Lynn Perry -- DPerry@wbmllp.com --
Lawyers for Justice, PC.

C & S Wholesale Grocers, Inc., et al., Defendants, represented by
Alan Kintisch, C&S Wholesale Grocers, Inc., pro hac vice, Benjamin
J. Wyatt, C&S Wholesale Grocers, Inc., pro hac vice, Casey Jean
Teele McCoy -- cjtmccoy@seyfarth.com -- Seyfarth Shaw LLP, Jon D.
Meer -- jmeer@seyfarth.com -- Seyfarth Shaw LLP, Andrew M.
McNaught -- amcnaught@seyfarth.com -- Seyfarth Shaw LLP & Julie
Grace Yap -- jyap@seyfarth.com -- Seyfarth Shaw LLP.


CARESOUTH HEALTH: Faces "Parham" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT
------------------------------------------------------------
Brenda Parham, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated v. Caresouth Health System, Inc., Case No. 5:16-cv-00434-
CAR (M.D. Ga., September 30, 2016), is brought against the
Defendants for failure to pay overtime wages in violation of the
Fair Labor Standards Act.

Caresouth Health System, Inc. operates a nursing facility at One
Tenth Street, Suite 500, Augusta, Georgia, 30901.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Michael J. Moore, Esq.
      POPE MCGLAMRY, P.C.
      3391 Peachtree Road, Suite 300
      Atlanta, GA 30326
      Telephone: (404) 523-7706
      E-mail: michaelmoore@pmkm.com

         - and -

      Charles W. Byrd, Esq.
      POPE MCGLAMRY, P.C.
      1200 6th Avenue
      Columbus, GA 31901-2613
      Telephone: (706) 324-0050
      E-mail: chuckbyrd@pmkm.com

         - and -

      Jerry E. Martin, Esq.
      Scott P. Tift, Esq.
      BARRETT JOHNSTON  MARTIN & GARRISON LLC
      414 Union Street, Suite 900
      Nashville, TN 37219
      Telephone: (615) 244-2202
      Facsimile: (615) 252-3798
      E-mail: jmartin@barrettjohnston.com
              stift@barrettjohnston.com


CLEARSPRING LOAN: Court Certifies FDCPA Class in "Babbitt" Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Hon. Robert J. Jonker dismissed without prejudice the
Plaintiffs' state law claims, and granted to the extent consistent
with this Order and denied in all other respects the Plaintiffs'
motion to certify class on the Federal Debt Collection Practices
Act claim in the lawsuit entitled CONNIE L. BABBITT, on behalf of
herself and all others similarly situated, and DAVID L. BABBITT,
on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v.
CLEARSPRING LOAN SERVICES, INC., Case No. 1:15-cv-01164-RJJ-PJG
(W.D. Mich.).

The Plaintiffs bring the putative class action based on alleged
violations of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act and the
Michigan Occupational Code.  They allege that ClearSpring
attempted to collect from them a debt on a purportedly delinquent
mortgage loan.  They assert that the Loan Statements they received
from ClearSpring did not include disclosures required under the
FDCPA.

The Class is defined as:

   (a) Every natural person with a Michigan mailing address;

   (b) To whom ClearSpring sent:

       a. Between January 5, 2015 and September 26, 2016,

       b. Any communication asserting a debt allegedly owed by
          the addressee;

    (c) That was not returned by the Post Office as
        undeliverable.

Judge Jonker appoints the Babbitts as class representatives, and
Theodore J. Westbrook, Esq., and Phillip C. Rogers, Esq., as class
counsel.  The Court will consider appropriate notice to the class
upon motion or stipulation of the parties.  A stipulation or
motion proposing notice is due not later than October 27, 2016.

A copy of the Order is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=87S554DP


COBALT MORTGAGE: Fails to Pay Employees Overtime, Action Claims
---------------------------------------------------------------
Elizabeth Zachary, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated v. Cobalt Mortgage, Inc., Case No. 4:16-cv-00754 (E.D.
Tex., September 29, 2016), is brought against the Defendants for
failure to pay minimum wage and overtime for all hours worked over
40 per week.

Cobalt Mortgage, Inc. is one of the largest privately-held
mortgage banking firms in the United States.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      J. Derek Braziel, Esq.
      LEE & BRAZIEL, L.L.P.
      1801 N. Lamar Street, Suite 325
      Dallas, TX 75202
      Telephone: (214) 749-1400
      Facsimile: (214) 749-1010
      E-mail: jdbraziel@l-b-law.com

         - and -

      Rowdy B. Meeks, Esq.
      ROWDY MEEKS LEGAL GROUP LLC
      8201 Mission Road, Suite 250
      Prairie Village, KA 66206
      Telephone: (913) 766-5585
      Facsimile: (816) 875-5069
      E-mail: Rowdy.Meeks@rmlegalgroup.com


CONOPCO INC: Paulino May Renew Class Cert. Bid After Discovery
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Hon. Allyne R. Ross denied without prejudice the Plaintiffs'
motion for class certification under Rule 23(b)(2) of the Federal
Rules of Civil Procedure filed in the lawsuit styled LUCIANNE
PAULINO and LATU FANAIKA, on behalf of themselves and all others
similarly situated v. CONOPCO, INC., doing business as Unilever,
Case No. 1:14-cv-05145-ARR-RML (E.D.N.Y.).  The Motion, however,
may be renewed when the Plaintiffs move for class certification
under Rule 23(b)(3) after discovery is conducted.

Judge Ross noted that the Plaintiffs have informed the Court that
they also plan to move for certification under Rule 23(b)(3), but
after discovery is completed in August 2017.

The Plaintiffs bring the putative class action against Conopco
alleging that the labels on the Defendant's "Suave NATURALS"
Products mislead customers as to the nature, quality, and
ingredients of the products.  According to plaintiffs, the
Defendant's practices violate New York General Business Law, the
California Consumer Legal Remedies Act, and the California False
Advertising Law.

A copy of the Order is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=83FjIxyJ


COOK COUNTY, IL: Hearing on Williams' Bid to Certify Continued
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Clerk of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of
Illinois made a docket entry on September 26, 2016, in the case
entitled Walter Williams, et al. v. Sheriff of Cook County, et
al., Case No. 1:16-cv-07639 (N.D Ill.), relating to a hearing held
before the Honorable Gary Feinerman.

The minute entry states that the Plaintiff's amended motion to
certify class is entered and continued.  The Plaintiff's motion to
certify class is denied without prejudice.  The Motion hearing set
for September 29, 2016, is stricken.

A copy of the Notification of Docket Entry is available at no
charge at http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=ltzAsNo9


CORRECT CARE: Denial of Bishop's Class Cert. Bid Recommended
------------------------------------------------------------
U.S. Magistrate Judge John C. Nivison recommended a decision on
pending motions in the lawsuit styled HARRY C. BISHOP III v.
CORRECT CARE SOLUTIONS LLC, et al., Case No. 2:16-cv-00172-JAW (D.
Me.).

"Following a review of the motions, and after consideration of the
parties' arguments, I recommend the Court deny Plaintiff's renewed
motion to certify class, dismiss as moot Plaintiff's motion to
appoint class counsel, deny Plaintiff's motion to join, and grant
Defendants' motion for summary judgment," Judge Nivison
recommends.

In his complaint, the Plaintiff alleged (1) that Defendant Correct
Care Solutions routinely denies necessary medical care to inmates,
and (2) that administrators of the Maine Correctional Center serve
inadequate food portions with insufficient nutritional value, deny
inmates access to legal resources and assistance, and deny Native
American inmates access to monthly sacred pipe ceremonies.

Defendants Scott Landry, Sue Carr, Barbara Robertshaw, Marian
Zimmerman and Matt D'auteuil are represented by:

          James E. Fortin, Esq.
          OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL
          HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES DIVISION
          Six State House Station
          Augusta, ME 04333
          Telephone: (207) 626-8800
          E-mail: james.fortin@maine.gov

A copy of the Recommended Decision is available at no charge at
https://goo.gl/NqqE0N from Leagle.com.


CUSTOM COMMUNICATIONS: Court Certifies Class in "Beasley" Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Hon. James C. Fox allowed in part and denied in part the
Plaintiffs' motion to allow notice to be sent to potential
plaintiffs informing them of their right to opt-in to the case
entitled ADOLPHO BEASLEY, JOHNATHAN CLARK, and CALVIN MCINTYRE,
individually and on behalf of all persons similarly situated v.
CUSTOM COMMUNICATIONS, INC., Case No. 5:15-cv-00583-F (E.D.N.C.),
construed as a motion for conditional certification under the Fair
Labor Standards Act and facilitation of notice.

The Court conditionally certifies a collective action by this
class:

     All individuals who were classified as independent
     contractors while working as Technicians out of Custom
     Communications, Inc.'s offices located in Maryland,
     Virginia, North Carolina, South Carolina and Georgia from
     February 12, 2013 to the present.

The Plaintiffs bring the hybrid action individually and on behalf
of all others similarly situated for alleged violations of the
FLSA and the North Carolina Wage and Hour Act for unjust
enrichment against the Defendant.  The Plaintiffs claim that the
Defendant unlawfully misclassified them as independent contractors
as opposed to employees.

Judge Fox directs the parties to meet and confer, through counsel,
regarding the content and form of notice to be given to proposed
class members and to submit a joint proposed judicial notice no
later than October 14, 2016.  The proposed judicial notice will
include a specific opt-in period not to exceed 90 days.  The
Defendant will provide the Plaintiffs a list of all individuals,
who fall within the certified class no later than October 21.

A copy of the Order is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=Of6dzYxc


DELIZIA INC: Faces "Martinez" Suit in Cal. Over Sexual Harassment
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Medari Jamileth Rodriguez Martinez, an individual v. Delizia Inc.,
d/b/a Bosco Bakery Cafe, Cake Salon Bosco, Inc., d/b/a Bosco
Bakery and Bosco Bakery Cafe, Allink, Inc. d/b/a Bosco Bakery and
Bosco Bakery Cafe, Mr. Bosco (true name unknown), and Does 1
through 50, inclusive, Case No. 635730 (Cal. Super. Ct., September
29, 2016), seeks compensatory and punitive damages as a result of
the Defendants' practices of sexual harassment, sexual battery,
and violence.  The Plaintiff, on behalf of herself and all others
similarly situated, demands a jury trial with respect to all
issues triable of right by jury.

The Defendants own and operate a bakery and warehouse facility in
the County of Los Angeles, California.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Matthew J. Matern, Esq.
      Dalia Khalili, Esq.
      Shayna E. Dickstein, Esq.
      MATERN LAW GROUP, PC
      1230 Rosecrans Avenue, Suite 200
      Manhattan Beach, CA 90266
      Telephone: (310) 531-1900
      Facsimile: (310) 531-1901
      E-mail: mmatern@maternlawgroup.com
              dkhalili@maternlawgroup.com
              sdickstein@maternlawgroup.com


DENTAL EQUITIES: Bid to Certify Scoma Suit Class Denied as Moot
---------------------------------------------------------------
The John E. Steele denied as moot the Plaintiffs' motion for class
certification and request for status conference filed in the
lawsuit styled SCOMA CHIROPRACTIC, P.A., a Florida corporation,
individually and as the representative of a class of similarly-
situated persons, WILLIAM P. GRESS, an Illinois resident,
individually and as the representatives of a class similarly-
situated persons, S.C., an Illinois service corporation, and
FLORENCE MUSSAT v. DENTAL EQUITIES, LLC, JOHN DOES (1-10), FIRST
ARKANSAS BANK & TRUST, and MASTERCARD INTERNATIONAL INCORPORATED,
Case No. 2:16-cv-00041-UA-MRM (M.D. Fla.).

Judge Steele also denied as moot Defendant First Arkansas Bank &
Trust's motion to dismiss second amended complaint or, in the
alternative, to stay.

According to the Order, the Court on September 26, 2016, granted
leave to file a Third Amended Class Action Complaint, and this is
now the operative pleading.  As a result, the Court finds that the
two motions are now moot.

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


DESERT CHAMPIONS: Settlement in "Gamache" Case Has Final Okay
-------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, HILARY GAMACHE, individually and on behalf of a class
of similarly situated individuals, Plaintiff, v. DESERT CHAMPIONS
LLC, Defendant. MICHELE ANDRADE, individually and on behalf of a
class of similarly situated individuals, Plaintiffs, v. DESERT
CHAMPIONS LLC, Defendant, Case Nos. 3:15-cv-02112 EMC, 3:15-cv-
01394-EMC (N.D. Cal.), District Judge Edward M. Chen granted final
approval of the Plaintiff's Class Settlement and Award of
Attorneys' Fees and Costs, Class Representatives' Enhancements and
Claims Administrator's Fees.

For purposes of the Settlement, the Settlement Class shall consist
of all consumers who are engaged in debit or credit card
transactions with the Defendant over the internet, by telephone,
or in-person at one of its Indian Wells, California box office
locations between March 26, 2013 and April 17, 2015, inclusive.

The Court awards Class Counsel reasonable attorneys' fees and
costs in the aggregate amount of $152,408.42, representing
$143,750 in attorneys' fees and $8,658.42 in costs, to be paid
from the Settlement Fund.

Moreover, the Court also awards each of the Settlement Class
Representatives, Hilary K. Gamache and Michele Andrade, an
enhancement fee in the amount of $3,500 for their services as
representatives for the Settlement Class, to be paid to each of
them from the Settlement Fund. Meanwhile, Phoenix Settlement
Administrator's fees and costs in the amount of $34,385 is also
approved.

A copy of the Court's Order dated September 23, 2016 is available
at https://goo.gl/Iyaak6 from Leagle.com.

Michele Andrade, et al., Plaintiffs, represented by Eric A. Grover
-- eagrover@kellergrover.com -- Keller Grover LLP.

Desert Champions LLC, Defendant, represented by Lawrence E. Butler
-- lbutler@seyfarth.com -- Seyfarth Shaw LLP & Patty H. Lee.


DIAMOND DETAIL: "Stryhn" Suit Seeks Overtime Pay, Unpaid Bonus
--------------------------------------------------------------
David Kimo Stryhn, on behalf of himself and on behalf of all other
similarly situated employees, Plaintiff, v. Diamond Detail, Inc.,
Defendants, Case No. 1:16-cv-03246 (D. Md., September 23, 2016),
seeks unpaid wages owed, liquidated damages and penalties and
interest, award of reasonable attorney fees and costs, prejudgment
interest and liquidated damages in violation of the Fair Labor
Standards Act, Maryland Wage and Hour Law and Maryland Wage
Payment and Collection Law.

Diamond Detail, Inc. is an automobile detailing business owned by
Charles Heinle located in Baltimore County, Maryland.

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Judd G. Millman, Esq.
      Bruce M. Luchansky, Esq.
      Samuel C. Pinsky, Esq.
      LUCHANSKY LAW
      606 Bosley Avenue, Suite 3B
      Towson, Maryland 21204
      Telephone: (410) 522-1020
      Facsimile: (410) 522-1021
      Email: judd@luchanskylaw.com
             lucky@luchanskylaw.com
             sam@luchanskylaw.com


DINING ENTERTAINMENT: N.Y. Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Wages
-------------------------------------------------------------
Israel Ramirez, Wilson Ramirez, Alfonso Rojas and Vidal Perez, on
behalf of themselves and others similarly situated v. Dining
Entertainment Group, LLC and Brother Jimmy's Franchising, LLC, 8th
Avenue BBQ LLC d/b/a Brother Jimmy's, Lexington Avenue BBQ, LLC
d/b/a Brother Jimmy's, 16th Street BBQ LLC d/b/a Brother Jimmy's,
First Avenue Brother Jimmy's LLC d/b/a Brother Jimmy's, Third
Avenue Brother Jimmy's LLC d/b/a Brother Jimmy's, Amsterdam Avenue
Brother Jimmy's d/b/a Brother Jimmy's and Joshua Lebowitz and
James Goldman, Case No. 1:16-cv-07692 (S.D.N.Y., September 30,
2016), seeks to recover unpaid overtime due to an invalid tip
credit, unpaid minimum wages, liquidated damages, and attorneys'
fees and costs pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act.

The Defendants own and operate Brother Jimmy's restaurant
throughout New York.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      C.K. Lee, Esq.
      LEE LITIGATION GROUP, PLLC
      30 East 39th Street, 2nd Floor
      New York, NY 10016
      Telephone: (212) 465-1124
      Facsimile: (212) 465-1181
      E-mail: cklee@leelitigation.com


EARTH ISLAND: Faces "Garcia" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
--------------------------------------------------------------
Glanny Garcia, individually, and on behalf of other members of the
general public similarly situated v. Earth Island and Does 1
through 100, inclusive, Case No. BC635673 (Cal. Super. Ct.,
September 29, 2016), is brought against the Defendants for failure
to pay overtime wages in violation of the California Labor Code.

Earth Island is a non-profit, public interest, membership
organization that supports people who are creating solutions to
protect our shared planet.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Edwin Aiwazian, Esq.
      LAWYERS FOR JUSTICE, PC
      2410 West Arden Avenue, Suite 203
      Glendale, CA 91203
      Telephone: (818) 265-1020
      Facsimile: (818) 265-1021
      E-mail: lfj@lfjpc.com


FAMILY DOLLAR: "Godoy" Suit Remains in Federal Court
----------------------------------------------------
District Judge Dale A. Drozd denied the Plaintiff's motion to
remand the case styled, RITA GODOY, Plaintiff, v. FAMILY DOLLAR,
INC., Defendant, No. 1:16-cv-00969-DAD-JLT (E.D. Cal.), following
the Defendant's removal of the case to the federal court.

The case involves a "trip-and-fall" action based on state law
negligence claims, stemming from the Plaintiff's alleged fall over
debris left on the floor of one of Defendant's stores in
Bakersfield, California. The parties of the case dispute on the
timeliness of the Defendant's removal.

The Court noted that a notice of removal must be filed within 30
days of the Defendant receiving a copy of the initial pleading
setting forth the claim for relief upon which such action or
proceeding is based. However, if the pleading does not indicate
the case is removable, a defendant may remove within 30 days of
receiving a copy of an amended pleading, motion, order or other
paper from which it may first be ascertained that the case is one
which is or has become removable.

The Court rejected the Plaintiff's argument that the Defendant's
subjective awareness of the potential amount in controversy made
the first amended complaint, which did not specify the damages
sought, removable upon filing. The Court held that the first 30-
day removal period comes into play only if removability is
ascertainable from examination of the four corners of the
applicable pleadings, not through subjective knowledge or a duty
to make further inquiry.

A copy of the Court's Order dated September 16, 2016 is available
at https://goo.gl/fW4dPE from Leagle.com.

Rita Godoy, Plaintiff, represented by David C. Shay --
dshay@vazirilaw.com -- VAZIRI LAW GROUP.

Family Dollar, Inc., Defendant, represented by Roger Backlar --
rbacklar@tharpe-howell.com -- Tharpe & Howell, LLP.


FAMILY HOUSING: Sued in Cal. Over Failure to Provide Breaks
-----------------------------------------------------------
Rey F. Balingit, Celia A. Badilla, Edgardo L. Garcia, Cecilia
Merida, Virgilio Merida, Monica Licuanan, Nelson Dale, on behalf
of themselves and other similarly situated v. Family Housing and
Adult Resources, Inc. and Does 1 to 100, Case No. 16cv01640 (Cal.
Super. Ct., September 29, 2019), is brought against the Defendants
for failure to authorize and permit caregivers employed by it to
take rest periods with uninterrupted rest breaks in violation of
California Labor Code.

Family Housing and Adult Resources, Inc. owns, operates, manages,
and maintains a group of facilities throughout the State of
California.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Allan A. Villanueva, Esq.
      LAW OFFICE OF ALLAN A. VILLANUEVA
      1001 Bayhill Drive, Suite 200
      San Bruno, CA 94066
      Telephone: (650) 616-4144
      Facsimile: (650) 479-3086


FLOWERS FOODS: Does Not Properly Pay Employees, Robinson Claims
---------------------------------------------------------------
Rodney Robinson, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. Flowers Bakeries, LLC and Flowers Baking
Company of Lenexa, LLC, Case No. 2:16-cv-02669 (D. Kan., September
30, 2016), is brought against the Defendants for failure to pay
employees their earned wages and overtime compensation violates
the Fair Labor Standards Act.

Flowers Foods LLC is the second-largest producer and marketer of
packaged bakery foods in the United States.

Flowers Baking Company of Lenexa, LLC is a Kansas Corporation,
with its principle place of business in Kansas. It is a wholly
owned subsidiary of Flowers Foods LLC.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Eric L. Dirks, Esq.
      Jordan Baehr, Esq.
      WILLIAMS DIRKS DAMERON LLC
      1100 Main Street, Suite 2600
      Kansas City, MO 64105
      E-mail: dirks@williamsdirks.com
              jbaehr@williamsdirks.com

         - and -

      Robert Kinsman, Esq.
      KRAUSE & KINSMAN LLC
      4717 Grand Ave., Suite 250
      Kansas City, MO  64112
      E-mail: robert@krauseandkinsman.com


FLOWERS FOODS: Rodriguez Seeks to Certify Class of Distributors
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Plaintiffs in the lawsuit entitled DAVID RODRIGUEZ, GREG EDEL,
JESUS RODRIGUEZ, and ROLAN RODRIGUEZ, Individually and on Behalf
of all Others Similarly Situated v. FLOWERS FOODS, INC. and
FLOWERS BAKING CO. OF HOUSTON, LLC, Case No. 4:16-cv-00245 (S.D.
Tex.), filed with the Court their second amended motion for
conditional certification.

The Defendants employed the Plaintiffs and similarly situated
individuals to work as "Distributors."  The Plaintiffs allege that
the Defendants misclassified the Plaintiffs as independent
contractors, as opposed to employees and, therefore, the
Plaintiffs are entitled to certain benefits under the Fair Labor
Standards Act, namely, time-and-a-half pay for hours worked in
excess of 40 per week.

The Plaintiffs now file the Motion seeking conditional
certification and issuance of a Court-approved notice to current
and former individuals, who were employed by the Defendants as
Distributors and classified as independent contractors and who did
not receive proper overtime pay.

A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=ZOa1hM1v

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Alfonso Kennard, Jr., Esq.
          KENNARD RICHARD, P.C.
          2603 Augusta Drive, 14th Floor
          Houston, TX 77057
          Telephone: (713) 742-0900
          Facsimile: (713) 742-0951
          E-mail: Alfonso.kennard@kennardlaw.com

               - and -

          Arnoldo J. Rodriguez, Esq.
          KENNARD RICHARD, P.C.
          85 N.E. Loop 410, Suite 603
          San Antonio, TX 78216
          Telephone: (713) 742-0900
          Facsimile: (713) 742-0951
          E-mail: aj.rodriguez@kennardlaw.com


FLOWERS FOODS: Zapata Seeks Certification of Distributors Class
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Plaintiffs in the lawsuit styled RAUL ZAPATA, HUGO GALDAMEZ,
XAVIER GUTIERREZ, ARMANDO CUEVAS, CANDELARIO LOPEZ, GILBERTO
LOPEZ, JULIO CORONA-GUZMAN, JOHN FONTENOT, STEVE ELLIS, JERRY
THOMAS and PABLO RUIZ RUBIO Individually and on Behalf of all
Others Similarly Situated v. FLOWERS FOODS, INC. and FLOWERS
BAKING CO. OF HOUSTON, LLC, Case No. 4:16-cv-00676 (S.D. Tex.),
filed with the Court their first amended motion for conditional
certification.

The Defendants employed the Plaintiffs and similarly situated
individuals to work as "Distributors."  The Plaintiffs allege that
the Defendants misclassified the Plaintiffs as independent
contractors, as opposed to employees and, therefore, the
Plaintiffs are entitled to certain benefits under the Fair Labor
Standards Act, namely, time-and-a-half pay for hours worked in
excess of 40 per week.

The Plaintiffs now file the Motion seeking conditional
certification and issuance of a Court-approved notice to current
and former individuals, who were employed by the Defendants as
Distributors and classified as independent contractors and who did
not receive proper overtime pay.

A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=ZQQuYe17

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Alfonso Kennard, Jr., Esq.
          KENNARD RICHARD, P.C.
          2603 Augusta Drive, 14th Floor
          Houston, TX 77057
          Telephone: (713) 742-0900
          Facsimile: (713) 742-0951
          E-mail: Alfonso.kennard@kennardlaw.com

               - and -

          Arnoldo J. Rodriguez, Esq.
          KENNARD RICHARD, P.C.
          85 N.E. Loop 410, Suite 603
          San Antonio, TX 78216
          Telephone: (713) 742-0900
          Facsimile: (713) 742-0951
          E-mail: aj.rodriguez@kennardlaw.com


FPMC SERVICES: Illegally Terminates Workers, "Parker" Suit Says
---------------------------------------------------------------
Sharda Parker and Jose Ibanez, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. FPMC Services, LLC, The Management
Company at Forest Park Medical Center, Neal Richards Group, LLC,
Neal Richards Group Forest Park Development, LLC, and Glendontodd
Capital LLC, Case No. 3:16-cv-02791-G (N.D. Tex., September 30,
2016), is brought against the Defendants for failure to provide
60-day notice prior to termination.

The Defendants operate several private, luxury hospitals, mostly
within the State of Texas.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      J. Benjamin King, Esq.
      Brandon Lewis, Esq.
      REID COLLINS & TSAI LLP
      Thanksgiving Tower
      1601 Elm Street, Suite 4250
      Dallas, TX 75201
      Telephone: (214) 420-8900
      Facsimile: (214) 420-8909
      E-mail: bking@rctlegal.com
              blewis@rctlegal.com

         - and -

      Christopher J. Kupka, Esq.
      Michael B. Ershowsky, Esq.
      LEVI & KORSINSKY LLP
      30 Broad Street, 24th Floor
      New York, NY 10004
      Telephone: (212) 363-7500
      Facsimile: (212) 363-7171
      E-mail: ckupka@zlk.com
              mershowsky@zlk.com


GENEX HOLDINGS: Faces "Taylor-Thomas" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Leslie Taylor-Thomas, an individual, and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. Genex Holdings Inc., d/b/a Genex Services
Inc., and Does 1-50 inclusive, Case No. 3:16-cv-05569 (N.D. Cal.,
September 30, 2016), is brought against the Defendants for failure
to pay overtime wages in violation of the Fair Labor Standards
Act.

Genex Holdings Inc. provider of integrated managed care services,
focused on controlling health costs and reducing disability
expenses.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Matthew Righetti, Esq.
      John Glugoski, Esq.
      Michael Righetti, Esq.
      RIGHETTI GLUGOSKI, P.C.
      456 Montgomery Street, Suite 1400
      San Francisco, CA 94104
      Telephone: (415) 983-0900
      Facsimile: (415) 397-9005


GERAWAN FARMING: Court Approves Notice Plan in "Amaro" Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------
In the case, RAFAEL MARQUEZ AMARO, JESUS ALARCON URZUA, on behalf
of themselves and others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v.
GERAWAN FARMING, INC., a California corporation; GERAWAN FARMING
PARTNERS, INC., a California corporation; DOES 1-10, inclusive,
Defendants, No. 1:14-cv-00147-DAD-SAB (E.D. Cal.), District Judge
Dale A. Drozd granted the parties' joint status report on the form
and manner of the class action notice.

The Court approved the use of Rust Consulting, Inc. to conduct the
notice procedure. The Court also approved the translation of the
notice into Spanish so long as that translation is done by a court
certified interpreter.

The Court ordered the Defendants to provide the class list to Rust
Consulting within 30 days of issuance of the Order dated September
16, 2016, and further ordered the notice to be mailed to all class
members within 21 days of provision of the class list.

A copy of the Court Order is available at https://goo.gl/bZa8YQ
from Leagle.com.

Rafael Marquez Amaro, Plaintiff, represented by Eric Bryce
Kingsley -- eric@kingsleykingsley.com -- Kingsley & Kingsley APC.

Rafael Marquez Amaro, et al., Plaintiffs, represented by Liane
Katzenstein Ly -- liane@kingsleykingsley.com -- Kingsley &
Kingsley, APC, Marcos Rodrigo Camacho, Law Offices of Marcos
Camacho, A Law Corporation & Mario Martinez --
mmartinez@farmworkerlaw.com -- Martinez Aguilasocho & Lynch Aplc.

Gerawan Farming, Inc., et al., Defendants, represented by David
Abba Schwarz -- dschwarz@irell.com -- Irell & Manella, Patrick
Moody, Barsamian and Moody, Ronald H. Barsamian, Barsamian & Moody
& Victor Jih -- VJih@irell.com -- Irell & Manella LLP.


GREAT AMERICAN LIFE: Goertzen Seeks to Certify Class & Subclass
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Plaintiff in the lawsuit styled JOYCE GOERTZEN, an individual,
individually and on behalf of herself all similarly-situated
persons, by and through her power of attorney BEVERLY KRAUS v.
GREAT AMERICAN LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY, and Does 1-50, Case No.
4:16-cv-00240-YGR (N.D. Cal.), moves for an order certifying these
class and subclass:

   a. As to both counts of claims: All persons (and the estates
      and/or beneficiaries of such persons, if applicable) who
      purchased, were insured by, or were the beneficiary of, or
      surrendered a Great American Policy that was issued when
      one or more of the purchasers, insured, or beneficiaries
      was a California resident 60 years of age or older (the
      "Class"); and

   b. As to both counts of claims: All members of the class whose
      Policy was issued with one of the following form numbers:
      P1074509CA, P1077409CA, P1079610CA, or P1080010CA (the
      "10127.13 Subclass" or the "Subclass").

Joyce Goertzen also asks the Court to be appointed as
representative for the Class and Subclass, and appoint Evans Law
Firm, Inc., as counsel for the Class and Subclass.

The Court will commence a hearing on November 1, 2016, at 2:00
p.m., to consider the Motion.

A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=y7m3OmB7

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Ingrid M. Evans, Esq.
          Michael A. Levy, Esq.
          EVANS LAW FIRM, INC.
          3053 Fillmore Street, #236
          San Francisco, CA 94123
          Telephone: (415) 441-8669
          Facsimile: (888) 891-4906
          E-mail: ingrid@evanslaw.com
                  michael@evanslaw.com


GREAT LAKES EDUCATION: Court Refuses to Certify Class in "Dawson"
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The Hon. Barbara B. Crabb denied the Plaintiff's motion to certify
a class in the lawsuit captioned MEREDITH D. DAWSON v. GREAT LAKES
EDUCATION LOAN SERVICES, INC., GREAT LAKES HIGHER EDUCATION
CORPORATION, JILL LEITL, DAVID LENTZ and MICHAEL WALKER, Case No.
3:15-cv-00475-bbc (W.D. Wisc.).

"If plaintiff wishes to try again to show that a class would be
proper in this case, she may have until October 20, 2016 to file a
renewed motion for class certification addressing the issues
identified in this order," Judge Crabb stated in her opinion and
order.  The Defendants may have 21 days after that filing to file
a response brief.  The Plaintiff's reply will be filed within 10
days of the Defendants' filing.

The Plaintiff's motion to compel production of the Defendants' e-
mail and instant messages is denied as moot.  The Defendants'
motion to submit supplemental briefing is denied as moot.

Ms. Dawson has filed the putative class action lawsuit against the
Defendants alleging they violated the Racketeer Influenced and
Corrupt Organizations Act, were negligent in capitalizing certain
types of interest that had accrued on her loans, and made
negligent misrepresentations in connection with their actions.
She seeks certification of this class:

     All persons who, between January 1, 2006 and the present:
     (i) were borrowers of a student loan issued under the
     Federal Family Education Loan Program ("FFEL" or "FFELP"),
     or of a student loan issued under the Federal Direct Loan
     Program ("Direct"); (ii) had their FFELP and/or Direct
     student loan(s) serviced by Great Lakes Educational Loan
     Services, Inc. or Great Lakes Higher Education Corporation
     (collectively, "Great Lakes"); and (iii) had Great Lakes
     place their FFELP and/or Direct student loan(s) in an
     administrative forbearance status for a period of up to 60
     days, concurrent with the processing of their application
     for a deferment, forbearance, consolidation loan, or change
     in repayment plan.

Judge Crabb opined, among other things, that the Plaintiff's
proposed Class is overbroad and the Plaintiff's claims are too
vague for class certification.

A copy of the Opinion and Order is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=HEuVTP3T


HAIR CLUB: Settlement in "Clemens" Suit Gets Final Approval
-----------------------------------------------------------
District Judge William Alsup granted final approval of the class
settlement in the case, TERESA CLEMENS, JORDAN SIMENSEN, and ADRIA
DESPRES, individuals, for themselves and all members of the
putative class and on behalf of aggrieved employees pursuant to
the Private Attorneys General Act ("PAGA"), Plaintiffs, v. HAIR
CLUB FOR MEN, LLC, a Delaware corporation, and DOES 1 through 100,
inclusive, Defendants, No. C 15-01431 WHA (N.D. Cal.).

The case involves the Plaintiffs' claims against their former
employer, Defendant Hair Club for Men, LLC, alleging various
claims arising out of Hair Club's meal-period and rest-break
practices and for penalties for alleged inaccuracies on wage
statements under Section 226 of the California Labor Code.

The Court awards the Class Counsel with the attorney's fees in the
amount of $125,000 and costs in the amount of $50,000. The Class
Counsel was also given an October 6, 2016 deadline for the filing
of supplemental materials in an effort to support a greater award
of costs. The Court also granted the administration costs
amounting to $5100 for the claims administrator, Simpluris, Inc.
However, the Court held that no incentive award is deemed
appropriate in the case.

A copy of the Court's Order dated September 22, 2016 is available
at https://goo.gl/oxpnX7 from Leagle.com.

Teresa Clemens, Plaintiff, represented by John Michael Bickford
-- jbickford@rrexparris.com -- R. Rex Parris Law Firm.

Teresa Clemens, et al., Plaintiffs, represented by Naomi C.
Pontious -- npontious@rrexparris.com -- R. Rex Parris Law Firm,
Alexander Russell Wheeler -- awheeler@rrexparris.com -- R. Rex
Parris Law Firm, Eric Nathan Wilson -- ewilson@rrexparris.com --
R. Rex Parris Law Firm, Kitty Kit Yee Szeto --
kszeto@rrexparris.com -- R. Rex Parris Law Firm & R. Rex Parris,
R. Rex Parris Law Firm.

Hair Club for Men, LLC, Defendant, represented by Andrew More
McNaught -- amcnaught@seyfarth.com -- Seyfarth Shaw LLP & Justin
Taylor Curley -- amcnaught@seyfarth.com -- Seyfarth Shaw LLP.


HAPPY DAYS: Fails to Pay Employees Overtime, "Busgith" Suit Says
----------------------------------------------------------------
Vanessa Busgith, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated v. Happy Days Home Health Care Service, Case No.
711728/2016 (N.Y. Sup. Ct., September 30, 2016), is brought
against the Defendants for failure to pay overtime wages for work
more than forty hours in a week.

Happy Days Home Health Care Service in the business of providing
health care services.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Abdul K. Hassan, Esq.
      ABDUL HASSAN LAW GROUP, PLLC
      215-28 Hillside Avenue
      Queens Village, NY 11427
      Telephone: (718) 740-1000
      Facsimile: (718) 740-2000
      E-mail: abdul@abdulhassan.com


HARTE HANKS: Blythe Sues Over Funding of Restoration Pension Plan
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Dean Blythe, individually and on behalf of the Harte-Hanks, Inc.
Restoration Pension Plan Participants v. Harte Hanks, Inc., Case
No. 16-3013 (Mass. Cmmw., September 29, 2016), is brought against
the Defendants for failure to provide all Restoration Pension Plan
("RPP") Participants assurance that the RPP will be funded after
the sale of Trillium Software, Inc., a wholly-owned subsidiary of
Harte Hanks, Inc.

Harte Hanks, Inc. is a global marketing services firm specializing
in multi-channel marketing solutions that connect its clients with
their customers.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      David B. Chaffin, Esq.
      R. Victoria Fuller, Esq.
      WHITE AND WILLIAMS LLP
      101 Arch Street, Suite 1930
      Boston, MA 02110-1103
      Telephone: (617) 748-5200
      Facsimile: (617) 748-5245
      E-mail: chaffind@whiteandwilliams.com
              fullerv@whiteandwilliams.com


HIGHER ONE INC: Court Refuses to Approve "Hall" Suit Class Deal
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Hon. James C. Fox denied without prejudice and with leave to
file an amended motion that addresses the requirements and
deficiencies identified in the Order the parties' joint motion for
settlement in support of preliminary approval of proposed class
action settlement, class notice, form of final order and judgment
in the lawsuit styled PATRICIA HALL, individually and on behalf of
others similarly situated v. HIGHER ONE MACHINES, INC., HIGHER
ONE, INC., and HIGHER ONE HOLDINGS, INC., Case No. 5:15-cv-00670-F
(E.D.N.C.).

Judge Fox dismissed as moot the Plaintiff's motion for expedited
review of joint motion in support of preliminary approval of
proposed class action settlement, and the Plaintiff's pre-
discovery motion for conditional class certification and court-
supervised notice to potential opt-in plaintiffs.

The Court stated that the joint motion provides no identification
of the Class, and the Proposed Settlement defines the Class but
the definition is incomplete.

Ms. Hall brings the hybrid action individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated for alleged violations of the Fair
Labor Standards Act, and the North Carolina Wage and Hour Act, and
for breach of contract against Higher One.

The Joint Stipulation of Settlement and Release executed by the
parties requires the Defendants to pay up to $964,637, to be
divided as: (1) attorney's fees to class counsel in the amount of
$321,545 (representing 1/3 of the common fund); (2) $50,000 for
payment of settlement administration expenses and reimbursement of
class counsel expenses; (3) an incentive award to Named Plaintiff
as the class representative in the amount of $10,000; and (4)
distribution to the settlement class members of $583,091.  The
Proposed Settlement provides for the distribution to the
settlement class members based on the log-in/log out claims and
the rest-break claims.

A copy of the Order is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=JDs2sRv0

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Kevin Stoops, Esq.
          SOMMERS SCHWARTZ, P.C.
          1 Towne Square, Suite 1700
          Southfield, MI 48076
          Telephone: (248) 784-6613
          Facsimile: (248) 936-2143
          E-mail: kstoops@sommerspc.com


HOME TEAM: Hearing on Class Cert. Bid in "Garnica" on Nov. 17
-------------------------------------------------------------
The attorneys for the Plaintiffs and the putative class in the
lawsuit titled Jose Luis Garnica, Cora Potter, individuals; on
behalf of themselves and a class of similarly situated consumers
v. Home Team Pest Defense, Inc., et al., Case No. 3:14-cv-05243-VC
(N.D. Cal.), filed a notice with the Court.

The Notice states that the Plaintiffs' motion for class
certification and to appoint class counsel and accompanying
filings inadvertently contained an incomplete Exhibit 18.  The
full and complete exhibit is being filed with the Notice.

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

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

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          R. Rex Parris, Esq.
          Alexander R. Wheeler, Esq.
          Patricia K. Oliver, Esq.
          R. REX PARRIS LAW FIRM
          43364 10th Street West
          Lancaster, CA 93534
          Telephone: (661) 949-2595
          Facsimile: (661) 949-7524
          E-mail: rrparris@rrexparris.com
                  awheeler@rrexparris.com
                  poliver@rrexparris.com

               - and -

          Don Howarth, Esq.
          Suzelle M. Smith, Esq.
          Elizabeth Skorcz Anthony, Esq.
          HOWARTH & SMITH
          523 West Sixth Street, Suite 728
          Los Angeles, CA, 90014
          Telephone: (213) 955-9400
          Facsimile: (213) 622-0791
          E-mail: dhowarth@howarth-smith.com
                  ssmith@howarth-smith.com
                  eanthony@howarth-smith.com

               - and -

          David S. Casey, Jr., Esq.
          Gayle M. Blatt, Esq.
          Jeremy Robinson, Esq.
          CASEY GERRY SCHENK FRANCAVILLA
          BLATT & PENFIELD, LLP
          110 Laurel Street
          San Diego, CA 92101
          Telephone: (619) 238-1811
          Facsimile: (619) 544-9232
          E-mail: dcasey@cglaw.com
                  gmb@cglaw.com
                  jrobinson@cglaw.com


IMANGO CORP: "Zapata" Suit Seeks to Recover Overtime Pay
--------------------------------------------------------
Fernando Zapata, and all others similarly situated under,
Plaintiff, v. iMango Corporation and Yuan Chen Defendants, Case
No. 3:16-cv-02718 (N.D. Tex., September 23, 2016), seeks to
recover unpaid overtime wages, minimum wages, liquidated damages,
declaratory relief and reasonable attorney's fees and costs under
the Fair Labor Standards Act.

iMango Corporation operates as Golden Mango Frozen Yogurt within
Dallas County.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Robert L. Manteuffel, Esq.
      Joshua A. Petersen, Esq.
      J.H. Zidell, Esq.
      J.H. ZIDELL, P.C.
      6310 LBJ Freeway, Ste. 112
      Dallas, Texas 75240
      Tel: (972) 233-2264
      Fax: (972) 386-7610
      Email: zabogado@aol.com
             rlmanteuffel@sbcglobal.net
             josh.a.petersen@gmail.com


IMOTORSPORTS INC: Foley's Bid to Certify Taken Under Advisement
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Clerk of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of
Illinois made a docket entry on September 26, 2016, in the case
styled Foley Motors, Inc. v. IMotorsports, Inc., et al., Case No.
1:15-cv-11767 (N.D. Ill.), relating to a hearing held before the
Honorable Robert M. Dow Jr.

The minute entry states that the Plaintiff's "Damasco" motion for
class certification is stricken as moot, and the Plaintiff's
"Damasco" motion for class certification is taken under
advisement.

A copy of the Notification of Docket Entry is available at no
charge at http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=M2YxUXti


INT TECHNOLOGIES: Faces "Noto" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
----------------------------------------------------------------
Katherine R. Noto and Robert M. Frotten, individually and on
behalf of all other similarly situated employees v. INT
Technologies, LLC and Chris Knott, and Does 1 to 10, inclusive,
Case No. 2:16-cv-03322-DJH (D. Ariz., September 29, 2016), is
brought against the Defendants for failure to pay overtime wages
in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act.

The Defendants operate a software company located at 6634 E.
Baseline Road, Suite 104, Mesa, Arizona 85206.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Devon K. Roepcke, Esq.
      LAW OFFICES OF DEVON K. ROEPCKE
      170 Laurel Street
      San Diego, CA 92101
      Telephone: (619) 940-5357
      Facsimile: (619) 354-4157
      E-mail: droepcke@lawdkr.com

         - and -

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

         - and -

      L. Michelle Gessner, Esq.
      LAW OFFICES OF MICHELLE GESSNER, PLLC
      409 East Boulevard
      Charlotte, NC 28203
      Telephone: (704) 234-7442
      E-mail: michelle@mgessnerlaw.com


JESSE CASARES: JT's Frames' Bid to Certify Taken Under Advisement
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The Clerk of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of
Illinois made a docket entry on September 26, 2016, in the case
titled JT's Frames, Inc. v. Jesse Casares, et al., Case No. 1:16-
cv-02504 (N.D. Ill.), relating to a hearing held before the
Honorable Robert M. Dow Jr.

The minute entry states that the Plaintiff's "Damasco" motion for
class certification is stricken as moot, and the Plaintiff's
"Damasco" motion for class certification is taken under
advisement.

A copy of the Notification of Docket Entry is available at no
charge at http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=RoJ5GzQS


KEY ENERGY: Faces "Pruitt" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
------------------------------------------------------------
Robert Pruitt, on behalf of himself and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. Key Energy Services, LLC, and Does 1 through
25, inclusive, Case No. 1:16-cv-01457-DAD-JLT (E.D. Cal.,
September 29, 2016), is brought against the Defendants for failure
to pay overtime wages in violation of the Fair Labor Standards
Act.

Key Energy Services, LLC provides rig, fluid management, frac
stack, well testing, fishing, and coil tubing services to oil well
drilling companies.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Galvin B. Kennedy, Esq.
      KENNEDY HODGES, L.L.P.
      4409 Montrose Blvd., Ste. 200
      Houston, TX 77006
      Telephone: (713) 523-0001
      Facsimile: (713) 523-1116
      E-mail: GKennedy@Kennedyhodges.com

         - and -

      George P. Moschopoulos, Esq.
      THE LAW OFFICE OF GEORGE MOSCHOPOULOS, APC
      34197 Pacific Coast Highway, Suite 100
      Dana Point, CA 92629
      Telephone: (714) 904-1669
      Facsimile: (949) 272-0428
      E-mail: GeorgeM@logmapc.com


KEYES EUROPEAN: Accused of Wrongful Conduct Over Payment Packing
----------------------------------------------------------------
Allan Lacoste, an individual; and, on behalf all others similarly
situated v. Keyes European, LLC d/b/a Keyes Mercedes; Mercedes-
Benz Financial Services USA, LLC, and Does 1-6, individuals, Does
4-6, individuals; and Does 7 through 500, inclusive, Case No.
BC635748 (Cal. Super. Ct., September 30, 2016), arises out of the
Defendants' illegal pattern and practice of engaging in unlawful
payment packing; failing to accurately disclose agreed-upon value
of vehicles, failing to accurately disclose two trade-in vehicles;
failing to accurately itemize negative equity, and  representing
it has rescission rights it does not have.

Keyes European, LLC is a Mercedes-Benz dealership in the City of
Fremont, County of Alameda, State of California.

Mercedes-Benz Financial Services USA, LLC is a financial
institution engaged in the business of buying lease contracts and
collecting payments made by consumers pursuant to such contracts.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Martin S. Putnam, Esq.
      Louis Liberty, Esq.
      LOUIS LIBERTY & ASSOCIATES, APLC
      553 Pilgrim Drive, Suite A
      Foster City, CA 94404
      Telephone: (510) 466-6300
      Facsimile: (510) 225-2625
      E-mail: mputnam@carlawyer.com


KOHL'S CORP: Certification of TCPA Class Sought in "Ankcorn" Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The Plaintiff in the lawsuit captioned MARK ANKCORN, on behalf of
himself and all others similarly situated v. KOHL'S CORPORATION,
Case No. 1:15-cv-01303 (N.D. Ill.), filed his renewed preliminary
motion for class certification.  He also asks that the Court
appoint him as class representative, and Martin & Bontrager, APC,
and McMorrow Law, P.C., as class counsel.  He defined the class
as:

     All persons who had or have a number assigned to a cellular
     telephone service, which number was called by Defendant
     using an automatic telephone dialing system and/or an
     artificial or prerecorded voice from four years prior to the
     date of filing through the date of trial.  Excluded from the
     class are persons who Defendant called for emergency
     purposes and persons who voluntarily provided their cellular
     telephone numbers to Defendant during the transaction that
     resulted in the debt owed.

The Case arises from the Defendant's alleged unsolicited
autodialed calls, in violation of the Telephone Consumer
Protection Act.

Mr. Ankcorn asserts that he files the Motion at this time in order
to procedurally preserve his rights pursuant to Damasco v.
Clearwire Corp., 662 F.3d 891 (7th Cir. 2011) and pursuant to the
decision in Genesis Healthcare Corp. v. Symczyk, 133 S. Ct. 1523
(U.S. 2013), although he disagrees that the Genesis decision is
applicable.

Because the parties have not yet had an opportunity to conduct
discovery in the Case, Mr. Ankcorn asks the Court to defer ruling
on the Motion until after the parties have had the opportunity to
complete precertification discovery.

A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=86cJ8MbV

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Nicholas J. Bontrager, Esq.
          MARTIN & BONTRAGER, APC
          6464 W. Sunset Blvd., Ste. 960
          Los Angeles, CA 90028
          Telephone: (323) 940-1700
          Facsimile: (323) 238-8095
          E-mail: Nick@mblawapc.com

The Defendant is represented by:

          Henry T. Kelly, Esq.
          Janine N. Fletcher, Esq.
          KELLEY DRYE & WARREN LLP
          333 W. Wacker Drive, 26th Floor
          Chicago, IL 60606
          Telephone: (312) 857-7070
          E-mail: hkelly@kelleydrye.com
                  cjames@kelleydrye.com

               - and -

          Lauri A. Mazzuchetti, Esq.
          KELLEY DRYE & WARREN LLP
          One Jefferson Road, 2nd Floor
          Parsippany, NJ 07054
          Telephone: (973) 503-5900
          E-mail: lmazzuchetti@kelleydrye.com


LA ENTERTAINMENT: Goers Seeks Approval of Amended Class Notice
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Plaintiffs in the lawsuit entitled TAMERA GOERS and ASHLEY
CHRISTINE MULLIGAN, Individually, and on Behalf of All Others
Similarly Situated v. L.A. ENTERTAINMENT GROUP, INC., a Florida
Corporation, and AMER SALAMEH, individually, Case No. 2:15-cv-
00412-UA-CM (M.D. Fla.), ask the Court to approve their amended
class action notice.

On August 25, 2016, the Court adopted the Report and
Recommendation of Magistrate Carol Mirando and requested that the
Plaintiffs amend the proposed Class Action Notice to comply with
the Magistrate's Report and Recommendations regarding same.
Counsel for the Plaintiffs and counsel for the Defendants have
reached an agreement as to the language of the proposed Amended
Class Notice.

Hence, the Plaintiffs ask the Court to approve the proposed
Amended Class Notice and permit them to begin mailing it to
proposed class members on October 10, 2016.

A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=gXbmh8TT

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Jack C. Morgan III, Esq.
          ROETZEL & ANDRESS, LPA
          2320 First Street, Suite 1000
          Fort Myers, FL 33901
          Telephone: (239) 337-4258
          Facsimile: (239) 337-0970
          E-mail: jmorgan@ralaw.com

               - and -

          John B. Gallagher, Esq.
          2631 East Oakland Park Boulevard, Suite 201
          Fort Lauderdale, FL 33306
          Telephone: (954) 524-1888
          Facsimile: (954) 524-1887
          E-mail: gal2701@aol.com


LG CHEM: Stipulation on Deposition of Experts Approved
------------------------------------------------------
Magistrate Judge Donna M. Ryu granted the Indirect Purchaser
Plaintiffs' stipulation on the second deposition requested by the
Defendants, in the case, IN RE LITHIUM ION BATTERIES ANTITRUST
LITIGATION, Case No. 13-MD-02420 YGR (DMR), (N.D. Cal.).

The deposition is directed to the Plaintiffs' experts, Edward E.
Leamer and Rosa M. Abrantes-Metz.

The Defendants contend that Drs. Leamer and Abrantes-Metz provided
new opinions, analyses, or new facts in their reply reports that
were not included in their original reports, thus the Defendants
requested to take a second deposition.

The stipulation provides that the questions at the deposition must
be linked to the text and analyses of the Leamer Reply. Questions
that exceed the scope of the Leamer Reply or the IPPs' Agreed-Upon
Topics identified in the case need not be answered. Moreover, the
stipulation also provides that the Counsel may instruct the
witness not to respond to any such questions of the Defendants.

A copy of the Court's Order dated September 23, 2016 is available
at https://goo.gl/t6tU4Q from Leagle.com.

LG Chem Ltd., et al., Defendants, represented by Arin Charles
Aragona -- aaragona@eimerstahl.com -- Eimer Stahl LLP, Benjamin
Edward Waldin -- bwaldin@eimerstahl.com -- Eimer Stahl LLP, Brian
Yanlang Chang -- bchang@eimerstahl.com -- Eimer Stahl LLP, Nathan
P. Eimer -- neimer@eimerstahl.com -- Eimer Stahl LLP & Vanessa
Greenwood Jacobsen -- vjacobsen@eimerstahl.com -- Eimer Stahl LLP.

Sony Corporation, et al., Defendants, represented by John C. Dwyer
-- dwyerjc@cooley.com -- Cooley LLP, Beatriz Mejia --
mejiab@cooley.com -- Cooley LLP, Matthew Michael Brown --
brownmm@cooley.com -- Cooley LLP & Stephen Cassidy Neal --
nealsc@cooley.com -- Cooley LLP.


LINCARE INC: Court Amends Class Definition in "Culley" Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------
District Judge Morrison C. England, Jr. amended the definition of
the class in the case styled, CHRISTINA CULLEY, Plaintiff, v.
LINCARE INC., ALPHA RESPIRATORY INC., and DOES 1 THROUGH 50,
Defendants, No. 2:15-cv-00081-MCE-CMK (E.D. Cal.).

The amended definition of the class is:

         On August 10, 2016, the Court ordered that the Lawsuit
         may proceed as a class action on behalf of all persons
         employed by Defendant Alpha Respiratory Inc., a wholly
         owned subsidiary of Defendant Lincare, Inc., as non-
         exempt during the Class Period."

A copy of the Court's Order dated September 23, 2016 is available
at https://goo.gl/zl92hf from Leagle.com.

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

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

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


LUMBER LIQUIDATORS: Faces "Perel" Suit in E.D. Va.
--------------------------------------------------
A lawsuit has been filed against Lumber Liquidators, Inc. The case
is entitled Logan Perel, Christopher Manzo, Karen Hotaling, and
Margaret Markoski, individuals, on behalf of themselves and all
others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. Lumber Liquidators,
Inc., a Delaware corporation. the Defendant, Case No. 1:16-md-
02743-AJT-TRJ (E.D. Va., Oct. 4, 2016). The case is assigned to
Hon. District Judge Anthony J Trenga.

Lumber Liquidators provided largest specialty retailer of hardwood
flooring.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

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

               - and -

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

The Defendant is represented by:

          Philip A. Goldstein, Esq.
          MCGUIRE WOODS LLP
          1345 Avenue of the Americas
          New York, NY 10105, 7th Floor
          Telephone: (212) 548 2167
          Facsimile: (212) 715 6275
          E-mail: pagoldstein@mcguirewoods.com


MARRONE BIO: Court Approves $3.4MM in Attorney's Fees, Expenses
---------------------------------------------------------------
District Judge Morrison C. England, Jr. approved attorney's fees
and reimbursement of litigation expenses in the case styled,
SPECIAL SITUATIONS FUND III QP, L.P., SPECIAL SITUATIONS CAYMAN
FUND, L.P, and DAVID M. FINEMAN, Individually and On Behalf of All
Others Similarly Situated, Plaintiffs, v. MARRONE BIO INNOVATIONS,
INC., PAMELA G. MARRONE, JAMES B. BOYD, DONALD J. GLIDEWELL,
HECTOR ABSI, ELIN MILLER, RANJEET BHATIA, PAMELA CONTAG, TIM
FOGARTY, LAWRENCE HOUGH, JOSEPH HUDSON, LES LYMAN, RICHARD
ROMINGER, SHAUGN STANLEY, SEAN SCHICKEDANZ, and ERNST & YOUNG LLP,
Defendants, Master No. 2:14-cv-2571-MCE-KJN (E.D. Cal.).

The Court awarded the Lead Counsel in the amount of $3,000,000 for
the attorneys' fees and $436,879.91 in reimbursement of Lead
Counsel's litigation expenses.

The attorneys' fees and reimbursement of expenses are to be paid
from the Settlement Fund.  The Court has considered and found
that:

     (a) the Settlement has created a fund of $12,000,000 in cash
         that has been funded into escrow pursuant to the terms
         of the Settlement, and that numerous Class Members who
         submit valid Claim Forms will benefit from the
         Settlement that occurred because of the efforts of Lead
         Counsel;

     (b) the copies of the Notice were mailed to over 13,700
         potential Settlement Class members and nominees stating
         that Lead Counsel would apply for attorneys' fees in the
         amount of 25% of the Settlement Fund ($3,000,000) and
         reimbursement of Litigation Expenses in an amount not to
         exceed $450,000 (Lead Counsel has actually incurred
         $436,879.91 in Litigation Expenses), and there were no
         objections to the requested attorneys' fees and
         expenses; and,

     (c) the Lead Counsel devoted approximately 1,400 hours to
         prosecuting the action, with a lodestar value of
         approximately $853,000, to achieve the Settlement, which
         expenditure is reasonable based on the Court's oversight
         of the case and the work described in the Declaration of
         Steven M. Hecht in Support of (A) Lead Plaintiffs'
         Motion for Final Approval of Class Action Settlement and
         Plan of Allocation, and (B) Lead Counsel's Motion for an
         Award of Attorneys' Fees and Reimbursement of Litigation
         Expenses.

The Court retains its exclusive jurisdiction over the parties and
the members of the Settlement Class for all matters relating to
the action, including the administration, interpretation,
effectuation or enforcement of the Stipulation and the Order.

A copy of the Court's Order dated September 23, 2016 is available
at https://goo.gl/KikpCu from Leagle.com.

Special Situations Fund III QP, L.P., et al., Plaintiffs,
represented by Michael John McGaughey -- mmcgaughey@lowenstein.com
-- Lowenstein Sandler LLP.

Kent Oldham, Plaintiff, represented by Robert S. Green --
rsg@classcounsel.com -- Green & Noblin, P.C..

Marrone Bio Innovations, Inc., et al., Defendants, represented by
Judson Earle Lobdell -- jlobdell@mofo.com -- Morrison & Foerster
LLP.

Hector Absi, et al., Defendants, represented by John V. McDermott
-- jmcdermott@bhfs.com -- Brownstein Hyatt Farber Schreck, LLP,
pro hac vice, Jonathan Charles Sandler -- jsandler@bhfs.com --
Brownstein Hyatt Farber Schreck & Judson Earle Lobdell --
jlobdell@mofo.com -- Morrison & Foerster LLP.

Piper Jaffray & Co., Defendant, represented by Charlene Sachi
Shimada -- charlene.shimada@morganlewis.com -- Morgan, Lewis &
Bockius LLP & Lucy Han Wang, Morgan, Lewis & Bockius LLP.


MARRONE BIO: Courts Approves Class Action's Plan of Allocation
--------------------------------------------------------------
District Judge Morrison C. England, Jr. approved the Lead
Plaintiffs' plan of allocation of the Net Settlement Fund in the
case styled, SPECIAL SITUATIONS FUND III QP, L.P., SPECIAL
SITUATIONS CAYMAN FUND, L.P, and DAVID M. FINEMAN, Individually
and On Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, Plaintiffs, v.
MARRONE BIO INNOVATIONS, INC., PAMELA G. MARRONE, JAMES B. BOYD,
DONALD J. GLIDEWELL, HECTOR ABSI, ELIN MILLER, RANJEET BHATIA,
PAMELA CONTAG, TIM FOGARTY, LAWRENCE HOUGH, JOSEPH HUDSON, LES
LYMAN, RICHARD ROMINGER, SHAUGN STANLEY, SEAN SCHICKEDANZ, and
ERNST & YOUNG LLP, Defendants, Master No. 2:14-cv-2571-MCE-KJN
(E.D. Cal.).

The Court held that the form and method of notifying the
Settlement Class of the motion for approval of the proposed Plan
of Allocation satisfied the requirements of Rule 23 of the Federal
Rules of Civil Procedure, the United States Constitution
(including the Due Process Clause), the Private Securities
Litigation Reform Act of 1995, 15 U.S.C. Sec. 78u-4 et seq., as
amended, and all other applicable law and rules.

The Plan of Allocation, were mailed to over 13,700 potential
Settlement Class Members and nominees, and no objections to the
proposed Plan of Allocation were received.

Moreover, the Court finds and concludes that the formula for the
calculation of the claims of Claimants as set forth in the Plan of
Allocation mailed to Settlement Class Members provides a fair and
reasonable basis upon which to allocate the proceeds of the Net
Settlement Fund among Settlement Class Members, with due
consideration having been given to administrative convenience and
necessity.

A copy of the Court's Order dated September 23, 2016 is available
at https://goo.gl/1o6R4T from Leagle.com.

Special Situations Fund III QP, L.P., et al., Plaintiffs,
represented by Michael John McGaughey -- mmcgaughey@lowenstein.com
-- Lowenstein Sandler LLP.

Kent Oldham, Plaintiff, represented by Robert S. Green --
rsg@classcounsel.com -- Green & Noblin, P.C..

Marrone Bio Innovations, Inc., et al., Defendants, represented by
Judson Earle Lobdell -- jlobdell@mofo.com -- Morrison & Foerster
LLP.

Hector Absi, et al., Defendants, represented by John V. McDermott
-- jmcdermott@bhfs.com -- Brownstein Hyatt Farber Schreck, LLP,
pro hac vice, Jonathan Charles Sandler -- jsandler@bhfs.com --
Brownstein Hyatt Farber Schreck & Judson Earle Lobdell --
jlobdell@mofo.com -- Morrison & Foerster LLP.

Piper Jaffray & Co., Defendant, represented by Charlene Sachi
Shimada -- charlene.shimada@morganlewis.com -- Morgan, Lewis &
Bockius LLP & Lucy Han Wang, Morgan, Lewis & Bockius LLP.


MCDONALD'S USA: Sued in Fla. Over Additional Drink Upcharge Fee
---------------------------------------------------------------
Emily Knowles, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated v. McDonald's USA, LLC and McDonald's Corporation, Case
No. 9:16-cv-81657-KAM (S.D. Fla., September 29, 2016), arises from
a deceptive, unfair, unconscionable and unlawful marketing and
pricing scheme, specifically by charging consumers of Happy Meals
an additional fee, called a "Drink Upcharge" fee, when ordering
any of the three advertised "healthy" options for drinks
advertised and marketed as being automatically included in the
Happy Meal on menu boards at McDonald's USA franchise restaurants
and McDonald's Corp. corporate-owned stores.

The Defendants operate and franchise restaurants in the United
States.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Robert L. Parks, Esq.
      Gabriel Garay, Esq.
      THE LAW OFFICES OF ROBERT L. PARKS, P.L.
      799 Brickell Plaza, Suite 900
      Miami, FL 33131
      Telephone: (305) 445-4430
      Facsimile: (305) 445-4431
      E-mail: bob@rlplegal.com
              ggaray@rlplegal.com

         - and -

      Adam G. Wasch, Esq.
      Joseph C. Wasch, Esq.
      Alan L. Raines, Esq.
      WASCH RAINES LLP
      2500 N. Military Trail, Suite 465
      Boca Raton, FL 33431
      Telephone: (561) 693-3221
      Facsimile: (561) 404-1104
      E-mail: awasch@waschraines.com
              jwasch@waschraines.com
              araines@waschraines.com


MDL 2591: Court Certifies Nine Classes in MIR 162 Corn Litigation
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The Hon. John W. Lungstrum granted the Producer Plaintiffs' motion
for class certification and certified a nationwide class and eight
statewide classes in the multidistrict litigation styled In re:
Syngenta AG MIR 162 Corn Litigation, MDL No. 2:14-md-02591-JWL-JPO
(D. Kan.).

The Court also appoints Don M. Downing, Esq., Patrick J. Stueve,
Esq., Scott Powell, Esq., and William Chaney, Esq., as class
counsel.

By the Motion, the Producer Plaintiffs seek certification of a
nationwide class to pursue the Lanham Act claims; and
certification of eight statewide classes (consisting of producers
in Arkansas, Illinois, Iowa, Kansas, Missouri, Nebraska, Ohio, and
South Dakota) to pursue negligence claims, as well as tortious
interference claims in the case of the Arkansas and Missouri
classes, and statutory consumer protection claims in the case of
the Illinois and Nebraska classes.

Co-lead counsel have filed master complaints on behalf of
producers and non-producers of corn in the United States, in which
the Plaintiffs assert various claims against the Defendants
relating to Syngenta's commercialization of corn seed products
known as Viptera and Duracade, containing a genetic trait known as
MIR 162, without approval of MIR 162 corn by China, an export
market.  The Plaintiffs, who did not use Syngenta's products,
allege that Syngenta's commercialization of its products caused
corn containing MIR 162 to be commingled throughout the corn
supply in the United States; that China rejected imports of all
corn from the United States because of the presence of MIR 162;
that such rejection caused corn prices to drop in the United
States; and that Plaintiffs were harmed by that market effect.

A copy of the Order is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=z1T9TcnQ


MULTI CABLE: Does Not Properly Pay Employees, "Galvez" Suit Says
----------------------------------------------------------------
Reynaldo Galvez, individually, and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. Multi Cable, Inc. and Does 1 to 10,
inclusive, Case No. BC635968 (Cal. Super. Ct., September 30,
2016), is brought against the Defendants for failure to provide
accurate wage statements, failure to provide meal and rest breaks,
and failure to pay proper overtime wages pursuant to the
California Labor Law.

Multi Cable, Inc. is in the business of installing video, voice,
and data cables for telecommunications and cable systems
throughout California.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Donald R. Pepperman, Esq.
      BLECHER, COLHNS, PERPERMAN & JOYE
      515 South Figueroa Street, 17th Floor
      Los Angeles, CA 90071
      Telephone: (213) 622-4222
      Facsimile: (213) 622-1656
      E-mail: dpepperman@blechercollins.com

         - and -

      Alan Harris, Esq.
      David Garrett, Esq.
      Christina Nordsten, Esq.
      HARRIS & RUBLE
      655 North Central Avenue, 17th Floor
      Glendale, California
      Telephone: (323) 962-3777
      Facsimile: (323) 962-3004
      E-mail: law@harrisandruble.com

         - and -

      Daniel Forouzan, Esq.
      FOROUZAN LAW
      9454 Wilshire Blvd., Suite 550
      Beverly Hills, CA 90212
      Telephone: (888) 551-0163
      Facsimile: (888) 710-0039
      E-mail: Info@WestsideBarAssociation.com


NATIONAL FOOTBALL: 2nd Suit to Block Concussion Settlement Filed
----------------------------------------------------------------
Maryclaire Dale, writing for The Associated Press, reports that a
second petition has been filed asking the U.S. Supreme Court to
reject the $1 billion settlement of NFL concussion lawsuits
because of how it treats current brain injuries versus future
ones.

The former players who filed the petition complain that chronic
traumatic encephalopathy diagnosed before the April 2015 cutoff
can bring $4 million while future CTE diagnoses aren't
compensated. They say that violates Supreme Court rulings that
insist each subgroup in a class action settlement be treated
fairly.

The petition, filed on Sept. 26, echoes earlier complaints that
the lead players' lawyers in 2013 signed with the NFL a quick deal
that favored their clients over thousands of others.

Lawyers on the Plaintiffs' Steering Committee, who negotiated the
deal, reject those arguments and say the appeals are holding up
payments that ailing retirees need. The NFL declined to comment on
Sept. 28.

The 31 petitioners include a number of men who played for the
Dallas Cowboys, including 1996 Super Bowl MVP Larry Brown and Hall
of Famer Charles Haley.

Washington lawyer Deepak Gupta, who represents them, said the
Supreme Court had not reviewed a case involving the disparate
treatment of subgroups within a class action case in about 20
years. Meanwhile, he said, the federal appeals court in
Philadelphia that upheld the NFL settlement has a different view
of the issue than its counterpart in New York. That could pique
the Supreme Court's interest.

According to the petition, the family of former Chicago Bears
safety Dave Duerson, who was found to have CTE after his 2011
suicide, can seek an award of up to $4 million while the family of
former Oakland Raiders quarterback Ken Stabler, whose CTE was
diagnosed after his July 2015 death, cannot.

CTE, a degenerative disease found in people who've suffered severe
hits to their heads or repeated concussions such as boxers and
other athletes, currently can be diagnosed only at autopsy,
although scientists hope to diagnose it in the living within the
next decade.

The settlement covers future cases of Alzheimer's disease,
Parkinson's disease, Lou Gehrig's disease and dementia but not
CTE.

"Seeking to head off a tsunami of future claims," Gupta wrote in
the petition, "the NFL pushed for a global settlement of all
current and future claims -- while compensating only current CTE
claims."

Supporters of the settlement say it compensates future cases of
dementia. But the payout for dementia is expected to average
$190,000, compared with $1.44 million for CTE, the petition said.

Gupta and other critics also complain the plan does not compensate
the depression, mood swings and memory loss they consider
precursors to dementia and a CTE diagnosis.

The family of former Buffalo Bills fullback Carlton "Cookie"
Gilchrist filed the only other Supreme Court petition. The
deadline has now passed. It could be months before the court
decides whether to hear the case.

The Plaintiffs' Steering Committee lawyers on Sept. 28 pointed to
the 3rd U.S. Circuit decision that found the award scheme "fair,
reasonable and adequate."

"The Fund is uncapped and inflation adjusted, protecting the
interests of those who worry about developing injuries in the
future," the judges wrote in April.

The settlement would resolve thousands of lawsuits that accuse the
NFL of hiding what it knew about the risks of football
concussions. The settlement, overseen by Senior U.S. District
Judge Anita B. Brody, is designed to cover about 21,000 retirees.


NATIONAL FOOTBALL: Concussion Deal Challenged at High Court
-----------------------------------------------------------
Steven M. Sellers, writing for Bloomberg BNA, reports that the
National Football League's $1 billion concussion settlement should
be rejected, according to a Supreme Court petition filed Sept. 26.

The deal unfairly denies compensation to some former players and
circumvents due process standards for class action settlements,
the petition says.

The settlement would create a compensation plan for more than
20,000 former NFL players already diagnosed with chronic traumatic
encephalopathy or other concussion-related brain diseases, worth
up to $4 million each.

But players diagnosed after the settlement would get nothing,
thirty-one former NFL players say in their petition.

This is unfair, they argue.

CTE is a degenerative brain disease associated with repetitive
head impacts, such as those that may occur in football and other
collision sports. The disease has been found in the brains of some
deceased NFL players.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit also misapplied
Supreme Court standards for approving class action settlements,
the petition states. The Third Circuit approved the deal last
April, and a petition to have the case reconsidered by the entire
court was turned down in June (17 CLASS 597, 6/10/16).

Representation of Raymond Armstrong and other the petitioners in
the case includes Gupta Wessler, The Coffman Law Firm, the Webster
Law Firm and Weller, Green Toups & Terrell.

The Case is: Armstrong v. Nat'l Football League, U.S., petition
filed9/26/16.


NATIONWIDE CREDIT: Bid to Certify Class in "Torres" Suit Nixed
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Clerk of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of
Illinois made a docket entry on September 28, 2016, in the case
titled Rosendo Torres v. Nationwide Credit, Inc., Case No. 1:15-
cv-01546 (N.D. Ill.), relating to a hearing held before the
Honorable James B. Zagel.

The minute entry states that the Plaintiff's motion to certify
class is dismissed.

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


NAVIENT SOLUTIONS: Class Certification Sought in "Masson" Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Scott N. Masson moves the Court to certify the case titled SCOTT
N. MASSON v. NAVIENT SOLUTIONS, INC., a Delaware corporation,
PIONEER CREDIT RECOVERY, INC., a Delaware corporation, and COAST
PROFESSIONAL, INC., a Nevada corporation, Case No. 2:16-cv-01887-
ILRL-JVM (E.D. La.), to proceed as a class action against Coast
Professional, Inc., defined as a nationwide class of persons who:

     i. within one year prior to the filing of this action;

    ii. were sent a letter by Coast in the form of Exhibit 5,
        attached to the Amended Complaint (Doc. 17-5), containing
        the language "costs are assessed on your account 60 days
        after the default claim purchase," in an attempt to
        collect an alleged student loan debt;

   iii. which, as shown by the nature of the alleged debt,
        Defendant's records, or the records of the original
        creditor, was primarily for personal, family, or
        household purposes.

On March 4, 2016, the litigation was filed as a class action
alleging that the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act had been
violated.  The Plaintiff alleges that it was the policy and
practice of Defendant Coast to send, or caused to be sent, letters
containing the language "costs are assessed on your account 60
days after the default claim purchase," in an attempt to collect
student loan debts, which violated the FDCPA or 34 C.F.R. Section
682.410 (b)(5) and (6).

A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=JZWyaoy4

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          O. Randolph Bragg, Esq.
          HORWITZ, HORWITZ & ASSOCIATES
          25 East Washington Street, Suite 900
          Chicago, IL 60602
          Telephone: (312) 372-8822
          E-mail: rand@horwitzlaw.com

               - and -

          Keren E. Gesund, Esq.
          GESUND AND PAILET, LLC
          3421 N. Causeway Blvd., Suite 805
          Metairie, LA 70002
          Telephone: (504) 836-2888
          E-mail: keren@gp-nola.com

Defendants Pioneer Credit Recovery, Inc. and Navient Solutions,
Inc., are represented by:

          Michael D. Alltmont, Esq.
          SESSIONS, FISHMAN, NATHAN & ISRAEL, LLC
          3850 N. Causeway Blvd., Suite 200
          Metairie, LA 70002
          Telephone: (504) 846-7954
          Facsimile: (504) 828-3737
          E-mail: malltmont@sessions.legal

Defendant Coast Professional, Inc., is represented by:

          David Vicknair, Esq.
          SCOTT, SEVIN & VICKNAIR
          3850 N. Causeway Blvd., Suite 1130
          Metairie, LA 70002
          Telephone: (504) 264-1057
          Facsimile: (504) 264-5557
          E-mail: david@ssv-law.com

               - and -

          Richard J. Perr, Esq.
          FINEMAN KREKSTEIN & HARRIS, P.C.
          1735 Market St.
          Philadelphia, PA 19103
          Telephone: (215) 893-8724
          E-mail: rperr@finemanlawfirm.com


NCB MANAGEMENT: Williams Seeks Certification of FDCPA Class
-----------------------------------------------------------
Pamela Williams the Court to certify that the claims set forth in
her complaint in the lawsuit styled PAMELA WILLIAMS, individually
and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. NCB MANAGEMENT
SERVICES INCORPORATED, Case No. 1:16-cv-09322 (N.D. Ill.), may
proceed on behalf of a class defined as:

     (1) All persons in Illinois (2) to whom Defendant sent a
     letter to collect a debt (3) substantially similar to
     Exhibit C of Plaintiff's Complaint (Doc. 1) (4) which letter
     falsely misstated the consumer's rights to cancel an
     Electronic Payment Authorization in writing, or with her own
     financial institution (5) within 1 year of the filing of the
     Complaint.

Ms. Williams also asks the Court to appoint her as class
representative, appoint her lawyers as counsel for the class and
allow her to file a memorandum in support of the Motion after
taking class discovery.

In her complaint, Ms. Williams accuses NCB of violating the Fair
Debt Collection Practices Act.

A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=H7PlpKXb

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Michael Wood, Esq.
          Celetha Chatman, Esq.
          COMMUNITY LAWYERS GROUP, LTD.
          73 W. Monroe Street, Suite 502
          Chicago, IL 60603
          Telephone: (312) 757-1880
          Facsimile: (312) 476-1362
          E-mail: mwood@communitylawyersgroup.com
                  cchatman@communitylawyersgroup.com


NCB MANAGEMENT: Parties Agree to Terminate "Kaleel" Class Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Clerk of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of
Illinois made a docket entry on September 26, 2016, in the case
captioned Elizabeth J. Kaleel v. NCB Management Services, Inc.,
Case No. 1:16-cv-05566 (N.D. Ill.), relating to a hearing held
before the Honorable Ronald A. Guzman.

The minute entry states that pursuant to the parties' stipulation
to dismiss, the parties stipulate to the dismissal of the
Plaintiff's individual claims in the litigation with prejudice and
to the dismissal of the class claims without prejudice.  Any
pending motions or schedules in the Case are stricken as moot, and
the Case is terminated.

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


NEW TECH GLOBAL: Court Certifies Rig Clerks Class in "Clay" Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Hon. Carol B. Whitehurst granted the parties' stipulation and
agreed motion for conditional certification and court-authorized
notice filed in the lawsuit captioned MICHAEL D. CLAY, LARRE G.
BUTLER, and CLAYTON SHAMSIE, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. NEW TECH GLOBAL VENTURES, LLC, Case
No. 6:16-cv-00296-RFD-CBW (W.D. La.).

The Court conditionally certifies this class pursuant to the Fair
Labor Standards Act: All current and former workers of Defendant
retained as "Rig Clerks" during the period of March 3, 2013 to
March 3, 2016.

The Defendant retains its right to argue that the Plaintiffs and
those individuals, who may opt-in to the action are not "similarly
situated," and retains its right to seek decertification of the
conditionally certified class at a later time.

All other deadlines in this matter are stayed to allow the parties
to complete the opt-in process in the matter, and once the opt-in
period is completed, the Court will set up a scheduling conference
with the parties to discuss new deadlines.

A copy of the Order is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=m75iUGAH


NISSAN MOTOR: Baron & Budd Sues on Behalf of U.S. Customers
-----------------------------------------------------------
Tara Mapes, writing for Legal NewsLine, reports that a second
class action from the law firm Baron & Budd against Nissan over
its timing chain tensioning system aims to include a nationwide
group of consumers.

Kathy Shaw and Hartwell Steele filed a complaint June 17 in U.S.
District Court for the Central District of California on behalf of
other members of the public similarly situated against Nissan
North America Inc. and Nissan Jidosha Kabushiki Kaisha, doing
business as Nissan Motor Co. LTD.

"Both plaintiffs in our complaint experienced problems with their
timing chain tensioning systems," attorney for the plaintiffs,
Roland Tellis of Baron & Budd in Encino, California, told Legal
Newsline.

"One of the clients lost total engine power while driving on the
freeway."

He reported both of them had to pay repair costs.

Tellis said this is not the first class-action case against Nissan
for defective timing belt systems.

"We filed a related case on behalf of California consumers a
couple of years ago, known as Falco et al. v. Nissan. The court
granted our motion for class certification on all our claims and
we're hopeful the case will be set for trial soon," he said.

"We then filed the Shaw case on behalf of a nationwide class of
consumers."

Tellis said the plaintiffs contend Nissan was well aware of the
timing chain defect. He said his clients allege Nissan had regular
discussions, internally and with its third-party supplier, about
the defect and the need to implement countermeasures.

"Plaintiffs allege that, while Nissan bickered internally over who
would pay for the countermeasures, they concealed the defect from
consumers and continued to sell the affected vehicles," Tellis
said.

"Ultimately, [Nissan] redesigned the defective parts and installed
them in the newer vehicles, but, rather than recall the affected
cars, Nissan preferred to let warranties expire. In doing so,
Nissan managed to secretly and unlawfully transfer the cost of
repair to unsuspecting consumers."

The models of vehicles plaintiffs claim are affected include the
2004 to 2008 Maxima, 2004 to 2009 Quest, 2004 to 2006 Altima, 2005
to 2007 Pathfinder, 2005 to 2007 Xterra and 2005 to 2007 Frontier.

The plaintiffs seek compensatory damages, treble damages and a
trial by jury.

Nissan told Legal Newsline it does not comment on active
litigation and cannot speculate on any future actions.


NRA GROUP: N.Y. Court Certifies Settlement Class in "Gadime" Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The Hon. Sandra J. Feuerstein grants preliminary approval to the
Class Settlement Agreement between the parties in the lawsuit
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.).

The Court defines the "Settlement Class" as:

     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 "Class Claims" are as those claims arising from NRA's
collection letters, which (i) seek to collect past debts, (ii)
instruct consumers to pay their debts using NRA's Web site and
automated telephone service, but which (iii) charges a "processing
fee" for making payments, and (iv) does not advise how to make a
payment without incurring such fees.

Judge Feuerstein also appoints the Plaintiff as the Class
Representative, Stern Thomasson LLP and Kleinman LLC as Class
Counsel, and Heffler Claims Group as the Settlement Administrator
to administer notice to Class Members and administer the
Settlement.

The Court approves the Parties' proposed Class Notice and directs
that it be mailed to the last known address of each member of the
Settlement Class as shown in NRA's business records.  Class
Counsel will cause the Class Notice to be mailed to Class Members
on or before October 14, 2016.  Class Members shall have until
November 28, 2016, to return a claim form seeking a payment from
the Class Recovery, or to exclude themselves from, or object to,
the Settlement.

A final hearing on the fairness and reasonableness of the
Agreement and whether final approval will be given to it and the
requests for fees and expenses by Class Counsel will be held on
January 11, 2017.

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


The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Andrew T. Thomasson, Esq.
          STERN THOMASSON LLP
          150 Morris Avenue, 2nd Floor
          Springfield, NJ 07081-1329
          Telephone: (973) 379-7500
          Facsimile: (973) 532-5868
          E-mail: andrew@sternthomasson.com


OP PROPERTY: Sued in Cal. Over Tenants Privacy Rights Breach
------------------------------------------------------------
Nicole Yatooma, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. OP Property Management, LP, Apartment Investment and
Management Company d/b/a Palazzo at Park La Brea,  Aimco Park La
Brea Holdings, LLC, La Park La Brea A, LLC; and Does 1-20,
inclusive, and each of them, Case No. BC635667 (Cal. Super. Ct.,
September 29, 2016), alleges that the Defendants' improperly and
illegally disclosed the owing of debts by tenants to third-parties
through email practices that violated the tenants' privacy rights.

The Defendants own and operate a large amount of apartment
complexes and communities throughout the United States.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Todd M. Friedman, Esq.
      Adrian R. Bacon, Esq.
      LAW OFFICES OF TODD M. FRIEDMAN, P.C.
      324 S. Beverly Dr., #725
      Beverly Hills, CA 90212
      Telephone: (877) 206-4741
      Facsimile: (866) 633-0228
      E-mail: tfriedman@attorneysforconsumers.com
              abacon@attorneysforconsumers.com


PACIFIC COAST: March 2 Securities Settlement Fairness Hearing Set
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Scott+Scott, Attorneys at Law, LLP, and Glancy Prongay & Murray,
LLP on Oct. 3 issued the following statement regarding the Pacific
Coast Oil Trust Securities Litigation:

TO:  ALL PERSONS WHO PURCHASED OR OTHERWISE ACQUIRED TRUST UNITS
OF PACIFIC COAST OIL TRUST BETWEEN MAY 2, 2012 AND JULY 1, 2014,
INCLUSIVE (THE "CLASS").

THIS NOTICE WAS AUTHORIZED BY THE COURT.  IT IS NOT A LAWYER
SOLICITATION.  PLEASE READ THIS NOTICE CAREFULLY AND IN ITS
ENTIRETY.

YOU ARE HEREBY NOTIFIED that a hearing will be held on March 2,
2017 at 9:00 a.m., before the Honorable Elihu M. Berle, in
Department 323 at the Los Angeles County Superior Court, Central
Civil West, 600 South Commonwealth Ave., Los Angeles, CA 90005, to
determine whether: (1) the proposed settlement (the "Settlement")
of the above-captioned action ("Action") for $7,600,000 in cash
should be approved by the Court as fair, reasonable, and adequate;
(2) the Final Judgment, as provided under the Stipulation and
Agreement of Settlement ("Stipulation"), should be entered; (3)
the release by the Class of the Settled Claims, as set forth in
the Stipulation, should be provided to the Released Parties; (4)
this Action satisfies the applicable prerequisites for class
action treatment under California Code of Civil Procedure Sec.
382; (5) to award Plaintiffs' Counsel attorneys' fees and expenses
out of the Settlement Fund (as defined in the Notice of Proposed
Settlement of Class Action ("Notice"), which is discussed below);
(6) to reimburse Plaintiffs the costs and expenses (including lost
wages) they incurred in prosecuting this Action on behalf of the
Class out of the Settlement Fund; and (7) the Plan of Allocation
should be approved by the Court.

IF YOU PURCHASED OR OTHERWISE ACQUIRED TRUST UNITS OF PACIFIC
COAST OIL TRUST BETWEEN MAY 2, 2012 AND JULY 1, 2014, INCLUSIVE,
YOUR RIGHTS MAY BE AFFECTED BY THE SETTLEMENT OF THIS ACTION.

To share in the distribution of the Settlement Fund, you must
establish your rights by filing a Proof of Claim on or before
February 2, 2017.  Your failure to submit your Proof of Claim by
February 2, 2017 will subject your claim to rejection and preclude
your receiving any of the recovery in connection with the
Settlement of this Action.  If you are a Member of the Class and
do not request exclusion therefrom, you will be bound by the
Settlement and any judgment and release entered in the Action,
including, but not limited to, the Final Judgment, whether or not
you submit a Proof of Claim.

If you have not received a copy of the Notice, which more
completely describes the Settlement and your rights thereunder
(including your right to object to the Settlement), and a Proof of
Claim form, you may obtain these documents, as well as a copy of
the Stipulation (which, among other things, contains definitions
for the defined terms used in this Summary Notice), online at
www.pcotsecuritieslitigation.com, or by writing to:

Pacific Coast Oil Trust Securities Litigation Settlement
c/o KCC Class Action Services
P.O. Box 40007
College Station, TX 77842-4007
Phone:  (844) 239-8899
www.pcotsecuritieslitigation.com

Inquiries should NOT be directed to Defendants, the Court, or the
Clerk of the Court.

Inquiries, other than requests for the Notice or for a Proof of
Claim form, may be made to Plaintiffs' Counsel:

SCOTT+SCOTT, ATTORNEYS AT LAW, LLP
John T. Jasnoch
655 North Central Ave., 17th Floor
Glendale, CA 91203
Telephone: (213) 985-1274
Facsimile: (213) 985-1278

GLANCY PRONGAY & MURRAY, LLP
Joshua L. Crowell
1925 Century Park E #2100
Los Angeles, CA 90067
Telephone: (310) 201-9150
Facsimile: (310) 432-1495

IF YOU DESIRE TO BE EXCLUDED FROM THE CLASS, YOU MUST SUBMIT A
REQUEST FOR EXCLUSION BY FEBRUARY 2, 2017 IN THE MANNER AND FORM
EXPLAINED IN THE NOTICE.  ALL MEMBERS OF THE CLASS WHO HAVE NOT
REQUESTED EXCLUSION FROM THE CLASS WILL BE BOUND BY THE SETTLEMENT
ENTERED IN THE ACTION EVEN IF THEY DO NOT FILE A TIMELY PROOF OF
CLAIM.

Dated: September 14, 2016

HONORABLE ELIHU M. BERLE
SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA, COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES


PLAYTEX PRODUCTS: Sued for Misrepresenting Banana Boat Kids SPF
---------------------------------------------------------------
Wadi Reformado, writing for Legal Newsline, reports that a
consumer has filed a class action lawsuit against the manufacturer
of Banana Boat Kids sunscreen SPF 50 for alleged fraud and
negligent misrepresentation.

Dyan D'Aversa filed a complaint on behalf of herself and all
others similarly situated June 26 in the U.S. District Court of
New Jersey, Camden Vicinage, against Playtex Products LLC,
formerly known as Playtex Products Inc., Edgewell Personal Care
Company and Sun Pharmaceutical LLC, alleging they misrepresented
the actual SPF level of their product to deceive consumers.

According to the complaint, the plaintiff alleges she suffered
damages from being misled into buying a product that does not
contain the advertised SPF level.

The plaintiff holds Playtex, Edgewell and Sun responsible because
the defendants allegedly knew the product only had an 8 SPF rating
but advertised it as SPF 50.

The plaintiff requests a trial by jury and seeks injunctive and
declaratory relief, damages plus interest, treble damages, all
legal fees and any other relief as the court deems just.

She is represented by Stephen P. DeNittis and Joseph A. Osefchen
of De Nittis Osefchen P.C. in Marlton, New Jersey.

U.S. District Court of New Jersey case number 1:16-cv-03813-JHR-
AMD


PRIME COMMUNICATIONS: Espinoza Seeks to Recover Overtime Pay
------------------------------------------------------------
Darrell Espinoza, an individual, on behalf of himself and on
behalf of all persons similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Prime
Communications of California, LLC, a California Limited Liability
Company; and Does l through 50, Inclusive, Defendants, Case No.
16CIV01563, (Cal. Super., September 23, 2016), seeks overtime pay,
reimbursements of required business expenses, compensatory
damages, penalties, attorneys' fees and cost of suit, as allowable
under the law pursuant to the California Labor Code and Industrial
Welfare Commission Wage Orders.

Defendant is a dealer for AT&T products and services, providing
wireless phones and accessories, high-speed internet and home
phone services, smart phones and tablets, personal computers and
televisions.

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Norman B. Blumenthal, Esq.
      Kyle R. Nordrehaug, Esq.
      Aparajit Bhowmik, Esq.
      BLUMENTHAL, NORDREHAUG & BHOWMIK
      2255 Calle Clara
      La Jolla, CA 92037
      Telephone: (858)551-1223
      Facsnnile: (858) 551-1232
      Website: www.bamlawca.com


PROCARE MEDICAL: Faces "Torres" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Clara Elena Torres, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated v. Procare Medical Staffing Services, Inc., Tag-2
Medical Investment Group, LLC, Sunnyview Care Center, Alal, LLC,
Keiro Nursing Home, and Does 1 to 50, inclusive, and Does 51 to
100, Case No. BC635907 (Cal. Super. Ct., September 30, 2016), is
brought against the Defendants for failure to pay overtime wages
in violation of the California Labor Code.

The Defendants operate a medical staffing agency in California.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Joseph Lavi, Esq.
      Jordan D. Bello, Esq.
      LAVI & EBRAHIMIAN, LLP
      8889 W. Olympic Blvd., Suite 200
      Beverly Hills, CA 90211
      Telephone: (310) 432-0000
      Facsimile: (310) 432-0001
      E-mail: jlavi@lelawfirm.com
              jbello@lelawfirm.com


PTZ INSURANCE: Court Refuses to Certify Class in "Legg" Suit
------------------------------------------------------------
The Hon. Robert W. Gettleman denied the Plaintiffs' amended motion
for class certification filed in the lawsuit titled CHRISTOPHER
LEGG, PAGE LOZANO, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. PTZ INSURANCE AGENCY, LTD., and PETHEALTH,
INC., Case No. 1:14-cv-10043 (N.D. Ill.).

"For the reasons stated on the record, the court concludes that
the telephone calls alleged in the complaint are not
'telemarketing' calls because they were not initiated 'for the
purpose of encouraging the purchase or rental of, or investment
in, property, goods or services," Judge Gettleman wrote in his
order.  "The calls were simply reminders to pet adopters of their
free 30 days of insurance.  Consequently, express "written"
consent of the recipient of the calls is not required," Judge
Gettleman explained.

"Because the amended complaint alleges that plaintiffs received
telemarketing calls and it proposes a class based on the receipt
of telemarketing calls without prior 'written' consent, the
complaint fails to state a claim, and the class proposed in it and
plaintiffs' motion for class certification cannot be certified,"
Judge Gettleman opined.  The Plaintiffs, however, are granted
leave to file an amended complaint conforming with the Order by
October 12, 2016.  The Plaintiffs' motion for leave to file
supplemental authority, and their motion for leave to reply under
seal are granted, and the Plaintiffs' motion to stay briefing on
summary judgment is denied as moot.

The matter is set for a report on status on October 18, 2016, at
9:00 a.m.

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


PUBLIX SUPER: Faces "Tamayo" Class Action Over False Advertising
----------------------------------------------------------------
Jenie Mallari-Torres, writing for Legal NewsLine, reports that a
Florida consumer is suing a food distributor, alleging false
advertising, fraudulent and negligent misrepresentation and unjust
enrichment.

Eric Tamayo filed a class action lawsuit, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated, Sept. 20 in U.S. District
Court for the Middle District of Florida Orlando Division against
Publix Super Markets Inc. alleging violation of the Florida
Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices (FDUTPA) through deceptive
advertising and labeling of its products.

According to the complaint, Tamayo had performed an independent
laboratory testing of Publix's products, particularly its
labeled/bottled cheese products that allege to be 100 percent real
grated Parmesan cheese. The suit says Tamayo discovered the
products contain high levels of cellulose that exceed its use as
anti-clumping.

The lawsuit states as a result of Publix's conduct, class members
were induced to pay premium prices for the defendant's products.

The plaintiffs allege Publix induced consumers into paying for
substandard products at premium prices, deceived consumers into
thinking they were consuming all-real cheese and incorporated a
non-digestible filler/additive derived from wood pulp to cut
manufacturing costs.

Tamayo seeks trial by jury, judgment against the defendant,
certifying the case as class action, appoint
representative/counsel, restitution, damages, disgorgement,
interest, litigation expenses, costs, attorney fees, injunctive
and declaratory relief, and all other relief the court deems just.
The plaintiffs are represented by attorneys Nathan C. Zipperian of
Shepherd, Finkelman, Miller & Shah LLP in Fort Lauderdale,
Florida, and by Robert C. Schubert, Willem F. Jonckheer and Dustin
L. Schubert of Schubert Jonckheer & Kolbe LLP in San Francisco.

U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Florida Orlando
Division Case number 6:16-cv-01646


QUANTUM LEARNING: Feb. 2017 Fairness Hearing on "Johnson" Deal
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, TREVOR JOHNSON, et al., Plaintiffs, v. QUANTUM
LEARNING NETWORK, INC., Defendant, Case No. 15-CV-05013-LHK (N.D.
Cal.), District Judge Lucy H. Koh granted the parties' Second
Amended Motion for Preliminary Approval.

The Court ordered the Class Counsel to file their motion for
attorney's fees, costs, and service awards by December 12, 2016.
The Court also ordered the Class Counsels to post their motion for
attorney's fees, costs, and service awards on the settlement
website. The motion for attorney's fees, costs, and service awards
must include (1) the number of hours spent on this litigation by
each biller, (2) detailed billing records showing how much time
was spent on each task, and (3) each biller's billable rate and
justification for such rate.

Moreover, the Court appoints Trevor Johnson and Samantha Harmon as
Class Representatives for settlement purposes only. Bryan Schwarz
Law shall serve as Class Counsel and Rust Consulting as the Claims
Administrator. The Court preliminarily approved the settlement
administration fees and expenses to the Claims Administrator not
to exceed $20,000

A final fairness hearing on the question of whether the proposed
Second Amended Settlement Agreement, attorneys' fees to Class
Counsel, and the Class Representative's enhancement payments
should be finally approved as fair, reasonable, and adequate as to
the members of the Class is scheduled for February 23, 2017.

A copy of the Court's Order dated September 23, 2016 is available
at https://goo.gl/D3hCEZ from Leagle.com.

Trevor Johnson, et al., Plaintiffs, represented by Logan McMillan
Starr -- logan@bryanschwartzlaw.com -- Bryan Schwartz Law.

Samantha Harmon, Plaintiff, represented by Logan McMillan Starr
-- logan@bryanschwartzlaw.com -- Bryan Schwartz Law & Bryan
Jeffrey Schwartz -- bryan@bryanschwartzlaw.com -- Bryan Schwartz
Law.

Quantum Learning Network, Inc., Defendant, represented by Thomas
S. Ingrassia -- tingrassia@pettitkohn.com -- Pettit Kohn Ingrassia
Lutz PC, Jenna Heather Leyton-Jones -- jleyton@pettitkohn.com --
Pettit Kohn Ingrassia Lutz PC & Shannon Riyana Finley --
SFinley@pettitkohn.com -- Pettit Kohn Ingrassia Lutz PC.


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

The Court awarded the approved Class Counsels, Kawahito Westrick
LLP and The Law Offices of Brett Szmanda, the amount of
$221,250.00 for attorneys' fees and $17,231.07 for reimbursement
of litigation costs and expenses, which the Court finds were
reasonably incurred in prosecution of the case.

Meanwhile, Justin Wright is awarded $5,000.00 and Jean-Laurent
Pouliot is awarded $5,000.00 for their unique services in
initiating and maintaining the litigation as Class
Representatives.

The Claims Administrator, CPT Group, Inc. is awarded $13,750.00 as
payment for handling the administration of the Settlement in the
case. A Payment of $7,500 is also approved to the Labor and
Workforce Development Agency for the resolution of the claims
brought in the case under the Labor Code Private Attorneys General
Act of 2004.

The Court noted that it shall have exclusive and continuing
jurisdiction over the matter for the purposes of supervising the
implementation, enforcement, construction, administration, and
interpretation of the Settlement Agreement and the Judgment.

A copy of the Court's Order dated September 16, 2016 is available
at https://goo.gl/8ZQXd7 from Leagle.com.

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

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

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

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


RESULTS COS: Call Center Agents Class Certified in Mulligan Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Honorable Nelva Gonzales Ramos granted the Plaintiffs' motion
for conditional certification of a collective action, for notice
to potential plaintiffs, and for production of information
necessary for notice in the lawsuit captioned DIANNA MULLIGAN,
MICHAEL MULLIGAN AND ADRIAN FLORES v. THE RESULTS COMPANIES LLC,
Case No. 2:16-cv-00040 (S.D. Tex.).

The Court conditionally certified this Class under the Fair Labor
Standards Act:

     Current and former individuals employed at The Results
     Companies LLC Corpus Christi, Texas call center as an
     Associate Trainer, Associate, Inbound Sales Representative,
     Outbound Sales Representative, Customer Service
     Representative, Customer Retention Agent, or Other
     Telephone-Dedicated Employee from January 27, 2013 through
     the present.  This includes all hourly paid, telephone-
     dedicated employees who worked at the Corpus Christi call
     center during this time period, regardless of their precise
     job title.

Judge Ramos directed the Defendant to produce to the Plaintiffs in
readable electronic form the full names, last-known addresses, any
known alternate addresses, telephone numbers, and dates of
employment for all potential class members.  The Court also
approves the Notice of Collective Action Under the Fair Labor
Standards Act and Consent to Become a Party Plaintiff.

Judge Ramos further ordered that, except for the Notices provided
for by the Order, neither the Plaintiffs nor the Defendant (nor
any third-party administrator) may contact potential class members
during the opt-in period for the purpose of soliciting any
potential class member to join, or discouraging any potential
class member from joining, this action; provided, however, that
any third-party administrator hired by the Plaintiffs to
effectuate the notice provided for in the Order may contact
potential class members personally upon the Court's approval.

A copy of the Order is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=dM1sl77Y

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Mary L. Scott, Esq.
          SPENCER SCOTT, PLLC
          Two Lincoln Centre, Suite 300
          5420 LBJ Freeway
          Dallas, TX 75240-6271
          Telephone: (972) 458-5302
          E-mail: MScott@SpencerScottLaw.com

The Defendant is represented by:

          Dennis M. McClelland, Esq.
          PHELPS DUNBAR LLP
          115 Grand Avenue, Suite 222
          Southlake, TX 76092
          Telephone: (817) 488-3134
          Facsimile: (817) 488-3214
          E-mail: dennis.mcclelland@phelps.com


REWALK ROBOTICS: Faces Securities Class Action in California
------------------------------------------------------------
Shareholder rights law firm Robbins Arroyo LLP on Oct. 3 disclosed
that a class action complaint was filed against ReWalk Robotics
Ltd. in the Superior Court of the State of California, County of
San Mateo.  The complaint is brought on behalf of all purchasers
of ReWalk securities pursuant to the company's September 12, 2014
initial stock offering ("IPO"), for alleged violations of the
Securities Act of 1933 by ReWalk's officers and directors.
ReWalk, a medical device company, designs, develops, and
commercializes exoskeletons for wheelchair-bound individuals.

View this information on the law firm's Shareholder Rights Blog:
www.robbinsarroyo.com/shareholders-rights-blog/rewalk-robotics-ltd

ReWalk Accused of Misrepresenting Its Ability to Obtain Regulatory
Approval for Its Product

According to the complaint, on or about September 17, 2014, ReWalk
announced the closing of its offering of 3,450,000 ordinary shares
to the public, through which the company raised approximately
$41.4 million.  ReWalk had previously filed with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission ("SEC") the registration
statement for the IPO, which described the company's exoskeleton
product, the anticipated market for it, as well as the company's
efforts to develop the product, obtain regulatory approval for it,
and to sell it.  The registration statement stated that the U.S.
Food and Drug Administration ("FDA") had classified ReWalk as
subject to special controls, which included compliance with
medical device consensus standards, performance of a postmarket
surveillance clinical study demonstrating a reasonable assurance
of safety and effectiveness in urban terrain, and a training
program, among other things.

The complaint alleges, however, that the registration statement
failed to disclose that ReWalk was unable to comply with the
special controls and provide the FDA with a postmarket
surveillance study of the ReWalk product.  ReWalk omitted that it
received a Warning Letter from the FDA in September of 2015, in
which the FDA outlined ReWalk's substantial failures to propose
and commence an adequate postmarket surveillance plan.  Making
matters worse, ReWalk had in fact previously received several
letters from the FDA in which it notified the company that the
company's postmarket surveillance submission lacked the
information needed to complete the review.  On May 10, 2016,
ReWalk revealed that at the time of the IPO, the company had been
unable to comply with the FDA's special controls due to inadequate
staffing. Following the release of the Warning Letter to the
public on February 25, 2016, ReWalk stock fell over 50% from
$11.65 per share to $5.70 per share on September 1, 2016.

ReWalk Shareholders Have Legal Options

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

Robbins Arroyo LLP is a shareholder rights law firm.  The firm
represents individual and institutional investors in shareholder
derivative and securities class action lawsuits.


ROTHENBERG VENTURES: Ex-Chief of Staff Sues Over Unpaid Wages
-------------------------------------------------------------
Sarah Buhr, writing for TechCrunch, reports that Katie Fanelli --
a former chief of staff of Rothenberg Ventures -- has brought a
proposed class-action lawsuit against the beleaguered
San Francisco-based investing outfit, saying it routinely failed
to pay contract workers their final paycheck across its four-year
history, and that it failed to compensate Ms. Fanelli and other
hourly workers for overtime.

The suit aims to address anyone who failed to receive final or
overtime pay from Rothenberg Ventures Management Company and whose
individual claims fall below $75,000.  That isn't an arbitrary
distinction.  Federal courts may hear suits only where "the matter
in controversy exceeds the sum or value of $75,000," while
California law and statutes protect plaintiffs who are seeking
less.

Ms. Fanelli's suit employs both colorful prose -- and some
brow-raising accusations.  Describing Rothenberg's business
practices as "lucrative, repressive, and unlawful," it goes on to
say that as part of a "systemic scheme of wage abuse,"
Ms. Fanelli's employment was terminated, after which Rothenberg
Ventures failed to provide her with a final paycheck covering the
hours she had worked in her final pay period.

The lawsuit seeks to represent "all California-based employees who
worked any time during the four years preceding" the suit and who
"were not paid their final paycheck upon separation and/or
termination" from Rothenberg Ventures Management Company.

Ms. Fanelli is also accusing Rothenberg of not paying herself and
others deserved overtime wages.

The suit observes that, according to California labor law, "any
work in excess of eight hours in one weekday and any work in
excess of 40 hours in any one workweek . . . shall be compensated
at the rate of no less than one and one-half times the regular
rate of pay for an employee."

It goes on to state that she wasn't provided additional pay for
the extra hours worked, and it suggests her fellow co-workers
weren't either.  It isn't clear from the suit whether Ms. Fanelli
believes this to be true throughout her employment with
Rothenberg, periodically, or during the end of her tenure with the
firm, which ended in August.

Rothenberg Ventures has found itself embroiled in controversy over
the past several months, losing several key executives. Thirty-
two-year-old founder Mike Rothenberg has been accused of several
illicit activities, including allegedly harassing employees,
taking out a $5 million loan over Christmas break without investor
knowledge, and wiring himself a sizable salary from different
entities.

Mr. Rothenberg is also under investigation by the SEC and could
come under the watch of the FBI and U.S. Attorney General,
according to one source TechCrunch has previously spoken with.

An investigation does not mean there's been any wrongdoing. No
formal charges have been brought against Mr. Rothenberg.

Ms. Fanelli isn't the first employee to accuse Mr. Rothenberg of
failing to pay her money owed.  David Haase, a former employee who
joined Rothenberg Ventures in April of this year and says he was
tasked with "providing various services of a Chief Financial
Office," filed suit against the firm in late August, saying he was
asked to run up more than $100,000 in business expenses on a
personal American Express account and never repaid.

Numerous sources says other former staffers are similarly prepared
to take on Mr. Rothenberg in court over back pay.

Ms. Fanelli and her lawyers filed the suit on September 30.

In the state of California, an individual can sue on behalf of
others in a group, or class, of absent parties.  However, those
included in the suit may choose to opt-out if they don't wish to
be involved.

While Mr. Rothenberg himself was not specifically named in the
suit, Ms. Fanelli's lawyer, John Glugowski, tells TechCrunch the
names and entities of the defendants in the case are still being
worked out.

Rothenberg Ventures recently rebranded as Frontier Tech Ventures
in an effort to distance itself from its public unraveling.
Rothenberg is the sole general partner of the firm, however, and
for now, maintains control over the enterprise, its investments
and management practices.


SAN JOAQUIN COLLEGE: "Benedy" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Wages
----------------------------------------------------------------
Loretta Beneby and Serge Laraque, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated v. San Joaquin Valley College, Inc.,
Case No. BC635813 (Cal. Super. Ct., September 30, 2016), seeks to
recover unpaid wages, reimbursement for business expenses,
restitution, statutory and civil penalties, interest,
injunctive and other equitable relief, and reasonable attorneys'
fees and costs under California Labor Code.

San Joaquin Valley College, Inc. is a for-profit junior college
that operates 14 campuses throughout California including Modesto,
Rancho Cordova, Bakersfield, Delano, Fresno, Fresno Aviation,
Hanford, Madera, Visalia, Lancaster, Ontario/ Rancho Cucamonga,
Chula Vista, Temecula, and Hesperia.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Julian Hammond, Esq.
      Polina Pecherskaya, Esq.
      Ari Cherniak, Esq.
      HAMMOND LAW, P.C.
      1829 Reisterstown Rd., Suite 410
      Baltimore, MD 21208
      Telephone: (310)601-6766
      Facsimile: (310) 295-2385
      E-mail: jhammond@hammondlawpc.com
              ppecherskaya@hammondlawpc.com
              achemiak@hammondlaw.com


SBARRO LLC: Does Not Properly Pay Workers, "Fernandez" Suit Says
----------------------------------------------------------------
Cristian Fernandez, on behalf of himself and others similarly
situated v. Sbarro LLC and Does 1 to 100, inclusive, Case No.
BC635717 (Cal. Super. Ct., September 29, 2016), seeks to recover
unpaid wages and interest thereon for improperly calculated
overtime wages; statutory penalties for failure to provide
accurate wage statements; waiting time penalties in the form of
continuation wages for failure to timely pay employees; injunctive
relief and other equitable relief; reasonable attorney's fees and
costs; and interest.

Sbarro LLC operates and franchises restaurants in the United
States and internationally.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Joseph Lavi, Esq.
      Andrea Rosenkranz, Esq.
      LAVI & EBRAHIMIAN, LLP
      8889 W. Olympic Blvd. Suite 200
      Beverly Hills, CA 90211
      Telephone: (310) 432-0000
      Facsimile: (310) 432-0001
      E-mail: jlavi@lelawfirm.com
              arosenkranz@lelawfirm.com


SBOCA LLC: Class Certification Sought in Gorss Motels Suit
----------------------------------------------------------
The Plaintiff in the lawsuit captioned GORSS MOTELS, INC. a
Connecticut corporation, individually and as the representative of
a class of similarly-situated persons v. SBOCA, LLC, a Tennessee
limited liability company and JOHN DOES 1-5, Case No. 3:16-cv-
01630 (D. Conn.), moves for class certification and for a
temporary stay of further proceedings on that Motion.

Gorss Motels asks the Court to take the Motion under submission
and defer further activity on it until after the discovery cutoff
date to be set in the Court's upcoming Rule 23 scheduling order
or, alternatively, granting the Motion pursuant to Rule 23 of the
Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.

A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=VJd8AMF4

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Aytan Y. Bellin, Esq.
          BELLIN & ASSOCIATES LLC
          85 Miles Avenue
          White Plaines, NY 10606
          Telephone: (914) 358-5345
          Facsimile: (212) 571-0284
          E-mail: Aytan.Bellin@bellinlaw.com

               - and -

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


SCHLUMBERGER TECH: Class of Specialists Certified in "Levy" Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Hon. Patrick J. Hanna granted in part and denied in part the
Plaintiff's motion for conditional certification of a class of
allegedly similarly-situated plaintiffs under the Fair Labor
Standards Act, approval of a proposed notification to putative
class members, and approval of a proposed consent form filed in
the lawsuit captioned CONRAD LEVY, individually and on behalf of
all other similarly situated v. SCHLUMBERGER TECH CORP., Case No.
6:16-cv-00043-DDD-PJH (W.D. La.).

The putative class action lawsuit was filed on January 12, 2016,
by Conrad Levy, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, against "Schlumberger Tech Corp.," alleging violations
of the FLSA.  Smith International, Inc. answered the lawsuit,
identifying itself as Levy's former employer and the proper
defendant, and explaining that it was incorrectly identified in
the Plaintiff's complaint as Schlumberger.

The Motion is granted to the extent that the action is
conditionally certified as a collective action pursuant to the
FLSA, with the plaintiff class defined as "technical specialists
working for Schlumberger Technology Corporation and/or Smith
International Inc. over the past three years who were paid a
salary and job bonus."

In all other respects, the Motion is denied.  The Defendant will
have 14 days from the date of the Order to provide the Plaintiff
with the names of all potential members of the collective class.
The parties will meet, confer, and thereafter submit to the Court
a joint proposed notice and consent forms no later than 21 days
after the date of the Order.

A copy of the Order is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=qwkLFLd4


SCHNUCK MARKETS: Ill. Judge Dismisses Data Breach Class Action
--------------------------------------------------------------
Blaine C. Kimrey, Esq. -- bkimrey@vedderprice.com -- of Vedder
Price, in an article for The National Law Review, reports that a
relatively new breed of data breach class action involves
financial institutions suing merchants for expenses associated
with credit card data breaches.  Although merchants may not have
contractual privity with the card issuers (and instead may have
contractual privity with the credit card brands or payment
processors), the financial institutions in these cases claim that
the retailers should still compensate the financial institutions
for costs associated with fraudulent charges and reissuance of
credit cards as a result of a data breach. In the most recent
decision involving these sorts of claims, an Illinois federal
judge found the financial institutions' claims against the Shnucks
grocery store chain too vague to survive Rule 12 dismissal. See
Cmty. Bank of Trenton v. Schnuck Mkts., 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS
133482 (S.D. Ill. Sept. 28, 2016).  The court reasoned that
although "the parties are charting relatively new territory in the
data breach context by presenting a case between financial
institutions and a merchant (as opposed to customers and a
merchant), . . . the Court notes that the generality made it
difficult to assess the plausibility of such claims." Id. at *8-9.

The financial institutions asserted 13 counts, which were
addressed by the court as follows:

The court dismissed without prejudice the first three counts (RICO
claims) for failure to allege predicate RICO acts with sufficient
particularly. Id. at *19.  According to the court, the financial
institutions "rely on two theories of fraud -- misrepresentation
and cheating -- but they do not allege with specificity what it
was about Schnucks's conduct that constituted these things." Id.
The court found the RICO conspiracy allegations similarly infirm.

As to breach of fiduciary duty, the court found insufficient
allegations of a special relationship under Illinois law or a
dominant/subservient relationship under Missouri law and thus
dismissed that claim without prejudice. Id. at *31-32.

The court dismissed the negligent misrepresentation claim without
prejudice because the plaintiffs had asserted insufficient
allegations of concrete misrepresentations and duty and had not
sufficiently addressed the economic loss doctrine under Illinois
law, and the plaintiffs' assumptions of and reliance on compliance
with VISA and MasterCard security protocols were insufficient to
plead the elements of negligent misrepresentation under Missouri
law. Id. at *33-34.

As to negligence/gross negligence, the court found no duty to
protect data owed by the defendant to the plaintiffs under the FTC
Act or common law and thus dismissed the claim without prejudice.
Id. at *36-37.

The court dismissed the negligence per se claim (with prejudice
under Illinois law and without prejudice under Missouri law)
because the plaintiffs failed to identify a statute violated, much
less one imposing strict liability. Id. at *39-40.

As to breach of implied contract, the court dismissed without
prejudice because of insufficient allegations of implicit
contractual privity between the financial institutions and grocery
store chain, and the allegations of pre-existing duty to VISA and
MasterCard undercut an implied contract claim under Missouri law.
Id. at *43-44.

The court dismissed without prejudice the breach of contract
damaging third parties claim because of insufficient allegations
that the plaintiffs were intended third-party beneficiaries of the
grocery store chain and any other participants in the financial
network, and the plaintiffs appeared to be incidental
beneficiaries that could not recover under Missouri law. Id. at
*44-47.

As to the Illinois Consumer Fraud and Deceptive Business Practices
Act claim, the court dismissed without prejudice because of
insufficient allegations of misrepresentation content, timing and
nature of communication. Id. at *47-48.

The court dismissed the unjust enrichment/assumpsit claim because
there were insufficient allegations that the defendant received
some benefit from payment via credit card above and beyond payment
by some other means. Id. at *48-49.  Nor did the plaintiffs
adequately articulate what they would have done had they known
about the allegedly poor data security practices. Id. at *49-50.

As to equitable subrogation, the court dismissed without prejudice
because of inadequate allegations that the plaintiffs had paid a
third-party debt by reimbursing customers for fraudulent charges.
Id. at *51-52.

Finally, because the court dismissed all the claims, it did not
opine on the claim for declaratory and injunctive relief.

These sorts of cases are in their infancy, and it remains to be
seen how they'll ultimately fare in the face of Rule 12 Rule 23,
and Rule 56 challenges. Stay tuned.


SCOREBIG INC: Sued in Cal. Over Failure to Pay Ticket Brokers
-------------------------------------------------------------
Eric Fuller, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated v. Scorebig, Inc. and Does 1 through 1000, Case No.
BC635733 (Cal. Super. Ct., September 29, 2016), seeks redress for
all harm caused by ScoreBig's failure to pay brokers for the
tickets sold and received from ticket brokers.

Scorebig, Inc. is a ticket seller focused on providing savings to
consumers for sports, concerts, theater, and other live events.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Erik C. Jenkins, Esq.
      JENKINS P.C.
      11975 EI Camino Real, Suite 200
      San Diego, CA 92130
      Telephone: (858) 314-2400
      Facsimile: (858) 724-1431


SEAS & ASSOCIATES: Stamer's Cert. Bid Nixed, Dec. 2 Hearing Set
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Clerk of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of
Illinois made a docket entry on September 28, 2016, in the case
captioned David Stamer v. Seas & Associates, LLC, et al., Case No.
1:15-cv-08277 (N.D. Ill.), relating to a hearing held before the
Honorable John J. Tharp Jr.

The minute entry states that:

   -- Defendant ABC's motion to dismiss is taken under
      advisement;

   -- Plaintiff's response to the motion is due by October 12,
      2016;

   -- Defendant's reply is due by October 19, 2016;

   -- Plaintiff's Amended Motion for Class Certification is
      denied without prejudice for reasons stated on the record;
      and

   -- status hearing is set for December 2, 2016, at 9:00 a.m.

A copy of the Notification of Docket Entry is available at no
charge at http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=pH9GRUeg


SERES THERAPEUTICS: Nov. 28 Lead Plaintiff Motion Deadline Set
--------------------------------------------------------------
Faruqi & Faruqi, LLP, a leading national securities law firm,
reminds investors in Seres Therapeutics, Inc., of the November 28,
2016 deadline to seek the role of lead plaintiff in a federal
securities class action lawsuit filed against the Company and
certain officers.

The lawsuit has been filed in the U.S. District Court for the
District of Massachusetts on behalf of all those who purchased
Seres stock or options between June 25, 2015 and July 29, 2016.
The case, Mazurek v. Seres Therapeutics, Inc. et al, No. 1:16-cv-
11943 was filed on September 28, 2016, and has been assigned to
Judge Denise J. Casper.

The lawsuit focuses on whether the Company and its executives
violated federal securities laws by making materially false and
misleading positive statements about the potential and efficacy of
its lead drug product candidate SER-109.

Specifically, July 29, 2016, the Company announced that SER-109
had failed to reach its primary endpoint of reducing the relative
risk of CDI recurrence at up to 8-weeks when compared to a
placebo. Based on 8-week data, CDI recurrence occurred in 44
percent of subjects (26 of 59) who received SER-109, compared to
percent of subjects (16 of 30) who received placebo. According to
the Company, the relative risk of CDI recurrence for the placebo
population compared to the SER-109 population was not
statistically significant.

After the announcement, Seres's share price fell from $35.77 per
share on July 28, 2016 to a closing price of $9.73 on August 1,
2016 -- a $26.04 or a 72.8% drop.

If you invested in Seres stock or options between June 25, 2015
and July 29, 2016 and would like to discuss your legal rights,
visit www.faruqilaw.com/MCRB. You can also contact us by calling
Richard Gonnello toll free at 877-247-4292 or at 212-983-9330 or
by sending an e-mail to rgonnello@faruqilaw.com.  Faruqi & Faruqi,
LLP also encourages anyone with information regarding Seres's
conduct to contact the firm, including whistleblowers, former
employees, shareholders and others.

The court-appointed lead plaintiff is the investor with the
largest financial interest in the relief sought by the class that
is adequate and typical of class members who directs and oversees
the litigation on behalf of the putative class. 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. Your ability to share in any
recovery is not affected by the decision of whether or not to
serve as a lead plaintiff.


SHULTZ STEEL: "Rojas" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Wages
--------------------------------------------------------
Jose Rojas, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated
v. Shultz Steel Company and Does 1 to 100, inclusive, Case No.
BC635967 (Cal. Super. Ct., September 30, 2016), seeks to recover
unpaid wages and penalties under California Business and
Professions Code.

Shultz Steel Company is engaged in manufacturing products for
aerospace and industrial markets.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Paul K. Haines, Esq.
      Tuvia Korobkin, Esq.
      Fletcher W. Schmidt, Esq.
      Andrew R. Rowbotham, Esq.
      HAINES LAW GROUP, APC
      2274 East Maple Ave.
      Segundo, CA 90245
      Telephone: (424) 292-2350
      Facsimile: (424) 292-2355
      E-mail: phaines@haineslawgroup.com
              tkorobkin@haineslawgroup.com
              fschmidt@haineslawgroup.com
              arowbotham@haineslawgroup.com


SIGMA PHARMACEUTICALS: Sues Former Executives Amid Class Action
---------------------------------------------------------------
Sarah Danckert, writing for The Sydney Morning Herald, reports
that the owner of Amcal and Guardian pharmacy chains, Sigma
Pharmaceuticals, is suing two former disgraced executives over
$59.3 million in losses the company allegedly incurred through
cooking the company's books.

Sigma launched action against its former chief executive Elmo de
Alwis and former chief financial officer Mark Thomas Smith in the
Supreme Court of Victoria seeking compensation, damages, interest
and costs allegedly associated with their crimes.

"By reason of the breaches by Smith and de Alwis, Sigma has
suffered loss of approximately $59.3 million," Sigma said in its
claim against the two men.

The action came nearly six years after the company's financial
woes that led to a class action by investors and criminal charges
against Messrs. de Alwis and Smith.

On May 26 this year Messrs. de Alwis and Smith received a
12-month suspended prison sentence and a $25,000 fine each for
falsifying Sigma's books and providing false information to the
company's board and auditor.

Revenue overstated

They were sentenced after admitting to overstating Sigma's revenue
in 2010 by $15.5 million and its profit for the same year by $9.6
million.

They also admitted overstating the revenue for the half year that
ended July 31, 2009 to the tune of $3.5 million.

Both men also pleaded guilty to providing misleading information
to the directors of Sigma and the company's auditors from
PricewaterhouseCoopers.

Their accounting crimes were linked to an elaborate invoicing
scheme.

Under de Messrs. Alwis and Smith's scheme, Sigma bought four types
of generic drugs at intentionally inflated prices.  The company
then billed the supplier the difference between Sigma's purchase
prices and the real price of the drugs as "promotional fees". The
promotional payments were then recorded as revenue in the
company's accounts.

Class action

Sigma paid out $57.5 million to investors in a class action
brought against the company that was in part linked to the crimes
of Messrs. de Alwis and Smith.

That class action alleged Sigma had misled the market by providing
guidance in September 2009 and again in January 2010 without a
reasonable basis and by overstating its first-half result.

It was also alleged Sigma breached its continuous disclosure
obligations by failing to inform the market of the company's
deterioration in Sigma's share of the generic pharmaceuticals
market.

As well as that class action payment to investors, Sigma alleges
it suffered losses due to having to repay its insurer due to the
crimes.

"Sigma incurred costs in connection with the ASIC investigation
and class action exceeding $2.5 million".

In regards to its insurance, Sigma alleges its insurer AIG had
agreed to indemnify the company for $13 million costs and losses
but it forced Sigma to repay much of the $13 million.

Losses due to board

A spokesman for Sigma said the company was unable to make further
comment.

"This relates to the protection of Sigma's rights in regards to an
historical matter," the Sigma spokesman said.

Tony Hardgreaves, who acts as Mr. de Alwis's lawyer, said he was
not aware of the claim.

"We say that the $59 million that Sigma alleges that it lost was
not from the criminal conduct of de Alwis and Smith,"
Mr. Hardgreaves said.

Mr. Hardgreaves added that County Court Judge Richard Smith had
found shareholders suffered no loss because of Messrs. de Alwis'
and Smith's actions.

Lawyers for Mr. Smith did not respond to inquiries.


SIN LIMITE WIRELESS: "Cisneros" Suit Seeks to Recover Overtime Pay
------------------------------------------------------------------
Jesus Cisneros an individual, on behalf of himself and others
similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Sin Limite Wireless Inc. and
DOES 1-50, inclusive, Defendants, Case No. BC635247 (Cal. Super.,
September 23, 2016), seeks unpaid wages/overtime, meal and rest
period penalties, unreimbursed expenses, accurate itemized wage
statements, other penalties, injunctive and other equitable relief
and reasonable attorneys' fees and costs under California Labor
Code.

Sin Limite Wireless Inc. operates a cell phone store located at
2850 Niles St, Bakersfield, CA 93306 where Plaintiff worked.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Eric B. Kingsley, Esq.
      Liane Katzenstein Ly, Esq.
      KINGSLEY & KINGSLEY, APC
      16133 Ventura Blvd., Suite 1200
      Encino, CA 91436
      Tel: (818) 990-8300
      Fax: (818) 990-2903
      Email: eric@kingsleykingsley.com
             liane@kingsleykingsley.com

             - and -

      Walter L. Haines, Esq.
      UNITED EMPLOYEES LAW GROUP, PC
      5550 Bolsa Avenue, Suite 201
      Huntington Beach, CA 92649
      Tel: (562) 256-1047IFax: (562) 256-1006
      Email: admin@uelglaw.com


SONY CORP: Beats Lawsuit Over Non-Captioning of Song Lyrics
-----------------------------------------------------------
Eriq Gardner, writing for The Hollywood Reporter, reports that
Disney, Warner Bros., Universal, Paramount, Sony and Buena Vista
Home Entertainment have beaten a lawsuit that alleged that
Hollywood has violated various laws by refusing to provide more
captioning or subtitling of song lyrics in films and television
shows.

The putative class action was brought in Oct. 2015 by members of
the Alexander Graham Bell Association for the Deaf and Hard of
Hearing. The lawsuit in California claimed that studios were
falsely advertising their products and violating the civil rights
of those with hearing disabilities, estimated to be 10 percent of
the population.

"While the dialogue of some movies or shows are indeed fully
subtitled, the practice of not subtitling song/music lyrics is
frustratingly widespread," stated the complaint. "Movies or shows
that do not include the subtitled song/music lyrics withhold the
full enjoyment of the movie or show from deaf or hard of hearing
consumers. If parts of the movie or show are not captioned or
subtitled, then deaf and hard of hearing consumers should be told
as such before making a decision to rent or purchase the DVD,
theater ticket or streaming."

On Sept. 28, U.S. District Court Judge Stephen Wilson granted
motions to dismiss and strike the lawsuit.

Studios might advertise their works as captioned, but Wilson says
the question of whether song lyrics should be captioned is a
distinct question from whether consumers expected it to be. On a
misrepresentation claim, the judge writes that plaintiffs' "fall
far short of demonstrating that reasonable consumers would
actually be deceived as to the amount of subtitled content
provided, as there are no representations whatsoever that all song
lyrics would be captioned, or even that the content would be
'fully' captioned.'"

Wilson also finds that the contention there's been a breach of
implied warranties not applicable here because plaintiffs haven't
properly alleged that video content qualifies as a "consumer good"
for purposes of the Beverly-Song Act.

As far the civil rights claims, specifically California's Unuh Act
guaranteeing equal access for people with disabilities, Wilson
concludes that plaintiffs have failed to allege intentional
discrimination as required. He nods to a similar case over CNN's
non-captioning that resulted in a ruling in favor of the cable
news network at the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals.

"The Plaintiffs' allegations, even taken as true, describe a
neutral policy that applies to all consumers of the Defendants'
movies and shows, and that the Plaitniffs admittedly bear the
brunt of the policy does not convert the neutral policy into
intentional discrimination," writes Wilson.

The judge has also deemed the complaint to be a SLAPP ("Strategic
Lawsuit Against Public Participation"), meaning an affront to the
studios' First Amendment activity in connection with a public
issue. As such, the case is not only dismissed, but the plaintiffs
face a strong possibility of paying the defendants' legal costs.

"The Court's conclusion that captioning qualifies as protected
speech is supported by the characterization of the role of
captioning and subtitling provided by both the Plaintiffs and
Defendants," writes the judge. "From the description of both
parties, it seems clear to the Court that captions, and
specifically the decision regarding what content to caption, is a
component of the moviemaking process, as the Studios must decide
what level of captioning would provide the best experience for
consumers using the caption and subtitle features."

The defendants were represented by Glenn Pomerantz and others at
Munger Tolles & Olson.


SPANGLES INC: "Yanes" Suit Seeks Overtime Pay
---------------------------------------------
Ricky Yanes, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. Spangles, Inc., Defendant, Case No. 6:16-
cv-01369 (D. Kan., September 23, 2016), seeks unpaid wages,
straight time, overtime compensation, liquidated damages, attorney
fees, costs and expenses of this action as provided by the Fair
Labor Standards Act.

Spangles, Inc. is a Kansas corporation located at 437 N. Hillside,
Wichita, KS 67214. Plaintiff accuses Spangles, Inc. for its
illegal payroll practices.

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Sean M. McGivern, Esq.
      Nathan R. Elliott, Esq.
      GRAYBILL & HAZLEWOOD, LLC
      218 N. Mosley St.
      Wichita, KS 67202
      Tel: (316) 266-4058
      Fax: (316) 462-5566
      Email: sean@graybillhazlewood.com
             nathan@graybillhazlewood.com


SPECTRUM PHARMA: November 21 Lead Plaintiff Motion Deadline Set
---------------------------------------------------------------
Block & Leviton LLP on Oct. 3 disclosed that it has filed a class
action lawsuit against Spectrum Pharmaceuticals Inc. ("Spectrum"
or the "Company") and its Chief Executive Officer for violations
of the federal securities laws.  The lawsuit expands the class
period for Spectrum investors to those who purchased between
February 28, 2013 and September 14, 2016.

Shares in Spectrum plunged earlier this month after it was
revealed that the Company had failed to disclose that the FDA had
advised it not to submit a New Drug Application for its drug
candidate, apaziquone.  Although the FDA gave this advice at a
meeting in December 2012, the Company later told investors "we
took this data, met with the FDA, and our understanding is and our
decision is that we can go ahead and file the NDA with this drug."
As one journalist wrote, that "was not a fully truthful summary of
the FDA's guidance to Spectrum."

The case is brought on behalf of investors who purchased or
otherwise acquired Spectrum securities between February 28, 2013
and September 14, 2016.  It alleges that the defendants made false
and material misrepresentations about FDA advice throughout the
class period.  According to the complaint, Defendants suggested to
investors that the FDA would accept a New Drug Application for
apaziquone, while failing to disclose that the FDA had told the
Company not to submit one.

If you wish to serve as a lead plaintiff, you must move the Court
no later than November 21, 2016.  As a member of the class, you
may seek to file a motion to serve as a lead plaintiff or take no
action and remain an absent class member.

To learn more about your options or if you have any questions
about the litigation, please contact attorney Joel Fleming at
(617) 398-5600, by email at joel@blockesq.com, or visit
http://www.blockesq.com/spectrum.Confidentiality to
whistleblowers or others with relevant information is assured.

Block & Leviton LLP -- http://www.blockesq.com-- is a Boston-
based law firm representing investors nationwide.  The firm's
lawyers have collectively been prosecuting securities cases on
behalf of individual and institutional investors for over 50
years, and have recovered billions of dollars on their behalf.

The case filed by Block & Leviton is pending in the United States
District Court for District of Nevada, and is captioned Hartsock
v. Spectrum Pharmaceuticals, Inc., et al., No. 2:16-cv-02279.  The
court is located at 333 S. Las Vegas Boulevard, Las Vegas, Nevada
89101.  A previous case with a shorter class period was filed on
September 21, 2016 in United States District Court for the Central
District of California, Ayeni v. Spectrum Pharmaceuticals, Inc. et
al., No. 2:16-cv-07074.


SQUARETWO FINANCIAL: Hallom Seeks to Certify Classes, Subclasses
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Plaintiffs ask the Court to enter an order determining that
the action entitled ARTHUR HALLOM and GERTRUDE HALLOM, on behalf
of plaintiffs and the class described below v. SQUARETWO FINANCIAL
SERVICES CORPORATION doing business as FRESH VIEW SOLUTIONS; CACH,
LLC; and MANDARICH LAW GROUP LLP, Case No. 1:16-cv-09297 (N.D.
Ill.), may proceed as a class action against the Defendants.

The Halloms allege violation of the Fair Debt Collection Practices
Act and state law.  They define four classes and two subclasses:

     The class for Count I, alleging violation of the FDCPA,
     consists of (a) all individuals (b) from whom CACH or
     SquareTwo attempted to collect (c) a debt based on a
     Consumer Loan Agreement similar to that in Appendix B (d)
     where CACH did not have possession of the original document
     (e) and any collection activity (lawsuits, letters, calls)
     occurred on or after a date one year prior to the filing of
     this action.  A subclass of Count I consists of class
     members where Mandarich took the collection action.

     The class for Count II, which seeks declaratory and
     injunctive relief regarding defendants' right to engage in
     collection activity, consists of (a) all individuals (b)
     from whom CACH or SquareTwo attempted to collect (c) a debt
     based on a Consumer Loan Agreement similar to that in
     Appendix B (d) where CACH did not have possession of the
     original document (e) and any collection activity (lawsuits,
     letters, calls) occurred on or after a date five years prior
     to the filing of this action.  A subclass of Count II
     consists of class members where Mandarich took the
     collection action.

     The class for Count III, alleging violation of the Illinois
     Consumer Fraud Act, consists of (a) all individuals with
     Illinois addresses (b) from whom CACH or SquareTwo attempted
     to collect (c) a debt based on a Consumer Loan Agreement
     similar to that in Appendix B (d) where CACH did not have
     possession of the original document (e) and any collection
     activity (lawsuits, letters, calls) occurred on or after a
     date three years prior to the filing of this action.

     The class for Count IV, alleging violation of the Illinois
     Collection Agency Act, consists of (a) all individuals with
     Illinois addresses (b) from whom CACH or SquareTwo attempted
     to collect (c) a debt based on a Consumer Loan Agreement
     similar to that in Appendix B (d) where CACH did not have
     possession of the original document (e) and any collection
     activity (lawsuits, letters, calls) occurred on or after a
     date five years prior to the filing of this action.

The Halloms further ask that Edelman, Combs, Latturner & Goodwin,
LLC be appointed counsel for the class.

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

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Daniel A. Edelman, Esq.
          Cathleen M. Combs, Esq.
          James O. Latturner, Esq.
          Emiliya Gumin Farbstein, Esq.
          EDELMAN, COMBS, LATTURNER & GOODWIN, LLC
          20 South Clark Street, Suite 1500
          Chicago, IL 60603-1824
          Telephone: (312) 739-4200
          Facsimile: (312) 419-0379
          E-mail: dedelman@edcombs.com
                  ccombs@edcombs.com
                  jlatturner@edcombs.com
                  efarbstein@edcombs.com


STEWART'S SHOPS: Court Certifies FLSA Class in "Gregory" Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
Thomas J. McAvoy granted in part and denied in part the
Plaintiffs' motion for class certification and collective action
filed under the Fair Labor Standards Act in the lawsuit titled
HOLLY GREGORY, MATTHEW POTTER, and ASTRID HALTEN, individually and
on behalf of all others similarly situated v. STEWART'S SHOPS
CORPORATION, Case No. 7:14-cv-00033-TJM-ATB (N.D.N.Y.).

According to Judge McAvoy's decision and order, the Defendant's
appeal of United States Magistrate Judge Andrew T. Baxter's FLSA
conditional certification ruling is denied as withdrawn.

The Court accepts and adopts all of Magistrate Judge Baxter's Rule
23 recommendations contained in his July 8, 2016 Report,
Recommendation, and Order.  Accordingly, the Plaintiffs' motion is
granted in that:

   (1) a class action under Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(b)(3) is certified
       with respect to the claims and subclasses of:

       any non-exempt employee for Stewart's Shops Corporation in
       one of its convenience stores located in the State of New
       York in the past six years who:

       (a) attended a store meeting that was not scheduled during
           one of the employee's regular work shifts for that
           week and who was not paid for a minimum of three hours
           at their applicable wage rate, or

       (b) worked a shift of six hours or more, and was unable to
           take an uninterrupted 20-minute meal break.  Granted
           and the Complaint be dismissed in its entirety as to
           all remaining Defendants; and

   (2) E. Stewart Jones Hacker Murphy, LLP is appointed class
       counsel with respect to all approved claims and
       subclasses.

The Plaintiffs' motion to certify a class action under Rule
23(b)(3) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure with respect to
other proposed claims and subclasses is denied.  The parties'
objections to the Rule 23 recommendations are, in all other
respects, overruled.

Within 30 days of the Decision and Order, the parties are directed
to submit to the Court a notice consistent with the requirements
of Rule 23(c)(2)(B) that is acceptable to both parties, or,
alternatively, counter-proposals for the language of such a
notice.  The Defendant's challenge to the legal sufficiency of the
contract claim is denied with leave to renew in an independent
motion.

A copy of the Decision and Order is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=Qv1KjW98


STOCKTON TELECOM: "Lee" Seeks Overtime Pay, Unpaid Bonus
--------------------------------------------------------
Randall Lee and Lyle Redbird, on behalf of themselves and all
others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. Ronald Stockton, Judy
Stockton, William Stockton and Ira Kusnetz, Defendants, Case No.
1:16-cv-01054 (D.N.M., September 23, 2016), seeks unpaid wages
owed, liquidated damages and penalties and interest, award of
reasonable attorney fees and costs, prejudgment interest and
liquidated damages in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act,
Maryland Wage and Hour Law and Maryland Wage Payment and
Collection Law.

Stockton Telecommunications, Inc., a nationwide telecommunications
company with regional offices in New Mexico, Texas, Oklahoma, and
Louisiana headquartered in New Mexico. It offers a broad range of
telecommunication services including engineering, furnishing,
installation, test/turn-up and maintenance for independent,
commercial and government customers. Lee and Redbird worked as
satellite installation technicians.

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Daniel M. Faber, Esq.
      4620C Jefferson Lane NE
      Albuquerque, NM 87109
      Tel: (505) 830-0405
      Email: dan@danielfaber.com

             - and -

      Don J. Foty, Esq.
      John Neuman, Esq.
      KENNEDY HODGES, L.L.P.
      4409 Montrose Blvd, Ste. 200
      Houston, TX 77006
      Telephone: (713) 523-0001
      Facsimile: (713) 523-1116
      Email: DFoty@kennedyhodges.com


SUPERIOR ENERGY: Myers Seeks Certification of Operators Class
-------------------------------------------------------------
The Plaintiffs in the lawsuit titled MICHAEL MYERS and TREVER
BALFOUR, Individually and On Behalf of All Similarly Situated
Persons v. SUPERIOR ENERGY SERVICES, INC., d/b/a SUPERIOR ENERGY
SERVICES OF DELAWARE, INC. and WILD WELL CONTROL, INC., f/k/a BTI
SERVICES, INC., Case No. 4:16-cv-01025 (S.D. Tex.), move for
conditional certification of their claims against the Defendant as
a collective, and seek judicially approved notice to a class
consisting of:

     All individuals who were employed by Superior Energy
     Services, Inc., d/b/a Superior Energy Services of Delaware,
     Inc. and/or Wild Well Control, Inc., f/k/a BTI Services,
     Inc. since April 15, 2013 as reverse unit
     operators/supervisors, fishing tool operators/supervisors or
     in positions with similar job duties, who were paid a base
     salary and a day-rate/job bonus with no overtime
     compensation ("Putative Class Members").

On April 15, 2016, the Plaintiffs filed the collective action on
behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated to them, to
recover unpaid overtime pay and associated relief under the Fair
Labor Standards Act.  The Plaintiffs, who are former employees of
the Defendants, allege that the Defendants misclassified them and
other similarly situated reverse unit operators and fishing tool
supervisors as exempt from the overtime requirements of the FLSA,
despite the fact that their job duties consisted primarily of
manual, technical, outdoor labor.

A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=EXjYtQ0T

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Josef F. Buenker, Esq.
          Vijay A. Pattisapu, Esq.
          THE BUENKER LAW FIRM
          2030 North Loop West, Suite 120
          Houston, TX 77018
          Telephone: (713) 868-3388
          Facsimile: (713) 683-9940
          E-mail: jbuenker@buenkerlaw.com


SUPREME SERVICE: Field Workers Class Certified in "Blake" Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Honorable Susie Morgan granted Plaintiff's motion to
conditionally certify a putative class of plaintiffs and
facilitate notice of the action to the putative class on certain
terms, to which the Defendant consented, in the lawsuit titled
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.).

The Court conditionally certifies 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 & Specialty Company, Inc., and further excluding any
individual who joined as a plaintiff in the previously-filed
collective action styled Brandon Kervin et al., vs. Supreme
Service & Specialty Co., Inc., E.D. La. Civil Action No. 2:15-cv-
01172-SM-KWR or any individual who joined as a plaintiff in the
previously-filed collective action styled Gomez et al vs. 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 order for
conditional certification.  The Plaintiffs' counsel will have 14
days from the date of the Order to distribute the Notice and
Consent forms to the Putative Class Members.

The Putative Class Members will have 45 days from the initial
mailing of the Notice and Consent form to file the Consent form
with the Court in order to opt-in to the Case.

A copy of the Order is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=ikh5cua3


UNITED ROAD: Blumenthal Sues Over Unpaid Tow Truck Drivers' Wages
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The Riverside employment law lawyers at Blumenthal, Nordrehaug &
Bhowmik filed a class action lawsuit alleging that United Road
Towing, Inc. failed to pay their tow truck driver employees the
correct amount of overtime wages and allegedly failed to provide
their these workers with meal and rest periods in accordance with
the California Labor Code. The United Road Towing, Inc. lawsuit,
Case No. CIVDS81614323 is currently pending in the Riverside
County Superior Court for the State of California.

According to the class action lawsuit United Road Towing provides
towing, recovery, impound, and vehicle management solutions to
private and public sectors. The Complaint states that the company
allegedly paid their tow truck drivers non-discretionary incentive
wages based on their performance for United Road Towing. The
lawsuit states that as a matter of law the incentive wages
received by the tow truck drivers should have been included in the
employees' hourly rates for the purposes of paying their employees
the correct overtime wages. As a result of the alleged illegal
overtime calculations conducted by United Road Towing, the class
action lawsuit claims other tow truck drivers working for United
Road Towing were also not correctly paid all their overtime wages.

Additionally, the class action lawsuit seeks penalties relating to
alleged missed meal and rest breaks because allegedly United Road
Towing did not have a policy to provide their tow truck drivers
thirty (30) minute uninterrupted meal breaks prior to their fifth
(5th) hour of work.

If you would like to know more about the United Road Towing case,
please contact Attorney Nicholas J. De Blouw by calling (800) 568-
8020.

Blumenthal, Nordrehaug & Bhowmik is an employment law firm with
offices located in San Diego, San Francisco, Sacramento, Los
Angeles, Riverside and Chicago that dedicates its practice to
helping employees, investors and consumers fight back against
unfair business practices, including violations of the California
Labor Code and Fair Labor Standards Act. If you need help in
collecting unpaid overtime wages, unpaid commissions, being
wrongfully terminated from work, and other employment law claims.


UNITED STATES: Thrivent Financial Sues DOL Over BIC Exemption
-------------------------------------------------------------
Rebecca Moore, writing for planadviser, reports that Thrivent
alleges the DOL has exceeded its authority by requiring that the
BIC Exemption include a contractual agreement that customers could
pursue a breach of contract action and could participate in
judicial class actions.

Thrivent Financial for Lutherans has filed a lawsuit against
Secretary of Labor Thomas E. Perez and the Department of Labor
(DOL) challenging the "best interest contract" (BIC) prohibited
transaction exemption in the DOL's regulations establishing a new
definition of investment advice fiduciary under the Employee
Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA).

According to the complaint, the lawsuit challenges only the
Department of Labor's (DOL) adoption of the BIC Exemption to the
extent that it requires Thrivent to abandon its longstanding
commitment to alternative dispute resolution.  The lawsuit is not
challenging the validity of the new rule, plaintiffs argue.

The complaint notes that Thrivent's sales representatives market
and sell numerous proprietary Thrivent insurance and investment
products on a commission basis.  They regularly offer proprietary
investment products for IRAs and rollovers from ERISA plans. Under
DOL's conflict-of-interest rule, these sales representatives would
be redefined as fiduciaries under ERISA and Thrivent's
longstanding practice of paying these representatives on a
commission basis would-for the first time-be treated as a
"prohibited transaction" under ERISA.

Thrivent points out that none of these transactions have ever
previously been regulated by DOL, under ERISA or otherwise, and
they have not been viewed as prohibited transactions.  "If
Thrivent were to continue to engage in such transactions, it would
be subject to steep and serious penalties under federal law.  As a
result, without an exemption, the rule would almost completely
eliminate Thrivent's ability to offer financial products to its
members in connection with their retirement planning through
IRAs," the complaint states.

However, the BIC Exemption would allow Thrivent to engage in
transactions that would otherwise be prohibited.  But, to avail
itself of the BIC Exemption, Thrivent would be forced to agree
contractually with its customers that they could pursue a breach
of contract action against Thrivent and that they could
participate in judicial class actions against Thrivent.


UNIVERSITY OF PHOENIX: Faces Telephone Harassment Class Action
--------------------------------------------------------------
Wadi Reformado, writing for Legal Newsline, reports that an
individual has filed a class action lawsuit against an educational
institution for allegedly violating federal telephone harassment
statutes.

Twonesha Johnson-Hendricks filed a complaint on behalf of herself
and all others similarly situated June 24 in the U.S. District
Court for the Eastern District of California against University of
Phoenix and Does 1-10, alleging they contacted the plaintiff using
an automatic dialing system for which she purportedly incurred
charges.

According to the complaint, the plaintiff alleges that in August
2015 she was contacted on her cell phone several times despite her
request that the defendants stop calling her.

Ms. Johnson-Hendricks holds the University of Phoenix and Does 1-
10 responsible because the defendants allegedly contacted the
plaintiff several times in an attempt to solicit their services to
her.

The plaintiff requests a trial by jury and seeks $500 in statutory
damages for each and every violation, $1,500 in treble damages for
each and every violation, and any other relief as the court deems
just.

She is represented by Todd M. Friedman and Adrian R. Bacon of Law
Offices of Todd M. Friedman P.C. in Beverly Hills.

U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of California case
number 2:16-cv-01434-MCE-EFB


VOLKSWAGEN AG: Cabraser Responds to Diesel Settlement Objections
----------------------------------------------------------------
Alison Frankel, writing for Reuters, reports that how is famed
plaintiffs' lawyer Elizabeth Cabraser of Lieff Cabraser Heimann &
Bernstein like an offensive tackle?

Without her, the team doesn't score points.

Or so Ms. Cabraser and the other lawyers on the plaintiffs'
steering committee in the consolidated clean diesel litigation
against Volkswagen said on Sept. 30 in their response to the 462
VW owners and leaseholders who have objected to a proposed $14
billion settlement.

The class settlement, which would require VW to fix or buy back
hundreds of thousands of 2.0 liter engine cars outfitted with
software to defeat emissions-testing equipment, was submitted to
U.S. District Judge Charles Breyer of San Francisco as part of a
global deal in which Volkswagen also resolved civil claims by the
U.S. Justice Department and Federal Trade Commission.  In one of
the most substantive objections challenging the proposed deal, a
VW owner represented by class action gadfly Ted Frank of the
Competitive Enterprise Institute argued (among other things) that
class members would have received the same benefits via VW's
agreement with the government.

According to Mr. Frank, car owners are actually worse off under
the proposed settlement than they would have been if there had
been no private litigation.

Ms. Cabraser's filing on Sept. 30, which is backed by a
declaration from court-appointed settlement master Robert Mueller
-- robert.mueller@wilmerhale.com -- of Wilmer Cutler Pickering
Hale & Dorr, said Frank fundamentally misunderstood the
intertwined settlements.  VW clean diesel owners and lease holders
were able to recover more than their cars are actually worth
because government negotiators teamed up with class counsel to
offer the car company a global resolution. Ms. Cabraser, who went
to UC Berkeley for college and law school, turned to college
football to explain.

"Colloquially (and with glee in certain quarters), we can observe
that recently Cal beat Texas 50-46 in football.  The game was
'won', in some sense, by the players who scored the decisive
points. The offensive line did not score any points, but we cannot
assume the same result without the line, or even without
quarterback Davis Webb," the brief said.  "The record similarly
shows that not only were class counsel indispensable to the
result, in the manner of the offensive line; but also that they
and their counterparts at DOJ and FTC, organized the team in the
fashion of rotating quarterbacks.  And, in some sense, by
providing Volkswagen with the release it requires to offer any
payments at all, the class action settlement scores the 'winning'
touchdown as well."

Moreover, the class counsel filing said, the government settlement
would only have required VW to fix the cars outfitted with defeat
devices -- not to buy back the defective cars.  Only the class
settlement, the filing said, gives owners the option of selling
their cars back to VW for pre-scandal resale value, plus cash
compensation of at least $3,000.  An accompanying declaration from
plaintiffs' class action expert, Lewis & Clark law professor
Robert Klonoff, points out that in combination, the resale buyback
and cash components of the proposed settlement guarantee class
members a recovery of almost 113 percent of the value of their
cars before the defeat device was exposed.  And the complex
infrastructure of the buyback program is administered by class
counsel and VW, the class filing said, not by the government.

Mr. Frank and his objector client had also argued that
compensation for class lawyers cost class members hundreds of
millions of dollars.  In this case, as in many very large
multidistrict litigations, plaintiffs' lawyers agreed to separate
negotiation of their fees from negotiation of the class recovery.
Frank said the separation is an economic myth -- VW knew going
into negotiations with the class and the U.S. government what it
was willing to pay to resolve claims, including legal fees, so the
company surely subtracted anticipated lawyers' fees from what it
would pay class members.

Ms. Cabraser's brief said Mr. Frank's argument ignored the facts
of VW's predicament. Claims by U.S. car owners and regulators are
only one piece of the company's multinational liability for its
emissions cheating devices.  According to the brief, class lawyers
aren't competing with class members for money because they aren't
the only people with a stake in the scandal: Fees and expenses for
plaintiffs' lawyers -- which class counsel have agreed to cap at
$332 million -- will come out of the big bucket of money VW
expects to pay to resolve its global exposure.

Overall, the brief said, proof of the proposed settlement's
success comes from the number of clean diesel car owners and lease
holders who have already signed up to participate in the deal.
More than 311,000 class members -- representing about 65 percent
of the 475,000 cars eligible for the deal.  About 3,300 have opted
out.

Ms. Frankel asked Mr. Frank what he thought of the plaintiffs'
response to objectors.  He said the settlement documents
themselves (as opposed to the executive summary cited in the class
brief) show that the Justice Department agreement with VW required
the company to buy back the cars. Class counsel, he said, "is
referring to a piece of paper that has no legal weight."  Mr.
Frank also repeated his argument that money for plaintiffs'
lawyers necessarily comes out of pockets of class members, no
matter whether the fee award is negotiated at the same time as the
class settlement or separately.

"It's a complete economic fiction" to argue otherwise, he said.

Ms. Cabraser's brief mentioned only glancingly Mr. Frank's most
provocative arguments about class counsel in the VW case, which
are really broad-based arguments about how plaintiffs' lawyers are
selected to lead giant class actions.  Mr. Frank contends
plaintiffs' lawyers should be required to specify the fees they
will charge class members as part of the selection process.  He
also believes plaintiffs' lawyers engage in collusion when they
endorse one another to judges who pick lead counsel.

The brief from plaintiffs' lawyers in the VW case merely said that
Frank's arguments were to be expected from him.  "The
anti-fee, anti-class counsel arguments   were inevitable, and were
presaged in two earlier amicus filings by the same
counsel -- one before the Judicial Panel on Multi-district
Litigation and one in this Court, before either a settlement or a
PSC existed," and before Mr. Frank even represented anyone in the
case.


VOLKSWAGEN AG: Majority of Diesel Owners to Take Settlement Offer
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Paul A. Eisenstein, writing for The Detroit Bureau, reports that
American diesel owners have soundly embraced the settlement offer
that Volkswagen negotiated with federal and California regulators
in June, a deal that could see the maker buy back the majority of
about 475,000 diesel vehicles sold in the U.S. with faulty diesel
engines.

Meanwhile, the embattled automaker's 652 U.S. dealers are asking a
federal judge in California to approve their own settlement of
$1.2 billion.

"There is resounding support for this consumer class settlement
and the substantial benefits it provides," said Elizabeth
Cabraser, a class-action attorney representing consumers who had
purchased VW products equipped with a 2.0-liter turbodiesel
engine, in a statement.

The two settlements were the result of lawsuits triggered by the
revelation in September 2015 that Volkswagen had equipped those
vehicles with a so-called defeat device.  The software code was
capable of detecting when the vehicles were undergoing emissions
tests and then sharply reducing pollution levels.  In normal
operations, however, the vehicles would exceed regulatory mandates
by dozens of times.

In June, VW agreed to pay $14.7 billion to settle legal action
brought by the Environmental Protection Agency, the Federal Trade
Commission, the U.S. Justice Department and the California Air
Resources Board.  Of that, about $10 billion is to be used to
either buy back those vehicles or bring them into compliance with
emissions rules.  At the moment, VW is still trying to come up
with an acceptable fix.

So far, 311,209 owners have registered for the settlement offer.
Another 3,298 owners have opted out of the deal, giving them the
option to sue individually or take other actions, attorneys
handling the class-action lawsuit said.  The deadline for opting
out ended on Sept. 16.

Consumers soon will be able to begin collecting payments for their
vehicles if they prefer a buyback.  They have up to two years to
decide which option to seek, and some are reportedly waiting to
find out if VW eventually will come up with a repair plan that the
EPA and California regulators will approve.

A final decision by the judge overseeing the case in a federal
court in San Francisco is expected on Oct. 18.

Separately, the court will consider a request by attorneys
representing those 652 dealers to accept VW's offer of $1.2
billion compensation.  The franchisees sued the maker in the wake
of the diesel scandal on a variety of grounds, including lost
sales and a decline in the value of their showrooms.

Even if the courts give final nod to the settlements, however,
VW's legal problems are far from over.  The carmaker still has to
reach a deal covering the more upscale 3.0-liter diesel that it
also rigged.  And VW is facing an ongoing criminal investigation
here in the U.S.  A former engineer recently pleaded guilty for
having helped come up with the defeat devices.  He is planning to
assist the government as its probe continues.

German prosecutors are also moving forward with an investigation
that is targeting, among others, former Volkswagen AG CEO
Martin Winterkorn.


WATER & STREET INC: Guit et al. Seek Overtime Pay
-------------------------------------------------
Marco Tulio Tuy Guit and Anibal Jesus Baten Lopez, individually
and on behalf of others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. Water &
Street Inc., Kanruthai Makmuang and Luck Watanasuparp, Defendants,
Case No. 1:16-cv-07466 (S.D. N.Y., September 23, 2016), seeks
unpaid minimum and overtime wages pursuant to the Fair Labor
Standards Act of 1938.

Defendants own, operate, or control a Thai restaurant located at
38 Water Street, New York, NY 10004, under the name "Obao" where
Plaintiffs were employed by Defendants as delivery workers.
Defendants failed to maintain accurate recordkeeping of the hours
worked, failed to pay Plaintiffs appropriately for any hours
worked, either at the straight rate of pay or for any additional
overtime premium.

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Michael A. Faillace, Esq.
      MICHAEL FAILLACE & ASSOCIATES, P.C.
      60 East 42nd Street, Suite 2540
      New York, New York 10165
      Telephone: (212) 317-1200
      Facsimile: (212) 317-1620


WELLS FARGO: Bill Mulled to Ban Forced Arbitration in Sales Case
----------------------------------------------------------------
Yuka Hayashi, writing for The Wall Street Journal, reports that
Sen. Sherrod Brown (D., Ohio) said Oct. 3 he plans to introduce a
bill to prevent Wells Fargo & Co. from invoking forced arbitration
clauses in contracts with customers following the scandal
involving unauthorized accounts.

That step would make it easier for customers to sue the bank for
any damages they incurred when bank employees opened as many as
two million accounts in customers' names without their consent.

Some lawmakers, including Mr. Brown, have criticized Wells Fargo
for using legal agreements buried within contracts.  The bank can
block customers from filing lawsuits for damages incurred by
unauthorized accounts, including negative effects on the
customers' credit scores and borrowing costs.

Such "mandatory arbitration" clauses are controversial but
commonly used for financial products and services like bank
accounts and credit cards.  They are used to force customers into
private arbitration when disputes arise, cutting off their ability
to file lawsuits that can be certified as class action.

"Giving customers back their right to take Wells Fargo to court
gives them the power to ensure they are made whole and helps
prevent cases like this in the future," Mr. Brown said in a press
release. He added that he planned to introduce the legislation
when Congress returns from the current recess after the November
election.

The trajectory of the bill will be tied closely to the outcome of
the elections.  The bill would get stronger support if the
Democrats regain a majority in the Senate.  That would also
increase the influence of Mr. Brown, who would then likely head
the Senate Banking Committee.

Hillary Clinton also stepped up her criticism of Wells Fargo and
arbitration clauses.

"We can't let companies like Wells Fargo use these fine print
gotchas to escape accountability," the Democratic presidential
candidate said on Oct. 3 in a campaign stop in Toledo, Ohio.
Customers, she said, "are forced into a closed-door arbitration
process without the important protections you get in a court of
law."

At a House panel hearing on Sept. 29, Wells Fargo Chief Executive
John Stumpf defended the bank's use of arbitration clauses, saying
it is a "fair way" to compensate customers for financial damages,
and that the bank is paying for mediators for customers who choose
to seek arbitration.

The scrutiny over the use mandatory arbitration at Wells Fargo
comes as regulators and industry battle over the cost and benefit
of such practices.  The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau,
which along with other regulators hit Wells Fargo with a $185
million fine for opening nearly two million bank and credit-card
accounts without customer consent, proposed a new rule in May
banning the use of arbitration clauses in financial products as a
way to block class-action lawsuits.

The Department of Health and Human Services in August issued a new
rule that will prohibit certain long-term care facilities from
forcing residents into arbitration.

Supporters of new restrictions on arbitration rules say they will
discourage companies from practices that harm customers. Opponents
say arbitration is an easier and cheaper method for customers to
resolve disputes, and that new rules would only enrich class-
action lawyers.


WELLS FARGO: Veach Sues Over Creation of Unauthorized Account
-------------------------------------------------------------
Larry Veach, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. Wells Fargo & Company, a Delaware
Corporation, Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., a National Banking
Association, Defendants, Case No. 3:16-cv-05459 (N.D. Cal.,
September 23, 2016), seeks injunctive relief, restitution of all
fees paid to Wells Fargo by Plaintiff, disgorgement of the ill-
gotten gains illegally derived, actual damages, punitive and
exemplary damages, pre-judgment interest, reasonable attorneys'
fees and costs and such other relief resulting from conversion and
in violation of the Electronic Fund Transfer Act, Unfair
Competition Law, California Business and Professions Code, in
breach of the Contractual Covenant of Good Faith and Fair Dealing.

Wells Fargo is accused of creating checking, savings, and credit-
card accounts for its customers without their knowledge or
consent.

Wells Fargo & Company is a Delaware corporation with its principal
place of business in San Francisco, California. A financial
services corporation, Wells Fargo & Company provides banking,
insurance, investment, mortgage, and financial products and
services throughout the country.

Plaintiff is represented by:

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

            - and -

     John Yanchunis, Esq.
     MORGAN & MORGAN COMPLEX LITIGATION GROUP
     201 North Franklin Street, 7th Floor
     Tampa, FL 33602
     Tel: (813) 223-5505
     Fax: (813) 223-5402
     Email: jyanchunis@forthepeople.com


WEST VIRGINIA: Spill Class Action Heads to Jury Trial on Oct. 25
----------------------------------------------------------------
Jonathan Mattise, writing for The Associated Press, reports that
a 2014 chemical spill into the water supply of 300,000 West
Virginians could have been avoided if a company inspected its
storage tanks and saw two tiny holes forming at the bottom of one,
federal investigators said Sept. 28.

Almost three years after the spill, the U.S. Chemical Safety Board
released a draft report on the January 2014 leak from Freedom
Industries. The spill prevented the capital city and surrounding
areas from using their tap water for several days. Businesses were
temporarily shut down for days and hundreds of people headed to
emergency rooms for issues from nausea to rashes.

The disaster quickly inspired a new state law requiring more
inspections and registrations of aboveground storage tanks. It
spurred Freedom's bankruptcy and resulted in 30-day prison
sentences for two company officials on federal pollution charges,
and fines and probation for four others.

Legal action over the spill is picking up again soon. On Oct. 25,
a class-action lawsuit will head to a jury trial over whether West
Virginia American Water and Eastman Chemical, the producer of the
main spilled chemical, crude MCHM, did enough to safeguard against
the widespread contamination.

"My message here today is what happened in Charleston was
preventable," Chemical Safety Board Chairwoman Vanessa Allen
Sutherland said on Sept. 28 at a press conference in Charleston.
"This incident could have been avoided if regular inspections had
been conducted on these storage tanks, and the effects could have
been mitigated with enhanced communication and preplanning."

The board discussed and was to vote on the 125-page report on
Sept. 28 at a public meeting in Charleston.

In January 2014, two tiny holes in tanks at Freedom Industries
leaked coal-cleaning chemicals underground and through a
dilapidated containment wall into the Elk River. Johnnie Banks,
Chemical Safety Board supervisory investigator, said it's possible
that the leak started before the day it was noticed.

Freedom's MCHM tanks hadn't been inspected internally for at least
10 years, and the company had no leak prevention or leak detection
systems, Banks said. State law required a better containment wall,
but state environmental regulators didn't inspect the site due to
resource constraints, the report says.

A mile and a half downstream, West Virginia American Water
received incorrect information from Freedom about the
characteristics and volume of chemicals heading its way, and kept
the plant open, the report says. There was no alternative backup
water source available for the plant.

However, the water company knew Freedom was upstream and hadn't
requested public information before the spill to understand what
it stored, the report says.

"I think they were operating with the best information they had at
the time they were making their decisions," Banks said of the
water company.

Federal health officials scrambled to make a benchmark based on
limited scientific studies about when it would be safe to drink
the water again. The health announcements that followed were
confusing, and new, conflicting information kept residents wary of
their water long after it was declared safe to use.

The report offers just a handful of recommendations, and none of
them to government agencies. It suggests that a water provider
trade group circulate the findings to companies. It recommends
that all of the water plants within American Water Works Company
identify which chemicals nearby pose threats to water supplies,
and recommends drawing up treatment and contingency plans in case
of spills.

West Virginia Water spokeswoman Laura Martin said the
recommendation should be made to the U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency so that changes are made industry-wide.

The report also gave credit for upgrades made at the West Virginia
American Water plant.

Eastman Chemical spokeswoman Candy Eslinger says the company
updated its safety data sheets with new federal crude MCHM
experiments conducted after the spill, another recommendation by
the federal board.

Banks said the board has no specifics on whether MCHM helped
corrode the tank, a claim at the center of the class-action
lawsuit against Eastman.

Despite the additional studies, Banks said little is yet known
about chronic health impacts of crude MCHM.

But he said there haven't been reports of long-term health
problems from people who went to emergency rooms, and no reports
of low birthweights associated with the spill.


WTS DISTRIBUTORS: "Tejada" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT Wages
----------------------------------------------------------------
Giordano Tejada and Josue David Miranda Prado, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated v. WTS Distributors, Inc.,
Whey Home, Inc., and Michael Wteczorek, Case No. CV-16-5463
(E.D.N.Y., September 30, 2016), seeks to recover unpaid overtime
wages and damages pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act.

The Defendants operate a dairy farm located at 32 Sawgrass Drive,
Bellport, New York 11713.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Roman Avshalumov, Esq.
      HELEN F. DALTON & ASSOCIATES, PC
      69-12 Austin Street
      Forest Hills, NY 11375
      Telephone: (718) 263-9591
      Facsimile: (718) 263-9598


YAHOO! INC: Sventek Sues Over Data Breach
-----------------------------------------
Maria Sventek, individually and on behalf of others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. Yahoo!, Inc., A California Corporation,
Defendant, Case No. 3:16-cv-05463 (N.D. Cal., September 23, 2016),
seeks actual and statutory damages, declaratory and injunctive
relief, attorney's fees and costs resulting from negligence,
breach of express contract, breach of implied contract and unjust
enrichment in violation of California's Data Breach Notification
Law and the California Unfair Competition Law.

On September 22, 2016 Defendant disclosed a massive security
breach by a state-sponsored actor affecting at least 500 million
Yahoo subscribers. The breach compromised user account
information, including names, email addresses, telephone numbers,
dates of birth, hashed passwords and, in some cases and encrypted
or unencrypted security questions and answers.

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Hank Bates, Esq.
      CARNEY BATES & PULLIAM, PLLC
      519 West 7th Street
      Little Rock, AR 72201
      Tel: (501) 312-8500
      Fax: (501) 312-8505
      Email: hbates@cbplaw.com


ZENITH SPECIALTY: Faces "Valdez" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT
------------------------------------------------------------
Maria Valdez, on behalf of herself and all) others similarly
situated v. Zenith Specialty Bag Co., Inc., and Does 1 through
100, Inclusive, Case No. BC635876 (Cal. Super. Ct., September 30,
2016), is brought against the Defendants for failure to pay
overtime wages in violation of the California Labor Code.

Zenith Specialty Bag Co., Inc. a California corporation,
22 manufacturers and produces paper and packaging products.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


ZILICON ACCESSORIES: Misleads Equity Investors, Suit Claims
-----------------------------------------------------------
David Ostreicher and Michael Ostreicher, individually, and as
members of Zilicon Accessories, LLC, suing on behalf of themselves
and all other members of Zilicon Accessories, LLC similarly
situated v. Zilicon Accessories, LLC, Sol Gutman, Samuel Guttman,
and Yeoshua Sorias, Case No. 607547/2016 (N.Y.  Sup. Ct.,
September 29, 2016), is brought against the Defendants for failure
to preserve and protect the assets of Zilicon, specifically by
fraudulently marking Zilicon's product with an Underwriter's
Laboratory certification without having received approval
therefor, by continually misleading Zilicon's equity investors,
and by squandering Zilicon's assets, participating in improper
activities to the detriment of Zilicon.

Zilicon Accessories, LLC is in the business of developing,
licensing, manufacturing and selling cell phone cases and
chargers.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Robert J. Ansell, Esq.
      SILVERMANACAMPORA LLP
      100 Jericho Quadrangle, Suite 300
      Jericho, NY 11753
      Telephone: (516) 479-6300
      E-mail: thefirm@silvermanacampora.com


* Poultry Producers Face Class Action Over Overpriced Chicken
-------------------------------------------------------------
Clint Rainey, writing for Grub Street, reports that the rest of
the groceries in your cart might be unnecessarily cheap, but that
"value pack" of breast fillets? It may be purposefully overpriced
by 50 percent, according to a new lawsuit. A federal class action
brought by a group of distributors accuses the billion-dollar
poultry industry of conspiring to limit production in order to
drive up the price of chicken. It argues producers have been
culling their birds, buying each other's products, and even
reducing breeder flocks for years to keep supplies artificially
low.

The idea that Big Chicken is running a pricing racket isn't new,
but, as Bloomberg notes, this lawsuit may be "the largest effort
yet to bring such practices to light." The 113-page complaint
claims the price of broilers started climbing in 2008, right after
consultants from Mitt Romney's old Bain & Company told Pilgrim's
Pride, which was on the verge of bankruptcy, to cut supplies.
Preposterous as it may sound, since mass-produced chicken in one
place is mass-produced chicken everyplace, that plan hinged on
industry-wide participation, and the plaintiffs argue "an uncanny
amount of coordination and communication between supposed
competitors" followed -- layoffs, plant closings, and other
reductions in output from Simmons Foods, Koch Foods, Cagle's,
Wayne Farms, and others.

The purported scheme worked for everybody, though, and producers
allegedly started getting even bolder: They cut breeder stocks to
limit eggs -- which the suit calls an "unprecedented" move that
curtailed supplies "for years into the future" -- and big
companies like Tyson began pointlessly purchasing competitors'
chickens, exporting eggs to Mexico, and even using a data service
called Agri Stats that let them monitor each other's chick breeds,
average bird sizes, and production numbers.

In the past, producers have blamed the cost hikes on corn prices
and the demand for ethanol. Tyson, Pilgrim's Pride, and Simmons
deny any intentional collusion ever took place and have promised
to fight the plaintiffs, who are demanding triple damages and an
immediate end to the alleged price rigging.


* SCOTUS Set to Tackle Pending Cases on Class Action Waivers
------------------------------------------------------------
May Mon Post, Esq. -- mpost@fisherphillips.com -- of Fisher
Phillips, in an article for Lexology, reports that as is its usual
custom, the U.S. Supreme Court (SCOTUS) will kick off its 2016
term on the first Monday of October.  While recent years have seen
highly anticipated and equally controversial workplace law matters
decided by the Court, the coming session has not yet shaped up to
be a blockbuster term.  With the Court stuck at eight members, the
justices seem hesitant to take on matters of significant
importance at the current time.

Nevertheless, circumstances can change quickly and decisively, as
the SCOTUS could agree to accept any number of pending cases
impacting labor and employment law at any moment.  For now,
though, here is a summary of the four cases Fisher Phillips is
tracking that are expected to impact the workplace, and one
additional issue that could soon make its way onto the Court's
docket.

National Labor Relations Board v. SW General, Inc.

This case originated with a labor dispute between an ambulance
company and its employees.  The federal appeals court did not
reach the merits of that dispute, however.  Instead, the court
concluded that Lafe Solomon, the former Acting General Counsel of
the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB), served in violation of
a 1998 federal statute.  That law says that any person nominated
by the president to fill certain vacant offices is prohibited from
performing the office's functions and duties in an acting capacity
unless that person served as first assistant to the vacant office
for at least 90 days in the year preceding the vacancy.

The lower court ruled that the NLRB's unfair labor practice
complaint against the employer was unauthorized because Solomon
never served as a "first assistant" to the General Counsel prior
to his nomination to serve as the NLRB's Acting General Counsel.
The SCOTUS will determine whether the precondition on serving in
an acting capacity applies only to first assistants who take
office, or whether it also limits acting service by officials who
only assume acting responsibilities.

By doing so, the SCOTUS will further decide the scope of
presidential authority, continue to shape the contours of
traditional labor law, and provide future administrations a
blueprint for how far their powers can extend.

Microsoft v. Baker

Although not an employment matter, the decision in this case will
impact employers defending class action litigation.  The 9th
Circuit Court of Appeals revived a consumer products class action
lawsuit after the trial court rejected class certification status.
The SCOTUS will clarify what should happen after named plaintiffs
in class actions voluntarily dismiss their claims with prejudice
while others in the class still want to proceed with the
litigation.  Because other federal appeals courts have ruled
differently in similar situations, this case should resolve the
circuit split.

Czyzewski v. Jevic Holding Corporation

This case began when a trucking company filed for bankruptcy after
it was taken over by investors in a failed leveraged buyout.  A
group of truck drivers who were abruptly terminated upon the
economic collapse of the business filed a class action lawsuit
alleging violations of the WARN Act.

Section 507 of the Bankruptcy Code grants payment priority to
certain unsecured claims, including claims for wages and employee
benefits earned before the bankruptcy filing.  Such priority
claims must be paid in full before other unsecured claims are
paid.  After several years of negotiations, the bankruptcy court
approved a settlement between the business and many of its
creditors that divvied up millions of dollars of assets, but it
ignored the drivers and left them empty-handed.

The SCOTUS will thus be called upon to determine whether a
bankruptcy court is permitted to approve such a distribution of
settlement proceeds in a manner that purportedly violates the
statutory priority scheme of bankruptcy proceedings. The decision
should provide concrete rules surrounding increasingly popular
"structural dismissals," impacting employers and those workers
caught up in the wake of economically challenged organizations.

Fry v. Napoleon Community Schools

The final case Fisher Phillips is tracking relates to disability
accommodation law in the school context.  The case involves a girl
with cerebral palsy who was prescribed a service dog to assist her
with everyday tasks.  Her school provided her with a human
classroom aide to comply with the Individuals with Disabilities
Education Act (IDEA), but refused to permit her to bring the
service dog to school.

After the girl's family filed a lawsuit alleging Americans with
Disabilities Act (ADA) and Rehabilitation Act violations, a lower
court dismissed the claims.  The court held that the family should
have first attempted to resolve the dispute with school officials
as per the IDEA's claims exhaustion principles before filing the
federal anti-discrimination lawsuit.

The SCOTUS will determine whether the Handicapped Children's
Protection Act of 1986 commands exhaustion in any suit brought
under the ADA and the Rehabilitation Act.  The SCOTUS will decide
the proper standard that courts should follow while deciding
disability cases involving schools that receive federal funds.

Class Waivers On Deck?

At the time of publication, there are at least three pending
requests asking the Supreme Court to determine whether mandatory
class action waivers are legally permissible.  Employers are
increasingly reliant upon mandatory class waivers, which force
workers to bring employment claims in single-plaintiff arbitration
hearings and prohibit class or collective action litigation.

The NLRB concluded these agreements violate the National Labor
Relations Act (NLRA) by suppressing concerted activity among
workers, and recent decisions by the 7th Circuit and 9th Circuit
Courts of Appeal support the Board's philosophy.  Meanwhile, the
5th Circuit, 2nd Circuit, and 8th Circuit Courts of Appeal each
rejected the argument that the NLRA prohibits class and collective
action waivers, creating a patchwork of differing standards across
the country.

Many SCOTUS observers believe it is all but certain that the Court
will accept this issue in the coming term, but predicting Court
activity is often a foolish errand.  Employers will soon learn
whether this issue reaches the 2016-2017 docket.


* SCOTUS Grapples with Article III "No Injury" Class Actions
------------------------------------------------------------
Kate E. Gehl, Esq. -- kgehl@foley.com -- and Elizabeth A. N. Haas,
Esq. -- ehaas@foley.com -- of Foley & Lardner LLP, in an article
for The National Law Review, report that in the wake of the
decision from the Supreme Court in the United States on Spokeo,
Inc. v. Robins, courts are grappling with how to apply the injury
requirement for standing under Article III to "no-injury" class
actions.  "No injury" class actions are those brought by
plaintiffs who rely on technical violations of statutory
requirements to support their claims for automatic damages under
the statute.  While Spokeo did not definitively address the
standing question in "no injury" class actions, the decision has
renewed interest in challenging the sufficiency of the injury
alleged in these cases and beyond.

The Spokeo Decision
In Spokeo, Inc. v. Robins, 578 U.S. __ , 136 S.Ct. 1540 (2016),
the Supreme Court analyzed whether the plaintiff could bring a
claim under the Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA).  The FCRA
provides automatic damages for any violation of the statute.  The
plaintiff based his claim solely on the publishing of inaccurate
information, an alleged technical violation of the FCRA, but
without evidence of any actual injury stemming from the
dissemination of inaccurate information.  Spokeo argued that the
lack of actual injury meant that the plaintiff lacked standing to
sue.

The Supreme Court did not directly address the standing issue for
all "no injury" class actions.  However, the court did determine
that the Ninth Circuit failed to apply one of the requirements for
standing -- a concrete injury -- and remanded the case back to the
Ninth Circuit to examine whether the alleged injury was
sufficiently "concrete" to confer standing on the plaintiff.

The decision in Spokeo sparked a range of discussions as to
whether it makes assertion of class actions based on statutory
violations more difficult, whether it simply avoided making it
easier, or whether it avoided the issue entirely.  While the
decision could have gone further, it is notable in that it
expressly articulated that bare procedural violations alone will
not be sufficient to confer standing without a showing of concrete
injury -- a notion that was only implied in previous precedent.

Spokeo's Impact on Wisconsin Courts
Despite the criticism of the decision and the uncertainty over its
implications, the Spokeo ruling is already having an impact on
class actions brought by plaintiffs in Wisconsin federal courts.
This summer, a Wisconsin federal judge tossed out two proposed
class actions against Time Warner Cable (Time Warner), finding
that the named plaintiffs lacked standing under Spokeo.

In Gubala v. Time Warner Cable, Inc., No. 15-cv-1078-pp, 2016 U.S.
Dist. LEXIS 79820 (E.D. Wis. June 17, 2016), appeal docketed, No.
16-2613 (7th Cir.), U.S. District Judge Pamela Pepper dismissed a
putative class action accusing Time Warner of retaining
subscribers' personal identification information after they ended
their service, ruling the former customer who brought the suit
lacked standing under Spokeo.1

In granting Time Warner's motion to dismiss, the court explained
that the plaintiff, a former customer who accused Time Warner of
putting customers at risk of identity theft and other dangers,
lacked standing under Spokeo because the consumer did not allege
that Time Warner disclosed his information to a third party or
that any such disclosure caused him any harm. The court found
that:

In fact, one might argue that the Spokeo plaintiff was a bit
closer to alleging a concrete injury, because the defendant wasn't
just keeping his information; it was publishing, to anyone who
viewed the website, inaccurate information.  The plaintiff in this
case does not allege that the information the defendant retains is
inaccurate, nor does he allege that the defendant has published
it, or made it available, to anyone.

Id. at *14

Likewise, in August of this year, Judge Pepper again relied on
Spokeo and dismissed another proposed class action against Time
Warner for conducting credit checks on job applicants.  In Groshek
v. Time Warner Cable, Inc., No. 15-cv-00157-pp, 2016 Dist. LEXIS
104952 (E.D. Wis. Aug. 9, 2016), appeal docketed,
No. 16-3355 (7th Cir.), the court dismissed the plaintiff's FCRA
claim, finding that the job applicant could not show he suffered
actual injury because the company checked his credit without his
express permission during the job application process.2

The plaintiff, who has allegedly threatened some 50 companies with
litigation for FCRA violations, did not plead that Time Warner
publicized his credit information to embarrass him, that his
credit report prevented him from getting the job, or that Time
Warner used the consumer report against him. Id. at *7.  The court
found that Spokeo called for a showing of real harm, and Groshek's
suit did not clear that hurdle. Id. at *7-8.


                            *********

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  * * *