---

             C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

            Wednesday, October 12, 2016, Vol. 18, No. 204




                            Headlines

AIR CANADA: Stanfield Air Crash Class Action Pre-Hearing Filed
ALLIED INTERSTATE: Faces "Herman" Suit Alleging FDCPA Violation
AMERICAN AIRLINES: Faces Class Action Over Misleading Marketing
AMERICAN WATER: W.Va. Judge Tackles Economic Loss Doctrine
ANZ BANKING: ASIC Sues for Reinstating Traders Amid Class Action

APPLE INC: Suit Over Wi-Fi Assist Feature in iDevices Tossed
APPLE INC: Faces Class Action Over iPhone Upgrade Program
AROMA MARKET: "Vicente" Suit Moved from Cir. Ct. to S.D. Fla.
ATHENAHEALTH INC: Faces "Davis" Suit Seeking OT Pay Under FLSA
BANK OF AMERICA: Faces "Baker" Suit Alleging FC Price-Fixing

BAYLOR TITLE: Two More Women Join Sexual Assault Class Action
BEIERSDORF INC: Ashley Franz May File Second Amended Complaint
BF LABS: Judge Rejects Deal in "Alexander" Suit Over Bitcoins
BRANDPERX LLC: Faces "Arkin" Suit in Middle District of Florida
CALIFORNIA CORRECTIONAL: Faces "Mitchelle" Suit in C.D. Cal.

CANADA: Mothers Denied Sickness Benefits Criticize Liberal Gov't
CASH AMERICA: Court Trims Claims in "Smith" Suit
CHENIERE ENERGY: Robbins Arroyo Investigates Proposed Merger
CHESAPEAKE ENERGY: Dec. 5 Lead Plaintiff Motion Deadline Set
CHEVRON CORP: Disgruntled Caltex Dealers to Launch Class Action

CIOX HEALTH: "Moore" Alleges Overpricing of Medical Record Copies
CONAGRA FOODS: Mislabeling Claim in "Backus" Case Remains
CST BRANDS: Faces "Malone" Suit Over Planned Merger with Circle K
CSW INC: "Morgan et al." Sue to Recoup Wage, OT Pay Under FLSA
DEFFENBAUGH DISPOSAL: Faces "Johnston" Suit Over Landfill Smell

DENVER, CO: Oct. 12 Homeless Class Action First Hearing Set
DIAMOND RESORTS: "Fields" Class Certification Bid Tossed
DOMINION VIRGINIA: Faces Class Action Threat Over Gas Pipeline
EASTMAN KODAK: Judge Orders Cut in Legal Fees in Retirees' Case
ERNEST C. DRURY: September 1, 2017 Class Action-Opt Out Deadline

ESTATE OF JAMES E. WALTON: Faces "Quinton" Suit in M.D. Tenn.
EVERBANK FINANCIAL: Faces "Bushansky" Suit Over Sale to TIAA
FANNIE MAE & FREDDIE MAC: Gov't Told To Hand Over Secret Documents
FAST WATER: Stipulation to Dismiss Class Claims Approved
FCA US: Judge Grants Bid to Dismiss "Decoteau" Suit

FCA US: Court Trims Claims in "Flynn" Suit
FERRELLGAS PARTNERS: Law Firm Investigates Securities Claims
FIRST OHIO BANC: Ohio Ct. App. Won't Hear Mortgagee's Suit
FLORIDA: Drunk Drivers' 2nd Amended Suit v. DMV Tossed
FORD MOTOR: Oct.26-27 Settlement Approval Hearings Set

FORT WAYNE, IN: Bid to Deny Certification in "Martin Suit" Tossed
G&K SERVICES: "Klein" Suit Says Info on Sale to Cintas Misleading
GARDA CL WEST: "Demeter" Suit to Recover Overtime Pay
GENERAL ELECTRIC: Robinson's Renewed Class Cert. Bid Denied
GLOBAL AIRCRAFT: Summary Judgment in "Venegas" Granted in Part

GLOBAL CREDIT: Faces "Hess" Suit in Eastern District of New York
GOOGLE INC: Judge Narrows Claims in "Matera" Suit
HITCO CARBON: "Dawson" Suit Moved from Super. Ct. to C.D. Cal.
HOSPITAL SISTERS: Faces "Mollet" Suit Alleging Violation of ERISA
ING GROUP: Faces "Wiseman" Class Action in S.D.N.Y.

ISHA MYRICK: Faces "Burton" Suit Seeking OT Pay Under FLSA
J. YANG: "Dong" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT Wages and Damages
JMA PAINTERS: Faces "Lanza" Suit Seeking Overtime Pay Under FLSA
JPMORGAN CHASE: Judge Debunks Defendant's Issue on Legal Standing
JPMORGAN CHASE: FBI Information Not Consumer Report, Judge Says

KENTUCKY RETIREMENT: Trustees Can't Invoke Sovereign Immunity
KNIGHT TRANSPORTATION: Judge Grants Bid to Stay in "LaCross" Suit
LLOYDS TSB: Plaintiff Entitled to Jury Trial, Hawaii Judge Says
LOS ANGELES, CA: Sued Over Money Making Scheme in Jail Facility
LYNNWOOD, WA: Engineer Mulls Red-Light Camera Class Action

MARINERS 5: Faces "Okum" Lawsuit Under FLSA, Md. Wage Laws
MARSHALL SQUARE: Faces Multiple Lawsuits Over Deadly Fire
MDL 2001: Judge Grants Final Approval of Class Settlement
MEDIVATION INC: Dec. 1 Set for Lead Plaintiff Hearing
MOUNT REAL: Fraud Victims' Lawyers Negotiate $43MM Settlement

NAKED JUICE: Sued Over Misleading Naked Juices "No Sugar" Label
NAT'L COLLEGIATE: Ex-Ball State Player Files Concussion Case
NATIONAL AUTO: Faces Daisy Suit in Middle District of Florida
NATIONAL COLLEGIATE: "Dawson" Lawsuit Seeks OT Pay Under FLSA
NATIONAL UNION: Gonzales Insurance Suit in New York Tossed

NEW ALLIANCE BANK: Offer of Judgment Did Not Moot Tanasi Claims
NEW PRIME: Legal Pundits Watch Oliveira OT Class Action Closely
NEW YORK: DOCS' Practices Violate Constitution, 2nd Cir. Says
NEW YORK UNIVERSITY: Faces Class Action Over Singapore Art School
NUTIVA INC: Judge Narrows Claims in "Jones" Mislabeling Suit

ORANGE COUNTY, CA: Sued Over Money Making Scheme in Jail Facility
OREGON ONE: Faces "Byrne" Suit in District of Oregon
PACER PROMEC: December 1 Class Action Opt-Out Deadline Set
PFIZER INC: December 21 Settlement Fairness Hearing Set
PROCTER & GAMBLE: "Banegas" Suit Moved from Florida to C.D. Cal.

REAL TIME: No Agreement to Arbitrate in Completing Online Form
RICHMOND DINER: Faces "Djeriou" Suit in E.D.N.Y.
RX HOME: "Dubois" Suit Alleges Violation of FLSA, Ohio Wage Act
SAFEWAY INC: Rodman's Bid for Discovery Sanctions Granted in Part
SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS: Health Canada Issues Washing Machine Recall

SEAGATE TECHNOLOGY: Deadline to Amend Complaint Moved to Oct. 18
SECURITAS SECURITY: Class Settlement Granted Final Approval
SIZMEK INC: Faruqi & Faruqi Files Securities Class Action
SOUTH CAROLINA: "Campbell" Suit Moved from Cty. Ct. to D.S. Car.
STEPHEN L BRUCE: Faces "Beale" Suit in Northern Dist. of Oklahoma

STREAM ENERGY: RICO Class Action Can Proceed, 5th Cir. Rules
SUSAN J SZWED: Final Fairness Hearing Set for January 27, 2017
SYNGENTA: Judge, Lawyers to Discuss Next Move in GMO Corn Case
TAKATA CORP: Honda Less Active in Discussions Over Future
THIERRY OLLIVIER: "Himalania" Goji Berries Case Can Proceed

UBS FINANCIAL: Investors' Class Action v. Puerto Rico Unit Tossed
UNITED COLLECTION: Faces "Wegh" Suit in E.D.N.Y.
VERIZON PENNSYLVANIA: Sued Over Set-Top Box Lease Requirement
VIRGINIA: Wants Suit Over Suspended License Law Dismissed
VIRGINIA: Legal Aid Justice Center Criticizes Response to Suit

WAL-MART STORES: Ortiz-Garcia Suit Goes Back to State Court
WELLS FARGO: Account Scandal Extends to Small-Business Owners
WELLS FARGO: Sued N.D. Cal. Over Fraudulent Practices
WELLS FARGO: Faces "Hefler" Suit Over Fraudulent Activity
WELLS FARGO: Senators Call for Probe on Fake Accounts

WELLS FARGO: Faces "Deadwiler" Suit Alleging Violation of FLSA
YAHOO! INC: Faces Breach of Contract Class Action Over Hacking
ZARA: Deceptive Pricing Case May Have Better Shot in California

* Canadian Bishops to Update Policies After Sexual Abuse Scandals


                            *********


AIR CANADA: Stanfield Air Crash Class Action Pre-Hearing Filed
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Chronicle Herald reports that Wagners Law Firm and Camp
Fiorante Matthews Mogerman Lawyers have filed their pre-hearing
brief in the class action suit relating to the crash of Air Canada
flight 624.

The aircraft crashed upon landing at Stanfield International
Airport shortly after midnight March 29, 2015 in severe weather
conditions.  All passengers and crew escaped but reported injuries
included broken bones, scrapes, scratches and many neck and back
problems, along with severe psychological trauma, says a news
release from Wagners Law.

The class action will seek compensation for the harm caused to the
passengers.

The motion for certification will be heard before Justice Denise
Boudreau Dec. 12-15 at the Law Courts in Halifax.  Defendants
include Air Canada, NAV Canada, Transport Canada, the Halifax
International Airport Authority and Airbus, the manufacturer of
the aircraft.

"Our brief provides the court with class counsel's position as to
why this action is eminently suited to proceed as a class action,"
said Halifax lawyer Raymond Wagner, co-counsel for the lawsuit, in
the release.

"If and when the action is certified, we can proceed to a common
issues trial, where the focus will be on the liability of the
defendants to compensate the class for the injuries they
sustained."

Defendants have until Oct. 28 to respond.

As of April 2016, 55 passengers wanted to participate in the
action to some degree.  Many gave permission to Wagners view their
medical records to prove issues that have come up due to the
crash.  Other passengers have undergone psychological and
neurological testing related to PTSD and closed-head injuries.


ALLIED INTERSTATE: Faces "Herman" Suit Alleging FDCPA Violation
---------------------------------------------------------------
ANDREW HERMAN individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated Plaintiff, v. ALLIED INTERSTATE LLC AND LVNV FUNDING,
LLC, Defendants, Case 1:16-cv-05342 (E.D.N.Y., September 26,
2016), seeks to secure redress for unlawful collection practices
engaged in by Defendants Allied Interstate LLC and LVNV
Funding, LLC. Plaintiff alleges violations of the Fair Debt
Collection Practices Act.

Defendant LVNV Funding is engaged in the business of purchasing
allegedly defaulted debts originally owed to others and incurred
for personal, family or household purposes.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     David Palace, Esq.
     LAW OFFICES OF DAVID PALACE
     383 Kingston Ave. #113
     Brooklyn, NY 11213
     Phone: 347-651-1077
     Fax: 347-464-0012


AMERICAN AIRLINES: Faces Class Action Over Misleading Marketing
---------------------------------------------------------------
Samantha Joseph, writing for Daily Business Review, reports that a
multimillion-dollar class action in Miami federal court accuses
American Airlines of misleading travelers about its vested
interest in "aggressively" marketed travel insurance sold on its
website.

The suit by named plaintiff Kristian Zamber alleges the airline
markets the travel insurance as a pass-through charge paid to a
third party but doesn't disclose its profits.  The suit argues for
class certification, a jury trial and injunctive and equitable
relief for alleged unjust enrichment and violations of Florida's
consumer protection statutes prohibiting companies from posing as
revenue conduits.

"That essentially is one of the core points that creates a
deception in the minds of the consumer," said plaintiffs attorney
Alec Schultz -- aschultz@leoncosgrove.com -- of Leon Cosgrove LLC
in Coral Gables.  "The company is being compensated and has a
vested interest, rather than marketing the product in an
indifferent manner."

Mr. Zamber paid about $24 to purchase travel insurance in April
for a domestic flight from Tampa to Pennsylvania.  His complaint
claims American stated the policy had no affiliation with the
airline, but instead came from Allianz Global Assistance, with
plans underwritten by Jefferson Insurance Co. or BCS Insurance Co.
But in reality, the policy sales contributed to a "hidden profit
center" for the Fort Worth, Texas-based airline, according to the
lawsuit.

The suit pled for more than $5 million but will likely hone in a
more specific claim for damages based on American's alleged
insurance profits during the four-year class period from September
2012 to September 2016.  It claims the airline forces customers to
elect whether or not to purchase trip insurance policies before
allowing them to complete online ticket purchases.

"The 'yes' option is highlighted in bold type and placed above the
box for 'no,' which does not appear in bold type.  In the 'yes'
section where a customer can purchase an insurance policy,
American places a checkmark in bright-green typeface, followed
immediately thereafter by the word 'recommended,' also in bright-
green typeface," the complaint states.  "Following the bright
green checkmark and 'recommended' line, American includes a quote
from U.S. News & World Report, Oct 2015, which reads, 'It's a
smart idea to consider investing in travel insurance.'"
American Airlines denied any wrongdoing.

"This case is without merit," corporate spokesman Matt Miller
said.  "American will vigorously defend itself against these
baseless allegations."

Miami attorneys Humberto Ocariz -- hocariz@shb.com -- and Michael
Aaron Holt -- mholt@shb.com -- of Shook Hardy & Bacon filed
appearances on Sept. 30 for the airline.  They have until Nov. 7
to answer the complaint.

Mr. Zamber's suit follows a class action with similar claims
against Public Storage in litigation handled by his attorneys at
Le¢n Cosgrove LLC.  That case, Morgan v. Public Storage, accused
the company of keeping more than 75 percent of the insurance
premiums sold to tenants, despite the pretext the money went to a
third-party provider.  It settled for $5 million in February.
"Upon some investigation, we realized that American Airlines was
involved in a similar policy," Mr. Schultz said.  "Based on that
precedent and our success there, we are certainly excited about
prosecuting this case on behalf of the class. We think that the
law is really well established here."

The case is pending before U.S. District Judge Jose E. Martinez.


AMERICAN WATER: W.Va. Judge Tackles Economic Loss Doctrine
----------------------------------------------------------
District Judge John T. Copenhaver, Jr. of the Southern District of
West Virginia, in Charleston, ruled on defendants' motions for
partial summary judgment in the case CRYSTAL GOOD, individually
and as parent and next friend of minor children M.T.S., N.T.K.,
and A.M.S., and MELISSA JOHNSON, individually and as parent of her
unborn child, MARY LACY and JOAN GREEN and JAMILA AISHA OLIVER,
WENDY RENEE RUIZ and KIMBERLY OGIER and ROY J. McNEAL and GEORGIA
HAMRA and MADDIE FIELDS and BRENDA BAISDEN, d/b/a FRIENDLY FACES
DAYCARE, and ALADDIN RESTAURANT, INC., and R.G. GUNNOE FARMS LLC,
and DUNBAR PLAZA, INC., d/b/aDUNBAR PLAZA HOTEL, on behalf of
themselves and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v.
AMERICAN WATER WORKS COMPANY, INC., and AMERICAN WATER WORKS
SERVICE COMPANY, INC., and EASTMAN CHEMICAL COMPANY and WEST
VIRGINIA-AMERICAN WATER COMPANY, d/b/a WEST VIRGINIA AMERICAN
WATER, and GARY SOUTHERN and DENNIS P. FARRELL, Defendants, Civil
Action No. 14-1374 (S.D.W. Va.).

On January 9, 2014, approximately 300,000 residents in Charleston,
West Virginia, and the surrounding area suffered an interruption
in their water supply. The interruption was caused by a spill into
the Elk River of a mixture composed primarily of a chemical known
as Crude MCHM, sold and distributed exclusively by Eastman
Chemical Company.

Following the spill, West Virginia-American Water Company and
American Water Works Company, Inc. issued a "do not use" order to
all affected customers, advising them not to use water in affected
areas for any purpose other than fire control or flushing toilets.
In addition, water company customers were notified that their
water pipes, water heaters, and any other water-bearing appliances
should be flushed, according to instructions, in order to remove
Crude MCHM.

The mixture containing Crude MCHM infiltrated and contaminated the
WV American water treatment plant in Charleston, known as the
Kanawha Valley Treatment Plant (KVTP), which draws its water from
the Elk River.

The court certified an issues class for trial in order to
determine liability on October 8, 2015. The class consists of
three groups of plaintiffs, each of which having claims that arose
on January 9, 2014 as a result of the loss of potable water. These
groups are (1) persons residing in dwellings supplied tap water by
KVTP," (2) persons or entities who owned businesses operating in
real property supplied tap water by KVTP, (3) and persons who were
regularly employed as hourly wage earners for business that
operated in real property supplied tap water by KVTP.

Wage-earner class representative Maddie Fields, a resident of St.
Albans, West Virginia, and is not a customer of any of the water
company defendants, was employed as a crew member at an Arby's
restaurant in Cross Lanes, West Virginia, during the time period
immediately following the spill. Ms. Fields seeks to recover lost
wages from the water company defendants on the theory that they
breached their contractual obligation to her employer a public
utility customer  to provide potable water, as a result of which
she was unemployed while Arby's was closed. Maddie Fields'
employer had a public utility contract with WV American. Although
not physically harmed by the spill, the wage-earner class suffered
financial loss when their places of employment were closed during
the period that the "do not use" order was in effect.

On May 10, 2016, defendants American Water Works Service Company,
Inc., West Virginia-American Water Company and American Water
Works Company, Inc., jointly filed a motion for partial summary
judgment on the issue of economic loss doctrine. On the same date
defendant Eastman Chemical Company filed another motion for
partial summary judgment on the same issue.

Judge John T. Copenhaver ordered that the motion for partial
summary judgment filed jointly by defendants American Water Works
Service Company, Inc., West Virginia-American Water Works Company,
Inc., be granted and the motion for partial summary judgment filed
by defendant Eastman Chemical Company is denied.

According to Judge Copenhaver, "The wage-earner plaintiffs have
not shown that there is a sufficiently 'close nexus' between them
and WV American, the utility company, to justify the application
of the 'special relationship' exception. As a result, wage earners
like Maddie Fields do not have a cognizable claim for economic
loss against the water company defendants, and the water company
defendants' motion for partial summary judgment as to the wage
earners must be granted."

He added, "With respect to plaintiffs' pipes, water heaters, and
appliances, there is no reason to think that because a substance
merely 'passes through' property, it necessarily does not cause
injury in so doing. The injury caused might simply be the residue
left in the pipes, leakage into adjacent joints and seals, and the
concomitant contamination of the plumbing system. At least in
theory, these injuries were real and had to be remedied by the
flushing protocol, just as, at least in theory, injuries caused by
radiation were real in General Public. See 710 F.2d at 122. As in
General Public, the nature and extent of the injury to plaintiffs'
real property here as a result of contamination must be developed
further in the damages phase of this litigation; if no injury to
person or property can be shown, plaintiffs of course cannot
recover. Damages to pipes, water heaters, and other appliances,
however, are at least susceptible of proof. Accordingly, Eastman's
motion for partial summary judgment must be denied."

A copy of Judge Copenhaver's memorandum opinion and order dated
October 6, 2016, is available at https://goo.gl/wmGN4O from
Leagle.com.

Plaintiffs, represented by:

Alexander D. McLaughlin, Esq.
W. Stuart Calwell, Esq.
D. Christopher Hedges, Esq.
THE CALWELL PRACTICE
500 Randolph Street
Charleston, WV 25302
Telephone: 304-400-6558
Facsimile: 304-344-3684

     - and -

David R. Barney, Jr., Esq.
Kevin W. Thompson, Esq.
THOMPSON BARNEY, PLLC
2030 Kanawha Blvd E
Charleston, WV 25311
Telephone: 304-343-4401

     - and -

Mark F. Underwood, Esq.
UNDERWOOD & PROCTOR LAW OFFICES
923 3rd Ave.
Huntington, WV 25701
Telephone: 304-522-0508

     - and -

Michael J. Del Giudice, Esq.
Timothy J. LaFon, Esq.
CICCARELLO DEL GIUDICE & LAFON
1219 Virginia St E #100
Charleston, WV 25301
Telephone: 304-343-4440

     - and -

Michael G. Stag, Esq.
Sean Cassidy, Esq.
Stephen H. Wussow, Esq.
Stuart H. Smith, Esq.
SMITH STAG
One Canal Place, 365 Canal St #2850
New Orleans, LA 70130
Telephone: 504-593-9600

     - and -

P. Rodney Jackson, Esq.
LAW OFFICE OF P. RODNEY JACKSON
700 Virginia St E Ste 401
Charleston, WV 25301
Telephone: 843-870-6879

     - and -

Van Bunch, Esq.
BONNETT FAIRBOURN FRIEDMAN & BALINT
2325 E Camelback Rd #300
Phoenix, AZ 85016
Telephone: 602-274-1100

American Water Works Service Company, Inc., Defendant, represented
by Alton Kent Mayo -- kent.mayo@bakerbotts.com -- Steven L. Leifer
-- sleifer@bakerbotts.com -- at BAKER BOTTS; Brian R. Swiger --
brswiger@jacksonkelly.com -- Laurie K. Miller --
lmiller@jacksonkelly.com -- Robert O. Passmore -- Thomas J.
Hurney, Jr. -- thurney@jacksonkelly.com -- L. Jill McIntyre --
jmcintyre@jacksonkelly.com -- at JACKSON KELLY
Eastman Chemical Company, Defendant, represented by Marc E.
Williams -- marc.williams@nelsonmullins.com -- Melissa Foster Bird
-- melissa.fosterbird@nelsonmullins.com -- Robert L. Massie --
bob.massie@nelsonmullins.com -- at NELSON MULLINS RILEY &
SCARBOROUGH; Marquel S. Jordan -- MJordan@BlankRome.com -- Robert
Scott -- RScott@BlankRome.com -- Lance D. Leisure -- at BLANK ROME

West Virginia-American Water Company, 2:14-cv-11011, Defendant,
represented by Alton Kent Mayo -- kent.mayo@bakerbotts.com --
Steven L. Leifer -- sleifer@bakerbotts.com -- at BAKER BOTTS;
Albert F. Sebok -- asebok@jacksonkelly.com -- Brian R. Swiger --
brswiger@jacksonkelly.com -- Laurie K. Miller --
lmiller@jacksonkelly.com -- Robert O. Passmore -- Thomas J.
Hurney, Jr. -- thurney@jacksonkelly.com -- L. Jill McIntyre --
jmcintyre@jacksonkelly.com -- at JACKSON KELLY

Gary Southern, 2:14-cv-11011, Defendant, represented by Erin J.
Webb -- ewebb@kaycasto.com -- Luci R. Wellborn --
lwellborn@kaycasto.com -- Pamela C. Deem -- pdeem@kaycasto.com --
Robert B. Allen -- rallen@kaycasto.com -- at KAY CASTO & CHANEY
Dennis P. Farrell, Defendant, represented by:

David R. Pogue, Esq.
Michael W. Carey, Esq.
S. Benjamin Bryant, Esq.
CAREY SCOTT DOUGLAS & KESSLER
901 Chase Tower
707 Virginia Street, East (25301)
Charleston, WV 25323
Telephone: 304-345-1234
Facsimile: 304-342-1105

Shirley L. Burns, 2:16-cv-0095, Plaintiff, represented by William
V. DePaulo

Matthew Bess, 2:16-cv-00175, Plaintiff, represented by:
John Patrick L. Stephens, Esq.
Mark F. Underwood, Esq.
UNDERWOOD & PROCTOR LAW OFFICES
923 3rd Ave.
Huntington, WV 25701
Telephone: 304-522-0508

     - and -

Michael G. Stag, Esq.
Stephen H. Wussow, Esq.
SMITH STAG
One Canal Place, 365 Canal St #2850
New Orleans, LA 70130
Telephone: 504-593-9600

Robert L. Johns, Movant, represented by Robert L. Johns --
rjohns@turnerjohns.com -- TURNER & JOHNSON

Advocates for a Safe Water System, Interested Party, represented
by Paul R. Sheridan, Attorney at Law

Bureau for Public Health, West Virginia Department of Health and
Human Resources, Interested Party, represented by M. Claire
Winterholler -- ay WEST VIRGINIA ATTORNEY GENERAL'S OFFICE

Consumer Advocate Division of the Public Service Commission of
West Virginia, Interested Party, represented by Heather B. Osborn
-- at PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION OF WEST VIRGINIA

Jon Lupson, Andrea Lupson, Sabra Allen, Garieth Allen, Jocelyn
Allen, Christopher Allen, Tiana Allen, Helen Christ, John Michael
Bryant, Christian Bryant, Michael Bryant, Rachel Blakenship,
Newtech Systems, Inc., Angel Strickland, and Roger Strickland,
2:14-cv-11009, Plaintiffs, represented by D. C. Offutt, Jr. --
Michael R. Dockery -- Steven K. Nord -- at OFFUTT NORD; James R.
Moncus, III -- jamie@hwnn.com -- at HARE WYNN NEWELL & NEWTON

West Virginia Army National Guard, Movant, represented by
Katherine A. Schultz -- at OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL & Mary
M. Downey.

Rachel Carrico, Movant, represented by:

Marvin W. Masters, Esq.
Kelly Elswick-Hall, Esq.
THE MASTERS LAW FIRM
Peoples Building
181 Summers St.
Charleston, WV 25301
Telephone: 304-342-3106

Cindra Justice, Charles Justice, and Paula J. Compston, Movants,
represented by Aaron L. Harrah -- Aaron@hpcbd.com -- James C.
Peterson -- JCPeterson@hpcbd.com -- HILL PETERSON CARPER BEE &
DEITZLER; Anthony J. Majestro -- at POWELL & MAJESTRO; Timothy C.
Bailey -- at BAILEY JAVINS & CARTER

American Chemistry Council, Movant, represented by Joel F. Visser
-- jvisser@sidley.com -- Roger R. Martella, Jr. --
rmartella@sidley.com -- at SIDLEY AUSTIN; Wesley P. Page --
wpage@flahertylegal.com -- at FLAHERTY SENSABAUGH & BONASSO


ANZ BANKING: ASIC Sues for Reinstating Traders Amid Class Action
----------------------------------------------------------------
Rod McGuirk, writing for The Associated Press, reports that an
Australian bank chief executive told a parliamentary committee on
that traders implicated in market manipulation allegations had
been suspended then reinstated without those accusations being
judged by a court.

The Australian Securities and Investments Commission, the
financial regulator, is suing the ANZ Banking Group in the Federal
Court for unconscionable conduct and market manipulation in
relation to ANZ's involvement in setting the bank bill swap
reference rate from 2010 to 2012.  The bank has denied the
allegations.

The rate sets the price of business between banks and other
institutions.  Rigging the rate can increase profits for both
banks and traders.

ANZ chief executive Shayne Elliott told the House Standing
Committee on Economics that the bank initiated an internal
investigation and suspended "a handful of people" after the
regulator raised its allegations.  Media reports said seven
traders had been suspended on November 2014.

All but two traders were reinstated, despite the court case
remaining unresolved, Mr. Elliott said.

"We reinstated those employees because they'd done nothing wrong,"
Mr. Elliott said.

Mr. Elliott said the two traders that were fired, Etienne Alexiou
and Patrick O'Connor, were guilty of breaches of the bank's code
of conduct that had nothing to do with the regulator's allegations
of market manipulation.

Both Messrs. Alexiou and O'Connor are suing the bank for wrongful
termination.  They allege the bank condoned a culture of drugs,
alcohol and strippers among senior staff on the trading floor.

Mr. Elliott said "a small number" of traders in the global markets
section of the bank "behaved appallingly and when we found out
about those, we acted immediately."

The bank had responded with more ethics training and increased
monitoring of the markets business, he said.

The ANZ is one 17 banks and two international broking houses named
in a class action suit in the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of New York that alleges rigging of the bank bill swap
reference rate.

The ANZ has said it will defend the U.S. action and notes that the
Australian regulator's case does not allege that the bank colluded
with others.

The chief executives of Australia's four largest banks must give
evidence to the committee at least once a year as part of a new
government initiative to increase transparency in the financial
sector.


APPLE INC: Suit Over Wi-Fi Assist Feature in iDevices Tossed
------------------------------------------------------------
District Judge Lucy H. Koh of the Northern District of California,
San Jose Division, granted defendant's motion to dismiss, in the
case WILLIAM SCOTT PHILLIPS, et al., Plaintiffs, v. APPLE INC.,
Defendant, Case No. 15-CV-04879-LHK (N.D. Cal.)

Plaintiffs William Scott and Suzanne Schmidt Phillips and William
Cottrell brought a putative class action against Apple Inc. for
alleged deceptive representations about the Wi-Fi Assist feature
of the iPhone, iPod, and iPad.

Apple introduced iOS 9 operating system in September 16, 2015,
which includes the Wi-Fi Assist. Plaintiffs allege that Wi-Fi
Assist results in unexpected consumption of cellular data by users
who are both unaware of the existence of Wi-Fi Assist and unaware
that, by default, Wi-Fi Assist is turned on.  Moreover, because
many consumers' cell phone plans include only a limited amount of
data, plaintiffs allege that the automatic switch to cellular data
caused by an activated Wi-Fi Assist may result in exceeding the
data capacity allowed under consumers' phone plans.

On February 8, 2016, plaintiffs filed a consolidated amended class
complaint -- CACC -- and asserted a violation of California's
Unfair Competition Law, Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code Sections 17200 et
seq., a violation of California's False Advertising Law, Cal. Bus.
& Prof. Code Sections 17500 et seq. and negligent
misrepresentation.

On March 9, 2016, defendant filed a motion to dismiss the CACC,
which the court granted, with leave to amend, on April 19, 2016.
On May 19, 2016, plaintiffs filed a second consolidated amended
class complaint. The SCACC asserts claims under the UCL, the FAL,
and negligent misrepresentation. Plaintiffs seek damages,
restitution, disgorgement, and an injunction barring Apple from
ever setting Wi-Fi Assist as activated without a consumer's
permission and prohibiting Apple from modifying, altering or
choosing the Wi-Fi Assist setting on any device.

Apple filed a motion to dismiss on July 6, 2016. As part of its
motion, Apple requested judicial notice of two documents: the
contents of a link entitled "Learn More," which accompanied the
Software Update screen presented to users before downloading iOS 9
and the iPhone iOS 9 User Guide. In support of the request, Apple
filed a declaration by Vivek Bhardwaj, an employee of Apple who
works in iOS product marketing.

Plaintiffs opposed the motion to dismiss on August 19, 2016 and
also filed a motion to strike the Bhardwaj Declaration and all
discussion of the Learn More link and the User Guide in Apple's
motion to dismiss.

Judge Koh granted defendant's motion to dismiss with prejudice in
part and without prejudice in part and strikes plaintiffs' motion
to strike.

A copy of Judge Koh's order dated October 6, 2016, is available at
https://goo.gl/XS0Ty2 from Leagle.com.

Plaintiffs, represented by Charles J. LaDuca --
charlesl@cuneolaw.com -- William H. Anderson --
wanderson@cuneolaw.com -- at Cuneo Gilbert & LaDuca, LLP; Daniel
Aaron Rihn -- at Robert Peirce and Associates, P. C. -- Melissa
Weiner Wolchansky -- wolchansky@halunenlaw.com -- at Halunen and
Associates; Rebecca Anne Peterson -- rapeterson@locklaw.com --
Robert K. Shelquist -- at Lockridge Grindal Nauen P.L.L.P.; S.
Clinton Woods -- cwoods@audetlaw.com -- Michael Andrew McShane --
at Audet & Partners, LLP

Apple Inc., Defendant, represented by David Ramraj Singh --
david.singh@weil.com -- Anne Marie Cappella --
anne.cappella@weil.com -- Bambo Obaro -- bambo.obaro@weil.com --
Diane P. Sullivan -- diane.sullivan@weil.com -- at Weil, Gotshal
and Manges LLP

William Cottrell, Movant, represented by S. Clinton Woods --
cwoods@audetlaw.com -- Michael Andrew McShane -- at Audet &
Partners, LLP; Stephen R. Basser -- sbasser@barrack.com -- at
Barrack, Rodos & Bacine


APPLE INC: Faces Class Action Over iPhone Upgrade Program
---------------------------------------------------------
Wadi Reformado, writing for Northern California Record, reports
that a consumer has filed a class-action lawsuit against Apple
Inc. alleging that the California corporation made misleading
claims regarding the iPhone Upgrade Program.

Emil Frank filed a complaint on behalf of all others similarly
situated on Sept. 12 in the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of California against Apple Inc. alleging breach of
contract, breach of the covenant of good faith and fair dealing,
unjust enrichment and other counts.

According to the complaint, the plaintiff alleges that he suffered
damages from being misled into signing up for the iPhone Upgrade
Program, which allows program users to upgrade to the newest
iPhone every year for a monthly fee.  The plaintiff holds Apple
Inc. responsible because the defendant allegedly allowed non-
iPhone Upgrade Program customers to purchase newly released phones
first, depleting the limited inventory.

The plaintiff requests a trial by jury and seeks compensatory and
punitive damages, injunctive relief, all legal fees and any other
relief as the court deems just.  He is represented by Whitney E.
Street -- whitney@blockesq.com -- of Block & Leviton LLP in
Oakland and Jacob A. Walker -- jake@blockesq.com -- Jason M.
Leviton -- jason@blockesq.com -- and Joel A. Fleming --
joel@blockesq.com -- of Block & Leviton LLP in Boston,
Massachusetts.

U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California Case
number 5:16-cv-05217-NC


AROMA MARKET: "Vicente" Suit Moved from Cir. Ct. to S.D. Fla.
-------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit titled Emma Vicente, and all other
similarly situated individuals, the Plaintiff, v. Aroma Market and
Catering, Inc., a Florida profit corporation and Meir Yaloz,
Individually, the Defendants, Case No. CACE-16-016053, was removed
from the 17th Judicial Circuit of Florida, to the U.S. District
Court for the Southern District of Florida (Ft Lauderdale). The
District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 0:16-cv-62331-JAL to the
proceeding. The case is assigned to Hon. Judge Joan A. Lenard.

Aroma Market sells a range of kosher grocery items, produce,
meats, baked goods & prepared foods.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Jason Saul Remer, Esq.
          REMER & GEORGES-PIERRE, PLLC
          Court House Tower
          44 West Flagler Street, Suite 2200
          Miami, FL 33130
          Telephone: (305) 416 5000
          Facsimile: (305) 416 5005
          E-mail: jremer@rgpattorneys.com

The Defendants are represented by:

          Elan I. Baret, Esq.
          3007 W Commercial Blvd, Suite 105
          Fort Lauderdale, FL 33309
          Telephone: (954) 486 9966
          Facsimile: (954) 585 9196
          E-mail: baretlaw@gmail.com


ATHENAHEALTH INC: Faces "Davis" Suit Seeking OT Pay Under FLSA
--------------------------------------------------------------
DEMETRIA DAVIS, individually and on behalf of all other similarly
situated individuals, Plaintiff, v. ATHENAHEALTH, INC.,
Defendant, Case No. 1:16-cv-03592-SCJ (N.D. Ga., September 26,
2016), assert claims for unpaid overtime under the Fair Labor
Standards Act.

Defendant provides medical records software and services to
hospitals and medical groups across the country.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     John L. Mays, Esq.
     MAYS & KERR, LLC
     235 Peachtree St. NE
     202 North Tower
     Atlanta, GA 30303
     Direct/Fax: (404) 855-0820
     E-mail: john@maysandkerr.com

        - and -

     Matthew C. Helland, Esq.
     NICHOLS KASTER, LLP
     One Embarcadero Center, Suite 720
     San Francisco, CA 94111
     Phone: (415) 277-7235
     Fax: (415) 277-7238
     E-mail: helland@nka.com

        - and -

     Reena I. Desai, Esq.
     NICHOLS KASTER, PLLP
     4600 IDS Center, 80 South 8th Street
     Minneapolis, MN 55402
     Phone: (612) 256-3200
     Fax: (612) 215-6870
     E-mail: desai@nka.com


BANK OF AMERICA: Faces "Baker" Suit Alleging FC Price-Fixing
------------------------------------------------------------
DEBORAH BAKER, GRANT MCNIFF, and DOROTHY MCNIFF, on behalf of
themselves and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v.
BANK OF AMERICA CORPORATION; BANK OF AMERICA, N.A.; MERRILL LYNCH,
PIERCE, FENNER & SMITH INC.; THE BANK OF TOKYO MITSUBISHI UFJ
LTD.; BARCLAYS BANK PLC; BARCLAYS CAPITAL INC.; BNP PARIBAS GROUP;
BNP PARIBAS NORTH AMERICA, INC.; BNP PARIBAS SECURITIES CORP.; BNP
PARIBAS PRIME BROKERAGE, INC.; CITIGROUP INC.; CITIBANK, N.A.;
CITIGROUP GLOBAL MARKETS INC.; CREDIT SUISSE GROUP AG; CREDIT
SUISSE AG; CREDIT SUISSE SECURITIES (USA) LLC; DEUTSCHE BANK AG;
DEUTSCHE BANK SECURITIES INC.; THE GOLDMAN SACHS GROUP, INC.;
GOLDMAN, SACHS & CO.; HSBC HOLDINGS PLC; HSBC BANK PLC; HSBC NORTH
AMERICA HOLDINGS, INC.; HSBC BANK USA, N.A.; HSBC SECURITIES (USA)
INC.; JPMORGAN CHASE & CO.; JPMORGAN CHASE BANK, N.A.; MORGAN
STANLEY; MORGAN STANLEY & CO., LLC; MORGAN STANLEY & CO.
INTERNATIONAL PLC; RBC CAPITAL MARKETS LLC; ROYAL BANK OF SCOTLAND
GROUP PLC; RBS SECURITIES INC.; SOCIETE GENERALE S.A.; STANDARD
CHARTERED BANK; UBS AG; UBS GROUP AG; and UBS SECURITIES LLC;
Defendants, Case No. 1:16-cv-07512 (S.D.N.Y., September 26, 2016),
alleges a conspiracy among horizontal competitors to fix the
prices of foreign currencies and foreign currency instruments.

Bank of America Corporation is a multi-national banking and
financial services corporation.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

     Merrill G. Davidoff, Esq.
     Todd S. Collins, Esq.
     Michael Dell'Angelo, Esq.
     Joshua T. Ripley, Esq.
     BERGER & MONTAGUE, P.C.
     1622 Locust Street
     Philadelphia, PA 19103
     Phone: (215) 875-3000
     Fax: (215) 875-4604
     E-mail: mdavidoff@bm.net
             tcollins@bm.net
             mdellangelo@bm.net
             jripley@bm.net

        - and -

     Garrett W. Wotkyns, Esq.
     SCHNEIDER WALLACE COTTRELL KONECKYWOTKYNS LLP
     8501 North Scottsdale Road, Suite 270
     Scottsdale, AZ 85253
     Phone: (480) 428-0142
     Fax: (866) 505-8036
     E-mail: gwotkyns@schneiderwallace.com

        - and -

     Joseph C. Peiffer, Esq.
     PEIFFER ROSCA WOLF ABDULLAH CARR &KANE LLP
     201 St. Charles Ave. Suite 4610
     New Orleans, LA 70170
     Phone: (504) 523-2434
     Fax: (504) 523-2464
     E-mail: jpeiffer@prwlegal.com

        - and -

     R. Bryant McCulley, Esq.
     Stuart McCluer, Esq.
     MCCULLEY MCCLUER PLLC
     1022 Carolina Boulevard, Suite 300
     Charleston, SC 29451
     Phone: (855) 467-0451
     Fax: (662) 368-1506
     E-mail: bmcculley@mcculleymccluer.com
             smccluer@mcculleymccluer.com


BAYLOR TITLE: Two More Women Join Sexual Assault Class Action
-------------------------------------------------------------
Nick Martin, writing for Deadspin, reports that Baylor Title IX
coordinator Patty Crawford resigned from her post, according to a
university press release.  Ms. Crawford had been with the school
as the head coordinator since 2014--the position was vacant for
over three years prior to her hiring, and from 2008-2011, the
school reported zero sexual assaults.

In the press release, the Baylor press team wrote Crawford's
inability to enact the changes suggested the Pepper Hamilton
report was her reason for stepping down.  Here is the full
statement, via KXAN:

"Our understanding is that Patty was disappointed in her role in
implementing the recommendations that resulted from the Pepper
Hamilton investigation," the university statement said, referring
to recommendations made by the Philadelphia-based law firm the
school hired to investigate its responses to sexual assault
allegations.

"The University is grateful for Patty's leadership in establishing
fair and equitable Title IX processes that are also supportive of
the needs of survivors.  We will always seek to continuously
improve and are confident that the very capable Title IX staff
will continue the important work of educating, supporting and
responding to the needs of those impacted by interpersonal
violence."

The decision came the same day two more women joined the class-
action lawsuit against the university for its role in responding
improperly, or not at all, to instances of sexual assault,
bringing the number of women attached to the lawsuit to eight.
According to ESPN, Jane Doe 7 alleges she was assaulted by two
Baylor students in May 2009; Jane Doe 8 alleges her assault
occurred March 2015.

The two newest allegations do not involve members of the football
team, as is the case with Jane Doe 1.  ESPN's Paula Lavigne
reports as many as 17 women have voiced sexual assault allegations
against members of the team since 2009.


BEIERSDORF INC: Ashley Franz May File Second Amended Complaint
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, ASHLEY FRANZ, Plaintiff, v. BEIERSDORF, INC.,
Defendant, Case No. 14cv2241-LAB (AGS), (S.D. Cal.), District
Judge Larry Alan Burns granted the Plaintiff's motion to file a
second amended complaint.

The case involves the Plaintiff's allegation against the Defendant
for misleading representations on bottles of its Nivea CoQ10
Lotion. The Plaintiff submitted a citizen petition with the Food
and Drug Administration (FDA). However, without discussing the
merits of the Plaintiff's claim, the FDA denied the petition and
informed the Plaintiff that it did not intend to take action at
that time regarding Nivea CoQ10.

The parties' dispute centers on whether the FDA rejected the
premise of Plaintiff's claim, or simply declined to exercise its
primary jurisdiction. The Court held that the FDA provided no
insight regarding whether Nivea CoQ10 lotion is a drug or whether
its labeling is misleading. Thus, consistent with the ruling in a
related case of New Prime, Plaintiff's motion to file a second
amended complaint is granted.

A copy of the Court's Order dated October 3, 2016 is available at
https://goo.gl/UJCIc1 from Leagle.com.

Ashley Franz, Plaintiff, represented by Elaine A. Ryan --
eryan@bffb.com -- Bonnett, Fairbourn, Friedman & Balint, PC, pro
hac vice.

Ashley Franz, Plaintiff, represented by Lindsey Gomez-Gray,
Bonnett, Fairbourn, Friedman & Balint, PC, pro hac vice, Manfred
Patrick Muecke, Jr., Bonnett Fairbourn Friedman and Balint PC, Max
A. Stein -- mstein@boodlaw.com -- Boodell & Domanskis, LLC, pro
hac vice, Patricia N. Syverson -- psyverson@bffb.com -- Bonnett,
Fairbourn, Friedman & Balint, PC & Stewart Weltman --
sweltman@boodlaw.com -- Boodell & Domanskis, LLC, pro hac vice.

Beiersdorf, Inc., Defendant, represented by Alycia A. Degen --
adegen@sidley.com -- Sidley Austin LLP, Elizabeth Marie Chiarello
-- echiarello@sidley.com -- Sidley Austin LLP, pro hac vice & Kara
L. McCall -- kmccall@sidley.com -- Sidley Austin, LLP, pro hac
vice.


BF LABS: Judge Rejects Deal in "Alexander" Suit Over Bitcoins
-------------------------------------------------------------
District Judge Kathryn H. Vratil of the District of Kansas,
overruled plaintiffs' motion for preliminary approval of
settlement in the case KYLE ALEXANDER and DYLAN SYMINGTON, on
behalf of themselves and all those similarly situated, Plaintiffs,
v. BF LABS INC., d/b/a BUTTERFLY LABS, SONNY C. VLEISIDES and JEFF
OWNBY, Defendants, Civil Action No. 14-2159-KHV (D. Kan.)

BF Labs is a Wyoming corporation with its principal place of
business in Kansas. Sonny Vleisides resides in Kansas and is
Innovation Officer/Vice President of Product Development of BF
Labs. Jeff Ownby resides in Illinois and is Vice President of
Marketing and Ecommerce of BF Labs. Vleisides and Ownby, together
with Nasser Ghoseiri, founded BF Labs in July of 2011. BF Labs
manufactures specialized computer equipment and processors to mine
bitcoins, a type of digital currency. The bitcoin network is a
peer to-peer payment network created in 2009.

In June of 2013, Kyle Alexander paid BF Labs $308 for a bitcoin
mining machine. Over the next several months, Alexander inquired
about his order and BF Labs repeatedly told him that shipping has
begun. Alexander demanded a refund on multiple occasions but never
received a refund or the product that he had ordered.

In April of 2013, Dylan Symington ordered a bitcoin mining machine
for which he paid $1,333. In September of 2013, he inquired about
his order and why he had not yet received the equipment. Nearly
seven months after he placed the order, BF Labs shipped him a
defective machine that was essentially obsolete due to the passage
of time. Symington demanded a refund and the bitcoins that
defendants had mined on his machine, but BF Labs never gave him a
refund or any bitcoins.

Alexander and Symington brought a class action on behalf of all
persons who prepaid BF Labs for bitcoin mining machines between
June 23, 2012 and July 17, 2014. Plaintiffs assert claims against
BF Labs, Sonny C. Vleisides and Jeff Ownby under the Kansas
Consumer Protection Act, K.S.A. Section 50-626(b)(3) and K.S.A.
Section 50-627(a). Plaintiffs also brought unjust enrichment
claims under Kansas common law. In addition, against BF Labs,
plaintiffs assert a common law claim of conversion.

After extensive litigation and discovery, the parties mediated the
case. Plaintiffs and BF Labs have agreed to a proposed settlement.
Plaintiffs filed an unopposed motion for preliminary approval of
settlement. Plaintiffs seek preliminary class certification,
preliminary settlement approval, preliminary approval of the
proposed class notice to the class and appointment of lead class
counsel.

Judge Vratil overruled plaintiffs' unopposed motion for
preliminary approval of settlement.

Under the settlement agreement, if BF Labs receives sufficient
funds on or before May 1, 2017, it will provide a full refund to
all customers who pre-paid BF Labs and have not received products
or refunds, and make specified payments to class members who have
received products or refunds, as follows:

     Subclass d.1, which includes customers who did not receive a
product or a refund, will receive a full refund. These customers
will not be required to submit a claim form to receive settlement
benefits.

     Subclass d.2, which includes customers who received a refund
and who submit a valid claim form, will receive $5 each.

     Subclass d.3, which includes customers who received a product
and who submit a valid claim form will receive from $5 to $225
based on the type of product.

If BF Labs does not produce enough income to make full payment, it
will make payments on a priority basis. Specifically, if as of May
1, 2017, BF labs does not have sufficient funds to pay all members
of the d.1 subclass, BF labs will pay each member of the d.1
subclass a pro rata share of the amount owed after paying a
prorated amount of incentive fees, expenses and attorneys' fees
awarded by the Court.8 If BF Labs is able to pay the full amount
of incentive awards, expenses and attorneys' fees and a full
refund to all d.1 subclass members, but has insufficient funds to
completely pay the d.2 and d.3 categories, it will pay a prorated
amount of the settlement funds to the d.2 and d.3 class members.

If BF Labs fails to make full payment to any class members, the
Court will enter judgment against BF Labs in the amounts that
remain unpaid.  Settlement class members who do not exclude
themselves will be required to release all claims and potential
claims against BF Labs.

The Court noted that class members will receive monetary benefits
only to the extent that defendant has assets to make payments on
May 1, 2017. The record contains no information regarding the
probable value of the settlement on that date, or why May 1, 2017
is a relevant deadline. Plaintiffs are not guaranteed any recovery
under the settlement agreement; if BF Labs does not have
sufficient funds to pay the proposed settlement amounts, some or
all of the class members will receive only a judgment. Thus, under
the worst case scenario, the settlement agreement only provides
each class member an uncollectible judgment. Plaintiffs cite no
authority for the proposition that an uncollectible judgment would
be a reasonable settlement. Moreover, the settlement provides
uneven treatment of the subclasses, leading the Court to ponder
why plaintiffs have included subclasses d.2 and d.3 in this class
action and why some subclasses (but not others) are required to
submit claim forms.

Without any information concerning the likely financial status of
defendant on May 1, 2017, it is impossible for the Court to
determine whether the proposed settlement is fair, reasonable and
adequate.

The Court also said it cannot begin to consider whether
plaintiffs' request for attorneys' fees and litigation expenses is
reasonable, relative to the results achieved in this case. The
fact that fees and litigation expenses are subject to pro rata
reduction does not mean that the amount of the baseline request
(up to $455,000) is appropriate in light of the recovery to
plaintiffs.

A copy of Judge Vratil's memorandum and order dated September 22,
2016, is available at https://goo.gl/G4sO5i from Leagle.com.

Plaintiffs, represented by Noah K. Wood -- noah@woodlaw.com --
Aristotle N. Rodopoulos -- ari@woodlaw.com -- at Wood Law Firm,
LLC

BF Labs Inc., Defendant, represented by Mark A. Olthoff --
molthoff@polsinelli.com -- Michael S. Foster --
mfoster@polsinelli.com -- at Polsinelli PC

Sonny Chris Vleisides and Jeff Ownby, Defendants, represented by
Mark A. Olthoff -- molthoff@polsinelli.com -- at Polsinelli PC

Eric L. Johnson, Defendant represented by Bryant T. Lamer --
blamer@spencerfane.com -- Kersten L. Holzhueter --
kholzhueter@spencerfane.com -- at Spencer Fane Britt & Browne LLP;
Lucinda Housley Luetkemeyer -- lluetkemeyer@gravesgarrett.com --
at Graves Garrett LLC

Netsolus.com, Inc., represented by Ashley Scott Waddell -- at
Waddell Law Firm LLC


BRANDPERX LLC: Faces "Arkin" Suit in Middle District of Florida
---------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Brandperx, LLC. The
case is styled Steven Arkin Dr., a Florida resident, individually
and as the representative of a class of similarly-situated
persons, the Plaintiff, v. Brandperx, LLC, an Ohio limited
liability company, and John Does 1-5, the Defendants, Case No.
8:16-cv-02784-CEH-JSS (M.D. Fla., Sept. 29, 2016). The case is
assigned to Hon. Judge Charlene Edwards Honeywell.

Brandperx is a direct-to-consumer advertising firm focusing on the
patient-doctor relationship.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


CALIFORNIA CORRECTIONAL: Faces "Mitchelle" Suit in C.D. Cal.
------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against California
Correctional Health Care Services. The case is titled Henry M.
Mitchell also known as Henry C. Hayes individually and on behalf
of a class of persons similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v.
California Correctional Health Care Services, the Defendant, Case
No. 2:16-cv-07327-SVW-SK (C.D. Cal., Sept. 29, 2016). The case is
assigned to Hon. Judge Stephen V. Wilson.

California Correctional provides medical care to patient-inmates
of the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation
(CDCR) within delivery system the state can successfully manage
and sustain.

The Plaintiff appears pro se.


CANADA: Mothers Denied Sickness Benefits Criticize Liberal Gov't
----------------------------------------------------------------
Jordan Press, writing for The Canadian Press, reports that group
of mothers who say they were wrongly denied sickness benefits are
breaking their silence as the federal Liberal government continues
to fight them in court despite a promise to do otherwise.

The Liberals said during last year's election campaign that they
would drop federal opposition to a lawsuit involving thousands of
Canadians who were denied benefits to which they were entitled
while on maternity leave.

Jennifer McCrea, the Calgary woman at the heart of the case, says
she and others involved have remained largely silent, hoping the
government would acquiesce once a few months had passed and
ministers were well-versed on their portfolios.

But the Liberals have dragged their heels, said Ms. McCrea, who is
now breaking her silence.

"They used the words, 'We will end this immediately,'" she said in
a telephone interview.

"I would ask them to give me a definition of the word
'immediately.' 'Prime Minister (Justin) Trudeau, define the word
immediately, because a year is not immediately.  It's just not.'"

In a statement being released on Oct. 4, the lawyer representing
the women in their $450-million class-action lawsuit calls on the
Liberals to stop fighting women who were gravely ill when they
tried to claim benefits they were owed.

Stephen Moreau said the Liberals have taken no steps to end the
legal battle, which has been going on for four years and could
take years more to get to trial.

Figures provided to Parliament in March showed the government had
spent more than $2.2 million in legal fees to fight the case.

Parliament decided in 2002 to allow those who were diagnosed with
cancer, for instance, to access 15 extra weeks of employment
insurance payments in addition to a year's worth of maternity
leave benefits.

Ms. McCrea's claim alleges that at least 3,177 people were denied
the EI benefit between 2002 and 2011, herself included.

Ms. McCrea was diagnosed with breast cancer in July 2011, while
she was on maternity leave with her youngest son, Logan, who was
eight months at the time.  She had a double mastectomy in August
2011 and was deemed cancer-free shortly afterwards.

This year marks five years of being cancer-free, a milestone she
is marking by running five marathons over the course of the year.

Logan is now entering Grade 1.  Ms. McCrea said she expected Logan
to be in preschool when the case was settled.

"We are no closer to a settlement than we were . . . when (former
prime minister Stephen) Harper was there."


CASH AMERICA: Court Trims Claims in "Smith" Suit
------------------------------------------------
District Judge Michael R. Barrett of the Southern District of
Ohio, Western Division, granted in part and denied in part
defendant's partial judgment on the pleadings, in the case BLANCHE
T. SMITH, Plaintiff, v. CASH AMERICA INTERNATIONAL, INC.,
Defendant, Case No. 1:15cv760 (SD Ohio).

Blanche Smith visited one of the stores of defendant Cash America
International, Inc. located in Bond Hill, Hamilton County Ohio as
she was interested in obtaining a pawn loan on her sterling silver
metal cross with diamonds pendant.

Defendant requested and Smith acquiesced to allow defendant to
inspect the pendant. Defendant removed the pendant from Smith's
line of sight and inspected it. Defendant then returned the
pendant to Smith, advising her that it would not make a pawn loan
on her piece of jewelry.

After leaving the store, Smith discovered that the pendant had
been cut and some form of acid poured over the pendant. She
believes it would cost approximately $40-$45 to fix the pendant.

Smith brought a class action suit. She brought claims for trespass
to chattel, fraudulent concealment/nondisclosure, breach of
bailment, violation of Ohio Deceptive Trade Practices Act,
Violation of the Consumer Sales Practices Act, and Declaratory
Judgment/Injunctive Relief.

Defendant filed a motion for partial judgment on the pleadings.

Judge Barrett granted in part and denied in part defendant's
motion for partial judgment on the pleadings. The claim for
violation of Ohio Deceptive Trade Practices Act is dismissed. All
other claims remain.

A copy of Judge Barrett's opinion and order dated September 16,
2016, is available at https://goo.gl/QqwFgV from Leagle.com.

Blanche T Smith, Plaintiff, represented by Brian T. Giles --
Brian@GilesLenox.com -- Bryce A. Lenox -- Bryce@GilesLenox.com --
at Giles & Lenox LLC

Cash America International, Inc., Defendant, represented by
Anthony M. Sharett -- asharett@bakerlaw.com -- Caroline Dettmer
Slye -- cdettmerslye@bakerlaw.com -- Keesha N. Warmsby --
kwarmsby@bakerlaw.com -- Rand L. McClellan --
rmcclellan@bakerlaw.com -- at Baker & Hostetler LLP


CHENIERE ENERGY: Robbins Arroyo Investigates Proposed Merger
------------------------------------------------------------
Shareholder rights attorneys at Robbins Arroyo LLP are
investigating the proposed acquisition of Cheniere Energy Partners
LP Holdings, LLC ("Cheniere Partners Holdings")  by Cheniere
Energy, Inc. ("Cheniere").  On September 30, 2016, the two
companies announced the signing of a definitive merger agreement
pursuant to which Cheniere will acquire Cheniere Partners
Holdings.  Under the terms of the agreement, Cheniere Partners
Holdings shareholders will receive 0.5049 shares of Cheniere
common stock for each share of Cheniere Partners Holdings common
stock, the value of which is equivalent to $21.90 based on
Cheniere's closing price on September 29, 2016.

Is the Proposed Acquisition Best for Cheniere Partners Holdings
and Its Shareholders?

Robbins Arroyo LLP's investigation focuses on whether the board of
directors at Cheniere Partners Holdings is undertaking a fair
process to obtain maximum value and adequately compensate its
shareholders.

As an initial matter, the $21.90 merger consideration represents a
premium of only 3.00% based on Cheniere Partners Holdings' closing
price on September 29, 2016.  This premium is significantly below
the average one day premium of nearly 40.29% for comparable
transactions within the past five years.  Further, the $21.90
merger consideration is significantly below the target price of
eight individual analysts at separate firms, including the target
price of $30.00 set by an analyst at Credit Suisse on August 5,
2015; the target price of $30.00 set by an analyst at US Capital
Advisors on September 8, 2016; and the target price of $29.00 set
by an analyst at Wolfe Research on June 21, 2016.  In the last
three years, Cheniere Partners Holdings traded as high as $27.15
on May 30, 2014, and most recently traded above the merger
consideration -- at $23.61 -- on August 31, 2015.

Cheniere Partners Holdings shareholders have the option to file a
class action lawsuit to ensure the board of directors obtains the
best possible price for shareholders and the disclosure of
material information.  Cheniere Partners Holdings shareholders
interested in 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 -- http://www.robbinsarroyo.com-- is a
securities litigation and shareholder rights law firm.  The law
firm represents individual and institutional investors in
shareholder derivative and securities class action lawsuits.


CHESAPEAKE ENERGY: Dec. 5 Lead Plaintiff Motion Deadline Set
------------------------------------------------------------
Pomerantz LLP on Oct. 4 disclosed that a class action lawsuit has
been filed against Chesapeake Energy Corporation ("Chesapeake" or
the "Company") and certain of its officers.  The class action,
filed in United States District Court, Western District of
Oklahoma, and docketed under 16-cv-01150, is on behalf of a class
consisting of all persons or entities who purchased or otherwise
acquired Chesapeake securities between February 27, 2015 and
September 28, 2016 both dates inclusive (the "Class Period").
This class action seeks to recover damages against Defendants for
alleged violations of the federal securities laws under the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the "Exchange Act").

If you are a shareholder who purchased Chesapeake securities
during the Class Period, you have until December 5, 2016 to ask
the Court to appoint you as Lead Plaintiff for the class.  A copy
of the Complaint can be obtained at www.pomerantzlaw.com.  To
discuss this action, contact Robert S. Willoughby at
rswilloughby@pomlaw.com or 888.476.6529 (or 888.4-POMLAW), toll
free, ext. 9980.  Those who inquire by e-mail are encouraged to
include their mailing address, telephone number, and number of
shares purchased.

Chesapeake engages in the acquisition, exploration, and
development of properties for the production of oil, natural gas,
and natural gas liquids from underground reservoirs in the United
States.  The Company holds interests in natural gas and liquids-
rich resource plays across the United States.  Chesapeake owns
interests in approximately 32,400 oil and natural gas wells.

The Complaint alleges that throughout the Class Period, Defendants
made false and/or misleading statements, as well as failed to
disclose material adverse facts about the Company's business,
operations, and prospects.  Specifically, Defendants made false
and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (i)
Chesapeake had improperly accounted for the acquisition and
classification of oil and gas properties; (ii) Chesapeake lacked
effective internal financial controls; and (iii) as a result of
the foregoing, Chesapeake's public statements were materially
false and misleading at all relevant times.

On September 29, 2016, pre-market, Chesapeake announced receipt of
a subpoena from the U.S. Department of Justice "seeking
information on [the Company's] accounting methodology for the
acquisition and classification of oil and gas properties and
related matters."

On this news, the Company's stock fell $0.63, or 9.33%, to close
at $6.12 on September 29, 2016.

With offices in New York, Chicago, Florida, and Los Angeles, The
Pomerantz Firm -- http://www.pomerantzlaw.com-- concentrates its
practice in the areas of corporate, securities, and antitrust
class litigation.  Founded by the late Abraham L. Pomerantz, known
as the dean of the class action bar, the Pomerantz Firm pioneered
the field of securities class actions.  Today, more than 80 years
later, the Pomerantz Firm continues in the tradition he
established, fighting for the rights of the victims of securities
fraud, breaches of fiduciary duty, and corporate misconduct.  The
Firm has recovered numerous multimillion-dollar damages awards on
behalf of class members.


CHEVRON CORP: Disgruntled Caltex Dealers to Launch Class Action
---------------------------------------------------------------
Asha Speckman, writing for BDLive, reports that disgruntled Caltex
dealers are proceeding with plans to institute a class action suit
against US oil giant Chevron Corporation.

The retailers, who on Oct. 4 held a mass meeting to give an update
on planned court action, are accusing the company of turning a
blind eye to unethical business practices against dealers, some of
whom have been trading under the Caltex brand for decades.

The move comes as the local arm of Chevron is preparing to dispose
of its South African shareholding.

The dealers claim that branded marketers appointed as
intermediaries between the company and dealers have taken
advantage of Chevron's plan to sell its stake in Chevron SA, with
the marketers unilaterally cancelling dealer agreements and
selling sites.

Mike French, chairman of the South African Chairman's Council of
Branded Marketer Retailers, said: "With Chevron now selling, they
are not too interested and the branded marketers saw an
opportunity to seize those sites and not to renew the franchise
agreement."

Mr. French said the planned court action was premised on
unhappiness that Chevron had allegedly allowed unfair practices to
continue despite a clause in their agreements compelling marketers
to treat dealers fairly.  Mr. French said the action would be
directed at the branded marketers for not complying with
agreements and for removing sites from dealers.

"We'll be going against Chevron, as well as four of the 10 branded
marketer trustees," Mr. French said.  A notice of demand was sent
to Chevron global CEO John Watson in California three weeks ago,
but the company deferred to its local unit.

The South African subsidiary on Oct. 4 said: "There is no
wide-scale cancellation of retailer agreements.  The retailer
agreements at issue were fixed-term, 15-year agreements that are
expiring due to the passage of time, not because of any effort by
the branded marketers to cancel them."

It said it was aware of only one retailer who had raised problems
with the branded marketers.  But the firm had seemingly washed its
hands of the situation.  "Only they [the branded marketers] are
properly placed to negotiate these commercial contracts with the
retailers in their respective clusters."

Mr. French said: "There's been all sorts of corruption that's
taken place.  There's been retailers who have offered money to
Chevron in the past, retailers who offered money to the branded
marketers, and Chevron ignored that and, in some instances, ceded
sites to the branded marketers and in others sold property to the
branded marketers."

In certain cases, he said, the branded marketers had refused to
renew agreements.

He claimed the marketers had also accused the dealers of not
complying with black economic empowerment laws.  In at least one
instance a site was removed from a white person, but it was later
discovered that the site had not been sold to a black person but
given to a wealthy businessman.

According to Chevron SA, the branded marketer structure accounts
for 53% of the total Caltex network.  The branded marketer program
was developed a decade ago.  There are 10 branded marketers in SA.


CIOX HEALTH: "Moore" Alleges Overpricing of Medical Record Copies
-----------------------------------------------------------------
DEMOND MOORE and MICHAEL KIMMELMAN, P.C. Plaintiffs, v. CIOX
HEALTH LLC and NYU HOSPITALS CENTER, Defendants, INDEX NO.
655060/2016 (N.Y. Sup., County of New York, September 23, 2016),
alleges on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated
that clients were overcharged by IOD Incorporated for copies of
"patient information" requested from New York health care
providers, in violation of the statutory maximum charges
permissible under New York Public Health Law and New York General
Business Law.

CIOX HEALTH LLC -- http://www.cioxhealth.com/-- is a health
information manager.  IOD has merged with and into Defendant CIOX.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

     Mathew P. Jasinski, Esq.
     MOTLEY RICE LLC
     600 Third Ave., Suite 2101
     New York, NY 10016
     Phone: (212) 577-0040
            (860) 218-2725
     Fax: (860) 882-1682
     E-mail: mjasinski@motleyrice.com

        - and -

     William El. Narwold, Esq.
     Mathew P. Jasinski, Esq.
     MOTLEY RICE LLC
     20 Church St., 17th Floor
     Hartford, CT 06103
     Phone: (860) 882-1681
     Fax: (860) 882-1682
     E-mail: bnarwold@motleyrice.com
             mjasinski@motleyrice.com

        - and -

     Steven L. Hess, Esq.
     SIMONSON HESS LEIBOWITZ & GOODMAN, P.C.
     299 Broadway - Suite 1220
     New York, NY 10007
     Phone: (212) 233-3133
     E-mail: sh@hessleibowitz.com


CONAGRA FOODS: Mislabeling Claim in "Backus" Case Remains
---------------------------------------------------------
District Judge William Alsup denied the Defendant's motion to
dismiss the remaining mislabeling claim in the case styled, TROY
BACKUS, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated,
Plaintiff, v. CONAGRA FOODS, INC., Defendant, No. C 16-00454 WHA
(N.D. Cal.).

A prior order of the Court dismissed all claims of the case,
except the remaining mislabeling claim, which the Plaintiff
alleges that a "healthy lifestyle" label on Fleischmann's
margarine products violates various laws, including California
Business and Professions Code Section 17200.

The Court held that the Plaintiff has a standing to assert his
mislabeling claims, establishing that he suffered a financial
injury from purchasing a product in reliance on the misleading
"healthy lifestyle" label.

A copy of the Court's Order dated October 3, 2016 is available at
https://goo.gl/Y9TVWk from Leagle.com.

Troy Backus, Plaintiff, represented by David Elliot --
david@westonfirm.com -- The Weston Firm.

Troy Backus, Plaintiff, represented by Gregory Weston --
greg@westonfirm.com

ConAgra Foods, Inc., Defendant, represented by Allen Brooks
Gresham, II -- bgresham@mcguirewoods.com -- McGuireWoods LLP,
Angela M. Spivey -- aspivey@mcguirewoods.com -- McGuireWoods LLP &
Laura E. Coombe -- lcoombe@mcguirewoods.com -- McGuireWoods LLP.


CST BRANDS: Faces "Malone" Suit Over Planned Merger with Circle K
-----------------------------------------------------------------
RICHARD MALONE, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. CST BRANDS, INC., KIM LUBEL, ALAN
SCHOENBAUM, DONNA M. BOLES, ROGER G. BURTON, ROCKY B. DEWBRE,
THOMAS W. DICKSON, RUBEN M. ESCOBEDO, DENISE INCANDELA,
JOSEPH E. REECE, STEPHEN SMITH, JOSEPH V. TOPPER, JR., and MICHAEL
WARGOTZ, Defendants, Case No. 5:16-cv-00955 (W.D. Tex., September
26, 2016), alleges violation of the Securities and Exchange Act in
connection with the proposed merger between CST and Circle K
Stores, Inc., an indirect wholly owned subsidiary of Alimentation
Couche-Tard Inc., and Ultra Acquisition Corp.

In the United States, CST BRANDS, INC. sells motor fuel (primarily
under the Valero, Shell and Diamond Shamrock brands), convenience
merchandise items and other services through convenience stores
operated predominately under the Cornet Store name. In Canada, CST
sells Ultramar-branded motor fuel, convenience merchandise items
and other services through convenience stores operated under the
Corner Store/Depanneur du Coin names. The Company also operates
cardlock and heating oil businesses in Canada.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Thomas E. Bilek, Esq.
     THE BILEK LAW FIRM, L.L.P.
     700 Louisiana, Suite 3950
     Houston, TX 77002
     Phone: (713) 227-7720
     E-mail: tbilek@bileklaw.com

        - and -

     Juan E. Monteverde, Esq.
     MONTEVERDE & ASSOCIATES PC
     350 Fifth Avenue, 59th Floor
     New York, NY 10118
     Phone: (212) 971-1341
     Fax: (212) 601-2610
     E-mail: jmonteverde@monteverdelaw.com

        - and -

     Nadeem Faruqi, Esq.
     FARUQI & FARUQI, LLP
     685 Third Avenue, 26th Floor
     New York, NY 10017
     Phone: (212) 983-9330
     Fax: (212) 983-9331
     E-mail: jfaruqi@faruqilaw.com


CSW INC: "Morgan et al." Sue to Recoup Wage, OT Pay Under FLSA
--------------------------------------------------------------
Dwayne Morgan, Clint Robinson, Paul Robinson, Michael Owens,
Marques Stewart, Cornelius Buford, and Shaun Saunders On behalf of
themselves and all others similarly situated Plaintiffs v.
CSW Inc., Northern Concrete Construction Inc., Defendant, Case No.
16-CV-1283 (E.D. Wis., seek redress for the Defendants' violations
of the minimum wage and overtime provisions of the Fair Labor
Standards Act, and the minimum wage, overtime, travel pay, and
full wage payment guarantees of Wisconsin law.

CSW Inc. recruits, hires, and then refers employees to work on
construction projects throughout the country.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

     Yingtao Ho, Esq.
     Sara Geenen, Esq.
     Christopher Ahrens, Esq.
     THE PREVIANT LAW FIRM, S.C.
     310 West Wisconsin Avenue, Suite 100MW
     Milwaukee, WI 53203
     Phone: 414-271-4500
     Fax: 414-271-6308
     Email: yh@previant.com


DEFFENBAUGH DISPOSAL: Faces "Johnston" Suit Over Landfill Smell
---------------------------------------------------------------
JULIE JOHNSTON, APRIL WITTENAUER, and JOSEPH CLARK, on behalf of
themselves and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, vs.
DEFFENBAUGH DISPOSAL, INC. A Delaware Corporation, DEFFENBAUGH
INDUSTRIES, INC., a Missouri Corporation, Defendants, Case No.
2:16-cv-02648-JTM-KGG (D. Kan., September 26, 2016), alleges that
Plaintiffs' property including Plaintiffs' neighborhoods,
residences and yards have been and continue to be physically
invaded by noxious odors, pollutants and air contaminants as a
result of the operation of the landfill operated by Defendants.

Defendants own and operate the municipal solid waste landfill
known as the Deffenbaugh Landfill in Shawnee, Kansas.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

     Gerald Lee Cross, Jr., Esq.
     CROSS LAW FIRM, LLC
     Mail: PO Box 8780
     Prairie Village, KS 66208
     Office: 2544 West 47th Ave.
     Kansas City, KS 66103
     Phone: (816) 454-5297
     Fax: (913) 904-1650
     E-mail: lcross@GMOlaw.com

        - and -

     Steven D. Liddle, Esq.
     Nicholas A. Coulson, Esq.
     LIDDLE & DUBIN, P.C.
     975 E. Jefferson Avenue
     Detroit, MI 48207
     Phone: (313) 392-0025


DENVER, CO: Oct. 12 Homeless Class Action First Hearing Set
-----------------------------------------------------------
Chris Walker, writing for Westword, reports that the first hearing
in a class action lawsuit filed against the City of Denver that
challenges the city's treatment of the homeless during routine
sweeps is set for 9:00 a.m. Wednesday, October 12, at the Alfred
A. Arraj Courthouse at 901 19th Street.

On Oct. 4, the judge presiding over the case also ordered that
homeless individuals are to be allowed into the courtroom, even if
they do not have government-issued identification on them.

"[This] is exactly what Thomas Jefferson had in mind," says the
plaintiffs' attorney, Jason Flores-Williams, about the order.

Normally, Mr. Flores-Williams says, not having identification
could bar someone from entering court.

"But thousands of homeless people in Denver who are a part of this
class action have been disseized of their identifications . . . so
this hearing -- this action -- is perhaps the only time in many of
their lives that their rights and dignity have been seriously
addressed," he adds.  "It is an important moment, even a sacred
one for many of them.  In an age when exclusion is the rule --
especially with regard to access to powerful institutions --  this
court deserves real credit for making an effort to be inclusive.
Next Wednesday, the twelfth, will be a hearing of the people."

Mr. Flores-Williams expects many of the city's homeless to attend
the hearing. There will also be a press conference at 8:15 a.m. on
the public sidewalk at 20th and Champa streets.


DIAMOND RESORTS: "Fields" Class Certification Bid Tossed
--------------------------------------------------------
In the case, STEPHEN FIELDS and DIANNE DEPIETRO, Plaintiffs, v.
DIAMOND RESORTS INTERNATIONAL, INC., DIAMOND RESORTS CORPORATION
and DIAMOND RESORTS INTERNATIONAL MARKETING, INC., Defendants,
Case No. 6:16-cv-1285-Orl-40TBS (M.D. Fla.), Magistrate Judge
Thomas B. Smith denied the Plaintiffs' Motion to Certify
Collective Action and to Facilitate Notice to Potential Class
Members.

The Court agreed with Magistrate Judge Kelly's explanation in a
similar case that, in the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA)
scheduling order, a ruling on any motion to conditionally certify
notice to the putative collective class may occur after the
parties have attempted to settle the matter.

The Court therefore, found that the Plaintiffs' motions are
premature. The Court noted that the Plaintiffs may renew their
motions after complying with the procedures contained in the
Scheduling Order.

A copy of the Court's Order dated October 3, 2016 is available at
https://goo.gl/sZTvBY from Leagle.com.

Stephen Fields, Plaintiff, represented by Lowell J. Kuvin, Law
Office of Lowell J. Kuvin, LLC.

Stephen Fields, Plaintiff, represented by Julia M. Garrett, Julia
M. Garrett, P.A..

Diamond Resorts International, Inc., Defendant, represented by
James W. Seegers -- jseegers@bakerlaw.com -- Baker & Hostetler,
LLP.


DOMINION VIRGINIA: Faces Class Action Threat Over Gas Pipeline
--------------------------------------------------------------
WVIR reports that an online petition is threatening a class action
lawsuit against Dominion Virginia Power if the energy company
builds its proposed Atlantic Coast Pipeline.  The petition is
collecting signatures from property owners who are willing to join
a potential suit.

Frederick Winter lives in Nelson County and started the petition.
He says if the natural gas pipeline gets built, Dominion will owe
people for damages done to their land and property values.

"It's the outrage of a land grab that, basically, it's on the back
of local Virginians, on landowners.  They're diminishing our
property values in order to increase the shareholder value of
Dominion. It's outrageously wrong," said Mr. Winter.

The petition urges dominion to co-locate the pipeline with other
existing utilities.

A Dominion spokesman says research shows natural gas pipelines,
including several existing pipelines in central Virginia, do not
bring down property values.


EASTMAN KODAK: Judge Orders Cut in Legal Fees in Retirees' Case
---------------------------------------------------------------
Will Astor, writing for Rochester Business Journal, reports that a
federal judge has ordered a cut in fees for lawyers representing
Eastman Kodak Co. retirees in a 2012 class action.

U.S. District Judge David Larimer on Oct. 4 handed down an order
reducing plaintiffs' attorneys' fees from 30 percent of the $9.7
million retirees won to 25 percent.

The cut means that rather than dividing up a $2.9 million pie,
attorneys from six firms representing plaintiffs in the case will
split $2.4 million.  The $2.4 million award represents "a modest
across-the-board" 16.7 percent reduction in fees that would have
been racked up by hours lawyers actually billed for, Larimer
wrote.

Consolidated from seven separately filed complaints, the class
action sought compensation for ex-Kodak workers who saw the value
of Kodak stock in their retirement accounts evaporate in the
former camera giant's 2012 Chapter 11 bankruptcy.

Some two years after Kodak lost a 2014 bid to dismiss the
retirees' complaint, the company agreed to the $9.7 million
settlement.  Judge Larimer preliminarily approved the deal in
April.  The settlement calls for attorney fees and other
administrative expenses to come out of the settlement amount.

The judge based the attorney-fee cut in part on his contention
that the sheer number of lawyers working on the case guaranteed
inefficiency and duplication of efforts.

His ruling also cites "a troublingly top-heavy distribution of
labor."

Plaintiffs' attorneys' overreliance on senior partners "does not
appear to have been entirely reasonable given the fairly routine
matters such as discovery that were the focus of most of the
case's very short life," Judge Larimer wrote.


ERNEST C. DRURY: September 1, 2017 Class Action-Opt Out Deadline
----------------------------------------------------------------
To Anyone Who Attended:

The Ernest C. Drury School for the Deaf (formerly the Ontario
School for the Deaf, Milton) The Sir James Whitney School for the
Deaf (formerly the Ontario Institute for the Education of the Deaf
and Dumb and the Ontario School for the Deaf) or The Robarts
School for the Deaf Or are the Family Members of Someone Who Did

A Class Action Lawsuit May Affect Your Rights.

A court authorized this notice. You are not being sued.

BASIC INFORMATION

1. Why is there a notice?

This lawsuit has been "certified" as a Class Action.  This means
that the lawsuit meets the requirements for class actions and may
proceed to trial.  If you are included, you may have legal rights
and options before the Court decides whether the claims being made
against the Province of Ontario on your behalf are correct.  This
notice explains all these things.

The case is known as Welsh v. Ontario, Court File No.
CV-15-53404200CP.  The person who started this lawsuit is called
the Plaintiff.  The Province of Ontario is the Defendant.

2. What is this lawsuit about?

The Plaintiff says that the Province of Ontario failed to properly
care for and protect people who attended or resided at the
Schools.  The Plaintiff says that students were emotionally,
physically and psychologically traumatized by their experiences at
the Schools.  The Province of Ontario denies these claims.  The
Court has not decided whether the Plaintiff or the Province of
Ontario is right.  The lawyers for the Plaintiff will have to
prove the claims in Court.

3. What is a class action?

In a class action, one or more people called "representative
plaintiffs" sue on behalf of people who have similar claims.  All
of these people with similar claims are called the "class" or
"class members."  The court resolves the issues for all class
members, except those who remove themselves from the class.

The representative plaintiff in this case is Christopher Welsh.
Mr. Welsh attended Drury from 1964 to 1971 and Robarts from 1972
to 1976.

4. Who is a member of the class?

You are included in this lawsuit if:

   * you attended or resided at:

   -- Drury at any time between 1963 and August 23, 2016 and you
have not otherwise released your claim

   -- Sir James Whitney at any time between 1938 and August 23,
2016 and you have not otherwise released your claim

   -- Robarts at any time between 1973 and August 23, 2016 and you
have not otherwise released your claim

   * you are the parents, spouses, children or siblings of someone
who attended or was in residence at one of the Schools between
1978 and August 23, 2016 and is included in the
Lawsuit

   * you are an estate trustee for a person who was a student or
family member of a student and that person was living on or after
August 10, 2013 and is included in the lawsuit.

5. What is the plaintiff asking for?

The plaintiff is asking for money or other benefits for the Class.
He is also asking for attorneys' fees and costs, plus interest.

6. Is there any money available now?

No money or benefits are available now because the Court has not
yet decided whether the Province of Ontario did anything wrong,
and the two sides have not settled the case.  There is no
guarantee that money or benefits will ever be obtained.  If there
are, you will be notified about how to ask for a share.

YOUR OPTIONS
You have to decide whether to stay in the Class or whether to
remove yourself before a possible trial, and you have to decide
this by September 1, 2017.

7. What happens if I do nothing at all?
If you do nothing you will automatically remain in the Class. You
will be bound by all Court orders, good or bad.  If any benefit is
awarded, you may need to take action in order to receive
any benefits.

Staying in this Class will not impact the services that current
students of the Schools receive from the Province of Ontario.
Similarly, staying in this Class will not impact residence or
service and support received by class members from community based
agencies which are funded by the Province of Ontario.

8. What if I don't want to be in the Class?
If you want to keep your independent right to sue the Province of
Ontario over the claims in this case or if you do not wish to be
bound by the orders and judgments of this case, you need to opt
out or remove yourself.  If you remove yourself, you cannot get
any money or benefits from this lawsuit.

To ask to be removed, send a letter to School Abuse Class Action
Administrator c/o Crawford & Company Inc., 3-505 133 Weber St. N.,
Waterloo ON N2J 3G9 or go to www.Schoolsforthedeafclassaction.ca

The letter should say that you want to be removed from
Welsh v. Ontario class action and must include your name, address,
telephone number and/or email address, and signature.

You can also get the Opt Out Form or complete the form online at
www.Schoolsforthedeafclassaction.ca

Your opt out must be received by September 1, 2017.

Call 1-855-823-0656 or TYY: 1-877-627-7027 if you have questions
about how to get out of the Class.

THE LAWYERS REPRESENTING YOU
9. Do I have a lawyer in the case?
Yes.  The Court has appointed Koskie Minsky LLP, of Toronto,
Ontario to represent you and other Class Members as "Class
Counsel."  Koskie Minsky LLP is representing the Plaintiff's side
in the lawsuit.  You will not be charged for these lawyers.  If
you want to be represented by another lawyer, you may hire one to
appear in Court for you at your own expense.

10. How will the lawyers be paid?
You will not have to pay any of the fees and expenses of Class
Counsel.  If the Court grants their request, the fees and expenses
would be deducted from any money obtained for the Class, or paid
separately by the Province of Ontario.

A TRIAL
11. How and when will the Court decide who is right?
If the case is not dismissed or settled, the Plaintiff will have
to prove his claims and the claims of the other class members at a
trial.  The trial would be in Toronto, Ontario.  During the trial,
a court will hear all of the evidence, so that a decision can be
reached about whether the Plaintiff or the Province of Ontario is
right about the claims in the lawsuit.  There is no guarantee that
the Plaintiff will win any money or benefits for the Class.

12. Will I get money after the trial?
You may or may not get money after a trial.  If the Plaintiff
obtains money or benefits as a result of a trial or settlement,
you will be notified about how to ask for a share or what your
other options are at that time.  These things are not known right
now.  Important information about the case will be posted on the
website for the lawyers, www.kmlaw.ca/SchoolAbuse, as it becomes
Available

GETTING MORE INFORMATION
13. How do I get more information?
You can get more information about this case and opting out:

          School Abuse Class Action Administrator
          c/o Crawford & Company Inc.,
          3-505 133 Weber St. N.,
          Waterloo ON N2J 3G9
          Toll Free: 1-855-823-0656
          TTY: 1-877-627-7027
          Toll Free Fax: 1-888-842-1332
          Email: Schoolabuseclassaction@crawco.ca
          Website: www.Schoolsforthedeafclassaction.ca


ESTATE OF JAMES E. WALTON: Faces "Quinton" Suit in M.D. Tenn.
-------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Estate of James E.
Walton. The case is entitled Cage Quinton and all those similarly
situated, the Plaintiff, v. Stephanie Rojannah Stuard,
Complainant; John Wesley Carney, Jr., District Attorney; Authur M.
Bieber, Asst. District Attorney; Phillip Ward, Sgt. Montgomery
County Sheriff's Dept.; Billy Smith, Former Sheriff; Brian
Prentice, Sgt. Clarksville Police Dept.; Robert Ott, Sgt. THP;
Estate of James E. Walton, Judge, and all those similarly
situated, the Defendants, Case No. 3:16-cv-02611 (M.D. Tenn.,
Sept. 29, 2016). The case is assigned to Hon. District Judge Aleta
A. Trauger.

The Plaintiff appears pro se.


EVERBANK FINANCIAL: Faces "Bushansky" Suit Over Sale to TIAA
------------------------------------------------------------
Stephen Bushansky, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. Everbank Financial Corp., Robert M.
Clements, W. Blake Wilson, Joseph D. Hinkel, Merrick R. Kleeman,
W. Radford Lovett, II, Arrington H. Mixon, Robert J. Mylod, Jr.,
Russell B. Newton, III, William Sanford, Richard P. Schifter, and
Scott M. Stuart, Defendants, Case No. 3:16-cv-01224-MMH-JBT (M.D.
Fla., September 26, 2016), is a securities suit seeking to enjoin
the vote on a proposed acquisition of EverBank by the Teachers
Insurance and Annuity Associate of America.

Everbank Financial Corp. is a diversified financial services
company providing banking, mortgages, and investing services.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     C. Popham Decunto, Esq.
     DURANT, SCHOEPPEL, DECUNTO & RATCHFORD, P.A.
     6550 St. Augustine Rd., Suite 105
     Jacksonville, FL 32217
     Phone: (904) 652-2600
     Fax: (904) 652-2010

        - and -

     Michael A. Rogovin, Esq.
     Stephen H. Durant, Esq.
     WEISSLAW LLP
     1500 Broadway, 16th Floor
     New York, NY 10036
     Phone: (212) 682-3025
     Fax: (212) 682-3010
     E-mail: pdecunto@ds-law.net
             sdurant@ds-law.net


FANNIE MAE & FREDDIE MAC: Gov't Told To Hand Over Secret Documents
------------------------------------------------------------------
A redacted public version of the Honorable Margaret J. Sweeney's
long-awaited decision in Fairholme v. U.S., Case No. 13-465 (Ct.
Fed. Cl.), on a motion filed by Fairholme Funds., Inc., to compel
the United States to turnover documents relevant to the Third
Amendment and Net Worth Sweep was released Oct. 3.  A copy of
Judge Sweeney's Opinion and Order dated Sept. 20 is available at
http://gselinks.com/Court_Filings/Fairholme/13-465-0340.pdfat no
charge.  Judge Sweeney rejected the government's deliberative
process, bank examination, and presidential communications
privilege claims to keep those documents under wraps forever.  She
ruled that the government must turn them over to Fairholme's
lawyers.

Reviewing a 56-document sample drawn from a population of some
11,000 documents the government asserts are privileged, Judge
Sweeney directs the government to turnover to Fairholme's lawyers
all evidence relating to:

   (A) the Enterprises' future profitability;

   (B) the Enterprises' future solvency;

   (C) the reasonableness of plaintiffs' expectations regarding
       the Enterprises' future profitability;

   (D) the lifespan of the conservatorships;

   (E) the relationship between the FHFA and the Treasury
       Department; and

   (F) the reasons why the government allowed the preexisting
       capital structure and stockholders to remain in place,
       including whether this decision was based on the partial
       expectation that the Enterprises would be profitable again
       in the future.

Additionally, Judge Sweeney directed the government to file a
memorandum by Oct. 14, 2016, explaining why the U.S. Court of
Federal Claims should not require it to pay the GSE shareholders'
reasonable expenses incurred in bringing the motion to compel,
including attorney's fees.

GSE shareholders await a separate ruling in Perry v. Lew, No.
14-5243 (D.C. Cir.), reversing, remanding, or affirming a ruling
by Judge Lamberth in the U.S. District Court for the District of
Columbia dismissing a number of lawsuits challenging the Third
Amendment and Net Worth Sweep.


FAST WATER: Stipulation to Dismiss Class Claims Approved
--------------------------------------------------------
District Judge Jon S. Tigar granted the parties' stipulation to
dismiss the class and collective allegations in the case styled,
MIHAIL SLAVKOV, NIKOLA VLAOVIC AND MARTIN ARNAUDOV, individually
and on behalf of those similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. FAST
WATER HEATER PARTNERS I, LP dba Fast Water Heater Company, a
Delaware Limited Partnership; FWH ACQUISITION COMPANY, LLC dba
Fast Water Heater Company, a Delaware Limited Liability Company;
JEFFREY DAVID JORDAN, an individual; and JASON SPARKS HANLEYBROWN,
an individual, Defendants, Case No. CV 14-4324 JST SHK (N.D.
Cal.).

Judge Tigar ordered the deadlines relating to the class
certification motion vacated, and further ordered the Plaintiffs
to file the Third Amended Complaint within 10 days of the issued
Order dated October 3, 2016.

The request for dismissal is based on the parties' agreement that
it would be unlikely for the case to meet the requirements of
proceeding to a class or collective action under Rule 23 or the
Fair Labor Standards Act. Further, the parties noted that a
dismissal of the class claims will not prejudice any individual.

The parties find that majority of the putative class have either
settled individually with Defendants or are currently represented
by Plaintiffs' counsel. Most of the remainder cannot be presently
located. And pursuant to the tolling agreement contained in the
stipulation, the remaining members of the putative subclasses who
can be located can pursue and prosecute their individual claims.
The Parties, therefore, agree that the case should be pursued on
an individual and not a class basis.

A copy of the Court's Order is available at https://goo.gl/1rHuoJ
from Leagle.com.

Nikola Vlaovic, et al., Plaintiffs, represented by John H. Douglas
-- jdouglas@douglaslegal.com -- Douglas Law Offices, Page R.
Barnes, Barnes Law Offices & Kevin Francis Woodall --
kevin@kwoodalllaw.com -- Woodall Law Offices.

Fast Water Heater Partners I, LP, et al., Defendants, represented
by Sue Jacobs Stott -- sstott@perkinscoie.com -- Perkins Coie LLP,
Aaron Joseph Ver -- aver@perkinscoie.com -- Perkins Coie LLP &
Jonathan S. Longino -- jlongino@perkinscoie.com -- Perkins Coie
LLP.


FCA US: Judge Grants Bid to Dismiss "Decoteau" Suit
---------------------------------------------------
District Judge Morrison C. England of the Eastern District of
California, granted defendant's motion to dismiss in the case
DEBORAH DECOTEAU, et al., Plaintiffs, v. FCA US LLC
(f/k/a/Chrysler Group LLC), a Delaware limited liability company,
Defendant, No. 2:15-cv-00020-MCE-EFB (E.D. Cal.)

FCA US LLC (f/k/a/Chrysler Group LLC) designs and manufactures
motor vehicles for sale in the United States and throughout the
world. One such vehicle is the Dodge Dart. In 2012, FCA US LLC
began manufacturing and marketing Darts that were equipped with
Dual Dry-Clutch Transmissions (DDCT). FCA US LLC characterized the
DDCT as a best of both world transmission that combined a manual
transmission's fuel efficiency with an automatic transmission's
ease of operation.

Plaintiffs Deborah DeCoteau and Lilliana Navia are California
citizens, each of whom purchased a Dart equipped with a DDCT
primarily for personal, family, or household use. Within a year of
purchase, plaintiffs noticed that their Darts would sometimes
surge forward or hesitate before taking off from a stop.
Approximately a year and a half after she purchased her Dart,
DeCoteau experienced a problem in which the vehicle stopped moving
while she was driving, as though it was stuck in park or neutral,
although the engine continued to run. Navia similarly experienced
rough and jerking transmission shifts.  Deborah DeCoteau and
Lilliana Navia brought claims under various consumer protection
statutes against FCA US LLC. Plaintiffs allege that they are
entitled to declaratory, injunctive, and monetary relief because
FCA US LLC knowingly manufactured and marketed vehicles known as
Dodge Darts that were equipped with defective transmissions.

Plaintiffs filed a suit in state court on December 4, 2014, and
defendant subsequently removed the case to the Eastern District of
California. On March 20, 2015, defendant filed a motion to dismiss
plaintiffs' first amended complaint for failure to state a claim
under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), which the court
granted with leave to amend. On January 8, 2016, plaintiffs filed
their second amended complaint and on March 9, 2016, defendant
filed two motions to dismiss for failure to state a claim and an
alternative motion to dismiss request for recall-related relief.

Judge England granted defendant's motion to dismiss with leave to
amend. Plaintiffs are directed to file an amended complaint no
later than 60 days from the date of order. Defendant's recall
motion to dismiss is denied.

A copy of Judge England's memorandum and order dated September 23,
2016, is available at https://goo.gl/DPfEIk from Leagle.com.

Plaintiffs, represented by Jordan Laurence Lurie --
Jordan.Lurie@CapstoneLawyers.com -- Cody Robert Padgett --
Cody.Padgett@CapstoneLawyers.com -- Robert Kenneth Friedl --
Robert.Friedl@CapstoneLawyers.com -- Tarek Hany Zohdy --
Tarek.Zohdy@CapstoneLawyers.com -- at Capstone Law APC

Defendant, represented by Kathy A. Wisniewski --
kwisniewski@thompsoncoburn.com -- Stephen A. D'Aunoy --
sdaunoy@thompsoncoburn.com -- Sharon B. Rosenberg --
srosenberg@thompsoncoburn.com -- at Thompson Coburn LLP; Mary A.
Stewart -- mstewart@donahuedavies.com -- Robert Edmund Davies --
rdavies@donahuedavies.com -- Gregory Alexander Nelson --
gnelson@donahuedavies.com -- at Donahue Davies, LLP


FCA US: Court Trims Claims in "Flynn" Suit
------------------------------------------
District Judge Michael J. Reagan of the Southern District of
Illinois, granted in part and denied in part defendants' motion to
dismiss in the case BRIAN FLYNN, GEORGE BROWN, KELLY BROWN, and
MICHAELKEITH, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiffs, v. FCA US LLC, doing business as Chrysler
Group LLC, and HARMON INTERNATIONAL INDUSTRIES, INC. Defendants,
Case No. 15-cv-0855-MJR-DGW (S.D. Ill.)

Brian Flynn, Michael Keith, and George and Kelly Brown, all owners
or lessees of Chrysler vehicles brought suit against FCA US LLC,
doing business as Chrysler Group LLC and Harmon International
Industries, Inc., seeking to sue on their own behalf and on behalf
of a number of other vehicle owners similar to them. The vehicles
in question are equipped with a uConnect system, manufactured by
Harmon International, that allows integrated control over the
phone, navigation, and entertainment functions throughout the
vehicle.

Plaintiffs alleged that the uConnect system turns the affected
vehicles into rolling deathtraps, that the uConnect system has
design vulnerabilities that allow hackers to take remote control
of the vehicle's functions, including the vehicle's steering and
brakes, to comical or disastrous effect. Flynn, Keith, and the
Browns assert a number of claims linked to the uConnect system and
the vehicles the system was installed in, each predicated on their
home state's law.

Plaintiffs asserted that Chrysler and Harmon violated the
Magnuson-Moss Act and the implied warranty of merchantability for
the affected vehicles under Michigan, Illinois, and Missouri law
by putting the vehicles into circulation with the design
vulnerabilities, that defendants had committed fraud and violated
the Michigan, Illinois, and Missouri consumer protection statues
when they lied about the vehicles' safety or failed to fully
disclose the uConnect vulnerabilities.

Plaintiffs further alleged that the defendants were negligent in
designing and later fixing the affected vehicles' vulnerabilities
and that the defendants were unjustly enriched by virtue of their
tortious or fraudulent conduct or their violations of the
vehicles' implied warranties.

Chrysler and Harmon have moved to dismiss all or part of the
operative complaint on jurisdictional and pleading grounds.

George and Kelly Brown, bought their Chrysler vehicle pursuant to
a discount program. The discount program included an arbitration
clause covering warranty claims against Chrysler. Chrysler has
moved to stay the entire case so that the Browns' claims can be
addressed before an arbitrator.

Judge Reagan granted in part and denied in part defendants' motion
to dismiss.

A copy of Judge Reagan's memorandum and order dated September 23,
2016, is available at https://goo.gl/RrX6ky from Leagle.com.

Brian Flynn, George Brown, and Kelly Brown,  Plaintiffs,
represented by Christopher D. Baucom --
cbaucom@armstrongteasdale.com -- Emily Buckley --
ebuckley@armstrongteasdale.com -- IJay Palansky --
ipalansky@armstrongteasdale.com -- Lucas T. Pendry --
lpendry@armstrongteasdale.com -- Stephen R. Wigginton --
swigginton@armstrongteasdale.com -- at Armstrong Teasdale LLP;
Michael J. Gras -- Lloyd M. Cueto -- at Law Office of Lloyd M.
Cueto, P.C.; Christopher F. Cueto -- at Law Office of Christopher
Cueto, LTD

Michael Keith, Plaintiff, represented by Christopher D. Baucom --
cbaucom@armstrongteasdale.com -- Stephen R. Wigginton --
swigginton@armstrongteasdale.com -- at Armstrong Teasdale LLP

FCA US LLC, Defendant, represented by Kathy A. Wisniewski --
kwisniewski@thompsoncoburn.com -- Stephen A. D'Aunoy --
sdaunoy@thompsoncoburn.com -- Scott H. Morgan --
smorgan@thompsoncoburn.com -- Sharon B. Rosenberg --
srosenberg@thompsoncoburn.com -- at Thompson Coburn LLP

Harman International Industries, Inc., Defendant, represented by
Andrew Blair Fromm -- afromm@foley.com -- Elizabeth Mazzocco --
emazzocco@foley.com -- John R. Trentacosta --
jtrentacosta@foley.com -- Michael D. Leffel -- mleffel@foley.com
-- Vanessa L. Miller -- vmiller@foley.com -- & William J. McKenna
-- wmckenna@foley.com -- at Foley & Lardner LLP


FERRELLGAS PARTNERS: Law Firm Investigates Securities Claims
------------------------------------------------------------
Rosen Law Firm, a global investor rights law firm, on Oct. 3
disclosed that it is investigating potential securities claims on
behalf of shareholders of Ferrellgas Partners, L.P. resulting from
allegations that Ferrellgas Partners may have issued materially
misleading business information to the investing public.

On September 28, 2016, Ferrellgas Partners announced a net loss of
$665.4 million for fiscal year 2016 in comparison to a net profit
of $29.6 million for fiscal year 2015.  Ferrellgas Partners also
announced that Stephen L. Wambold stepped down from his roles as
President and Chief Executive Officer and as a member of the
Board.  On this news, shares of Ferrellgas Partners fell $3.50 per
share or over 20% to close at $13.00 per share on September 28,
2016.

Rosen Law Firm is preparing a class action lawsuit to recover
losses suffered by Ferrellgas Partners investors.  If you
purchased shares of Ferrellgas Partners on or before
September 27, 2016, please visit the firm's website at
http://www.rosenlegal.com/cases-962.htmlfor more information. You
may also contact Phillip Kim or Kevin Chan of Rosen Law Firm toll
free at 866-767-3653 or via email at pkim@rosenlegal.com or
kchan@rosenlegal.com

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


FIRST OHIO BANC: Ohio Ct. App. Won't Hear Mortgagee's Suit
----------------------------------------------------------
The Court of Appeals of Ohio, Ninth District, Lorain County,
dismissed an appeal in the case LYNN A. STRICKLER, et al.,
Appellee, v. FIRST OHIO BANC & LENDING, INC., et al., Appellant,
C.A. No. 15CA010893 (Ohio Ct. App.).

First Ohio Banc & Lending, Inc. provided home mortgage financing
to Lynn Strickler and Keith Krese.  In 2007, Strickler and Krese
filed a complaint against First Ohio Banc alleging both class
action and individual claims. The complaint included claims for
breach of fiduciary duty, failure to provide a mortgage loan
origination disclosure statement, violation of the Ohio Mortgage
Broker Act, violation of the Ohio Consumer Sales Practices Act,
and fraudulent inducement.

Strickler and Krese subsequently filed a motion for class
certification, which the trial court issued a journal entry
granting the motion certifying the class action pursuant to Civ.R.
23.

First Ohio Banc appealed the trial court's judgment granting the
class certification. On March 29, 2013, the Court of Appeals of
Ohio, Ninth District, Lorain County, issued a decision affirming
the trial court's judgment.  First Ohio Banc appealed and the
Supreme Court declined jurisdiction.

On September 24, 2015, First Ohio Banc filed a motion to decertify
the class in the trial court, which the trial court, on November
19, 2015, issued a journal entry denying the motion.

First Ohio Banc appealed and alleged that the trial court erred in
failing to decertify the class based on the plaintiffs' failure to
establish the existence of an injury caused by a violation as
mandated under R.C. 1322.11.

Presiding Judge Donna Carr, who penned the decision, dismissed the
appeal for lack of a final, appealable order.

A copy of Presiding Judge Carr's decision dated September 19,
2016, is available at https://goo.gl/o2ypk0 from Leagle.com.

CLIFFORD C. MASCH -- cmasch@reminger.com -- ANTHONY CATANZARITE
-- acatanzarite@reminger.com -- BRIAN D. SULLIVAN --
bsullivan@reminger.com -- at Reminger Attorneys at Law, for
Appellant

Appellee, represented by:

Thomas R Theado, Esq.
Gary, Naegele & Theado, LLC
Duane Building, 401 Broadway Ave., Unit 104
Lorain, OH 44052-1745
Telephone: 440-244-4809
Facsimile: 440-244-3462

Appellee is also represented by:

Jack Malicki, Esq.
The Law Office of Jack Malicki, LLC
230 3rd St #2
Elyria, OH 44035
Telephone: 440-284-1601

The Court of Appeals of Ohio, Ninth District, Lorain County panel
consists of Presiding Judge Donna Carr and Judges Beth Whitmore
and Julie Schafer.


FLORIDA: Drunk Drivers' 2nd Amended Suit v. DMV Tossed
------------------------------------------------------
District Judge Gregory A. Presnell of the Middle District of
Florida, Orlando Division, granted defendant's motion to dismiss
second amended complaint, in the case ALFREDO CRESPIN, OTHMAN
DAHHANE, PAUL FOUGHT, CONSOLUTA CAMA KINSEY and ROBERT SHEEHAN,
Plaintiffs, v. TERRY L. RHODES, Defendant, Case No. 6:16-cv-276-
Orl-31DAB (M.D. Fla.)

Terry Rhodes is the former chief of staff and current executive
director of the Florida Department of Highway Safety and Motor
Vehicles (DMV).

Plaintiffs Alfredo Crespin, Othman Dahhane, Paul Fought, Consoluta
Cama Kinsey and Robert Sheehan are Florida residents whose
driver's licenses have been suspended. The suspensions occurred
after each plaintiff was charged with driving under the influence,
refusing to take a blood alcohol level test, or both.

Plaintiffs contend that the formal/informal review procedure set
forth in Fla. Stat. Section 322.2615 does not provide for a
constitutionally adequate post-deprivation hearing. They argue
that in suspending their licenses, the DMV violated their right to
due process. They brought a putative class action pursuant to 42
U.S.C. Section 1983. In count I, which is brought against Rhodes
in her official capacity, the plaintiffs seek a declaratory
judgment that the DMV's license-suspension procedures are
unconstitutional. In count II, the plaintiffs seek damages from
Rhodes in her individual capacity.

Rhodes seeks dismissal of both counts.

Judge Presnell granted defendant's motion to dismiss second
amended complaint and the second amended complaint is dismissed
without prejudice. Plaintiffs may file an amended pleading on or
before October 6, 2016.

A copy of Judge Presnell's order dated September 22, 2016, is
available at https://goo.gl/WxZj2F from Leagle.com.

Plaintiffs, represented by David Scott Oliver --
doliver@doliverlaw.com -- at Law Offices of David S. Oliver;
Stuart I. Hyman -- at Stuart I. Hyman, PA

Terry L. Rhodes, Defendant, represented by Blaine H. Winship --
Karen Ann Brodeen -- at Office of the Attorney General


FORD MOTOR: Oct.26-27 Settlement Approval Hearings Set
------------------------------------------------------
If you purchased or leased a model year 2003-2007 Ford vehicle
anywhere in Canada equipped with a 6.0-litre PowerStroke diesel
engine your legal rights will be affected by a proposed class
action settlement and you should read this notice carefully.

Class action proceeding lawsuits were initiated in Ontario and
Quebec on behalf of owners and lessees (and former owners and
lessees) of Ford vehicles equipped with these engines.  Ford has
denied all allegations of wrongdoing asserted in these actions,
including any claims that the engines are defective, or that Ford
is liable to any member of the proposed class.  Nonetheless,
Ford has agreed, in a national settlement agreement that settles
all litigation in Canada relating to these vehicles, to provide
partial reimbursement for post-warranty repairs to certain engine
components or reimbursement of certain deductibles paid.

Hearings have been scheduled in Ontario for October 26 and in
Quebec for October 27 to seek approval by the courts of the
settlement agreement.  If you are an owner or lessee (or a former
owner or lessee) of one or more of these vehicles, you have the
right to make submissions to the courts as to the fairness of the
proposed settlement.

If the settlement agreement is approved by the courts, you will
subsequently have a right to exclude yourself from the class by
opting out of the class proceedings.  If you do not opt out, you
will be entitled to receive any benefits to which the settlement
entitles you.  You will also be bound by the settlement and will
be deemed to have released any claims that you may have
against Ford Motor Company, Ford Motor Company of Canada, Limited
and others as described in the settlement agreement.

To file a claim for cash payments, if eligible, and to learn more
about your potential benefits visit www.dieselsettlement.ca or
call 1-844-447-7249 (Toll Free).  A Claim Form is currently
available on the Settlement Website.  Valid claims that are
complete and submitted in a timely
way will be paid subject to Approvals of the Settlement by the
Ontario Superior Court of Justice and the Quebec Superior Court.

A copy of the settlement agreement and the Long Form of Settlement
Hearing Notice (the "Long Form Notice") can be viewed at
www.dieselsettlement.ca or can be obtained by contacting Class
Counsel:

          Jeff Orenstein
          Consumer Law Group Inc.
          1030 rue Berri
          Montreal, QC H2L 4C3
          Phone: 1-888-909-7863 Toll Free
          514-266-7863 Montreal
          416-479-4493 Toronto
          613- 627-4894 Ottawa
          Email: jorenstein@clg.org

THIS NOTICE HAS BEEN AUTHORIZED BY THE ONTARIO SUPERIOR COURT OF
JUSTICE AND THE QUEBEC SUPERIOR COURT AND IT IS BEING DISSEMINATED
IN ACCORDANCE WITH ORDERS OF THESE COURTS


FORT WAYNE, IN: Bid to Deny Certification in "Martin Suit" Tossed
-----------------------------------------------------------------
District Judge Theresa L. Springmann of the Northern District of
Indiana, Fort Wayne Division, ruled on the parties' motions in the
case MARQUAYLE MARTIN, Plaintiff, v. CITY OF FORT WAYNE,
Defendant, Cause No. 1:15-CV-384-TLS (N.D. Ind.)

MarQuayle Martin sued the City of Fort Wayne pursuant to 42 U.S.C.
Section 1983, asserting that the City's vehicle impoundment policy
violates the Fourth Amendment protection against unreasonable
seizures, and violates the Fourteenth Amendment right to due
process. Martin's complaint is styled as a class action and seeks
to proceed on behalf of himself and other similarly-situated
individuals. The City of Fort Wayne filed a motion to deny class
certification.

Plaintiff filed a motion to amend complaint and allege that the
amendment is necessary to redefine the class, properly allege the
law applicable to the substantive claims of the class, allege that
the plaintiff seeks class certification pursuant to all the
required elements of Rule 23(a), as well as the requirements of
Rule 23(b)(3), and to delete any reference to qualifying the class
under Rule 23(b)(2).

The City counters that, even if the complaint is amended, the
City's arguments in favor of denying class certification still
apply.

Plaintiff disagrees with the City's characterization of the legal
basis for his claim, and asks that he be allowed to proceed with
discovery so he can substantiate his reasons to pursue the action
as a class and establish the Rule 23 elements.

Judge Springmann denied defendant's motion to deny class
certification and granted plaintiff's motion to amend complaint.

A copy of Judge Springmann's opinion and order dated September 20,
2016, is available at https://goo.gl/ZlTjk9 from Leagle.com.

MarQuayle Martin, Plaintiff, represented by:

Ilene M. Smith, Esq.
Christopher C Myers, Esq.
Christopher C Myers & Associates
809 S Calhoun St #400
Fort Wayne, IN 46802
Telephone: 260-424-0600

City of Fort Wayne, Defendant, represented by:

Carolyn M. Trier, Esq.
Trier Law Office
4105 W Jefferson Blvd #2
Fort Wayne, IN 46804
Telephone: 260-485-7000


G&K SERVICES: "Klein" Suit Says Info on Sale to Cintas Misleading
-----------------------------------------------------------------
SHARON KLEIN, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly
Situated, Plaintiff, v. G&K SERVICES, INCORPORATED, JOHN S.
BRONSON, LYNN CRUMPCAINE, WAYNE M. FORTUN, THOMAS R. GRECO,
DOUGLAS A. MILROY, ERNEST J. MROZEK, M. LENNY PIPPIN, ALICE M.
RICHTER, and LEE J. SCHRAM, Defendants, Case No. 0:16-cv-03198-
RHK-KMM (D. Minn., September 26, 2016), alleges that Defendants
violated the Securities and Exchange Act through a materially
incomplete and misleading preliminary proxy statement in relation
to its plan to sell the Company to Cintas Corporation.

G&K SERVICES, INC. -- http://www.gkservices.com/-- is a service-
focused provider of branded uniform and facility services programs
in the United States and Canada.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Gregg M. Fishbein, Esq.
     Kate M. Baxter-Kauf, Esq.
     LOCKRIDGE GRINDAL NAUEN P.L.L.P.
     100 Washington Avenue South, Suite 2200
     Phone: (612) 596-4097
     Fax: (612) 339-0981
     E-mail: gmfishbein@locklaw.com
             kmbaxter-kauf@locklaw.com

        - and -

     Shane T. Rowley, Esq.
     Christa A. Menge, Esq.
     LEVI & KORSINSKY LLP
     733 Summer Street, Suite 304
     Stamford, CT 06901
     Phone: (212) 363-7500
     Fax: (212) 363-7171


GARDA CL WEST: "Demeter" Suit to Recover Overtime Pay
-----------------------------------------------------
Daniel Demeter, an Individual, Plaintiff, v. Garda CL West, Inc.,
A California Corporation, Defendant, Case No. 2:16-cv-07090 (C.D.
Cal., September 21, 2016), seeks damages for unpaid overtime,
liquidated damages, unpaid meal premiums, penalties, restitution
and disgorgement for all unfair business practices, prejudgment
and post judgment interest, cost of suit, attorneys' fees and such
other and further relief under California Labor Code.

The Plaintiff brings this action on behalf of himself and all
others similarly situated as a Class Action pursuant to Rules
23(a), (b)(1), and (b)(3) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.



GARDA is a private security company that provides protective
services and cash services to various customers in the County of
Santa Barbara, State of California, where Demeter worked as an
armed messenger.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Michael L. Tracy, Esq.
      LAW OFFICES OF MICHAEL TRACY
      2030 Main Street, Suite 1300
      Irvine, CA 92614
      Tel: (949) 260-9171
      Fax: (866) 365-3051
      Email: mtracy@michaeltracylaw.com


GENERAL ELECTRIC: Robinson's Renewed Class Cert. Bid Denied
-----------------------------------------------------------
District Judge Victoria A. Roberts of the Eastern District of
Michigan, Southern Division, denied plaintiffs' request to file a
renewed motion for class certification, in the case VICTORIA
ROBINSON, AARON McHENRY, and CHRISTOPHER COCKS, individually and
on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated,
Plaintiffs, v. GENERAL ELECTRIC COMPANY, Defendant, Case No.
09-cv-11912 (E.D. Mich.)

Plaintiffs argue that defendant General Electric Company (GE) sold
defective Microwave Ovens which did not have adequate safety
mechanisms in the event of a self-start. Plaintiffs' motion for
class certification proposed a nationwide class and classes in
Michigan, Ohio and California. Plaintiffs made a number of
concessions and filed a motion for leave to submit a modified
class definition, holding in abeyance the nationwide, Ohio and
Michigan classes. The motion sought certification of a California
class only. The court issued an opinion on April 14, 2016 which
accepted the modified definition of a California class but
determined Plaintiffs failed to meet the requirements for class
certification.

The Court ordered Plaintiffs to provide clarification, in writing,
as to how they intend to proceed with the classes held in
abeyance, in light of its April 14, 2016 opinion and the
modifications plaintiffs conceded and the portions of the expert
opinions that remain. The court also said that, to the extent
plaintiffs seek to file a renewed motion for a California class,
the request is denied.

Plaintiffs propose filing a supplement to an expert report and a
renewed motion for class certification.

Judge Roberts denied plaintiffs' request to file a renewed motion
for class certification.

According to Judge Roberts, "This Court asked the parties to brief
how the case will proceed in light of the recent denial of class
certification. Plaintiffs propose filing a supplement to an expert
report and a renewed motion for class certification."

"Plaintiffs' request is DENIED; the declaration that Plaintiffs
propose to file is too extensive to be categorized as a
'supplement.'  And, without the further support Plaintiffs seek to
add, the requirements for class certification are not met."

A copy of Judge Robert's order dated September 19, 2016, is
available at https://goo.gl/sR6eHa from Leagle.com.

Aaron McHenry, Plaintiff, represented by Ann L. Miller --
alm@miller.law -- at The Miller Law Firm

Aaron McHenry, Plaintiff, represented by Anna C. Haac --
ahaac@tzlegal.com -- Hassan A. Zavareei -- hzavareei@tzlegal.com
-- Jeffrey D. Kaliel -- jkaliel@tzlegal.com -- Lorenzo B. Cellini
-- lcellini@tzlegal.com -- at Tycko & Zavareei LLP; Darryl
Bressack -- at Fink + Associates Law; E. Powell Miller --
epm@miller.law -- Jennifer E. Frushour -- Richard L. Braun, II --
rlb@miller.law -- at The Miller Law Firm

Christopher Cocks and Victoria Robinson, Plaintiffs, represented
by Anna C. Haac -- ahaac@tzlegal.com -- Hassan A. Zavareei --
hzavareei@tzlegal.com -- Jeffrey D. Kaliel -- jkaliel@tzlegal.com
-- Lorenzo B. Cellini -- lcellini@tzlegal.com -- at Tycko &
Zavareei LLP; Darryl Bressack -- at Fink + Associates Law; Ann L.
Miller -- alm@miller.law -- E. Powell Miller -- epm@miller.law --
Jennifer E. Frushour -- Richard L. Braun, II -- rlb@miller.law --
at The Miller Law Firm

General Electric Company, Defendant, represented by Jodi M.
Schebel -- Kenneth J. McIntyre -- kmcintyre@dickinsonwright.com
-- Richard W. Paul -- rpaul@dickinsonwright.com -- Richard A.
Wilhelm -- rwilhelm@dickinsonwright.com -- at Dickinson Wright;
Michael J. Mueller -- mmueller@hunton.com -- Neil K. Gilman --
ngilman@hunton.com -- Thomas R. Waskom -- twaskom@hunton.com -- at
Hunton and Williams


GLOBAL AIRCRAFT: Summary Judgment in "Venegas" Granted in Part
--------------------------------------------------------------
District Judge Nacy Torresen of the District of Maine, granted in
part and denied in part defendants' motion for summary judgment in
the case CHRISTOPHER VENEGAS, et al., Plaintiffs, v. GLOBAL
AIRCRAFT SERVICE, INC. and LUFTHANSA TECHNIK AMERICA HOLDING
CORP., Defendants, No. 2:14-cv-249-NT No. RTH (D. Me.)

Defendant Lufthansa Technik North America Holding Corp. (LTNA)
falls within the corporate structure of Deutsche Lufthansa AG
(Lufthansa). Lufthansa is a global aviation group with
approximately 540 subsidiaries, which are organized into five
primary business segments, the Passenger Airline Group, Logistics,
Maintenance, Repair, and Overhaul (MRO), Catering, and IT
Services.

Defendant Global Aircraft Services, Inc. (GAS) is a Texas repair
company that services, maintains, and repairs aircraft fuel
systems.

In December of 2007, the Deutsche Lufthansa Berlin-Stiftung
(DLBS), which is managed and controlled by Lufthansa, acquired
three Super Star airplanes. DLBS then contracted with Lufthansa
Technik AG (LHT) to overhaul and restore one of the Super Stars to
an airworthy condition. LHT is a wholly owned subsidiary of
Lufthansa, which provides MRO services for civil aircraft. In
September of 2009, LTNA retained GAS to deseal, change fasteners
and dome nuts, and reseal the wings of the Super Star.

Christopher Venegas, and the other plaintiffs began working on the
Super Star project in early 2013. The project involves the
restoration of the Super Star at LTNA's Auburn, Maine Repair
Station, which is located on the grounds of the Auburn-Lewiston
Airport. Venegas worked on fabricating parts, constructing the
frame, installing various parts, and inspecting parts that would
be installed on the Super Star.

Venegas filed suit in 2014 on behalf of himself and other workers
on the Super Star project alleging violations of federal and Maine
wage and hour laws. Venegas claims that GAS and LTNA misclassified
him and other workers as independent contractors, and that they
were not paid all legally-required wages.

In count I, plaintiffs claim that the defendants failed to pay
them proper wages under 26 M.R.S.A. Sections 663, 664, 760. The
defendants maintain that the state law claims are preempted by the
Airline Deregulation Act In count II, plaintiffs claim that the
defendants violated the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 by
failing to pay them overtime wages. The defendants contend that
they are exempt from paying overtime wages under the FLSA because
they are subject to the Railway Labor Act.

Judge Torresen granted defendants' joint motion for summary
judgment as to the state law claims contained in count I against
LTNA and denied the remainder of the motion for summary judgment.

A copy of Judge Torresen's order dated September 23, 2016, is
available at https://goo.gl/Cb1DSr from Leagle.com.

CHRISTOPHER VENEGAS, Plaintiff, represented by JEFFREY NEIL YOUNG
-- at JOHNSON WEBBERT & YOUNG LLP; NICHOLAS W. WOODFIELD --
nwoodfield@employmentlawgroup.com -- R. SCOTT OSWALD --
soswald@employmentlawgroup.com -- at THE EMPLOYMENT LAW GROUP,
P.C.

GLOBAL AIRCRAFT SERVICE INC, Defendant, represented by ROGER M.
YALE -- at YALE LAW FIRM; TYLER J. SMITH -- tsmith@lokllc.com --
TARA A. RICH -- TIMOTHY J. O'BRIEN -- tobrien@lokllc.com -- at
LIBBY O'BRIEN KINGSLEY & CHAMPION, LLC

LUFTHANSA TECHNIK NORTH AMERICA HOLDING CORP, Defendant,
represented by ROBERT C. BROOKS -- rbrooks@verrilldana.com --
TAWNY L. ALVAREZ -- talvarez@verrilldana.com -- SARA ELIZABETH
HIRSHON -- shirshon@verrilldana.com -- at VERRILL DANA, LLP


GLOBAL CREDIT: Faces "Hess" Suit in Eastern District of New York
----------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Global Credit &
Collection Corp. The case is captioned Shimon Hess, on behalf of
himself and all other similarly situated consumers, the Plaintiff,
v. Global Credit & Collection Corp., the Defendant, Case No. 1:16-
cv-05440 (E.D.N.Y., September 29, 2016).

Global Credit engages in credit collection activities.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

The Defendant appears pro se.


GOOGLE INC: Judge Narrows Claims in "Matera" Suit
-------------------------------------------------
District Judge Lucy H. Koh of the Northern District of California,
San Jose Division, granted in part and denied in part defendant's
motion to dismiss, in the case DANIEL MATERA, Plaintiff, v. GOOGLE
INC., Defendant, Case No. 15-CV-04062-LHK (N.D. Cal.)

Google Inc. provides several different but related systems of
email delivery. First is a free service for individual users,
which allows any user to register for an "@gmail.com" email
address. Second, Google offers "Google Apps" to businesses,
educational organizations, and internet service providers
("ISPs"). The end users of Google Apps do not receive "@gmail.com"
email addresses. Rather, the email addresses contain the domain
name of the business, educational institution, or ISP that
contracts with Google to provide the email service. However,
Google Apps email services are powered by Google through Gmail.

Daniel Matera, individually and on behalf of those similarly
situated, alleges that Google Inc. violated federal and state
anti-wiretapping laws in its operation of Gmail, an email service.

Matera seeks to represent "All persons in the State of California
who have never established an email account with Google, and who
have sent emails to or received emails from individuals with
Google email accounts" and "All persons in the United States who
have never established an email account with Google, and who sent
emails to or received emails from individuals with Google email
accounts before December 19, 2014".

On September 23, 2015, the case was reassigned to Judge Lucy H.
Koh. Google filed a motion to dismiss base on lack of standing.

Judge Koh granted in part and denied in part defendant's motion to
dismiss.

A copy of Judge Koh's order dated September 23, 2016, is available
at https://goo.gl/2asDoq from Leagle.com.

Daniel Matera, Plaintiff, represented by Dominic R. Valerian --
dvalerian@gallo-law.com -- Ray Edwin Gallo -- rgallo@gallo-law.com
-- at Gallo LLP; Joseph Henry Bates, III -- hbates@cbplaw.com --
at Carney Bates & Pulliam, PLLC; Michael Ian Levin-Gesundheit --
mlevin@lchb.com -- Nicole Diane Sugnet -- nsugnet@lchb.com --
Michael W. Sobol -- msobol@lchb.com -- at Lieff Cabraser Heimann &
Bernstein, LLP

Google Inc., Defendant, represented by Whitty Somvichian --
wsomvichian@cooley.com -- at Cooley LLP


HITCO CARBON: "Dawson" Suit Moved from Super. Ct. to C.D. Cal.
--------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit titled Andrew Dawson, individually, and
on behalf of other members of the general public similarly
situated, the Plaintiff, v. HITCO Carbon Composites, Inc., an
unknown business entity, the Defendant, and DOES 1-100, inclusive,
Case No. BC632212, was removed from the Los Angeles Superior
Court, to the U.S. District Court for the Central District of
California (Western Division - Los Angeles). The District Court
Clerk assigned Case No. 2:16-cv-07337 to the proceeding.

HITCO is a provider of aerostructures and material solutions. The
company is in the rocket nozzles, aerospace, and defense advanced
composites fabrication business for military and civil aviation.

The Plaintiff appears pro se.


HOSPITAL SISTERS: Faces "Mollet" Suit Alleging Violation of ERISA
-----------------------------------------------------------------
HOLLY MOLLET individually, on behalf of all others similarly
situated, and on behalf of the Hospital Sisters Health Services
Employees' Pension Plan, Plaintiff, v. HOSPITAL SISTERS HEALTH
SYSTEM, an Illinois Non-Profit Corporation, HOSPITAL SISTERS
SERVICES, INC., an Illinois Non-Profit Corporation, STEPHEN J.
BOCHENEK, WILLIAM MURRAY, MATTHEW LAMBERT, M.D., CHRISTA ANN
STRUEWING, OSF, ROBERT B. ATWELL, STEVEN HASSEBROCK, WILLIAM BLUM,
JANICE WIEGMANN, MARY STARMANNHARRISON, JOHN SHEEHAN, JOHN and
JANE DOES 1-10, members of the Retirement Committee of the Board
of HSHS, JOHN and JANE DOES 11-20, members of the Investment
Committee of the Board of HSHS, and JOHN and
JANE DOES 21-40, Defendants, Case No.: 1:16-cv-09238 (N.D. Ill.,
September 26, 2016), alleges that HSHS does not maintain its
pension plan pursuant to the Employee Retirement Income Security
Act of 1974, which provides various safeguards to employees,
retirees and their beneficiaries, including, most importantly,
that the plan be properly funded to provide promised benefits in
the event company funds are insufficient to do so.

HOSPITAL SISTERS HEALTH SYSTEM, by and through its subsidiaries
and/or affiliates, operates a system of hospitals and healthcare
services in Illinois and Wisconsin.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Matthew T. Hurst, Esq.
     HEFFNER HURST
     30 North LaSalle Street, Twelfth Floor
     Chicago, IL 60602
     Phone: (312) 346-3466
     Fax: (312) 346-2829
     Email: mhurst@heffnerhurst.com

        - and -

     Robert I. Harwood, Esq.
     Peter W. Overs, Jr., Esq.
     HARWOOD FEFFER LLP
     488 Madison Ave., 8th Floor
     New York, NY 10022
     Phone: (212) 935-7400
     Fax: (212) 753-3630
     Email: rharwood@hfesq.com
            povers@hfesq.com

        - and -

     Ronen Sarraf, Esq.
     Joseph Gentile, Esq.
     SARRAF GENTILE LLP
     14 Bond Street, Suite 212
     Great Neck, NY 11021
     Phone: (516) 699-8890
     Fax: (516) 699-8968
     Email: ronen@sarrafgentile.com
            joseph@sarrafgentile.com

        - and -

     Ryan Rich, Esq.
     WHAM & WHAM LAWYERS
     212 E. Broadway, P.O. Box 549
     Centralia, IL 62801
     Phone: (618)532-5621
     Fax: (618)532-5055
     Email: rdrwhamlawyers@aol.com


ING GROUP: Faces "Wiseman" Class Action in S.D.N.Y.
---------------------------------------------------
GLORIA D. WISEMAN, the Plaintiff, v. ING GROEP, N.V., VOYA
FINANCIAL; and RELIASTAR LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY OF NEW YORK, the
Defendants, Case No. 1:16-cv-07587 (S.D.N.Y., Sept. 28, 2016),
was filed against the Defendants for allegedly failing to provide
their policy owners the option of exchanging their policies,
violating the plain terms of the subject insurance policies,
breaching the covenant of good faith and fair dealing, and
violating the New York General Business Law. The Plaintiff and the
Classes suffered financial damages as a result.

The lawsuit seeks injunctive, declaratory, and monetary relief
requiring Defendants to make Plaintiff and the Classes whole with
respect to all subject policies, to refund all excess premiums
collected, to provide the Plaintiff and the Classes the option to
exchange their policies, and in the alternative to pay Plaintiff
and the Classes damages.

ING Group is a Dutch multinational banking and financial services
corporation headquartered in Amsterdam. Its primary businesses are
retail banking, direct banking, commercial banking, investment
banking, asset management, and insurance services.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Baruch S. Gottesman, Esq.
          HOROWITZ and RUBENSTEIN LLC
          c/o 185-12 Union Turnpike
          Fresh Meadows, NY 11366

               - and -

          Aryeh Kaufman, Esq.
          LAW OFFICE OF ARYEH KAUFMAN
          5482 Wilshire Blvd., No 1907
          Los Angeles, CA 90036


ISHA MYRICK: Faces "Burton" Suit Seeking OT Pay Under FLSA
----------------------------------------------------------
RANDY BURTON, JAMES DEAN, JAIME DANIEL ESCOBAR, JUSTIN GARZA,
JEREMY GOODGION, WILLIAM GREENE, BRANDON HALL, JOSEPH HASENSTAUB,
THADEUS HERRERA, KEIFER HONEYCUTT, NATHAN LINDSEY, SALVADOR
MARTINEZ, SHANE MCGARRY, MICHAEL NISSEN, RENE REYES, JR.,
HOLLIS KYLE THATCHER, and MICHAEL VALENTINE, Individually and On
Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, Plaintiffs v. ISHA
MYRICK, PAUL MYRICK, JR., and ROBERT MYRICK, Defendants, Case No.
2:16-cv-00405 (S.D. Tex., September 26, 2016), seeks to recover
unpaid overtime compensation and associated relief for themselves
and all other similarly situated employees under the Fair Labor
Standards Act.

The Defendants own and manage oil and gas services businesses, one
of which is Legacy Pressure Control, Inc.

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
     Phone: (713) 868-3388
     Fax: (713) 683-9940
     E-mail: jbuenker@buenkerlaw.com
             vijay@buenkerlaw.com


J. YANG: "Dong" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT Wages and Damages
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Fengxia Dong and Yujing Liu v. J. Yang Acupuncture, P.C. d/b/a
Apple Healing & Relaxation and Xiaosi Yang a/k/a Joan Yang, Case
No. 701456/2016 (N.Y. Sup. Ct., September 26, 2016), asserts that
Plaintiffs and others similarly situated were entitled to overtime
compensation. Accordingly, the suit seeks to recover unpaid
overtime wages and damages pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards
Act.

J. Yang Acupuncture, P.C. offers massage, acupuncture,
moxibustion, and reflexology services.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      John Troy, Esq.
      TROY LAW, PLLC
      41-25 Kissena Blvd, Suite 119
      Flushing, NY 11355
      Telephone: (718) 762-1324


JMA PAINTERS: Faces "Lanza" Suit Seeking Overtime Pay Under FLSA
----------------------------------------------------------------
FREDY LANZA and LORENZO ROMERO, on behalf of themselves and other
persons similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. JMA PAINTERS, LLC and
MAG. JUDGE JASON THIBODEAUX, Defendants, Case 6:16-cv-01348 (W.D.
La., September 26, 2016), seeks to recover unpaid overtime wages
under the Fair Labor Standards Act.

JMA Painters, LLC is in the business of providing commercial
painting services for new constructions, repaints, and renovations
in Louisiana, Texas, and Mississippi.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

     Roberto Luis Costales, Esq.
     3801 Canal Street, Suite 207
     New Orleans, LA 70119
     Phone: (504) 534-5005
     Fax: (504) 272-2956
     E-mail: costaleslawoffice@gmail.com

        - and -

     William H. Beaumont, Esq.
     3801 Canal Street, Suite 207
     New Orleans, LA 70119
     Phone: (504) 483-8008
     E-mail: whbeaumont@gmail.com

        - and -

     Emily A. Westermeier, Esq.
     3801 Canal Street, Suite 207
     New Orleans, LA 70119
     Phone: (504) 534-5005
     E-mail: emily.costaleslawoffice@gmail.com


JPMORGAN CHASE: Judge Debunks Defendant's Issue on Legal Standing
-----------------------------------------------------------------
District Judge Nelson S. Roman of the Southern District of New
York, denied defendant's motion for summary judgment, in the case
TINA BELLINO, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiffs, v. JPMORGAN CHASE BANK, N.A., Defendant, No.
14-cv-3139 (NSR) (S.D.N.Y.).

Tina Bellino obtained a $300,000 mortgage loan from JPMorgan Chase
Bank, N.A. (JPMC) to purchase a house in Tarrytown, New York. On
May 11, 2012, Bellino sold the house and used the proceeds from
the sale to pay off the outstanding principal, interest, and fees
due on the mortgage. JPMC received a check for the pay-off amount
on May 14, 2012 in Columbus, Ohio and a satisfaction of mortgage
was sent to the Westchester County Clerk for recording via Federal
Express on June 13, 2012. The satisfaction of mortgage was
delivered to the Westchester County Clerk by Federal Express no
later than June 15, 2012.

Bellino alleges that JPMC systematically fails to timely present
mortgage satisfaction notices for recording, in violation of
Section 275 of the New York Real Property Law and Section 1921 of
the New York Real Property Actions and Proceedings Law. Bellino
contends that she is entitled to statutory damages based on JPMC's
alleged violations of the statutes.

On December 1, 2015, JPMC filed a motion for summary judgment
pursuant to Rule 56 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.
Subsequently, the Supreme Comt issued its decision in Spokeo, Inc.
v. Robins, which addresses the injury-in-fact requirement of
Article III standing. JPMC argues that Bellino lacks standing
because she does not allege she suffered any additional harm
beyond JPMC's alleged failure to timely present the certificate of
discharge. Thereafter, the Comt permitted the parties to submit
supplemental briefing regarding the legal implications of Spokeo
as concerns in the action.

Judge Roman denied JPMC's motion for summary judgment on the issue
of standing. The court will address JPMC's substantive summary
judgment in due course.

A copy of Judge Roman's opinion and order dated September 20,
2016, is available at https://goo.gl/1F1BxG from Leagle.com.

Tina Bellino, Plaintiff, represented by Douglas Gregory
Blankinship -- gblankinship@fbfglaw.com -- at Finkelstein
Blankinship, Frei- Pearson & Garber, LLP

Tina Bellino, Plaintiff, represented by Jeremiah Lee Frei-Pearson
-- jfrei-pearson@fbfglaw.com -- Todd Seth Garber --
tgarber@fbfglaw.com -- at Finkelstein Blankinship, Frei- Pearson &
Garber, LLP; David J. Cohen -- at Kolman Ely PC

Justo Moronta and Julia Moronta, Plaintiffs, represented by
Douglas Gregory Blankinship -- gblankinship@fbfglaw.com -- Todd
Seth Garber -- tgarber@fbfglaw.com -- at Finkelstein Blankinship,
Frei- Pearson & Garber, LLP

JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A., Defendant, represented by Christian J.
Pistilli -- cpistilli@cov.com -- Robert D. Wick -- rwick@cov.com
-- at Covington & Burling, L.L.P.


JPMORGAN CHASE: FBI Information Not Consumer Report, Judge Says
---------------------------------------------------------------
District Judge John J. Tuchi of the District of Arizona granted
defendant's motion for summary judgment in the case Amanda Mix,
Plaintiff, v. JPMorgan Chase Bank, NA, Defendant, No. CV-15-01102-
PHX-JJT (D. Ariz.)

Amanda Mix applied for and accepted a contingent worker position
at JPMorgan Chase Bank, NA. During the hiring process, JPMorgan
obtained fingerprints from Mix in order to obtain a Federal Bureau
of Investigation background check on her. As a result of the
outcome of the FBI's fingerprint background check, JPMorgan
revoked Mix's offer of employment.

On June 16, 2015, Mix filed a complaint bringing a putative class
action against JPMorgan under the Fair Credit Reporting Act
(FCRA), 15 U.S.C. Section 1681 et seq. and alleges that JPMorgan
routinely obtains and uses information in consumer reports to
conduct background checks on prospective contingent workers, and
frequently relies on such information as a basis for adverse
employment actions, including the refusal to hire.

On August 17, 2015, JPMorgan filed an answer (Doc. 13) denying
liability under the FCRA. JPMorgan filed a brief in support of
phased discovery regarding the threshold standing issue,
contending that plaintiff's FCRA claims hinge on a narrow but
dispositive issue: was the report at issue a consumer report
issued by a consumer reporting agency (CRA') as those terms are
defined by the FCRA? If the information Chase received is not a
consumer report, then the case is over.

On July 1, 2016, after the close of discovery, JPMorgan filed a
motion for summary judgment, contending that FBI is not a CRA
regulated by the FCRA. Moreover, the method by which JPMorgan
obtains the information on applicants -- through use of an FBI-
authorized channeler of data is not governed by the FCRA.

Judge Tuchi granted defendant's motion for summary judgment.

A copy of Judge Tuchi's order dated October 6, 2016, is available
at https://goo.gl/ZzPoKL from Leagle.com.

Amanda Mix, Plaintiff, represented by David Neal McDevitt --
dmcdevitt@consumerlawinfo.com -- Russell Snow Thompson, IV --
rthompson@consumerlawinfo.com -- Ryan Thomas Pittman --
rpittman@consumerlawinfo.com -- at Thompson Consumer Law Group
PLLC

JPMorgan Chase Bank NA, Defendant, represented by Alan D.
Wingfield -- alan.wingfield@troutmansanders.com -- John C. Lynch
-- john.lynch@troutmansanders.com -- Meagan Anne Mihalko --
meagan.mihalko@troutmansanders.com -- at Troutman Sanders LLP;
James B. Ball -- ball@bsmplc.com -- at Ball Santin & McLeran PLC


KENTUCKY RETIREMENT: Trustees Can't Invoke Sovereign Immunity
-------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Christopher Shea Nickell of the Court of Appeals of Kentucky
affirmed the trial court's order of denial of appellant's motion
to dismiss, in the appealed case of BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF THE
KENTUCKY RETIREMENT SYSTEMS, Appellant, v. CITY OF FORT WRIGHT,
KENTUCKY, Appellee, No. 2015-CA-000878-MR (Ky. Ct. App.)

The City of Fort Wright, Kentucky and its employees participate in
the County Employees Retirement System (CERS). CERS is a public
retirement system created under Kentucky Revised Statutes. CERS is
administered by the Board of Trustees of the Kentucky Retirement
Systems.

The City filed a class action complaint against the Board of
Trustees of the Kentucky Retirement Systems in Kenton Circuit
Court, on behalf of itself and all other participants in CERS. The
complaint alleged that the Board had violated its statutory and
fiduciary obligations by placing CERS funds in unauthorized and
high-risk alternative assets investments, and the Board had paid
substantial management fees in connection of the inappropriate
investments. The complaint sought a declaration of the rights of
the parties, to enjoin the Board from investing CERS assets in
funds that are not registered pursuant to the Federal Investment
Company Act of 1940, 15 U.S.C. Sec. 80a-1 et seq., and to enjoin
the Board from using CERS assets to pay management fees for such
investments.

The Board moved to dismiss. The Kenton Circuit Court transferred
the case to the Franklin Circuit Court which entered an order
denying the motion to dismiss. The Board moved the court
specifically to address its sovereign immunity defense. The trial
court issued another order expressly ruling sovereign immunity did
not bar the action. Appeal followed.

Judge Nickell affirmed the trial court's order of denial of the
motion to dismiss filed by the Board.

According to the Appeals Court, as a contributor to CERS on behalf
of its employees, the City has an interest in requiring the Board
to act in accordance with the law. For instance, its contributions
are adjusted according to a statutorily-prescribed formula
computed by amortizing the total unfunded actuarially accrued
liability over a thirty-year period. KRS 61.565(1)(a). The amount
of this liability is presumably directly affected by the Board's
management of the investments of Retirement Systems. Thus, the
Appeals Court rejects the Board's contention that a constitutional
issue is required as a predicate to waiver of immunity in a
declaratory judgment action.

The Board also argues the City's complaint, seeking a finding of
breach of fiduciary duty and the remedies of an accounting and
restitution which would harm the state financially, exceeds the
bounds of a declaratory judgment action. These matters are beyond
the limited scope of this appeal which exclusively addresses the
issue of immunity, the Appeals Court said.

"Based on our review of the record, we believe the Board's
entitlement to sovereign immunity has been waived, as was
correctly found by the trial court. Thus, for the reasons stated
herein, the order denying the motion to dismiss is affirmed, and
this declaratory judgment action is permitted to proceed against
the Board," the Appeals Court said.

A copy of Judge Nickell's opinion dated September 23, 2016, is
available at https://goo.gl/FtmsXD from Leagle.com.

For Appellant, Robert W. Kellerman -- robert.kellerman@skofirm.com
-- at Stoll Keenon Ogden PLLC

For Appellee, Ronald R. Parry -- rrparry@strausstroy.com -- Robert
R. Sparks -- rrsparks@strausstroy.com -- Amy L. Hunt --
alhunt@strausstroy.com -- at Strauss Troy Co. LPA; Todd V.
McMurtry -- tmcmurtry@hemmerlaw.com -- Justin Whittaker --
jwhittaker@hemmerlaw.com -- at Hemmer DeFrank Wessels, PLLC

The Court of Appeals of Kentucky panel consists of Chief Judge Joy
A. Kramer and Judges Christopher Shea Nickell and Kelly Thompson.


KNIGHT TRANSPORTATION: Judge Grants Bid to Stay in "LaCross" Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
District Judge John J. Tuchi of the District of Arizona, granted
defendants' motion to compel arbitration and stay action in the
case Patrick LaCross, et al., Plaintiffs, v. Knight Transportation
Incorporated, et al., Defendants, No. CV-15-00990-PHX-JJT (D.
Ariz.)

Plaintiffs Patrick LaCross, Robert Lira and Matthew Lofton entered
into Independent Contractor Operating Agreements (ICOAs) with
defendant Knight Transportation Inc., an Arizona-based truckload
transportation service company, to work as truck drivers
transporting goods for Knight. They also entered into Tractor
Lease Agreements with defendant Knight Truck and Trailer Sales,
LLC , an Arizona company, through which they leased trucks from
Knight TTS and then to Knight. Plaintiffs are residents of
California.

On March 3, 2014, plaintiffs brought a complaint on behalf of a
putative class of truck drivers in California state court,
claiming that defendants illegally classified them as independent
contractors under the California Labor Code. Defendants removed
the action to the United States District Court for the Central
District of California based on diversity jurisdiction.

The district court granted plaintiffs' motion to remand, finding
that defendants had not met their burden to show the amount in
controversy exceeded $5 million, but the Ninth Circuit Court of
Appeals reversed that decision, concluding defendants had met
their burden and the district court had jurisdiction over the
matter. On May 28, 2015, District Judge Bernal granted defendants'
motion to transfer case to the District of Arizona under 28 U.S.C.
Section 1406(a) based on the forum selection clause contained in
the ICOAs and Lease Agreements.

On January 22, 2016, plaintiffs filed a first amended complaint,
raising 13 claims pursuant to California law. Defendant filed a
motion to compel arbitration and stay action.

Judge John J. Tuchi granted defendants' motion to compel
arbitration and stay action and compelling arbitration of the
arbitrability of the plaintiffs' claim. The parties shall file a
joint status report within one week of the arbitrator's decision
on arbitrability or by January 6, 2017, whichever is sooner.

A copy of Judge Tuchi's order dated September 22, 2016, is
available at https://goo.gl/Vs9dEL from Leagle.com.
Plaintiffs, represented by Ellen R. Serbin --
EllenSerbin@PLBLaw.com -- Brennan S. Kahn -- Todd H. Harrison --
toddharrison@plblaw.com -- at Perona Langer Beck Serbin & Mendoza;
David C. Leimbach -- dleimbach@marlinsaltzman.com -- Stanley D.
Saltzman -- ssaltzman@marlinsaltzman.com -- Tina Mehr --
tsmehr@gmail.com -- at Marlin & Saltzman LLP; James M. Trush
-- jtrush@earthlink.net -- at Trush Law Offices

Defendants, represented by Carly M. Nese -- cnese@littler.com --
Kristy Leah Peters -- kpeters@littler.com -- James E. Hart --
jhart@littler.com -- Kai-Ching Cha -- kcha@littler.com -- Richard
Howard Rahm -- rrahm@littler.com -- Thomas Joseph Whiteside --
twhiteside@littler.com -- at Littler Mendelson PC


LLOYDS TSB: Plaintiff Entitled to Jury Trial, Hawaii Judge Says
---------------------------------------------------------------
Senior District Judge Alan C. Kay of the District of Hawaii, finds
plaintiffs in the case BRADLEY WILLCOX, FRANK DOMINICK, and
MICHELE SHERIE DOMINICK, Plaintiffs, v. LLOYDS TSB BANK, PLC and
DOES 1-15, Defendants, Civ. No. 13-00508 ACK-RLP (D. Haw.), to be
entitled to jury trial.

On September 13, 2013, plaintiff Bradley Willcox filed a complaint
on behalf of himself and a similarly situated class against Lloyds
TSB Bank PLC, in the Circuit Court of the First Circuit, State of
Hawaii. The complaint attached a jury demand and brought a claim
under the Hawaii Unfair and Deceptive Trade Practices Act, H.R.S.
Sections 480-2 and 481A-3(a)(12), and requested declaratory relief
pursuant to H.R.S. Sections 632-1 et seq. and 28 U.S.C. Sections
2201 and 2202.

On December 3, 2013, Willcox filed a first amended complaint
(FAC), adding Frank Dominick as a named plaintiff. On June 10,
2014, the court granted Lloyds' motion to dismiss the FAC,
concluding that the Hong Kong choice-of-law provision in the
parties' contractual agreements precluded the assertion of Hawaii
and U.S. statutory claims. It dismissed the FAC in its entirety
but granted Willcox and Dominick leave to file a further amended
complaint.

On August 14, 2014, Willcox and Dominick filed a second amended
complaint (SAC), bringing claims under Hong Kong law for breach of
contract (count I), breach of an implied term limiting Lloyds'
discretion to change the interest rate (count II), and declaratory
relief (count III). Lloyds moved to dismiss the SAC on grounds of
forum non conveniens and failure to state a claim, which the court
made an order granting in part and denying in part defendant's
motion to dismiss.

On January 9, 2015, Lloyds moved to join Michele Sherie Dominick,
wife of named plaintiff Frank Dominick, as a party. Magistrate
Judge Puglisi issued an order granting Lloyds' motion to join
Michele Sherie Dominick as a party. The order directed that an
amended complaint naming Ms. Dominick as a party to the action be
filed by March 27, 2015.

Plaintiffs filed a third amended complaint (TAC), naming Frank
Dominick, Michele Sherie Dominick, and Bradley Willcox as class
representatives and brought claims for breach of contract (count
I) and breach of an implied term limiting Lloyds' discretion to
change the interest rate (Count II).  The FAC, SAC, and TAC did
not contain jury demands.

On February 11, 2016, the court issued an order denying
plaintiffs' motion for partial summary judgment on the putative
class's claim for breach of contract on count I, denying
plaintiffs' request for declaratory relief, granting in part and
denying in part defendant's motion for summary judgment, and sua
sponte granting partial summary judgment to plaintiffs on count
II.

On August 15, 2016, the court held a hearing on Lloyds' motion to
compel plaintiffs to present a trial plan. During the hearing,
Lloyds for the first time questioned the basis for a jury trial
and on the same day, the court ordered the parties to file briefs
addressing whether plaintiffs were entitled to a jury trial.

Judge Kay concluded that plaintiffs are entitled to a jury trial.

A copy of Judge Kay's order dated September 16, 2016, is available
at https://goo.gl/jCDF4I from Leagle.com.

Frank Dominick, Plaintiff, represented by Gary Lombardo --
glombardo@steptoe.com -- at Steptoe & Johnson LLP

Frank Dominick, Plaintiff, represented by Morgan Hector --
mhector@steptoe.com -- Steven J. Barber -- sbarber@steptoe.com --
Stephen A. Fennell -- sfennell@steptoe.com -- at Steptoe & Johnson
LLP; Paul Alston -- PAlston@ahfi.com -- Glenn T. Melchinger --
GMelchinger@ahfi.com -- at Alston Hunt Floyd & Ing

Michele Sherie Dominick and Bradley Willcox, Plaintiffs,
represented by Gary Lombardo-- glombardo@steptoe.com -- Morgan
Hector -- mhector@steptoe.com -- Steven J. Barber --
sbarber@steptoe.com -- Stephen A. Fennell -- sfennell@steptoe.com
-- at Steptoe & Johnson LLP; Paul Alston -- PAlston@ahfi.com --
Glenn T. Melchinger -- GMelchinger@ahfi.com -- at Alston Hunt
Floyd & Ing

Lloyds TSB Bank, PLC, Defendant, represented by Christian K. Adams
-- cadams@carlsmith.com -- at Carlsmith Ball LLP Honolulu; Martha
S. Sullivan -- martha.sullivan@squirepb.com -- Rebecca W.
Haverstick -- rebecca.haverstick@squirepb.com -- Sean L. McGrane
-- sean.mcgrane@squirepb.com -- at Squire Patton Boggs (US) LLP


LOS ANGELES, CA: Sued Over Money Making Scheme in Jail Facility
---------------------------------------------------------------
STAR SALAZAR, RONNY SALZAR AND ANTHONY OLIVER, on behalf of
themselves and all others similarly situated, the Plaintiffs, v.
COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES AND DOES 1-50, ET AL., the Defendants, Case
No. BC535599 (Cal. Super. Ct., Sept. 28, 2016), seeks to recover
damages and injunctive relief, including refunds of the unlawful
sums Plaintiffs paid to Defendants' money making schemes in the
Los Angeles County Jail.

According to the complaint, thousands of Los Angeles County jail
inmates and their families, most of whom are not convicted but
facing charges, are held hostage to grossly unfair and excessive
phone charges, forcing them to pay these charges in order to
maintain contact with their loved ones who are incarcerated. These
charges are nothing but money making schemes by Los Angeles County
and its jail to force family members desperately trying to
maintain contact with their inmate husbands, parents and children,
to pay for totally unrelated jail expenses or give up their
primary lifeline of communication. Los Angeles County runs one of
the largest jails in the US, and essentially extorts monies from
mostly poor and minority families trying to get by and stay in
contact with loved ones. It does so by establishing extortionate
and outrageous "commissions" to be paid by this vulnerable
population to fund the jails.

Los Angeles County, officially the County of Los Angeles, is a
county in the U.S. state of California. With a population of more
than ten million people, it is the most populous county in the
United States.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Barrett S. Litt, Esq.
          Ronald O. Kaye, Esq.
          KAYE, MCLANE, BEDNARSKI & LITT, LLP
          234 Colorado Boulevard, Suite 230
          Pasadena, CA 91101
          Telephone: (626) 844 7660
          Facsimile: (626) 844 7670
          E-mail: blitt@kmbllaw.com
                  rok@kmbllaw.com

               - and -

          Michael S. Rapkin, Esq.
          Scott B. Rapkin, Esq.
          Rapkin & Associates, LLP
          723 Ocean Front Walk
          Venice, CA 90291
          Telephone: (310) 319 5465
          Facsimile: (310) 319 5355
          E-mail: msrapkin@gmail.com
                  scottrapkin@rapkinesq.com


LYNNWOOD, WA: Engineer Mulls Red-Light Camera Class Action
----------------------------------------------------------
Rikki King and Jerry Cornfield, writing for HeraldNet, report that
the city's reluctance to verify its claims that traffic-
enforcement cameras improve safety could land before a federal
judge.

An engineer from Lake Forest Park is threatening Lynnwood with a
class-action lawsuit.  Ian Jordan, 39, recently filed a claim with
the city, seeking up to $5 million.  He is demanding the city
refund anyone who has received a camera ticket since June 2014.

Lynnwood spokeswoman Julie Moore on Oct. 3 said the city could not
comment on the merits of a pending claim.

Mr. Jordan was issued a $124 red-light ticket in July. He
contested the ticket, and paid a reduced $85 fine. He alleges that
the city has been violating the state law that governs the use of
enforcement cameras.  His read of the law is that a clause added
in recent years requires Lynnwood to post annual reports of
collision and citation data from intersections with cameras.

Cameras and crash data are a sticky combination in Lynnwood.

The city's red-light camera contract with an Arizona vendor is up
in November.  A temporary extension is likely, pending a City
Council vote expected in the coming weeks.

For months, the council's finance committee has been wrestling
with questions over whether any local crash data should be
considered before the contract vote. Some council members have
repeatedly asked city staff for numbers.

At a public meeting two weeks ago, Assistant City Administrator
Art Ceniza encouraged the committee to rely instead on national
numbers pulled together by auto insurance companies.  Lynnwood's
data is limited because of changes in how it was collected over
the years, the committee was told.

The use of enforcement cameras has been allowed in Washington for
more than a decade.  State lawmakers passed a bill in 2012 that
amended the rules for local governments.  They wanted in part to
make sure that cities and counties using the cameras couldn't
tinker with yellow light lengths to generate more tickets. They
also directed that annual data reports be available online.

The law has various exemptions and requirements, some of which
depend on city size.  It says that starting in 2013, the annual
reports should include "the number of traffic accidents that
occurred at each location where an automated traffic safety camera
is located as well as the number of notices of infraction issued
for each camera."

Mr. Jordan, who works in aviation electronics, alleges the city
hasn't posted a report since at least 2014.

He says that on July 6 he and his wife were going home after a
date night at Alderwood mall.  He was headed to southbound I-5 via
36th Avenue W.

"It was 9 p.m. There was no real traffic," he said.  "I just
mistimed how long it would take me when the light turned yellow
and getting across the line."

Mr. Jordan says he was past the line by about four inches. The
scanned photos he shared are too blurry to draw conclusions.

Alleged violators also are sent a link to a short video of the
camera's footage.

Mr. Jordan contested the ticket in Lynnwood Municipal Court in
late September.  He said he told the judge his theory about the
data reporting requirement.  Mr. Jordan claims the judge said that
argument had been floated before and wasn't relevant.  The fine
was reduced, but the judge's comments "triggered me to think
that's really not fair," Jordan said.

Mr. Jordan then hired Seattle attorney Jay Carlson.

"We need to run a system that's fair for everybody," Mr. Jordan
said. "They're fining people to hopefully change behavior.  If
they want to enforce the laws, they need to be beholden to them as
well."

Mr. Carlson said the annual reports are needed so people can make
informed judgments about the cameras' impacts on safety and city
revenue.

"It's not a technicality," he said.  "It's a very important
principal."

The city has 60 days to respond to the claim before a lawsuit can
be filed.

Lynnwood uses cameras to issue about 24,000 tickets a year for
red-light running and speeding in school zones.  The school-zone
speed cameras are under a separate contract that ends in June
2018.

From 2007 through 2015, the city had collected $19.2 million in
gross camera revenue. The city's proposed budget for 2017-18
assumes that revenue will continue.

The Daily Herald has obtained citation and revenue numbers over
the years through a series of public records requests.  The last
collision data study by the police department, in 2011, was
inconclusive about safety impacts.  Another such study is ongoing.


MARINERS 5: Faces "Okum" Lawsuit Under FLSA, Md. Wage Laws
----------------------------------------------------------
KEVIN OKUM, 111 MacDade Boulevard, Apartment B8, Folsom,
Pennsylvania 19033, Resident of Delaware County, Plaintiff, v.
MARINERS 5, INC. d/b/a MEINEKE CAR CARE CENTER, 517 Yarmouth Road,
Towson, Maryland 21286, Serve: Michael Mades, Resident Agent, 517
Yarmouth Road, Towson, Maryland 21286, and MICHAEL MADES, 517
Yarmouth Road, Towson, Maryland 21286, Resident of Baltimore
County, Defendants, Case No. 1:16-cv-03248-GLR (D. Md., September
23, 2016), is a collective action that seeks to recover unpaid
wages, liquidated damages, interest, reasonable attorneys' fees
and costs under the Federal Fair Labor Standards Act; and unpaid
wages, interest, reasonable attorneys' fees and costs under
Maryland Wage and Hour Law, Maryland Code Annotated, Labor and
Employment Article; and unpaid wages, interest, reasonable
attorneys' fees and costs under the Maryland Wage Payment and
Collection Law, Maryland Code Annotated, Labor and Employment
Article.

Defendant, Mariners 5, Inc. d/b/a Meineke Car Care Center is a
company that is engaged in the business of operating automobile
maintenance and service facilities.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Joseph Spicer, Esq.
     THE LAW OFFICES OF PETER T. NICHOLL
     36 South Charles Street, Suite 1700
     Baltimore, MD 21201
     Phone: (410) 244-7005
     Fax: (410) 244-8454


MARSHALL SQUARE: Faces Multiple Lawsuits Over Deadly Fire
---------------------------------------------------------
WRDW reports that on June 2, 2015, Marshall Square Retirement
Community went up in flames and displaced nearly 80 elderly men
and women.  Since then, a handful of lawsuits have been filed as
the investigation into the deadly fire unfolds.

The first lawsuit was filed after the massive and deadly fire at
Marshall Square Retirement Community.

The building that housed nearly 80 elderly men and women went up
in flames on June 2, 2015.

The lawsuit names six defendants including Zackery Freehof who was
the concierge that night and Chris Bryde who was the property
manager on duty at that time.

It's been filed as a class action lawsuit for all the property
damage lost by the people who lived there but it hinges on two
individual residents, over 90-years-old, Charles and Margarent
Moye.

Lawyers estimate just the Moye's loss is valued at $90,000 not
including items that cannot be replaced.

A second lawsuit was filed in connection to the deadly Marshall
Square Retirement Community fire.

This time, Rhetta Cadle is listed as the plaintiff for damages.
The suit lists Marshall Square Retirement Community, LLC, Resort
Lifestyle Communities, Inc., Cameron General Contractors, Inc.,
Goodman Company, L.P., Zackery M. Freehof, Chris Bryde.  It also
includes up to 10 John/Jane Does which are unknown individuals and
entities whose negligent acts or omissions caused or contributed
to Plaintiff's injuries and damages.

Rhetta Cadle, 82, was pulled from the wreckage of the fire at
Marshall Square that day.  Ms. Cadle was cowered in her bathroom
for seven hours before she was found and rescued.

Two of the people listed on the suit are Zackery Freehof who was
the concierge that night and Chris Bryde who was the property
manager on duty at that time.

The lawsuit is seeking $5,000,000 in punitive damages with the
hopes that will deter them from ever letting this happen again.
According to the lawsuit, when Ms. Cadle tried to escape "she
found blistering flames that prevented her" from leaving so she
hid in her bathroom.  While in her bathroom Ms. Cadle "covered
herself in wet towels to counter the effects of the extreme heat
and smoke caused by the fire" as the "building burned around her."

According to the suit, the case is related to Charles and Margaret
Moye who have already filed a class-action lawsuit after the
deadly fire.  That suit was filed in October.

The suit was filed by Lawyers Harry Revell, Sam G. Nicholson, Adam
W. King, George S. Nicholson filed the suit on behalf of Rhetta
Cadle on Dec. 1, 2015.

Attorneys filed a $15 million wrongful death lawsuit.  Dorothy
"Dot" Carpenter, 91, died in the fire that destroyed the apartment
homes and the belongings of nearly 80 elderly residents.

This lawsuit is the first time Columbia County and Columbia County
Fire Rescue are listed as defendants that are at least partially
to blame.

It claims the firefighters did not follow their own policies and
procedure, and because of that, there was chaos on the scene of
the fire that morning and the building was never fully searched.

Attorneys say firefighters were just a few steps away from Dot
Carpenter's door for about 25 minutes before the building became
too dangerous to continue searching.

The lawsuit claims at least one firefighter has admitted that if
they had followed their own policy in doing the "Primary Search,"
Dot Carpenter would have been found and rescued.  The lawsuit
claims Ms. Carpenter's death is "negligent homicide."

The lawsuit names 12 defendants plus a Jane/John Doe 1-10, meaning
there are ten spaces open in case they need to add more names.

Two days of mediation got underway to try to settle the three
biggest lawsuits over the deadly Marshall Square fire.

If attorneys reached a settlement, it would be the end of the
case.

These talks come just three weeks after the State Fire Marshal's
Office releases their full report.

Much of the information in the report, we already knew, but buried
in hundreds of pages of documents, audio files and pictures is the
first bit of proof that part of the building was not up to code.

A year long investigation ends with two violations from the state
fire investigator.

One was the state of the sprinklers.  The second violation they
found in something called "smoke compartments," a fire safety
feature that acts like a barrier to prevent smoke from traveling
from room to room or floor to floor.  It's supposed to keep the
fire at bay for an hour or two, depending on its rating, long
enough for people to get out.

Attorneys from all sides met in downtown Augusta Wednesday, July
20 and Thursday, July 21 to decide how much each party is to
blame.  They hoped to settle the class action suit on property
damage, the wrongful death suit over Dot Carpenter, and the
lawsuit on behalf of survivor Rhetta Cadle.  But, with so many
parties involved, including Columbia County Fire Rescue now, that
is a very complicated task.

No settlement was reached over the days of mediation.  Work on the
case continued, doing depositions, and trying to get the property
damage lawsuit certified as an official class action.

The Marshall Square property damage case is going to a jury trial
scheduled for Dec. 5.

The lawyers are abandoning the class action option because they
believe it will just stall the case another year.


MDL 2001: Judge Grants Final Approval of Class Settlement
---------------------------------------------------------
District Judge Christopher A Boyko of the Northern District of
Ohio, Eastern Division, granted the parties' joint motion for
final approval of class action settlement, in the case entitled In
re: WHIRLPOOL CORP. FRONT-LOADING WASHER PRODUCTS LIABILITY
LITIGATION, MDL 2001, Case No. 1:08-WP-65000 (N.D. Ohio)

In 2001, Whirlpool Corporation began manufacturing front-load
washing machines and selling them under its own brand. In 2005,
Sears began to sell the same Whirlpool-manufactured machines under
the Sears brand. Unfortunately, some buyers began to experience
problems. The buyers began to file lawsuits against both Whirlpool
and Sears, asserting the washing machines suffered two types of
defects: (1) the "Biofilm defect," which caused mold and mildew to
grow inside the machines; and (2) the "CCU defect," which caused
the machines' Central Control Unit to malfunction. The cases
against Whirlpool were joined through multidistrict litigation and
are all pending in the Northern District of Ohio, Eastern
Division. The cases against Sears were consolidated and are all
pending in the Northern District of Illinois.

The parties in both the Sears and Whirlpool cases announced they
had settled all claims. Rather than agree to a Sears Settlement
and a Whirlpool Settlement, however, it proved easier to agree to
a CCU Settlement and a Biofilm Settlement. The parties chose to
file their CCU Settlement papers in the Illinois district court,
and to file their Biofilm Settlement papers in the Northern
District of Ohio, Eastern Division. The Illinois district court
granted final approval to the CCU Settlement and also awarded
attorney fees.

The parties filed a joint motion for final approval of class
action settlement relating to the Biofilm Settlement and a motion
for an award of attorneys' fees and costs, and class
representative service awards.

Judge Boyko granted both motions. Jonathan D. Selbin, Mark P.
Chalos, and Jason L. Lichtman of the law firm Lieff Cabraser
Heimann & Bernstein, LLP are appointed as lead class counsel.
Steven A. Schwartz of the law firm Chimicles & Tikellis LLP, and
James J. Rosemergy of the law firm Carey, Danis & Lowe are
appointed as class counsel for the settlement class.

Trina Allison, Bonnie Beierschmitt, John Bettua, Sylvia Bicknell,
Paula Call, Tracy Cloer, Mara Cohen, Kathryn Cope, Giuseppina P.
Donia, Laurie Fletcher, Karen Freeman, Pramila Gardner, Gina
Glazer, Jeff Glennon, Susan Hirsch, Karen Hollander, Derral
Howard, Heidi Klein, Peggy Lemley, Twilla Martin, Denise Miller,
Charles Napoli, Rebecca Nordan, Maggie O'Brien, Vic Pfefer,
Jeffrey Robinson, Sandra Robinson, Sonja Sandholm-Pound, Shannon
Schaeffer, Susan Scott, Donna Seeherman, Tracie Snyder, Andrea
Strong, Phil Torf, Carlos Vecino, Jennifer Wainwright, and Jane
Werman are appointed as class representatives.

Angeion Group is appointed as settlement administrator.
The court finds that the settlement agreement is in all respects
fair, reasonable, adequate, and in the best interest of the
settlement class.

A copy of Judge Boyko's memorandum and order dated September 23,
2016, is available at https://goo.gl/DylCZx from Leagle.com.

Plaintiffs' Liaison Counsel, Plaintiff, represented by Brian G.
Ruschel -- bruschel@aol.com -- at Brian G. Ruschel at Law
Plaintiffs' Liaison Counsel, Plaintiff, represented by Jason L.
Lichtman -- jlichtman@lchb.com -- John T. Spragens --
jspragens@lchb.com -- at Lieff, Cabraser, Heimann & Bernstein;
Robert T. Glickman -- rtg@mccarthylebit.com -- at McCarthy, Lebit,
Crystal & Liffman

Plaintiffs' Co-Lead Counsel, Plaintiff, represented by Robert T.
Glickman -- rtg@mccarthylebit.com -- at McCarthy, Lebit, Crystal &
Liffman; Alison G. Gushue -- AlisonGushue@chimicles.com -- Steven
A. Schwartz -- SteveSchwartz@chimicles.com -- at Chimicles &
Tikellis; Jason L. Lichtman -- jlichtman@lchb.com -- John T.
Spragens -- jspragens@lchb.com -- JaJonathan D. Selbin --
jselbin@lchb.com -- Jordan Elias -- Mark P. Chalos --
mchalos@lchb.com -- Richard M. Heimann -- rheimann@lchb.com --
Sudarsana Srinivasan -- at Lieff, Cabraser, Heimann & Bernstein;
Brian G. Ruschel -- bruschel@aol.com -- at Brian G. Ruschel at Law

Whirlpool Corporation, Defendant, represented by David R. Kott --
dkott@mccarter.com -- at McCarter & English; Galen D. Bellamy --
bellamy@wtotrial.com -- Joel S. Neckers -- neckers@wtotrial.com
-- Michael Timothy Williams -- williams@wtotrial.com -- Theresa R.
Wardon -- wardon@wtotrial.com -- at Wheeler Trigg O'Donnell;
Heather M. Lutz -- hmlutz@vorys.com -- Anthony J. O'Malley --
ajomalley@vorys.com -- F. Daniel Balmert -- fdbalmert@vorys.com
-- at Vorys, Sater, Seymour & Pease; James T. Irvin, III --
jim.irvin@nelsonmullins.com -- Robert H. Brunson --
robert.brunson@nelsonmullins.com -- at Nelson, Mullins, Riley &
Scarborough; John C. Fitzpatrick -- john.fitzpatrick@bartlit-
beck.com -- Alison G. Wheeler -- alison.wheeler@bartlit-beck.com
-- Eric R. Olson -- eric.olson@bartlit-beck.com -- Philip S. Beck
-- philip.beck@bartlit-beck.com -- Rebecca Weinstein Bacon --
rweinstein.bacon@bartlit-beck.com -- at Bartlit, Beck, Herman,
Palenchar & Scott; Brad E. Rago -- at Barnes & Thornburg; Charles
Philip Flick -- at Seipp & Flick LLP; James K. Leader --
jkleader@leaderberkon.com -- at Leader & Berkon; Scott S. Baker;
Scott T. Baker

Maytag Corporation, Defendant, represented by Charles Philip Flick
-- at Seipp & Flick LLP; Michael Timothy Williams --
williams@wtotrial.com -- at Wheeler Trigg O'Donnell
The Procter & Gamble Company, Movant, represented by Amanda P.
Lenhart -- Elizabeth M. Shaffer -- elizabeth.shaffer@dinsmore.com
-- Eric K. Combs -- eric.combs@dinsmore.com -- at Dinsmore & Shohl

David Rosenblum Cohen, Special Master, represented by David
Rosenblum Cohen -- at Law Office of David R. Cohen


MEDIVATION INC: Dec. 1 Set for Lead Plaintiff Hearing
-----------------------------------------------------
In the case, DAVID KLEIN, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. MEDIVATION, INC., et al.,
Defendant, No. C 16-05154 WHA (N.D. Cal.), District Judge William
Alsup ordered to hear all motions to appoint lead plaintiff on
December 1, 2016.

The Court wishes to evaluate the qualifications of single
investors, either institutional investors or individuals, to serve
as lead plaintiff. Likewise, the Court is particularly interested
in considering single investors with large losses and in
evaluating their experience in managing litigation.

The Court ordered:

     (a) any "group" of movants to narrow its candidates to one
         or two single investors and file answers to the appended
         questionnaire in the case by November 17, 2016,
         including the certification;

     (b) each candidate to attend the hearing on December 1,
         2016, and be prepared to answer questions;

     (c) all opposition briefs to be filed and served by
         November 16, 2016; and,

     (d) any reply briefs to be filed and served by NOVEMBER 23,
         2016, and shall not exceed ten pages.

A copy of the Court's Order dated October 3, 2016 is available at
https://goo.gl/21791t from Leagle.com.

David Klein, Plaintiff, represented by Benjamin Heikali --
bheikali@faruqilaw.com -- Faruqi and Faruqi LLP.

David Klein, Plaintiff, represented by Barbara Ann Rohr --
brohr@faruqilaw.com -- Faruqi and Faruqi, LLP.

Medivation, Inc., et al., Defendants, represented by Patrick
Edward Gibbs -- pgibbs@cooley.com -- Cooley LLP & Shawna Virginia
Benfield -- sbenfield@cooley.com -- Cooley LLP.


MOUNT REAL: Fraud Victims' Lawyers Negotiate $43MM Settlement
-------------------------------------------------------------
Paul Delean, writing for Montreal Gazette, reports that holders of
worthless promissory notes from fraudulent financial-management
company Mount Real Corp. and affiliated entities soon may be
getting some of their money back.

Eleven years after the company was shut down by regulators,
lawyers representing the victims have negotiated a $43-million
out-of-court settlement with its auditors and security trustees,
who have agreed to the payout with no admission of liability.

"We're happy with the result for the victims.  It's a very good
settlement," said lawyer Andre Lesperance of Trudel Johnston &
Lesperance, which initiated a class-action suit in 2008 on behalf
of the more than 1,200 former holders of Mount Real notes stung in
the Ponzi scheme perpetrated between 1996 and 2005.

The agreement still needs to be accepted by creditors and the
courts.  If that happens, money could be disbursed early next
year.

Investors will probably recoup about half of their invested
capital, which totalled about $75 million, Mr. Lesperance said.
They won't be compensated for Mount Real's fictitious returns on
investment.  At the time of Mount Real's collapse, it's estimated
it had about $130 million in notes outstanding.

Lawyers who negotiated the settlement are in line to receive about
20 per cent of the total, but that, too, will require confirmation
from the investors and the courts.

The settlement would effectively end the class action against the
auditors and trustees (BDO Dunwoody LLP, Deloitte LLP, Schwartz
Levitsky Feldman, B2B Trust and Services Financiers Penson
Canada), but not against the authors of the fraud, including
former chief executive Lino Matteo, now serving an eight-year
prison sentence imposed this past summer after his conviction in
the Cinar fraud trial.

The Mount Real scandal was one of several in the last decade that
swallowed up hundreds of millions of investor dollars and made
Quebec seem like a regulatory basket case.

In the case of defunct mutual-fund company Norbourg, where 9,200
investors lost an estimated $110 million when it folded in 2005,
an out-of-court settlement of $55 million was negotiated in 2011
from a group of defendants that included Quebec securities
regulator L'Autorite des marches financiers (AMF), accounting
firms KPMG and Beaulieu Deschambault, accountant Remi Deschambault
and trust companies Concentra and Northern Trust Company Canada.
There was no public breakdown of their respective contributions
and no admission of responsibility.

The $55 million was on top of $32 million in compensation the AMF
paid from its indemnity fund to 925 Norbourg victims in 2007, and
$26 million from the liquidation of Norbourg assets and tax
refunds from Revenue Quebec, raising the total to $113 million,
roughly 100 per cent of the capital lost.

Victims of bogus financial adviser Earl Jones received proceeds
from a $17-million out-of-court settlement concluded with the
Royal Bank in 2012, also with no admission of responsibility. They
were out an estimated $50 million when Mr. Jones's office suddenly
stopped taking calls in 2009.


NAKED JUICE: Sued Over Misleading Naked Juices "No Sugar" Label
---------------------------------------------------------------
CSPI reports that PepsiCo misleadingly markets Naked Juices as
predominantly containing high-value ingredients such as acai
berry, blueberries, kale, and mango, when in fact the predominant
ingredient in the product line is usually cheap, nutrient-poor
apple juice, according to a lawsuit filed on Oct. 4.  The
nonprofit Center for Science in the Public Interest says that "NO
SUGAR ADDED" claims on Naked labels imply that the products are
low in sugar, when in fact, the drinks are high in sugar. What's
more, the company fails to prominently disclose that the drinks
are "not a low-calorie food," as required by the Food and Drug
Administration.

The nonprofit nutrition and food-safety watchdog group, along with
the New York law firm Reese LLP, filed suit in United States
District Court for the Eastern District of New York on behalf of
consumers in California and New York.  The plaintiffs had
purchased Kale Blazer, Green Machine, and other Naked beverages.

Labels for Naked Juice Kale Blazer feature leaves of kale and
other leafy greens and two cucumber slices.  "Kale is the king of
the garden," according to the text on the side of the bottle,
which continues: "And, when it's blended with cucumber, spinach,
celery and a pinch of ginger, you get a royal roundtable of yum.
Long live greens."  Advertisements for the product on social media
and elsewhere similarly exaggerate the presence of kale in the
product, stating ". . . you might actually live forever because
kale has tons of antioxidants that combat aging," and that the
drink is a way to "pack more kale into your diet."

"Consumers are predominantly getting apple juice, or in the case
of Kale Blazer, orange and apple juice," says CSPI litigation
director Maia Kats.  "They're not getting what they paid for."
The primary ingredient in Kale Blazer is orange juice.  The third
ingredient is apple juice.  And nowhere on the Kale Blazer labels
or other marketing materials are oranges or apples pictured.  And,
like most Naked Juices, its label boasts, "NO SUGAR ADDED,"
implying that the product is low in sugar.  In fact, a 15 oz.
bottle has eight teaspoons of sugar, largely from orange and apple
juice.  PepsiCo inconspicuously describes the drink as a "Kale
flavored 8 juice blend," but CSPI says that disclosure is
overwhelmed by the kale imagery in violation of federal laws and
regulations.  In comparison, a 12 oz. can of Pepsi has 10
teaspoons of sugar.

Outdoor advertising for Kale Blazer has included statements such
as "have your kale and drink it too," implying that the product is
predominantly, if not exclusively, kale.

"Consumers are paying higher prices for the healthful and
expensive ingredients advertised on Naked labels, such as berries,
cherries, kale and other greens, and mango," said CSPI litigation
director Maia Kats.  "But consumers are predominantly getting
apple juice, or in the case of Kale Blazer, orange and apple
juice.  They're not getting what they paid for."

The proposed class action complaint contends that PepsiCo has
unjustly enriched itself and asks the court to provide injunctive
relief and monetary relief for misled consumers.

CSPI's litigation department has won numerous agreements improving
the marketing or labeling of other products, including an
agreement with Coca-Cola prohibiting deceptive statements on its
Vitaminwater line and requiring better disclosure of its
sweeteners.  CSPI is currently in court in litigation against
General Mills over Cheerios Protein (which has negligibly more
protein but 16 or 17 times as much added sugar as original
Cheerios) and against CVS over its Algal-900 supplement (which
makes unsupportable claims that it helps memory).


NAT'L COLLEGIATE: Ex-Ball State Player Files Concussion Case
------------------------------------------------------------
CBS4 reports that a former football player for Ball State
University filed a federal class action lawsuit over concussions
he suffered in the 1990s.

The defendants in the lawsuit are the Mid-American Conference
(MAC) and the National Collegiate Athletic Association. (NCAA).

The former player, Geoff Donner, currently lives in Texas.
According to the lawsuit, there are 100 individuals involved in
this case.  They are seeking more than $5 million.

In the lawsuit, Mr. Donner alleges that he did not receive
appropriate medical care as he suffered through at least three
concussions between 1993-95.  He now deals with dementia,
depression, memory loss and other side effects from the
concussions, according to the lawsuit.

The suit also alleges that Ball State University did not comply
with a guideline that states a player shouldn't be permitted to
return to a game or practice after a head injury occurred.  The
NCAA nor the MAC enforced this guideline, the suit says.

In one incident laid out in the lawsuit, Mr. Donner said he tried
to sit out a practice due to a concussion, but was told he would
lose his scholarship if he didn't attend practice.

NCAA Chief Legal Officer Donald Remy issued the following
statement:

These lawsuits are mere copycats -- using the exact same
language -- of the approximately 30 cases this lawyer has filed in
a matter of months.  Failing to achieve a bodily injury component
to the Arrington case settlement, it appears that counsel is
attempting to extract a bodily injury settlement through the
filing of these new questionable class actions.  This strategy
will not work.  The NCAA does not believe that these complaints
present legitimate legal arguments and expects that they can be
disposed of early by the court.


NATIONAL AUTO: Faces Daisy Suit in Middle District of Florida
-------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against National Auto
Protection Corp. The case is captioned Daisy, Inc., a Florida
corporation, individually and as the representative of a class of
similarly-situated persons, the Plaintiff, v. National Auto
Protection Corp., and John Does 1-5, the Defendants, Case No.
2:16-cv-00739-UA-MRM (M.D. Fla., Sept. 29, 2016).

National Auto offers low cost, affordable automotive warranties.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


NATIONAL COLLEGIATE: "Dawson" Lawsuit Seeks OT Pay Under FLSA
-------------------------------------------------------------
LAMAR DAWSON, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, vs. NATIONAL COLLEGIATE ATHLETIC
ASSOCIATION and PAC-12 CONFERENCE, Defendants, Case No. 3:16-cv-
05487 (N.D. Cal., September 26, 2016), seeks unpaid wages,
including unpaid overtime compensation and interest thereon,
required minimum wage payments, waiting time penalties, liquidated
damages and other penalties, injunctive and other equitable relief
and reasonable attorneys' fees and costs, under, inter alia, the
Fair Labor Standards Act.

The National Collegiate Athletic Association (NCAA)[a] is a non-
profit association which regulates athletes of 1,281 institutions,
conferences, organizations, and individuals.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Betsy C. Manifold, Esq.
     WOLF HALDENSTEIN ADLER FREEMAN & HERZ LLP
     750 B Street, Suite 2770
     San Diego, CA 92101
     Phone: (619) 239-4599
     Fax: (619) 234-4599

        - and -

     John M. Kelson, Esq.
     THE LAW OFFICES OF JOHN M. KELSON
     483 Ninth Street, Suite 200
     Oakland, CA 94607
     Phone: (510) 465-1326
     Fax: (510) 465-0871

        - and -

     Jerry K. Cimmet, Esq.
     177 Bovet Road, Suite 600
     San Mateo, CA 94402
     Phone: (650) 866-4700


NATIONAL UNION: Gonzales Insurance Suit in New York Tossed
----------------------------------------------------------
District Judge Paul G. Gardephe of the Southern District of New
York granted defendants' motions to dismiss in the case GEORGE
GONZALES, MANETTE DUBUISSON, and ALICE LACKS, Individually and On
Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, Plaintiffs, v. NATIONAL
UNION FIRE INSURANCE OF PITTSBURGH, P.A., AMERICAN INTERNATIONAL
GROUP, INC., CATAMARAN HEALTH SOLUTIONS, LLC, F/K/A CATALYST
HEALTH SOLUTIONS, INC., F/K/A HEALTHEXTRAS, INC., ALLIANT SERVICES
HOUSTON, INC., F/K/A JLT SERVICES CORPORATION, STONEBRIDGE LIFE
INSURANCE COMPANY, F/K/A J.C. PENNEY LIFEINSURANCE COMPANY,
TRANSAMERICA FINANCIAL LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY, FEDERAL INSURANCE
COMPANY, A MEMBER OF THE CHUBB GROUP OF INSURANCE COMPANIES, and
VIRGINIA SURETY COMPANY, INC., Defendants, No. 15 Civ. 2259 (PGG)
(S.D.N.Y.).

Plaintiffs filed a putative class action complaint against
National Union Fire Insurance Company, American International
Group, Inc. (AIG), Catamaran Health Solutions, LLC, Stonebridge
Life Insurance Company, Transamerica Financial Life Insurance
Company, Federal Insurance Company, Alliant Services, and Virginia
Surety Company, Inc. through the HealthExtras Program.

Plaintiffs allege that HealthExtras and the other defendants sent
New York residents direct mail solicitations representing that the
HealthExtras program provides valuable protection in the form of a
$1,000,000 or $1,500,000 tax free cash payment if you're
permanently disabled due to an accident. Because HealthExtras is
not a licensed insurer or broker, it contracted with defendants
National Union, Stonebridge, Transamerica, and Federal to
underwrite and issue the disability insurance coverage offered in
the HealthExtras Program and defendant Virginia Surety to
underwrite and issue the Program's medical expense insurance
coverage. National Union, in turn, hired defendant AIG to process
claims made under the HealthExtras Program that related to
policies issued by National Union. Defendant Alliant Services was
the insurance broker under the HealthExtras Program.

The complaint alleged that defendants knew that HealthExtras was
not a licensed insurance broker or insurer and could not legally
solicit, sell, issue or underwrite the Disability Coverage and
Medical Expense Coverage under the HealthExtras Program.
Plaintiffs further allege that the defendants were aware of the
identity and roles of HealthExtras' Marketing Partners, including
American Express, CitiBank, Chase, Capital One and other issuers
of credit cards. The complaint pleads quasi-contract claims,
violations of N.Y. Gen. Bus. Law Sections 349-350 and fraud.
Plaintiffs seek the recovery of all premiums and fees they paid to
defendants in connection with the insurance coverage they
purchased.

Defendants moved to dismiss the complaint pursuant to Fed, R. Civ.
P. 12(b)(1) and 12(b)(6).

Judge Gardephe denied defendant Alliant Services' motion to
dismiss as moot and the granted the remaining defendants' motion
to dismiss.

A copy of Judge Gardephe's memorandum opinion and order dated
September 18, 2016, is available at https://goo.gl/uuxnWU from
Leagle.com.

Plaintiffs, represented by Aaron Hemmings --
kstevens@hemmingsandstevens.com -- at Hemmings & Stevens, PLLC;
Kieran M. Corcoran -- kmc@lhlaw.net -- Bruce E. Bagelman --
beb@lhlaw.net -- Roger L. Mandel -- rlm@lhlaw.net -- at Lackey
Hershman, L.L.P.; Joseph H. Aughtman -- at, Beasley, Allen, Crow,
Methvin, Portis & Miles, P.C.

National Union Fire Insurance of Pittsburgh, P.A. and American
International Group, Inc.,  Defendant, represented by Andrew
Douglas Hart -- ahart@sidley.com -- Christopher M. Assise --
cassise@sidley.com -- Jonathan Warren Muenz -- jmuenz@sidley.com -
- Theodore R. Scarborough, Jr. -- tscarborough@sidley.com -- at
Sidley Austin LLP

Catamaran Health Solutions, LLC, Defendant, represented by James
Simon Coons -- james.coons@ansalaw.com -- at Ansa Assuncao,
L.L.P.; Patrick Joseph Murphy --  patrick.murphy@quarles.com -- at
Quarles & Brady LLP

Stonebridge Life Insurance Company, Defendant, represented by J.
David Brown -- jbrown@winstead.com -- Stephen R. Clarke --
sclarke@winstead.com -- Tom Van Arsdel -- tvanarsdel@winstead.com
-- at Winstead PC

Transamerica Financial Life Insurance Company, Defendant,
represented by John Sandercock -- jsandercock@lskdnylaw.com -- at
Lester, Schwab, Katz and Dwyer LLP; J. David Brown --
jbrown@winstead.com -- Stephen R. Clarke -- sclarke@winstead.com -
- Tom Van Arsdel -- tvanarsdel@winstead.com -- at Winstead PC

Federal Insurance Company, Defendant, represented by H.
Christopher Boehning -- cboehning@paulweiss.com -- Jessica Sombat
Carey -- jcarey@paulweiss.com -- Shane Donnelly Avidan --
savidan@paulweiss.com -- at Paul, Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton &
Garrison LLP

Virginia Surety Company, Inc., Defendant, represented by Harvey
Kurzweil

Winston & Strawn LLP, Kelly Anne Librera, Winston & Strawn LLP,
Matthew Anthony Stark, Winston & Strawn LLP & Neal R. Marder, Akin
Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld LLP, pro hac vice


NEW ALLIANCE BANK: Offer of Judgment Did Not Moot Tanasi Claims
---------------------------------------------------------------
District Judge William M. Skretny of the Western District of New
York, denied defendants' motion to dismiss in the case PATRICK
TANASI, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated,
Plaintiff, v. NEW ALLIANCE BANK and FIRST NIAGARA FINANCIAL GROUP,
INC., Defendants, No. 12-CV-646S (W.D.N.Y.).

Patrick Tanasi brought a putative class action against New
Alliance Bank, and its successor-in-interest, First Niagara
Financial Group, Inc., for the Bank's alleged practice of re-
ordering debit or point-of-sale transactions from the highest
transaction amount to the lowest amount in an attempt to maximize
overdraft fees.

The bank offered to settle Tanasi's individual claims pursuant to
Rule 68 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure for an amount
greater than the statutory damages to which Tanasi would have been
entitled if successful. Tanasi refused to accept the offer, which
the Bank then moved to dismiss arguing that the unaccepted Rule 68
offer rendered Tanasi's individual and putative class action
claims moot.

The Western District of New York denied the motion to dismiss. The
Bank was granted leave for an interlocutory appeal, and the Second
Circuit affirmed the lower court's decision. The Bank sought
certiorari from the Supreme Court, which was denied.

The bank filed a second motion to dismiss and argues that its
$10,000 check, made out in Tanasi's name and sent to Tanasi's
counsel irrevocably and without condition, satisfied all of
Tanasi's potential individual damages and thus moots the case.

Judge Skretny denied defendants' motion to dismiss the complaint
as moot.

A copy of Judge Skretny's decision and order dated September 17,
2016, is available at https://goo.gl/nHxDMp from Leagle.com.

Plaintiff, represented by Amy E. Keller -- aek@wexlerwallace.com
-- Edward A. Wallace -- eaw@wexlerwallace.com -- at Wexler Wallace
LLP; Charlese Crueger -- ccrueger@hrdclaw.com -- Erin Dickinson --
edickinson@hrdclaw.com -- at Hansen Reynolds Dickinson Crueger
LLC; Gregory F. Coleman; Stephen John Fearon, Jr. --
stephen@sfclasslaw.com -- at Squitieri & Fearon, LLP

Defendants, represented by Hugh M. Russ, III --
hruss@hodgsonruss.com -- at Hodgson Russ LLP; Paul J. Ferak --
ferakp@gtlaw.com -- at Greenberg Traurig, LLP


NEW PRIME: Legal Pundits Watch Oliveira OT Class Action Closely
---------------------------------------------------------------
Gordon Gibb, writing for LawyersandSettlements.com, reports that
an overtime pay lawsuit proposed as a class action in
Massachusetts promises to be closely watched by legal pundits and
others, given the various issues at play in a case that alleges
misclassification of employees, together with an interpretation of
the Federal Arbitration Act.

Publicjustice.net tells the story of Dominic Oliveira, a long-haul
driver and a former employee of New Prime Inc., a company which
identifies itself as a refrigerated flatbed, tanker and intermodal
shipping company.

Mr. Oliveira serves as the lead plaintiff in what is intended as
an overtime rules class action based on the allegation that
drivers are incorrectly classified as independent contractors when
they are, as is alleged by the plaintiffs, employees of the
company.

Classified as independent contractors the drivers are made to foot
the bill for fuel and insurance for trucks owned by New Prime, or
so it has been alleged.  Plaintiffs have complained that once
deductions for such costs are made from paychecks, there is little
left over for drivers to take home to their families.

In Mr. Oliveira's case, he also alleges to have been required to
agree to arbitration in order to settle any differences with the
company.  Such an arbitration clause usually prevents an employee
from litigating, which often puts the employee at a disadvantage
given costs associated with arbitration that often prove a
hindrance.

However, the Oliveira overtime labor laws class action has been
filed nonetheless in part due to a ruling by the US Supreme Court
which exempts the contracts of transportation workers from the
Federal Arbitration Act.

New Prime, the defendant in the Oliveira employment law overtime
class action, argues the exemption does not apply to independent
contractors.

The result is a showdown between drivers who point to the fact
that an independent contractor would not be driving trucks owned
by the company, and thus should not be paying for fuel, insurance
and other equipment owned by the employer.  As employees
therefore, the drivers would be exempt from the Federal
Arbitration Act according to the ruling of the US Supreme Court.

New Prime, and others in the trucking and shipping industry, are
basing their arguments upon the classification of employees as
independent contractors together with their interpretation of the
Act, suggesting the exemption in the Act applies only to
employees.

Plaintiffs argue that according to the text, and the history of
the Act, the exemption applies to all persons working in the
transportation industry, regardless of whether they are viewed as
employees, or independent contractors.

Thus, the stage has been set.

Laws on overtime generally allow for employees who are not
salaried, in a management role or classified as independent
contractors, to earn time-and-one-half of their regular wage after
working longer than eight hours in any given day, or 40 hours in
any given week.

Conversely, those working in management are paid a higher salary
based upon the expectation that from time to time, additional
hours of work would be necessary given the nature of the
responsibility.  Similarly, independent contractors providing a
service under contract and independent of the client to which the
service is being provided would not be expected to claim overtime.

However, an employee at the beck and call of an employer -- yet
classified as an independent contractor -- is placed in an
impossible situation. It has been found previously that employers
will misclassify employees as independent contractors simply to
avoid paying overtime, in contravention to overtime pay laws.

The class action overtime pay lawsuit is Dominic Oliveira et al v.
New Prime Inc., Case No. 1:15-cv-10603-PBS, in the US Court of
Appeals for the First Circuit.


NEW YORK: DOCS' Practices Violate Constitution, 2nd Cir. Says
-------------------------------------------------------------
The United States Court of Appeals, Second Circuit, affirmed the
district court's judgment and remanded the case entitled PAUL
BETANCES, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated,
LLOYD A. BARNES, and GABRIEL VELEZ, a/k/a GABRIEL BELIZE,
individually and on behalf of others similarly situated,
Plaintiffs-Appellees, v. BRIAN FISCHER, individually and in his
capacity as Commissioner of the New York State Department of
Correctional Services (DOCS), ANTHONY J. ANNUCCI, individually and
in his capacity as Deputy Commissioner and Counsel for the New
York State Department of Corrections and Community Supervision,
and TERENCE TRACY, in his individual capacity and in his capacity
as Chief Counsel for the Division of Parole, Defendants-
Appellants, No. 15-2836-cv (2d Cir.).

Plaintiffs are offenders who were subject to mandatory post-
release supervision (PRS) terms and who allege that the New York
State Department of Correctional Services (DOCS), rather than
their sentencing judge, imposed the terms. Their action seeks
compensatory damages based upon administratively imposed PRS terms
that continued or were imposed after June 9, 2006.

The defendants filed a motion to dismiss on the basis of qualified
immunity, which the district court denied. The Second Circuit
affirmed the district court's judgment and remanded the case.

On remand, the district court granted plaintiffs' motion to
certify the case as a class action and, after the parties had
cross moved for summary judgment, denied defendants' cross-motion
for summary judgment on the basis of qualified immunity and
granted plaintiffs' cross-motion for summary judgment holding
defendants personally liable.

After defendants noticed their appeal but before their brief was
filed, the district court granted plaintiffs' motion to deem the
appeal frivolous, which would have enabled the district court to
retain jurisdiction and proceed with a trial on damages
notwithstanding the appeal. Upon defendants' motion, the Second
Circuit stayed the proceedings in the district court pending
appeal.

Circuit Judge John M. Walker, who wrote the decision, affirmed the
trial court's judgment and remanded the case.  A copy of Judge
Walker's decision dated September 16, 2016, is available at
https://goo.gl/8R1L7e from Leagle.com.

Harley Horowitz -- hhorowitz@ecbalaw.com -- Matthew D.
Brinckerhoff -- mbrinckerhoff@ecbalaw.com -- Alanna Small --
asmall@ecbalaw.com -- at Emery Celli Brinckerhoff & Abady LLP, for
Plaintiffs-Appellees

Steven C. Wu, Deputy Solicitor General; Barbara D. Underwood,
Solicitor General; Claude S. Platton, Senior Assistant Solicitor
General,  for Eric T. Schneiderman, Attorney General of the State
of New York, for Defendants-Appellants

The United States Court of Appeals, Second Circuit panel consists
of Circuit Judges John M. Walker, Renna Raggi and Christopher F.
Droney.


NEW YORK UNIVERSITY: Faces Class Action Over Singapore Art School
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Channel NewsAsia reports that three former Tisch Asia students
have filed a class action lawsuit against New York University
(NYU) over its now-defunct Singapore art school, saying that they
were victims of an "educational scam."

According to court papers filed in New York last month, Ms. Anna
Basso, Ms. Amy Hartman and Mr. Jaime Villa Ruiz represented others
to file suit against the US university over seven complaints
including breach of contract and false advertising.

They said from the time the school was opened in 2007 until it
announced its closure in 2012, NYU had marketed Tisch Asia as a
programme offering identical graduate degree and professional
training as its renowned Tisch School of the Arts in New York.

However, students who enrolled in Tisch Asia expecting to receive
the same quality of education and opportunities as those in the
New York campus, and paid the same amount of tuition fees, were
left disappointed.

"Except for the cost of tuition, Tisch Asia never lived up to the
level of Tisch New York," court documents said.  "Tisch Asia
students were not provided with the same quality of instruction
and equipment as their New York counterparts; did not have an
opportunity to gain the same or even comparable internships, part-
time jobs in the industry or other resume building opportunities;
enter into certain important artistic contests and festivals or
apply for certain grants available to New York students."

They added that despite NYU's assurance that Tisch Asia would be
in operation for "a long time" and "create a legacy", the school
was closed after less than eight years.

"When NYU decided to close Tisch Asia in 2012, it became
abundantly clear to Tisch Asia students that they fell victim to
an educational scam, that their program would never create a
legacy, and the hundreds of thousands of dollars they paid for
education of far lower quality than provided by Tisch New York
were not even remotely worth it," the former students said.

The three plaintiffs said they had paid between about US$100,000
and US$165,000 for their stints at Tisch Asia.

Among the examples given on the quality of faculty and teaching,
the plaintiffs said cinematography professors showed students
outdated lighting techniques, and Mr Villa Ruiz said one of his
professors "did not know how to use a modern camera".

They added that in 2011, Dramatic Writing students were promised a
class taught by Singapore playwright Haresh Sharma.  "However, to
the students' great disappointment, Mr. Sharma was not offered the
opportunity at Tisch Asia because of a financial cut.  The class
instead was taught by a previous year Tisch Asia graduate."

An NYU representative, Mr. John Beckham, told New York Daily News
in September that the suit was "wholly without merit, and we
expect to prevail in court".

"The students at Tisch Asia had the same curriculum as Tisch uses
in New York," Mr. Beckman was quoted as saying.  "Many Tisch Asia
courses were taught by New York-based faculty and all were taught
by highly qualified faculty; students had excellent facilities and
equipment; and graduates received a Tisch School of the Arts
degree."


NUTIVA INC: Judge Narrows Claims in "Jones" Mislabeling Suit
------------------------------------------------------------
District Judge Haywood S. Gilliam, Jr. of the Northern District of
California, ruled on the parties' motions in the case PRESTON
JONES, Plaintiff, v. NUTIVA, INC., Defendant, Case No. 16-cv-
00711-HSG (ND Cal.).

Preston Jones purchased a 15-ounce jar of Nutiva, Inc.'s Organic
Virgin Coconut Oil.  In purchasing Nutiva's Organic Virgin Coconut
Oil, Jones read the product's label and relied on its
representation.

Jones believed that Nutiva's Organic Virgin Coconut Oil was
healthier than butter, and would not raise or otherwise detriment
his blood cholesterol levels. Jones paid more for Nutiva Organic
Virgin Coconut Oil based on the statements on its label and would
not have purchased Nutiva Organic Virgin Coconut Oil if he knew
the product was misbranded pursuant to California and FDA
regulations, or that its claims were false and misleading.
Further, Nutiva's Extra Virgin Coconut Oil and Organic Virgin
Coconut Oil are in fact the identical product sold under a
different label and name to comply with certain regulations.

On January 7, 2016, Jones filed a class action complaint on behalf
of a putative nationwide class, alleging violations of
California's Unfair Competition Law, Consumers Legal Remedies Act,
and False Advertising Law, as well as breach of express warranty
and breach of implied warranty. On February 11, 2016, Nutiva
removed the action to the Northern District of California under
the Class Action Fairness Act of 2005.

Plaintiff asserts five causes of action on behalf of the putative
nationwide class: (1) violation of the fraudulent, unlawful, and
unfair prongs of the UCL; (2) violation of the FAL; (3) violation
of the CLRA; (4) breach of express warranty; and (5) breach of the
implied warranty of merchantability. Plaintiff seeks an order
compelling Nutiva to (i) cease marketing its products using
allegedly misleading and unlawful tactics; (ii) destroy all
misleading, deceptive, and unlawful materials; (iii) conduct a
corrective advertising campaign; (iv) disgorge the amounts by
which it has been unjustly enriched; and (v) pay restitution,
compensatory damages, and punitive damages.

Defendant filed a motion for judgment on the pleadings. On the
other hand, plaintiff filed a motion to remand its claim for
injunctive relief if not permitted to proceed before the present
court and a motion to strike affirmative defenses, or in the
alternative for judgment on the pleadings, and for order directing
defendant to answer the complaint's specific allegations.

Judge Gilliam granted in part and denied in part defendant's
motion for judgment on the pleadings and denied plaintiff's motion
to remand and motion to strike.

A copy of Judge Gilliam's order dated September 22, 2016, is
available at https://goo.gl/zhQyE2 from Leagle.com.

Preston Jones, Plaintiff, represented by:

Paul Kenneth Joseph, Esq.
The Law Office of Paul K. Joseph, PC
4125 W. Point Loma Blvd., 206
San Diego, CA 92110
Telephone: 619-767-0356
Facsimile: 619-331-2943

     - and -

Jack Fitzgerald, Esq.
Trevor Matthew Flynn, Esq.
The Law Office of Jack Fitzgerald, PC
3636 Fourth Ave #202
San Diego, CA 92103
Telephone: 619-692-3840

     - and -

Melanie Rae Persinger, Esq.
The Weston Firm
1405 Moren Blvd Suite 201
San Diego, CA 92110
Telephone: 619-798-2006

Nutiva, Inc., Defendant, represented by Rakesh Mahendra Amin --
rakesh@amintalati.com -- Ryan Mathew Kaiser -- ryan@amintalati.com
-- Sanjay Satish Karnik -- sanjay@amintalati.com -- at Amin Talati
and Upadhye LLC; William Paul Cole -- wcole@calljensen.com --
Matthew Ryan Orr -- morr@calljensen.com -- at Call & Jensen


ORANGE COUNTY, CA: Sued Over Money Making Scheme in Jail Facility
-----------------------------------------------------------------
PETER LEE BOHANON, QIANA GOSS, PAUL ANTHONY RODARTE, JR., REGINA
RODARTE on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated,
the Plaintiffs, v. COUNTY OF ORANGE AND DOES 1-50, ET AL., the
Defendants, Case No. 30-2016-00877929 (Cal. Super. Ct., Sept. 28,
2016), seeks to recover damages and injunctive relief, including
refunds of the unlawful sums Plaintiffs paid to Defendants' money
making schemes in Orange County Jail.

According to the complaint, thousands of Orange County jail
inmates and their families, most of whom are not convicted but
facing charges, are held hostage to grossly unfair and excessive
phone charges, forcing them to pay these charges in order to
maintain contact with their loved ones who are incarcerated. These
charges are nothing but money making schemes by Orange County and
its jail to force family members desperately trying to maintain
contact with their inmate husbands, parents and children, to pay
for totally unrelated jail expenses or give up their primary
lifeline of communication. Orange County runs one of the largest
jails in the US, and essentially extorts monies from mostly poor
and minority families trying to get by and stay in contact with
loved ones. It does so by establishing extortionate and outrageous
"commissions" to be paid by this vulnerable population to fund the
jails.

Orange County is a county in the U.S. state of California. As of
the 2010 census, the population was 3,010,232 making it the third-
most populous county in California, the sixth-most populous in the
United States, and more populous than twenty-one U.S. states.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Barrett S. Litt, Esq.
          Ronald O. Kaye, Esq.
          KAYE, MCLANE, BEDNARSKI & LITT, LLP
          234 Colorado Boulevard, Suite 230
          Pasadena, CA 91101
          Telephone: (626) 844 7660
          Facsimile: (626) 844 7670
          E-mail: blitt@kmbllaw.com
                  rok@kmbllaw.com

               - and -

          Michael S. Rapkin, Esq.
          Scott B. Rapkin, Esq.
          Rapkin & Associates, LLP
          723 Ocean Front Walk
          Venice, CA 90291
          Telephone: (310) 319 5465
          Facsimile: (310) 319 5355
          E-mail: msrapkin@gmail.com
                  scottrapkin@rapkinesq.com


OREGON ONE: Faces "Byrne" Suit in District of Oregon
----------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Oregon One, Inc. The
case is titled Robert D. Byrne, individually and on behalf of
others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. Oregon One, Inc., an
Oregon corporation, the Defendant, Case No. 3:16-cv-01910-SB (D.
Oreg., Sept. 29, 2016). The case is assigned to Hon. Magistrate
Judge Stacie F. Beckerman.

Oregon One is an adjustment and collection service located in
Portland, Oregon.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Bret A. Knewtson, Esq.
          3000 N.W. Stucki Place, Suite 230 M
          Hillsboro, OR 97124
          Telephone: (503) 846 1160
          Facsimile: (503) 922 3181
          E-mail: bknewtson@yahoo.com

               - and -

          Kelly D. Jones, Esq.
          KELLY D. JONES, ATTORNEY AT LAW
          819 SE Morrison St., Suite 255
          Portland, OR 97214
          Telephone: (503) 847 4329
          Facsimile: (503) 715 0524
          E-mail: kellydonovanjones@gmail.com


PACER PROMEC: December 1 Class Action Opt-Out Deadline Set
----------------------------------------------------------
NOTICE OF CERTIFICATION

What is the Class Action about?
A lawsuit has been certified as a Class Action against Pacer
Promec Energy Corporation and Pacer Promec Energy Construction
Corporation (collectively referred to as "Pacer Promec"),
both of whom are in Receivership.  The Statement of Claim alleges
that Pacer Promec failed to pay employees and contractors amounts
owing pursuant to a retention bonus policy.

The Statement of Claim alleges that Class Members who were
promised payments according to a retention bonus policy, and who
were not paid such amounts, are entitled to relief.  The
Statement of Claim seeks compensation for Class Members, plus
other relief including costs and interest.

The Representative Plaintiff is Alexander Montague.  In this
lawsuit, the Representative Plaintiff is seeking compensation on
his own behalf and on behalf of other individuals who were
employees or contractors of Pacer Promec between April 1, 2013 and
March 10, 2015, the date of the Receivership of the Defendants
(which date range is hereinafter referred to as the "Date Range").

Pacer Promec is currently in Receivership, however this lawsuit
has been expressly permitted to be advanced by Court Order granted
on June 15, 2016.

How do I know if I am a member of the Class?
The Class has been defined by Court Order granted on
September 27, 2016 (the "Certification Order") as follows:

All Pacer Promec employees and contractors (including their
estates, executors, and personal representatives) whose employment
contract or terms of employment with Pacer Promec included the
retention bonus policy payable December 15, 2014
If you were employed by Pacer Promec, either as an employee or as
a contractor, at any time during the Date Range, you may be a
member of the Class.  If you are not sure whether or not
you are a member of the Class, you should speak to Class Counsel,
whose address is outlined below.

What if I do not want to participate in this Class Action?
Class Members who wish to participate in the Class Action do not
need to do anything at this time.  They are automatically included
in the Class Action.

Any Class Member who wishes to opt out of the Class Action must do
so by sending a written opt-out form, signed by the Class Member,
stating that he or she opts out of the Class Action.

The written opt-out form can be obtained from Class Counsel and
must be sent by pre-paid mail, courier or by e-mail to them at:

          Christa Nicholson and Oliver Ho
          Jensen Shawa Solomon Duguid Hawkes LLP
          800, 304 - 8 Avenue SW
          Calgary, Alberta   T2P 1C2
          (403) 571-1520
          nicholsonc@jssbarristers.ca
          hoo@jssbarristers.ca

The written opt-out form must be received by Class Counsel no
later than December 1, 2016 and no Class Member will be permitted
to opt out of the Class Action after that date.  If you opt
out of the Class Action, you will take full responsibility for
initiating your own lawsuit against the Defendants, including
obtaining any necessary leave of the Court to do so, and for
taking all legal steps necessary to protect your claim, if you
wish to proceed with a claim.

What are the costs to me?

Class Members will not be personally liable to pay any legal fees
or disbursements to Class Counsel.

If the Class Action is successful in establishing that the
Defendants are liable to pay money to the Class Members, further
determination may be made including which Class Members may
be entitled to that money, and how such amounts should be
distributed to those Class Members.

If the Class Action is successful, legal costs will be deducted
from the amounts recovered on behalf of the Class Members. All
legal costs must be approved by the Court.

The Representative Plaintiff has retained Class Counsel to
represent him and the Class in this lawsuit.  Class Counsel will
only be paid legal fees if the lawsuit is successful.  If the
lawsuit is successful, Class Counsel will request that legal fees
be set by the Court.

How do I find out more about this Class Action?
Questions about the matters in this Notice must not be directed to
the Court.  The Certification Order and other information with
respect to the Class Action can be obtained at the following
website:
http://www.jssbarristers.ca/pages/class-actions/class-actions.cfm

In addition, questions for Class Counsel may be directed by mail,
e-mail or telephone to them at the contact coordinates listed
above.


PFIZER INC: December 21 Settlement Fairness Hearing Set
-------------------------------------------------------
The following statement is being issued by Grant & Eisenhofer P.A.
regarding the In re Pfizer Inc. Securities Litigation, No. 04-cv-
9866 (LTS)(HBP)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
IN RE PFIZER INC. SECURITIES LITIGATION
No. 04-cv-9866 (LTS)(HBP)
ECF CASE

SUMMARY NOTICE OF PROPOSED SETTLEMENT OF SECURITIES CLASS ACTION,
APPLICATION FOR ATTORNEYS' FEES AND EXPENSES, AND SETTLEMENT
FAIRNESS HEARING

To: All persons and entities who purchased and/or otherwise
acquired Pfizer Inc. ("Pfizer" or "PFE") common stock between and
including October 31, 2000 and October 19, 2005 (the "Class").

Certain persons and entities are excluded from the definition of
the Class as set forth in detail in the Stipulation and Agreement
of Settlement dated August 26, 2016 (the "Settlement Agreement")
and the Notice described below.

Please read this notice carefully.  If you are a member of the
Class, your rights will be affected by a class action lawsuit
pending in this Court, and you may be entitled to share in the
Settlement described below.

YOU ARE HEREBY NOTIFIED, pursuant to Rule 23 of the Federal Rules
of Civil Procedure and an Order of the United States District
Court for the Southern District of New York, that the parties in
the above-captioned action (the "Action") have reached a proposed
settlement for $486,000,000 in cash (the "Settlement"), that, if
approved, will resolve all claims in the Action.  A hearing will
be held on December 21, 2016 at 10:00 a.m., before the Honorable
Laura Taylor Swain, at the Daniel Patrick Moynihan United States
Courthouse, 500 Pearl Street, Courtroom 12D, New York, NY 10007,
for the purpose of determining (1) whether the Settlement should
be approved by the Court as fair, reasonable, and adequate; (2)
whether a Judgment should be entered by the Court dismissing the
Action with prejudice; (3) whether the proposed Plan of Allocation
is fair, reasonable, and adequate; and (4) whether the application
of Plaintiffs' Counsel for an award of attorneys' fees and
expenses and for reimbursement of Plaintiffs' costs and expenses
in connection with the Action should be approved.

IF YOU ARE A MEMBER OF THE CLASS DESCRIBED ABOVE, YOUR RIGHTS WILL
BE AFFECTED BY THE SETTLEMENT OF THIS ACTION, INCLUDING THE
RELEASE AND EXTINGUISHMENT OF CLAIMS YOU MAY POSSESS RELATING TO
YOUR PURCHASE OR ACQUISITION OF PFIZER COMMON STOCK DURING THE
CLASS PERIOD.  If you have not received the detailed Notice and
Claim Form regarding the proposed Settlement, you may obtain
copies of these documents by contacting the Settlement
Administrator, at Pfizer Securities Litigation Settlement, c/o
Garden City Group, LLC, P.O. Box 10305, Dublin, OH 43017-5905,
(888) 236-0464, or on the Internet at
www.pfizersecuritieslitigationsettlement.com
Other inquiries may be directed to Court-appointed Lead Counsel,
Mary S. Thomas, Esq., Grant & Eisenhofer P.A., 123 Justison
Street, Wilmington, DE 19801, (302) 622-7000.

If you are a Class Member, in order to be eligible to share in the
distribution of the net Settlement proceeds, you must submit a
Claim Form postmarked no later than January 28, 2017, establishing
that you are entitled to a recovery.  If you are a Class Member
and do not submit a proper Claim Form, you will not be eligible to
share in the distribution of the net Settlement proceeds, but you
will nevertheless be bound by any judgments or orders entered by
the Court in the Action.

If you are a Class Member, you have the right to object to the
proposed Settlement, the proposed Plan of Allocation, and/or the
application of Plaintiffs' Counsel for an award of attorneys' fees
and expenses and for reimbursement of Plaintiffs' costs and
expenses.  Any objections must be filed with the Court and
delivered to Lead Counsel and Defendants' Counsel such that they
are received no later than November 28, 2016, in accordance with
the instructions set forth in the Notice.

PLEASE DO NOT CONTACT THE COURT OR THE CLERK'S OFFICE REGARDING
THIS NOTICE.  All questions about this notice, the proposed
Settlement, or your eligibility to participate in the Settlement
should be directed to Lead Counsel or the Settlement Administrator
as listed above.

Dated:  October 6, 2016

BY THE ORDER OF THE COURT:
United States District Court
for the Southern District of New York


PROCTER & GAMBLE: "Banegas" Suit Moved from Florida to C.D. Cal.
----------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit titled Mrs. Angela Banegas, as an
individual and on behalf of all others similarly situated, the
Plaintiff, v. The Procter & Gamble Company, an Ohio corporation,
the Defendant, Case No. 0:16-cv-61617, was transferred from the
U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida, to the
U.S. District Court for the Central District of California
(Southern Division - Santa Ana). The Central District Court Clerk
assigned Case No. 8:16-cv-01816-TJH-AS to the proceeding. The case
is assigned to Hon. Judge Terry J. Hatter, Jr.

Procter & Gamble, also known as P&G, is an American multinational
consumer goods company headquartered in downtown Cincinnati, Ohio,
United States, founded by William Procter and James Gamble, both
from the United Kingdom. Its products include cleaning agents and
personal care products. Prior to the sale of Pringles to the
Kellogg Company, its product line also included foods and
beverages.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Leslie E. Hurst, Esq.
          Timothy G Blood, Esq.
          BLOOD HURST & O'REARDON LLP
          701 B. Street, Suite 1700
          San Diego, CA 92101
          Telephone: (619) 338 1101
          Facsimile: (619) 338 1100
          E-mail: lhurst@bholaw.com
                  tblood@bholaw.com

               - and -

          Michael Thomas Fraser, Esq.
          FRASER LAW FIRM
          4120 Douglas Blvd., Suite 306-262
          Granite Bay, CA 95746
          Telephone: (888) 557 5115
          Facsimile: (866) 212 8434
          E-mail: mfraser@thefraserlawfirm.net

               - and -

          Joseph M Pustizzi, Esq.
          LAW OFFICE OF JOSEPH PUSTIZZI, P.A.
          3440 Hollywood Blvd., Suite 415
          Hollywood, FL 33021
          Telephone: (954) 241 4244
          E-mail: joseph@pustizzilaw.com

The Defendant is represented by:

          Ann Marie Mortimer, Esq.
          Douglas C Dreier, Esq.
          HUNTON AND WILLIAMS LLP
          550 South Hope Street Suite 2000
          Los Angeles, CA 90071-2007
          Telephone: (213) 532 2000
          Facsimile: (213) 532 2020
          E-mail: amortimer@hunton.com
                  ddreier@hunton.com


REAL TIME: No Agreement to Arbitrate in Completing Online Form
--------------------------------------------------------------
Justice Donald R. Franson Jr., of the Court of Appeals of
California, Fifth District, affirmed the trial court' denial of
petition to compel arbitration, in the case ALMA ROSA CARDENAS et
al., Plaintiffs and Respondents, v. REAL TIME STAFFING SERVICES,
LLC., Defendant and Appellant, No. F071560 (Cal. Ct. App.)

On August 29, 2013, Alma Cardenas submitted an electronic
application for employment with Real Time Select Staffing, LLC via
the Select Staffing website. She entered her name, telephone
number, address, social security number, and answered questions
about her prior work experience. Plaintiff Cardenas indicated that
she read, authorized, and consented to the mutual agreement
regarding the arbitration and class claims by placing her
initials, ARC, at the end of this portion of her application. At
the end of the application, Cardenas also entered her name and
entered the date, August 29, 2013 to indicate that she certified
that the information contained in the application was true and
correct and that she read and understood all statements contained
in the application. The application was then electronically time-
stamped by Select Staffing indicating receipt of Cardenas'
application at 3:26 p.m. on August 29, 2013. Gabriela Arroyo-
Briones also made the same online application.

Select Staffing hired Cardenas for a temporary assignment as a
result of her online application. That assignment lasted from
September 3, 2013, until January 4, 2014. Select Staffing hired
Arroyo-Briones for a temporary assignment as a result of her
online application. Her assignment started on April 7, 2013, and
ended on August 23, 2014.

Cardenas and Briones on behalf of themselves as individuals and
others similarly situated, filed a complaint against Select
Staffing and Del Monte Foods. The complaint alleged claims under
the California Labor Code for failure to provide meal and rest
breaks, failure to pay wages including regular wages, overtime,
split-shift pay, and wages owed at termination, and failure to
provide accurate wage statements. Plaintiffs also asserted an
unfair competition claim under Business and Professions Code
section 17200, which they described as a public interest private
attorney general action. Select Staffing responded by filing a
petition to compel arbitration.

The trial court found that no arbitration agreement was formed by
the employer and employees and denied defendant's motion to compel
arbitration. Select Staffing filed notice of appeal from the order
denying its petition to compel arbitration.

Justice Franson affirmed the order denying the petition to compel
arbitration.

A copy of Justice Franson's opinion dated October 6, 2016, is
available at https://goo.gl/CCy2cT from Leagle.com.

Timothy L. Hix -- thix@seyfarth.com -- Kiran Aftab Seldon --
kseldon@seyfarth.com -- and Daniel C. Whang -- dwhang@seyfarth.com
-- at Seyfarth Shaw, for Defendant and Appellant

Dennis P. Wilson -- WILSONTRIALGROUP@ATT.NET -- at Wilson Trial
Group; Anthony N. Luti -- tony@lutilaw.com -- at The Luti Law
Firm, Plaintiffs and Respondents

The Court of Appeals of California, Fifth District panel consists
of Presiding Justice Brad R. Hill,Justice Donald R. Franson Jr.
and Judge Brian L. McCabe.


RICHMOND DINER: Faces "Djeriou" Suit in E.D.N.Y.
------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Richmond Diner
Restaurant Inc. The case is entitled Khaldia Djeriou, Kubra Polat,
and Eugene Yanovskiy, individually and on behalf of all other
persons similarly situated, the Plaintiffs, v. Richmond Diner
Restaurant Inc., jointly and severally and Hassan Aly, jointly and
severally, the Defendants, Case No. 1:16-cv-05437 (E.D.N.Y., Sep.
29, 2016).

Richmond Diner is a restaurant located in Staten Island, New York.

The Plaintiffs appear pro se.


RX HOME: "Dubois" Suit Alleges Violation of FLSA, Ohio Wage Act
---------------------------------------------------------------
TAMEKA DUBOIS, 1009 Cumberland Avenue, Cleveland, Ohio 44104, on
behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff,
vs. RX HOME HEALTHCARE INC., c/o Statutory Agent Lemma Getachew
365 Wakefield Run Blvd., Hinckley, Ohio 44233, Defendant, Case No.
1:16-cv-02374 (N.D. Ohio, September 26, 2016), results from
Defendant's practices and policies of allegedly not paying its
non-exempt home health aides, including Plaintiff, overtime
compensation at the rate of one and one-half times their regular
rates of pay for the hours they worked over 40 each workweek, in
violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act.  It alleges violations
of the Ohio Minimum Fair Wage Standards Act.

Rx Home Healthcare is a family-owned, locally-operated provider of
medical and non-medical home care services.

Defendant is a home health care business.

     Chastity L. Christy, Esq.
     Anthony J. Lazzaro, Esq.
     Lori M. Griffin, Esq.
     THE LAZZARO LAW FIRM, LLC
     920 Rockefeller Building
     614 W. Superior Avenue
     Cleveland, OH 44113
     Phone: 216-696-5000
     Fax: 216-696-7005
     E-mail: chastity@lazzarolawfirm.com
             anthony@lazzarolawfirm.com
             lori@lazzarolawfirm.com


SAFEWAY INC: Rodman's Bid for Discovery Sanctions Granted in Part
-----------------------------------------------------------------
District Judge Jon S. Tigar of the Northern District of
California, granted in part and denied in part plaintiff's motion
for discovery sanctions, in the case MICHAEL RODMAN, Plaintiff, v.
SAFEWAY INC., Defendant, Case No. 11-cv-03003-JST (N.D. Cal.)

The court previously granted plaintiff's motion for partial
summary judgment that Safeway, Inc. breached its contract with
class members who registered to shop online after 2006 by charging
higher prices for groceries on its online Safeway.com delivery
service than it charged in the stores where the groceries were
selected.  However, the court denied plaintiff's subsequent motion
for partial summary judgment regarding Safeway's liability to
class members who registered to shop in the online store prior to
2006 because plaintiff had not met its burden of demonstrating
that class members who registered prior to 2006 ever assented to
the same special terms as class members who registered after 2006.

On February 3, 2015, plaintiff requested documents showing the
special terms and registration process in effect from 2001 to
2005. Safeway responded to plaintiff's document requests, noting
that it did not have access to the special terms that were in
effect between 2001 and 2005.

Approximately seven days before October 6, 2015, the trial date,
Safeway produced 10 highly relevant documents related to Safeway's
pre-2006 terms and conditions. Given the highly relevant nature of
the newly disclosed documents, the court continued the trial until
December 7, 2015 and permitted plaintiff to take additional
discovery.

After plaintiff conducted additional discovery, on November 19,
2016, the parties stipulated to the pre-2006 terms and conditions
appearing on Safeway.com and further stipulated that the court's
prior summary judgment orders are equally applicable to class
members who registered before January 1, 2006, as they are to
class members who registered between January 1, 2006 and November
14, 2011. The parties requested that the court vacate the December
7, 2015 trial date, which request the court granted. On November
30, 2015, the court issued a judgment in favor of the certified
class in the amount of $30,979,262 in damages and $10,905,505 in
prejudgment interest, for a total of $41,884,767.
On December 4, 2015, Safeway filed a notice of appeal from the
court's November 30 judgment. On April 6, 2016, plaintiff filed a
motion for discovery sanctions. Plaintiff moves for sanctions
under Rule 26(g) based primarily on Safeway's false and inaccurate
statements concerning the non-existences of documents reflecting
historic copies of Safeway's pre-2006 terms and conditions.

Judge Tigar granted in part and denied in part plaintiff's motion
for sanction and orders defendant to pay class counsel $688,646 as
a discovery sanction.

A copy of Judge Tigar's order dated October 6, 2016, is available
at https://goo.gl/4BlqQI from Leagle.com.

Michael Rodman, Plaintiff, represented by James C. Shah --
jshah@sfmslaw.com -- Kolin Tang -- ktang@sfmslaw.com -- Scott
Rhead Shepherd -- at Shepherd, Finkelman, Miller & Shah, LLP;
Steven Alan Schwartz -- SteveSchwartz@chimicles.com -- Timothy
Newlyn Mathews -- TimothyMathews@chimicles.com -- at Chimicles and
Tikellis, LLP

Safeway Inc., Defendant, represented by Scott D. Baker --
sbaker@reedsmith.com -- Adaline J. Hilgard --
ahilgard@reedsmith.com -- Christine Marie Morgan --
cmorgan@reedsmith.com -- James A. Daire -- jdaire@reedsmith.com
-- Jonah Dylan Mitchell -- jmitchell@reedsmith.com -- at Reed
Smith LLP


SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS: Health Canada Issues Washing Machine Recall
----------------------------------------------------------------
Sarolta Saskiw and Jackie Dunham, writing for CTV Winnipeg, report
that Health Canada has issued a recall for Samsung top-loading
washing machines, because they say the machines are defective.

Officials said when the washers are cleaning bulky items at
certain settings, this might cause the top of the machine to
suddenly detach during the spin cycle.

Samsung recommends using a low speed, delicate cycle with bedding
and other large items, if you have one of the affected machines.
Samsung says there have been "no reported incidents" when using
that cycle.

The company said it is still working on how to repair the
machines.

Health Canada has not had any reports of injuries, but Samsung has
received eleven reports of property damage.

A federal class-action lawsuit in the United States, representing
three women from Texas, Indiana and Georgia, was filed in New
Jersey in August.  The plaintiffs allege their Samsung washing
machines exploded in their homes, causing property damage and a
risk to their safety.

The lawsuit is calling on Samsung to take "corrective action" by
recalling the machines and warning the public of the dangers they
pose.


SEAGATE TECHNOLOGY: Deadline to Amend Complaint Moved to Oct. 18
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, EVERETT CASTILLO, LINDA CASTILLO, NICHOLAS DATTOMA,
FREDA LANG, WENDY TRAN, and STEVEN WILK, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. SEAGATE
TECHNOLOGY LLC, Defendant, Case No. 3:16-cv-01958-RS (N.D. Cal.),
District Judge Richard Seeborg granted the parties' stipulation to
move the deadline for the Plaintiff to amend the complaint to
October 18, 2016.

The Plaintiffs' initial deadline to amend the complaint was set on
October 4, 2016, which fell on the second day of the Rosh Hashana
Holiday. In addition to the intervening holiday, the parties also
seek to move the deadline in light of their continuing discussion
in determining whether the information contained in the
anticipated amended complaint should be filed under seal.

A copy of the Court's Order dated October 3, 2016 is available at
https://goo.gl/j9PJeK from Leagle.com.

Everett Castillo, Plaintiff, represented by Lionel Z. Glancy --
lglancy@glancylaw.com -- Glancy Prongay & Murray LLP.

Everett Castillo, et al., Plaintiffs, represented by Marc Lawrence
Godino -- mgodino@glancylaw.com -- Glancy Prongay & Murray LLP,
Mark Samuel Greenstone -- mgreenstone@glancylaw.com
-- Glancy Prongay & Murray LLP, David Jay Stone -- stone@bespc.com
-- Bragar Eagel & Squire, P.C., pro hac vice, Jeffrey H. Squire --
squire@bespc.com -- Bragar Wexler & Eagel P.C., pro hac vice &
Lawrence Paul Eagel -- eagel@bespc.com -- Bragar Eagel and Squire,
P.C., pro hac vice.

Nicholas Dattoma, et al., Plaintiffs, represented by Eric A.
Grover -- eagrover@kellergrover.com -- Keller Grover LLP, Jeremiah
Frei-Pearson, Finkelstein Blankinship Frei-Pearson & Garber, LLP,
pro hac vice, Marc Lawrence Godino -- mgodino@glancylaw.com --
Glancy Prongay & Murray LLP, Mark Samuel Greenstone --
mgreenstone@glancylaw.com -- Glancy Prongay & Murray LLP & Todd S.
Garber, Finkelstein, Blankinship, Frei-Pearson & Garber, LLP, pro
hac vice.

Seagate Technology, LLC, et al., Defendants, represented by David
Frank McDowell -- dmcdowell@mofo.com -- Morrison & Foerster LLP,
Alexandra Eve Laks -- alaks@mofo.com -- Morrison and Foerster LLP
& Tiffany Cheung -- tcheung@mofo.com -- Morrison & Foerster LLP.


SECURITAS SECURITY: Class Settlement Granted Final Approval
-----------------------------------------------------------
District Judge Jon S. Tigar of the Northern District of California
granted plaintiff's motion for final approval of class action
settlement and motion for attorneys' fees, in the case MICHAEL
DEATRICK, Plaintiff, v. SECURITAS SECURITY SERVICES USA, INC.,
Defendant, Case No. 13-cv-05016-JST (N.D. Cal.)

Michael Deatrick worked for Securitas Services USA, Inc. for
several years before he was laid off. Deatrick alleges that
Securitas failed to pay him and other security guards the full
overtime compensation they were owed, because Securitas failed to
take into account in the overtime calculation the payments that
security guards received in connection with Securitas's vacation
pay plan. Deatrick alleges that Securitas improperly treated the
payments as vacation payments under the Fair Labor Standards Act,
even though such payments were, in practice, retention or
productivity bonuses.

On November 9, 2015, Deatrick moved for preliminary approval of a
class settlement reached by the parties, and for conditional
certification of an additional California opt-out class. On
February 24, 2016, the court granted the motion for conditional
class certification but denied the motion for preliminary
approval. On March 8, 2016, Deatrick filed a motion for
preliminary approval of amended settlement and modification of
end-date settlement class. The court granted the motion for
preliminary approval and modifications on April 7, 2016.

The proposed settlement provides for a total payment of $2,550,000
by Securitas, to be distributed as; $1,385,000, settlement award
to both classes, $125,000, notice and settlement administration,
$10,000 PAGA penalty, $7,500, to State of California, $2,500 to
affected employees, $5,000, plaintiff's incentive award,
$1,025,000, attorney's fees and costs, $210,000, cost of notice
for FLSA collective action, $50,000, damages experts, $35,000,
discovery, mediation, and other litigation costs and $730,000 for
attorney's fees.

Plaintiff filed a motion for final approval of class action
settlement and a motion for attorneys' fees, costs and incentive
award.

Judge Tigar granted final approval of the proposed settlement and
granted plaintiff's counsel $637,500 attorneys' fees, $252,187.39
as litigation costs and a $1,500 incentive award to Michael
Deatrick.

A copy of Judge Tigar's order dated September 23, 2016, is
available at https://goo.gl/VMnj1J from Leagle.com.

Michael Deatrick, Plaintiffs, represented by:

John R. Hurley, Esq.
Daniel Chris Quintero, Esq.
Eduardo Gregory Roy, Esq.
Jill Dessalines, Esq.
Prometheus Partners L.L.P.
The Mills Tower
220 Montgomery Street, Suite 1094
San Francisco, CA 94104
Telephone: 415-527-0255

Securitas Security Services USA, Inc., Defendant, represented by
Sherry Beth Shavit -- sshavit@tharpe-howell.com -- Stuart Edward
Cohen -- scohen@tharpe-howell.com -- at Tharpe & Howell, LLP; John
Kevin Lilly -- klilly@littler.com -- at Littler Mendelson PC

Dale L Hitt, Objector, represented by:

John R. Hurley, Esq.
Prometheus Partners L.L.P.
The Mills Tower
220 Montgomery Street, Suite 1094
San Francisco, CA 94104
Telephone: 415-527-0255


SIZMEK INC: Faruqi & Faruqi Files Securities Class Action
---------------------------------------------------------
Faruqi & Faruqi, LLP, on Oct. 4 disclosed that it has filed a
class action lawsuit in the United States District Court for the
Western District of Texas, case no. 1:16-cv-01073, on behalf of
shareholders of Sizmek, Inc. ("Sizmek" or the "Company")
(NasdaqGS: SZMK) who held Sizmek securities and have been harmed
by Sizmek's and its board of directors' (the "Board") alleged
violations of Sections 13(e), 14(a) and 20(a) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 (the "Exchange Act") and Securities and
Exchange Commission ("SEC") Rules 14a-9 and 13e-3 in connection
with the ongoing private transaction between Sizmek and Vector
Capital ("Vector").

On August 3, 2016, the Company announced that Vector had initiated
a tender offer to acquire all of the outstanding shares of Sizmek,
valuing the Company at approximately $122 million (the "Proposed
Transaction").

If you wish to obtain information concerning this action or view a
copy of the complaint, you can do so by clicking here:
www.faruqilaw.com/SZMKnotice

Pursuant to the terms of the Proposed Transaction, which was
unanimously approved by the Board, Sizmek shareholders will
receive $3.90 in cash per share for each share of Sizmek they own.
The complaint claims that this consideration is inadequate in
light of the Company's recent financial performance and strong
growth prospects.

The complaint also alleges that the Recommendation Statements
filed by Defendant Meruelo Investments, by the Company's Board and
by Vector, which will be filed with the SEC, provide materially
incomplete and misleading information about the Company and the
Proposed Transaction, in violation of Sections 13(e) and 14(a) of
the Exchange Act and Rules 14a-9 and 13e-3.  Further, the
Recommendation Statements fail to provide Sizmek's shareholders
with material information concerning the financial and procedural
fairness of the Proposed Transaction.

Take Action

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

If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no
later than 60 days from October 4, 2016.  Any member of the
putative class may move the Court to serve as lead plaintiff
through counsel of their choice, or may choose to do nothing and
remain an absent class member.  If you wish to discuss this
action, or have any questions concerning this notice or your
rights or interests, please contact:

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


SOUTH CAROLINA: "Campbell" Suit Moved from Cty. Ct. to D.S. Car.
--------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit titled Marion Katrell Campbell on behalf
of himself and all other similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v.
South Carolina Department of Corrections and Brian P Stirling,
Director of South Carolina Department of Corrections, the
Defendants, Case No. 2016-CP-10-04311, was removed from the
Charleston County Court of Common Pleas, to the U.S. District
Court for the District of South Carolina (Greenville). The
District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 6:16-cv-03265-MGL-KFM to
the proceeding. The case is assigned to Hon. Judge Mary Geiger
Lewis.

The South Carolina Department of Corrections is the agency
responsible for corrections in the U.S. state of South Carolina.
It currently has about 6,000 employees and 23,000 inmates, in 24
institutions. The agency has its headquarters in Columbia.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Christopher P Kenney, Esq.
          Richard A Harpootlian, Esq.
          William Baker Allen, Esq.
          RICHARD A. HARPOOTLIAN LAW OFFICE
          1410 Laurel Street
          Columbia, SC 29201
          Telephone: (803) 252 4848
          E-mail: cpk@harpootlianlaw.com
                  rah@harpootlianlaw.com
                  wba@harpootlianlaw.com

               - and -

          Philip A Berlinsky, Esq.
          RIESEN LAW FIRM
          3660 West Montague Avenue
          N Charleston, SC 29418
          Telephone: (843) 760 2450
          Facsimile: (843) 767 3282
          E-mail: philipalanlaw@aol.com

The Defendants are represented by:

          William Henry Davidson II, Esq.
          Andrew F Lindemann, Esq.
          DAVIDSON AND LINDEMANN
          PO Box 8568
          Columbia, SC 29202-8568
          Telephone: (803) 806 8222
          Facsimile: (803) 806 8855
          E-mail: wdavidson@dml-law.com
                  alindemann@dml-law.com


STEPHEN L BRUCE: Faces "Beale" Suit in Northern Dist. of Oklahoma
-----------------------------------------------------------------
A lawsuit has been filed against Stephen L. Bruce, P.C. The case
is titled Linda D Beale, an individual, on behalf of herself and
all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. Stephen L. Bruce,
P.C., doing business as Stephen Bruce & Associates, an Oklahoma
professional corporation, the Defendant, Case No. 4:16-cv-00618-
JHP-FHM (N.D. Okla., Sept. 29, 2016). The case is assigned to Hon.
Judge James H Payne.

Stephen Bruce & Associates is a debt collection firm.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Robert William Murphy, Esq.
          1212 SE 2nd Ave.
          Ft Lauderdale, FL 33316
          Telephone: (954) 763 8660
          Facsimile: (954) 763 8607
          E-mail: rphyu@aol.com

               - and -

          Victor R Wandres, Esq.
          PARAMOUNT LAW
          4835 S Peoria Ave STE 1
          Tulsa, OK 74105
          Telephone: (918) 200 9272
          Facsimile: (918) 895 9774
          E-mail: victor@paramount-law.net


STREAM ENERGY: RICO Class Action Can Proceed, 5th Cir. Rules
------------------------------------------------------------
After seven years of procedural wrangling, plaintiffs claiming
that Stream Energy and its Ignite marketing division defrauded
them through a complicated pyramid scheme will have their day in
court.

On September 30, 2016, all 16 judges of the U.S. Court of Appeals
for the Fifth Circuit ruled in a rare en banc decision that a
lawsuit by 160,000 Stream sales agents could proceed as a class
action.  The ruling not only reversed a district court decision,
but also a previous decision from a three-judge appellate panel in
the matter -- Torres, Robison, et al. v. SGE Management, LLC, et
al. (Case No. 14-20128).

"This is a significant victory for the plaintiffs who have
patiently maintained their resolve for so long," said
Andrew Kochanowski, an attorney with Sommers Schwartz, PC who
represents the plaintiff sales agents along with Matthew Prebeg
-- mprebeg@pfalawfirm.com -- of Houston-based Prebeg, Faucett &
Abbott, PLLC and Eric Citron -- ecitron@goldsteinrussell.com -- of
Goldstein & Russell, PC in Bethesda, Maryland.

According to court documents, Stream Energy and its Ignite
marketing arm were formed in 2004 with the intention of reselling
gas and electricity to Texas customers.  Two Stream sales agents
brought this lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of Texas on behalf of other IA's under the Racketeer
Influenced & Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO), claiming that IA's
are only compensated according to the number of individuals they
enlist to purchase the Services Program and not by their sales
revenue.  The suit alleges that SGE Management, LLC and other
entities behind Stream Energy induced the plaintiffs to
participate in an illegal pyramid scheme by misrepresenting that
Ignite is a legitimate business opportunity and defrauding the
plaintiffs to the point that all have lost or will soon lose their
investment in the Services Program along with additional monetary
losses.

The district court initially granted class certification, which
the defendants appealed to the Fifth Circuit.  In an October 16,
2015 opinion, the three-judge Court of Appeals panel de-certified
the class, finding that questions regarding individual plaintiffs'
reliance on the defendants' alleged fraudulent representations
predominated over any common issues, and thus failing to meet the
threshold for class action certification under Federal Rule of
Procedure 23(b)(3).

The plaintiffs moved for reconsideration, and a year later in what
Matthew Prebeg describes as "an exceedingly and exceptionally rare
turn of events," all 16 judges of the Firth Circuit participated
in the decision to reverse the October 2015 ruling from the
appellate panel and affirm the district court's certification of
the plaintiff class.

The total number of Independent Associates includes more than
240,000 people, but approximately 80,000 of them are precluded
from joining the class action due to arbitration clauses in their
contracts with Stream.


SUSAN J SZWED: Final Fairness Hearing Set for January 27, 2017
--------------------------------------------------------------
Chief District Judge Nancy Torresen outlined the scheduling order
of the case styled, ALFRED MARCOUX and CHARLENE JONES, Plaintiffs,
v. SUSAN J. SZWED, P.A., Defendant, No. 2:15-cv-093-NT (D. Maine),
following its approval of the proposed class notice.

The parties have contracted to settle the case, and the Defendant
agreed to pay $3,800 to be divided among the approximately 92
class members. The Defendant also will pay the maximum amount of
individual statutory damages -- $1,000 -- to each of Mr. Marcoux
and Ms. Jones, the appointed Class Representatives. The Defendant
will separately pay the costs of class notice and administration
of the settlement, and, subject to the Court's approval, the class
counsel's attorneys' fees and litigation expenses.

Moreover, the Court ordered that:

     (a) the class administrator shall mail the notice to the
         Class Members as expeditiously as possible, but in no
         event later than October 25, 2016;

     (b) any Class Member who desires to be excluded from the
         class ("opt-out") must send a written request for the
         exclusion to the class administrator in the form
         described in the Notice with a postmark no later than
         December 1, 2016;

     (c) any Class Member who desires to object to final approval
         of the Settlement can send a written objection to the
         Clerk of Court where such objection must be postmarked
         by December 1, 2016;

     (d) all briefs in support of the proposed Settlement shall
         be served and filed with the Court on or before December
         15, 2016; and,

     (e) the final fairness hearing shall be held on January 27,
         2017.

A copy of the Court's Order dated October 3, 2016 is available at
https://goo.gl/RWDev2 from Leagle.com.

CHARLENE JONES, et al., Plaintiffs, represented by DOUGLAS F.
JENNINGS, WALKER & JENNINGS & JESSE S. JOHNSON --
jjohnson@gdrlawfirm.com -- GREENWALD DAVIDSON RADBIL PLLC.

SUSAN J SZWED PA, Defendant, represented by JAMES M. BOWIE,
THOMPSON BOWIE & HATCH LLC & ROSIE M. WILLIAMS, THOMPSON & BOWIE,
LLP.


SYNGENTA: Judge, Lawyers to Discuss Next Move in GMO Corn Case
--------------------------------------------------------------
Stephen Steed, writing for Northwest Arkansas Democrat Gazette,
reports that the judge and lawyers involved in a class-action
lawsuit filed by Arkansas farmers against seed-maker Syngenta met
by phone on Oct. 4 to discuss how they should proceed.

There's a chance the lead lawsuit filed by Kenny Falwell of Eagle
Lake Farms in Newport could be sent back to Arkansas for trial,
U.S. District Judge John Lungstrum of Kansas hinted during a
conference call.

The Falwell lawsuit is among thousands filed by corn growers
across the country, alleging that Swiss seed manufacturer Syngenta
cost farmers at least $3 billion in sales when the company's
genetically modified corn disrupted the corn market in 2013 and
2014.  Most of the lawsuits were consolidated into a handful and
transferred to Judge Lungstrum's judicial district in Kansas.

Judge Lungstrum granted class-action status to Falwell's lawsuit,
allowing Arkansas corn growers to join.  Judge Lungstrum did the
same for lawsuits in seven other states and certified another as a
nationwideclass action.  Judge Lungstrum named the Falwell lawsuit
as a "bellwether" case, meaning it will be among the first to go
to trial and a verdict will serve as an indicator to lawyers on
both sides of how future cases will turn out.

Judge Lungstrum also named John Emerson of the Emerson Scott law
firm, with law offices in Little Rock and Houston, as the lead
attorney for the Arkansas case.  Judge Lungstrum noted that the
Arkansas case could have as many as 600 members while lawsuits in
each of the other states could have thousands of members because
they're larger corn producers.

Mr. Falwell's lawsuit was first filed in the eastern district of
the U.S. District Court in Little Rock, before U.S. District Judge
D. Price Marshall Jr. It, and some of the other statewide class-
action lawsuits, could be returned to where they were originally
filed, Judge Lungstrum said.

Judge Lungstrum said he was focused on a starting date some time
in June for both a Kansas class-action lawsuit and the national
lawsuit.

"I am determined this won't get bogged down," Judge Lungstrum
said. Coaxing lawyers from both sides to work together and calling
them the "cream of the crop," Judge Lungstrum said, "We'll work to
do our best to avoid difficulties, but before it's all over, there
could be difficulties."

He also asked lawyers to keep their briefs "succinct" and avoid a
rehash of "old arguments," getting them to agree to a 20-page
limit on pretrial matters.

Mr. Falwell and other Arkansas farmers are among plaintiffs who
didn't buy or plant Syngenta's new corn seeds, called Agrisure
Viptera and Duracade, which had been genetically modified to make
it more resistant to the root worm and corn borer insects.

Mr. Falwell's case, like many others, allege Syngenta began
marketing the genetically modified corn in 2011 even though many
foreign markets hadn't yet approved -- or had outright banned --
imports of modified seed and modified byproducts.  China, a
burgeoning market for corn growers in the United States, was among
those countries, but Syngenta assured farmers others in
agribusiness that China's approval was imminent, according to the
lawsuits.

By November 2013, inspectors in other countries discovered
genetically modified grain mixed with nonmodified grain and halted
U.S. imports, causing corn prices to drop from $7 a bushel to $3.
China itself rejected more than 131 million bushels, according to
the lawsuits, and didn't accept the modified grain until nearly
five years after its introduction.

The case has been compared with a $750 million settlement in 2011
over contamination of the U.S. rice supply by Bayer AG's
genetically modified rice, which hadn't yet been accepted by the
European Union.  Riceland Foods Inc. in Stuttgart was awarded
$136.8 million, and many individual Arkansas farmers received
payments for damages as well.  Some 11,000 rice farmers in
Arkansas, Mississippi, Missouri, Texas and Louisiana were involved
in that lawsuit.


TAKATA CORP: Honda Less Active in Discussions Over Future
---------------------------------------------------------
Yuki Hagiwara and Takako Taniguchi, writing for Bloomberg News,
report that as air-bag maker Takata Corp. courts buyers to resolve
the auto industry's biggest recall ever, stakeholders are getting
frustrated with the speed of decision-making by top customer and
shareholder Honda Motor Co., according to people with knowledge of
the deliberations.

Honda hasn't played a leading role in talks the world's automakers
are having with Takata over its future, according to officials at
four other carmakers, who asked not to be identified because the
deliberations are private.  An executive at one of Takata's
lenders said Honda has been less active than its peers in
deliberating whether sub-suppliers to Takata would be able to
survive a potential bankruptcy.

As the company with the biggest exposure to air-bag recalls and
the deaths and injuries caused by the faulty devices, Honda has
the most to lose in negotiating the cost-sharing needed to find
suitors for Takata.  Pressing too hard against Takata also would
be risky -- its failure could disrupt a major link in Honda's
parts supply chain.

"Honda is in a position to make sure Takata stays in existence,
simply because they are the biggest customer and had the most
recalls," Ken Miyao, an analyst with Tokyo-based market researcher
Carnorama, said by phone.  "The recalls at some of the other
carmakers are much smaller in scale.  They will count on Honda to
negotiate with Takata."

Honda believes it's in proactive discussions on best measures to
cope with Takata's issues, spokesman Ben Nakamura said.
Without buy-in from Honda, which accounted for about 14 percent of
Takata's sales last year, the supplier is unlikely to reach
agreement with the roughly dozen other customers it's been meeting
with to pick between bids by rival air bag companies and private
equity suitors.  A Takata representative declined to comment on
Honda's role in its negotiations with carmakers.

Five Bids

Takata received offers for initial investment of $1 billion to $2
billion from each of the five suitors seeking to buy the Tokyo-
based company, people familiar with the matter have said.  The
bidders comprise air-bag inflator maker Daicel Corp. and Bain
Capital, buyout firm KKR & Co., bumper supplier Flex-N-Gate Corp.
and air bag makers Autoliv Inc. and Key Safety Systems Inc.
While all five suitors have raised the option of bankruptcy for
Takata, Autoliv and Key Safety are insisting on that course of
action, making their bids less favorable, a person with knowledge
of the matter said.  Takata and its financial adviser Lazard Ltd.
want to finalize a deal by the end of the year.

Takata needs the sign-off of carmaker customers led by Honda on
its plans because the costs of air bag repairs and legal
liabilities may exceed the assets on its balance sheet and the
amount of investment bidders are said to have offered.

Costs, Lawsuits

Jefferies Group LLC analyst Takaki Nakanishi has estimated the air
bag fixes alone may cost about 1.28 trillion yen.  Takata reported
404.7 billion yen in total assets as of the end of June. The
supplier also faces class-action lawsuits brought by vehicle
owners and a criminal investigation by the U.S. Justice
Department.

Honda hasn't changed its position and it won't give up on
recouping recall costs from Takata and won't provide financial
assistance to the company, according to Mr. Nakamura.

"However, for the recall cost, there is room to reconsider based
on the agreement we will be reaching," Mr. Nakamura said.  "Our
priority is to keep the flow of supplying the products to our
customers and we will make decisions accordingly."

Honda's Role

Honda said in May it would recall 21 million vehicles to replace
Takata air bags.  The maker of Civic compacts and Accord sedans in
November 2008 initiated the first repair campaign related to
Takata's flawed air bag inflators, which contain propellant that
breaks down when exposed to high heat and humidity.  Once the
material is degraded, it can lead the inflator to rupture and
spray plastic and metal shards at vehicle occupants.

All but one of the 16 motorists who've died in fatal accidents
involving Takata inflators in the U.S., Malaysia and India
occurred in Honda vehicles.  About 90 million air bags are due to
be replaced in the U.S. and Japan alone.


THIERRY OLLIVIER: "Himalania" Goji Berries Case Can Proceed
-----------------------------------------------------------
Kelsey Stricker, Esq. -- kstricker@mofo.com -- of Morrison &
Foerster LLP, in an article for JDSupra, reports that on September
2, 2016, United States District Judge Dean P. Pregerson for the
Central District of California granted in part and denied in part
a motion to dismiss a class action complaint alleging violations
of the UCL and CLRA against defendants that market and sell
"Himalania" brand goji berries.  Torrent v. Thierry Ollivier et
al., No. 2:15-cv-02511 DDP (JPRx), Dkt. No. 76.  The court held
that the plaintiff's claims for injunctive relief survived to the
extent that they were based on the allegation that the product's
packaging created an "impression" that the berries were harvested
from the Himalayas.  The court dismissed plaintiff's claims to the
extent that they were based on a reasonable consumer's knowledge
of Chinese geography.

Consumer Challenges "Himalania" Goji Berries' Packaging.  In April
2015, Plaintiff Nicolas Torrent filed a class action lawsuit on
behalf of himself and California purchasers in the Central
District of California, seeking injunctive relief and damages
under California's UCL and CLRA against the founder, marketer, and
seller of "Himalania" brand goji berries.  Torrent alleged that
the defendants "falsely creat[ed] the impression in the minds of
its consumers that their Himalania brand goji berries are
harvested in and transported from the Himalayas mountain range[,]"
when "[i]n fact, the berries are harvested in the Ningxia province
of China, which is not what the reasonable consumer considers as
the Himalayas."

Court Dismisses UCL and CLRA Claims Based on a Reasonable
Consumer's Knowledge.  Torrent's claims were based in part on the
allegation that the goji berries "come from the Ningxia province
of China, which is not what a reasonable consumer considers as the
Himalayas."  The defendants argued that members of the public were
not likely to be deceived by the packaging because "the reasonable
consumer does not know about Ningxia province's location relative
to the Himalayas."  The court agreed with defendants, finding that
"Plaintiff cannot [] plausibly allege that reasonable consumers
are well-versed enough in Chinese geography to have any beliefs
about Ningxia's location or whether the Ningxia province qualifies
as 'Himalayan.'"

UCL and CLRA Claims Based on "Creating an Impression" Survive.
Torrent's claims were also based on the allegation that the goji
berries' packaging "created the impression" that the product was
harvested from the Himalayan mountains.  Torrent argued that this
"impression" was created by the packaging's portrayal of images of
mountains and statements including "The most famous berry in the
Himalayas" and "Goji berries originate in the high plateaus of the
Himalayan mountains."  The court held that "[t]hese facts, putting
aside any allegations about consumers' knowledge of Ningxia,
themselves could support a claim that Defendants' packaging would
lead a reasonable consumer to believe that Defendants' berries are
harvested in the Himalayas, when in fact the berries are not
harvested in the Himalayas."  The court declined to dismiss the
UCL and CLRA claims to the extent they were based on wrongful
"impression" allegations.

Himalayn Takeaway.  The holding in this case highlights a
potentially significant and relatively novel basis for a motion to
dismiss:  that the plaintiff cannot plausibly allege that a
reasonable consumer would have the requisite knowledge to be
deceived.


UBS FINANCIAL: Investors' Class Action v. Puerto Rico Unit Tossed
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Dena Aubin, writing for Reuters, reports that investors who claim
they lost millions of dollars on risky mutual funds sold by a
Puerto Rican subsidiary of UBS Financial Services cannot bring a
class action, a federal judge has ruled.

In a decision on Sept. 30, U.S. District Judge Carmen Cerezo
adopted the recommendation of a magistrate judge who said in March
there are too many individual issues involved in the case for the
investors to sue as a class.


UNITED COLLECTION: Faces "Wegh" Suit in E.D.N.Y.
------------------------------------------------
A lawsuit has been filed against United Collection Bureau, Inc.
The case is captioned Abraham Wegh, on behalf of himself and all
other similarly situated consumers, the Plaintiff, v. United
Collection Bureau, Inc., the Defendant, Case No. 1:16-cv-05427
(E.D.N.Y., Sept. 29, 2016).

United Collection provides debt collection services for companies.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


VERIZON PENNSYLVANIA: Sued Over Set-Top Box Lease Requirement
-------------------------------------------------------------
Christopher Kelly, Individually and on Behalf of All Others
Similarly Situated 620 Gorgas Lane Philadelphia, PA 19128, the
Plaintiff, v. Verizon Pennsylvania, LLC, c/o CT Corporation System
116 Pine Street, Suite 320 Harrisburg, Pennsylvania 17101
AND Verizon Online Pennsylvania Partnership, 1095 Avenue of the
Americas New York, NY10036 AND Verizon Pennsylvania c/o CT
Corporation Two Commerce Square, 2001 Market Street, 5th Floor
Philadelphia, PA 19103, the Defendants, Case No. 16090352 (Phil.
Ct. of Common Pleas, Sept. 28, 2016), seeks all appropriate and
available relief from Verizon for its deceptive practices and
unfair trade methods, specifically with regard to its deceptive
conduct regarding the alleged "requirement" of leasing a "set-top
box" for each and every television in a customer's home.

Verizon requires its FiOS customers to lease a "set-top" box for
each television to be connected to Verizon's broadband network.
Verizon's FiOS customers are assessed recurring fees for the use
of these devices, which range in price from $9-99 to $12.00 per
month (in addition to the cost of FiOS service).  These devices
provide an "input" connection for a FiOS cable line and an
"output" connection to a customer's television. Verizon requires
its customers to utilize a separate box for each and every
television connected to the FiOS network.  Allegedly, these
devices are required to facilitate various functions, such as
decoding broadband signals, accessing on-demand content ("ODC"),
or utilizing "digital video recorder" ("DVR") functions.

Verizon Pennsylvania LLC. provides wireline telecommunications
services as well as broadband services, including high speed
Internet; and fiber-to-the-premises services, such as FiOS TV.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Sol H. Weiss, Esq.
          David S. Senoff, Esq.
          Clayton P. Flaherty, Esq.
          ANAPOL WEISS
          One Logan Square
          130 N. 18th Street, Suite 1600
          Philadelphia, PA 19103
          Telephone: (215) 790 4550
          Facsimile: (215) 875 7733
          E-mail: dsenoff@anapolweiss.com


VIRGINIA: Wants Suit Over Suspended License Law Dismissed
---------------------------------------------------------
Travis Fain, writing for Daily Press, reports that a federal judge
should dismiss a lawsuit attacking Virginia's practice of
suspending drivers licenses when people don't pay court fines, the
state argued in a brief filed late on Oct. 3.

Attorneys representing the Virginia Department of Motor Vehicles
laid out a number of procedural arguments against the case,
brought by the Legal Aid Justice Center on behalf of poor
Virginians who argue the law makes it difficult, even impossible,
for them to work.  The bottom line for Attorney General
Mark Herring's office was this: Thought the case, "could appear
sympathetic from a policy perspective, it fails when viewed from a
legal one."

The Justice Center is hoping to end Virginia's suspended license
law, passed in 1994, through a class action federal suit filed
this summer in the Western District of Virginia.  Among other
things, it argues that because indefinite suspensions are put in
place regardless of a person's ability to pay outstanding fines,
they violate a number of constitutional principles.

Virginia's current Democratic administration may be sympathetic to
the premise, but it poked holes in the center's legal reasoning
for some 40 pages on Oct. 3, calling the suit "both procedurally-
barred and substantively inadequate."

The DMV commissioner, whom the suit was filed against, can't
simply undo suspensions implemented by local clerks of court, the
state argued.  The clerks themselves can't be sued together over
the policy because each one implements it a little different,
offering payment plans that, in some cases, may be acceptable even
to the plaintiffs, state attorneys said.

Three of the four plaintiffs in the suit brought claims after a
two-year statute of limitations ran out, the state argued.  And,
though the plaintiffs appear to have financial troubles that make
it difficult to pay off the thousands of dollars in court fines
they've accumulated, they can't show they've been treated
differently by the government than anyone else.

The case makes "at its heart, a policy argument -- and this is not
a policy-making forum," Mr. Herring's office concluded.  His
spokesman, Michael Kelly, noted in an email that the brief
addressed "the constitutionality of the policy, not its wisdom."

Whether the case will help foment legislative change remains to be
seen. Gov. Terry McAuliffe seemed to back some change, saying
during a monthly call-in radio interview that he believes people
who haven't paid fines should be allowed to drive to and from
work.  He envisioned a system where people would carry proof of
"economic activity" but stopped short of promising legislation on
the matter.

The governor has taken a stronger stand on court fines when it
comes to voting, ending a state policy that required paid fines
and restitution before felons could have their right to vote
restored.

Suspensions over court costs run until the debt is paid, or each
court system owed money agrees to a payment plan.  At one point in
2015, the Justice Center has said, more than 900,000 Virginians
had their licenses suspended over court costs.

The group noted that a reckless driving conviction yields a 12-
month suspension, even when an accident results in death.  It also
quoted a Brookings Institution report that found only 15 percent
of jobs in the Virginia Beach, Norfolk and Newport News areas were
accessible by public transportation within a 90-minute window.

Driving on a suspended license is a criminal offense in Virginia,
punishable by up to a year in prison and a $2,500 fine.

The case is in this matter is titled Stinnie et al v. Holcomb.


VIRGINIA: Legal Aid Justice Center Criticizes Response to Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Justin Wm. Moyer, writing for The Washington Post, reports that
after a class-action lawsuit claimed Virginia suspends the
driver's licenses of those too poor to pay fines and court costs
in an "unconstitutional scheme," the state replied on Oct. 5,
saying the suit raised no legitimate complaint.

"Though Plaintiffs' case could appear sympathetic from a policy
perspective, it fails when viewed from a legal one," said the
state's memorandum in support of a motion to dismiss.

The class action, filed in July against the Virginia Department of
Motor Vehicles in the U.S. District Court for the Western District
of Virginia, said more than 940,000 people in Virginia currently
have their licenses suspended for nonpayment.

The suspensions can effectively keep poor people poor, according
to the Legal Aid Justice Center, which represents low-income
Virginians.

"Hundreds of thousands of people have lost their licenses simply
because they are too poor to pay, effectively depriving them of
reliable, lawful transportation necessary to get to and from work,
take children to school, keep medical appointments, care for ill
or disabled family members, or, paradoxically, to meet their
financial obligations to the courts," the suit read.

The suit described the problems of four named plaintiffs,
including Damian Stinnie, 24, a Charlottesville man diagnosed with
lymphoma who became homeless after failing to pay about $1,000 in
traffic fines.

"Mr. Stinnie has been and still is unable to get on a payment plan
in any of these courts because they each have highly restrictive
payment plan policies that prevent his entry," the lawsuit said.

The national debate about how fines and court costs punish the
poor was sparked last year after an investigation in Ferguson,
Mo., following the police shooting of Michael Brown.

In the response, Virginia said its laws do not discriminate.

"Under Virginia's statutory scheme, any individual who fails to
pay court-imposed fines and costs will have his driver's license
suspended, regardless of income, race, gender, nationality, or
other trait," the memorandum stated. "For this reason, Virginia's
statutes do not provide dissimilar treatment to equally-situated
individuals."

Among other arguments, Virginia's response said that federal
courts do not have jurisdiction to hear the complaints, which
originated with state court orders, and that the statute of
limitations for the claims it raised has passed.

It also said that Virginia's DMV does not have the ability to
ignore court orders.  Just as sex offenders cannot challenge their
automatic placement on a sex-offender registry, it said, those
whose licenses were automatically suspended because they did not
pay a fine cannot claim a lack of due process.

"Plaintiffs challenge, in essence, the perceived unfairness of the
strict payment plans, lack of ability to pay analysis, and failure
to provide community service options to avoid license suspension,"
it stated.  "The DMV is not responsible for any of these issues."

Though individual cases might seem heartbreaking, this was not
relevant in court, the response said.

"Although Plaintiffs have set forth what could be described as a
persuasive argument that courts should give indigent criminal
defendants greater latitude . . . what they have presented is, at
its heart, a policy argument -- and this is not a policy-making
forum," the document stated.  "It is a court of law, and it is
legal standards that govern whether this case must rise or fall."

In a statement, the Legal Aid Justice Center criticized the
state's response, saying it relied on legal technicalities.

"The state is defending the indefensible," Angela Ciolfi, a senior
attorney at the center, said in a statement.

A spokesman for Virginia's Office of the Attorney General declined
to comment on Oct. 4.


WAL-MART STORES: Ortiz-Garcia Suit Goes Back to State Court
-----------------------------------------------------------
District Judge Fernando M. Olguin of the Central District of
California granted plaintiffs' motion to remand, in the case POLO
GARCIA, et al., Plaintiffs, v. WAL-MART STORES INC., Defendant,
Case No. CV 15-5337 FMO (ASx) (C.D. Cal.)

On November 27, 2013, plaintiff Eddie Ortiz filed a putative class
action complaint in the San Mateo County Superior Court against
Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. On May 14, 2014, plaintiff Polo Garcia and
together with Ortiz plaintiffs, filed a putative class action
complaint in the Los Angeles County Superior Court against Wal-
Mart.

Wal-Mart sought coordination of the Ortiz and Garcia actions in
the state court and on November 21, 2014, the actions were
coordinated in the Los Angeles County Superior Court in Wal-Mart
Stores Wage and Hour Cases, Case No. JCCP4804. In June 2015, the
parties submitted a joint initial status conference statement,
stating that they agree that a consolidated amended complaint
(CAC) should be filed.

On July 2, 2015, plaintiffs filed a CAC and alleges that
plaintiffs, former Wal-Mart Asset Protection Associates (APAs),
were classified as non-exempt hourly employees, and that Wal-Mart
failed to compensate them for all hours worked, missed meal
periods and/or rest breaks. On behalf of themselves and others
similarly situated, plaintiffs assert causes of action for
violations of the California Labor Code and the California
Business and Professions Code (UCL).  The CAC sets forth the same
proposed class as in the Ortiz and Garcia actions. The CAC alleges
that defendant is engaged in a uniform policy and systematic
scheme of wage abuse against their hourly-paid or non-exempt Asset
Protection Associates, and that the scheme involved of failing to
pay them for all hours worked, missed meal periods and rest breaks
in violation of California law.  The CAC repeats the allegations
in the Ortiz and Garcia actions regarding Wal-Mart's conduct, and
asserts identical claims as in the Garcia Action, along with the
UCL claim asserted in the Ortiz Action.

On July 15, 2015, defendant removed the consolidated state action
to the Central District of California asserting jurisdiction
pursuant to the Class Action Fairness Act of 2005. On July 24,
2015, the court issued an order to show cause, questioning whether
the claims of the individual class members exceed $5,000,000 in
the aggregate and whether removal was untimely.
Defendant responded to the order to show cause, and plaintiffs
filed a reply. Shortly thereafter, plaintiffs filed a motion to
remand.

Judge Olguin granted plaintiffs' motion to remand and the case is
remanded to the Superior Court of the State of California for the
County of Los Angeles.

A copy of Judge Olguin's order dated September 19, 2016, is
available at https://goo.gl/35iwfB from Leagle.com.

Polo Garcia, Plaintiff, represented by Andre Sherman --
asherman@girardikeese.com -- at Girardi Keese

Polo Garcia and Eddie Ortiz, Plaintiffs, represented by Edwin
Aiwazian -- edwin@lfjpc.com -- Jill Jessica Parker --
jill@lfjpc.com -- Arby Aiwazian -- arby@lfjpc.com -- at Lawyers
for Justice PC

Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., Defendant, represented by Robert J.
Herrington -- herringtonr@gtlaw.com -- Matthew R. Gershman --
gershmanm@gtlaw.com -- at Greenberg Traurig LLP


WELLS FARGO: Account Scandal Extends to Small-Business Owners
-------------------------------------------------------------
Suzanne Barlyn, writing for Reuters, reports that the scandal over
improper sales practices at Wells Fargo & Co extended to thousands
of small-business owners, according to a U.S. lawmaker, raising
questions about the scope of the bank's issues with unauthorized
accounts.

In a Sept. 29 letter viewed by Reuters on Oct. 4, Sen. David
Vitter, a Louisiana Republican, demanded that Wells Fargo Chief
Executive John Stumpf provide a "full accounting" of customers
affected.  Sen. Vitter is a member of the U.S. Senate's banking
committee and also heads its small business committee.

Discussions between congressional staffers and Wells Fargo "have
indicated that the fraudulent activity of your employees was not
limited to Wells Fargo's consumer banking operations," Sen. Vitter
wrote.  "Thousands of small business owners were impacted by this
fraud."

A person familiar with Vitter's probe say Wells has identified
about 10,000 small business accounts that were subject to improper
practices.  Sen. Vitter spokeswoman Cheyenne Klotz declined to
comment on specifics about those practices.

Revelations of Wells Fargo's problems with small-business
customers come almost a month after it reached a $190 million
settlement over opening as many as 2 million accounts in retail
customers' names without their knowledge.  The bank has said it
fired about 5,300 employees for improperly opening the accounts.

The disclosures have caused a public furor, with Mr. Stumpf facing
heated questions before two congressional committees and other
U.S. authorities launching investigations into the bank's sales
practices, including the Justice Department and the Labor
Department.

"While the vast majority of accounts in the settlement were
consumer accounts, to the extent there were small business
accounts included, all were previously reported in the total
number of potentially impacted accounts," said Wells spokeswoman
Jennifer Langan.  "As stated earlier, Wells Fargo has already
refunded 115,000 accounts.  The impacted accounts, including Small
Business, were part of our Retail Bank business."

A Consumer Financial Protection Board spokesman contradicted the
Wells statement, however, saying its figure of nearly 2 million
accounts being affected did not include small business accounts.

Wells is also battling lawsuits from former employees, customers
and shareholders related to the issue.  In a second letter, Vitter
requested that the Small Business Administration's inspector
general, Peggy Gustafson, investigate Wells, too.

PACKAGES OF THREE

Senior bank executives have apologized for opening accounts
customers did not request, but characterized the issue as limited
to relatively few customers and employees in the retail bank.
Early results from Vitter's examination are the first hard sign
that problems may extend further.

Reuters also spoke to a former Wells employee, and a lawyer
representing former employees and a former and current Wells
customer, who described abusive sales practices with multiple
business accounts.  Jose Maldonado, a restaurant owner in Southern
California who banked with Wells Fargo for 15 years, said he
discovered seven accounts after enlisting the help of his
accountant.  He initially closed extraneous ones, and ultimately
moved his remaining business to Bank of America Corp and JPMorgan
Chase & Co.

"I don't like Wells Fargo anymore.  I don't feel comfortable," Mr.
Maldonado said in an interview.  "In the past, there were
sometimes crazy accounts without my permission."

Ms. Langan declined to comment on Mr. Maldonado's accounts.

An ex-Wells Fargo business banker, who declined to be identified,
said employees at his former branch were required to sell products
to small business customers such as hair-salon owners and carpet
cleaners in packages of three -- regardless of whether they needed
them.

Those typically included accounts for checking, credit card
processing and payroll, and were often linked to additional
savings accounts, said the former Wells banker.  Bankers also
tacked on business credit cards and were pressured to call a Wells
insurance unit, with the customer present, to push business
liability policies.  Ms. Langan, the Wells spokeswoman, said the
bank discontinued those packages in April 2015.

Attorney Jonathan Delshad filed two class-action lawsuits against
Wells Fargo in September on behalf of former employees, including
one business banker, who say they were fired for refusing to
create fake accounts to hit sales quotas.  Wells suspended those
quotas on Oct. 1.

Other former Wells Fargo business bankers contacted mr. Delshad
after the lawsuit received media attention, he said.  "Business
owners are also being ripped off," one wrote to him in a message
he provided to Reuters.

SOURED RELATIONSHIPS

Business and corporate governance experts say small-business
customers can be as susceptible to fraud as any customer.

Owners are typically knowledgeable about their business expertise
but not about banking services, said Peter Conti-Brown, a
financial regulation professor at the University of Pennsylvania's
Wharton School.  For example, a new dentist who borrows from a
bank to buy a practice may then need other services that she does
not even know exist, such as payroll management or credit-card
clearing.

But the potential for abuse still exists, he said.  A bank can
sell multiple, unnecessary accounts and credit cards to sole
proprietors whose needs rarely exceed making deposits and writing
checks.  The risk of abuse is greater when bankers are required to
sell a certain number of products to meet performance goals.

"The best case is that you will sour your relationship, and in the
worst case, you'll get bankers committing fraud," Conti-Brown
said.  "Wells Fargo has seen both of these things."


WELLS FARGO: Sued N.D. Cal. Over Fraudulent Practices
-----------------------------------------------------
STEVE KLEIN, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly
Situated, the Plaintiff, v. WELLS FARGO & COMPANY, JOHN G.
STUMPF, JOHN R. SHREWSBERRY and CARRIE L. TOLSTEDT, the
Defendants, Case No. 4:16-cv-05513-YGR (N.D. Cal., Sept. 28,
2016), seeks to recover damages as a result of Plaintiff's
purchase of Wells Fargo common stock.

On September 8, 2016, the U.S. Consumer Financial Protection
Bureau (CFPB) published a Consent Order with a Stipulation to its
entry signed by Mary Mack, Executive Vice President of Wells Fargo
Bank, detailing the Company's fraudulent practices, which were
centered on a corporate culture intent on growing its cross-
selling opportunities and unlawfully and without its customers'
consent opening millions of unauthorized deposit and credit card
accounts, and imposing a fine of more than $185 million. The
announcement noted that these facts were known to the Company
through an internal investigation that had uncovered the
fraudulent practices, not as a result of an independent government
investigation.

Between September 8, 2016 and September 16, 2016, the Company's
stock price declined 9%, from a close of $49.90 per share on
September 8, 2016 to a close of $45.43 per share on September 16,
2016, as information about Defendants' conduct and its impact on
Wells Fargo's operations reached the market, inflicting billions
of dollars of harm on Plaintiff and other Wells Fargo
shareholders.

Wells Fargo is a diversified financial services company that
provides retail, commercial and corporate banking services,
principally in the United States.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Jennifer Pafiti, Esq.
          Jeremy A. Lieberman, Esq.
          J. Alexander Hood II, Esq.
          Patrick V. Dahlstrom, Esq.
          POMERANTZ LLP
          468 North Camden Drive
          Beverly Hills, CA 90210
          Telephone: (818) 532 6499
          E-mail: jpafiti@pomlaw.com
                  jalieberman@pomlaw.com
                  ahood@pomlaw.com
                  pdahlstrom@pomlaw.com


WELLS FARGO: Faces "Hefler" Suit Over Fraudulent Activity
---------------------------------------------------------
GARY HEFLER, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly
Situated, Plaintiff, vs. WELLS FARGO & COMPANY, JOHN G.
STUMPF, JOHN R. SHREWSBERRY and CARRIE L. TOLSTEDT, Defendants,
Case 3:16-cv-05479 (N.D. Cal., September 26, 2016), alleges that
Defendants concealed that a material part of the source of Wells
Fargo's record cross-selling across the Company was based on
fraudulent activity.

WELLS FARGO & COMPANY is a diversified financial services company
that provides retail, commercial and corporate banking services,
principally in the United States.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Shawn A. Williams, Esq.
     Aelish M. Baig, Esq.
     Jason C. Davis, Esq.
     ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN & DOWD LLP
     Post Montgomery Center
     One Montgomery Street, Suite 1800
     San Francisco, CA 94104
     Phone: 415/288-4545
     Fax: 415/288-4534
     E-mail: shawnw@rgrdlaw.com
             jdavis@rgrdlaw.com
             aelishb@rgrdlaw.com


WELLS FARGO: Senators Call for Probe on Fake Accounts
-----------------------------------------------------
Matthew Daly, writing for The Associated Press, reports that
fourteen senators are calling on the Justice Department to open a
criminal investigation of Wells Fargo executives after revelations
that bank employees opened millions of fake bank and credit card
accounts.

The senators said a bank teller who steals from a cash drawer is
likely to face charges, but "an executive who oversees a massive
fraud that implicates thousands of bank employees and costs
customers millions of dollars can walk away with a hefty
retirement package and millions in the bank."

The lawmakers said a hearing last month with Wells Fargo CEO
John Stumpf "raised serious questions" that point to possible
executive wrongdoing.

The letter was led by Democratic Sen. Mazie Hirono of Hawaii and
signed by 13 others, including Democrats Elizabeth Warren of
Massachusetts and Jeff Merkley of Oregon.


WELLS FARGO: Faces "Deadwiler" Suit Alleging Violation of FLSA
--------------------------------------------------------------
ALONZO DEADWILER, Individually and On Behalf Of All Others
Similarly Situated, PLAINTIFFS vs. WELLS FARGO BANK, NATIONAL
ASSOCIATION, Case No. 1:16-cv-02408 (D. Col., September 26, 2016),
was brought under the Fair Labor Standards Act, seeking
declaratory judgment, monetary damages, liquidated damages,
prejudgment interest, civil penalties and costs, including
reasonable attorneys' fees as a result of Defendant's commonly
applied policy and practice of failing to pay Plaintiff and all
others similarly situated the overtime premium compensation for
the hours in excess of forty hours in a single week that they
were/are made to work.

Defendant Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., is a foreign for-profit
corporation, engaged in providing banking services throughout the
State of Colorado and the United States.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


YAHOO! INC: Faces Breach of Contract Class Action Over Hacking
--------------------------------------------------------------
Wadi Reformado, writing for Legal Newsline, reports that a North
Carolina woman is suing Yahoo!, alleging breach of contract after
having personal information stolen from her email account.

Maria Sventek filed a class action lawsuit, individually and on
behalf of others similarly situated, against Yahoo! Inc. in the
U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California
Sept. 23. She alleges Yahoo! failed to secure the personal
information of its subscribers.

According to the complaint, Ms. Sventek has suffered damages from
having her personal information stolen from her email account. The
plaintiff alleges Yahoo! failed to implement certain safeguards to
ensure that its subscribers' personal information is safe.

Ms. Sventek seeks trial by jury, actual and statutory damages,
injunctive relief, declaratory relief, punitive damages, all legal
fees plus interest and any other relief the court deems just.

She is represented by attorney Hank Bates of Carney Bates &
Pulliam PLLC in Little Rock, Arkansas.

U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California Case
number 4:16-cv-05463-DMR


ZARA: Deceptive Pricing Case May Have Better Shot in California
---------------------------------------------------------------
Karen Kidd, writing for Legal Newsline, reports that a Los Angeles
man may have a tough time proving deception in his class action
lawsuit against a Spanish clothing manufacturer, but may have a
better shot in California than in other jurisdictions, a Palo Alto
attorney said in a recent interview.

Zara, one of the world's most-recognizable clothing brands, is
fighting a putative class action lawsuit filed in August by a Los
Angeles man who claims he was deceived by prices listed in euros
and then was subjected to artificially high exchange rates.
Devin Rose is seeking more than $5 million for Zara's allegedly
deceptive bait-and-switch pricing practices.

California courts lately have taken a dim view of deceptive
advertising cases, Kent J. Schmidt -- schmidt.kent@dorsey.com -- a
partner at Dorsey & Whitney, told Legal Newsline in an email.

"Courts in California, including our district courts, are with
increasing frequency dismissing cases based on the notion that
consumers are not of average intelligence and are easily confused
or deceived by a business practice such as this," Mr. Schmidt
said.  "If one presumes a reasonably intelligent and inquisitive
shopper is making the purchase at the Zara store, there is no real
deception."

Whatever difficulties Mr. Rose might face in proving his case, he
may have an easier time in California, Mr. Schmidt said.

"Certainly whatever probabilities this case may have for success
are greater here in California than in many other jurisdictions
that would view this claim as lacking any basis whatsoever," the
attorney said.

In his case filed in U.S. District Court for California's Central
District, Rose claims Zara intentionally confuses customers with
price tags on its clothing that list the denomination in euros
rather than U.S. dollars.

"Since the euro is a larger unit of currency than the American
dollar, these euro prices lead shoppers in the United States to
believe that Zara's products are less expensive than they actually
are," Mr. Rose said in his lawsuit.  "Customers are lured in by
the brand's seemingly low prices, and it is only upon bringing the
items they intend to purchase to the register that these customers
discover their true costs."

Mr. Rose also alleges that the U.S. dollar exchange described on
the same price tags doesn't reflect an accurate rate or exchange.

"In this context, the dollar amount similarly is far in excess of
the true converted amount if the euro price printed on the tag
were properly converted to dollars," the lawsuit states.

Mr. Rose's lawsuit described his own shopping experience when he
visited one of Zara's stores in May, when Mr. Rose claims he
purchases three shirts that were priced at EUR9.95 each.

"At the time that Mr. Rose made his purchases, the actual euro-
dollar exchange rate would have resulted in his EUR9.95 shirts
costing approximately $11.26," the lawsuit states.  "However, Zara
charged Mr. Rose $17.90 per garment, a markup of nearly 60
percent."

Zara did not return a Legal Newsline request for comment but a
spokesperson for the clothing line was quoted by theFashionLaw.com
denying the allegations and calling them baseless.

"Zara USA vehemently denies any allegations that the company
engages in deceptive pricing practices in the United States," the
fashion legal news outlet quoted from a Zara USA statement. "While
we have not yet been served the complaint containing these
baseless claims, we pride ourselves in our fundamental commitment
to transparency and honest, ethical conduct with our valued
customers."

In an update posted by theFashionLaw, Rose's legal counsel had
sharp words about Zara's own counsel.

"Zara's response so far has been beyond bizarre and desperate,"
that update said.  "Their unlawful conduct is not up for debate,
as anyone who goes into a Zara store in the United States can see
with their own two eyes that Zara is pricing clothing in Euros and
charging consumers drastically above the lowest tag price in
dollars which is illegal.  U.S. laws require that a retailer
charge the consumer the lowest tag price -- not grossly inflated
amounts using fake conversion rates.  If Zara wants to double down
on its duplicity, instead of acting like a responsible corporate
citizen and fixing the mess of its own making, they should be
prepared to face the wrath of the American consumer and the full
force of the law."

Mr. Rose's case differs from what could be considered a typical
suit of its type, Schmidt noted.

"This lawsuit is unusual in that, in the typical consumer
deception case, the consumer is allegedly confused or deceived by
the business practice that is revealed after transaction has been
completed," Mr. Schmidt said.  "For example, the consumer learns
that the product he or she bought did not perform as the seller
intended or had a quality or characteristic that was not disclosed
at time of sale; a recurring charge is assessed that was not
disclosed at the time of the transaction."

In Rose v. Zara U.S. Inc., it didn't happen that way, Schmidt
said.

"Here, the claim against Zara appears to be that there was
confusion prior to the transaction at the sales counter," the
attorney said.  "The problem for the plaintiff is that any
confusion can be easily cleared up and the customer is presumably
told the U.S. dollar amount charged at the time of the
transaction.  The customer has the 'last clear chance' to either
proceed with the transaction or decide to show elsewhere."


* Canadian Bishops to Update Policies After Sexual Abuse Scandals
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Deborah Gyapong, writing for Canadian Catholic News, reports that
Canada's bishops are finalizing new policies to better protect
minors against sex abuse.

At their annual plenary Sept. 26-30 in Cornwall, the bishops
approved, in principle, a new document on preventing sexual abuse
and protecting minors, "Moving Towards Healing and Renewal -- The
Canadian Experience."  The document offers some guidelines to help
the dioceses better manage allegations of sex abuse by members of
the clergy, as well as to contribute to the healing of the victims
of abuse by priests or men religious.

Archbishop Anthony Mancini of Halifax-Yarmouth, Nova Scotia, who
heads the bishops' Ad Hoc Committee on the Protection of Minors,
said the new document updates the Canadian bishops' 1992 document,
"From Pain to Hope," and aligns the bishops with standards put out
by the Vatican.

Bishop Douglas Crosby of Hamilton, Ontario, president of the
Canadian Conference of Catholic Bishops, said experience in this
area "is so much broader now and so much deeper.  This will
present a lot more information along the lines of 'From Pain to
Hope,' but updated."

Bishops now have a chance to review the text and send in
suggestions and corrections.  Bishop Crosby said he expects that
if no major changes are required, the document will be approved in
November at the next meeting of the CCCB's Permanent Council and
published in early 2017.

Archbishop Mancini said the new document adopts a new perspective:
It is designed to implement guidelines to protect minors against
abuse.  That change of tone and language is aligned to "a better
understanding of the realities," he said.
"It's not a document against sex abuse.  It a document that sets
out the protection of minors as an essential responsibility for
the bishops, as church leaders and witnesses of the Gospel," he
said.

The document includes a section on the responsibilities of
religious and their superiors when it comes to implementing
policies to protect minors against abuse, the archbishop said.
"We've set out recommendations so that the major superiors and the
bishops may be able to interact (more effectively) with the
religious congregations," he said.

The bishops' 1992 document was published in the aftermath of the
Mount Cashel Boys Home sex scandal.   Located in St. John's,
Newfoundland, and managed by members of the Christian Brothers
congregation, that orphanage was the site of one of worst sex-
abuse scandals in Canadian history.  Nine members and ex-members
of the congregation were convicted of sexual and physical
aggressions against their students.

In the past two years, the courts have settled numerous class-act
action suits against religious congregations, in the aftermath of
sex-abuse scandals involving priests or men religious.

In August 2015, 111 former students of the Saint-Alphonse Seminary
in Sainte-Anne-de-Beaupre, Quebec, filed a class-act action
against the Redemptorist Fathers for sexual aggressions
perpetrated by members of the congregation.  The court settled a
$14 million agreement against the Redemptorists, on the behalf of
the victims.  In February, a settlement was reached between the
Viatorians and their victims, for sexual aggressions perpetrated
at Montreal's Institute for the Deaf.  Though the exact number of
victims is still unknown, Judge Eva Petras of Quebec's Superior
Court has approved a $30 million settlement, a record amount for a
sexual aggression class-action suit.


                            *********

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  * * *