CAR_Public/161013.mbx              C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

            Thursday, October 13, 2016, Vol. 18, No. 205




                            Headlines

59TH ST LD: Faces "Wilson" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
ALLSTATE INSURANCE: Faces "Thompson" Suit in N.D. of Alabama
AMAZON.COM: Delivery Drivers File Class Action Over Job Status
AMERICAN RECOVERY: Illegally Collects Debt, "Gentile" Suit Says
AN SAN JOSE: Does Not Properly Pay Employees, "Spicker" Suit Says

ANTHEM HEALTH: "Pape" Suit Moved from Cir. Ct. to E.D. Ken.
ANTONELLI COLLEGE: No Consolidation Yet in "Borden" Suit
AUSTRALIA: Oakey Base Contamination Class Action Gets Funding
BANK OF NEW YORK: Court Certifies "Becker" Suit as Class
BORGESS MEDICAL: Illegally Collects Debt, "Brown" Action Claims

CANADA: RCMP to Settle Workplace Harassment Class Actions
CAPITAL ACCOUNTS: Faces "Mohammed" Suit in E.D. of Texas
CENTRAL FREIGHT: "Henry" Remanded to Sacramento Superior Court
CEP AMERICA: Faces "Young" Suit in California Superior Court
CIBC: Ontario Court Certifies Securities Class Action

CITIMORTGAGE INC: 11th Cir. Drops "Nicklaw" Case Appeal
COASTAL INDUSTRIES: Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages
COGNIZANT TECHNOLOGY: Rosen Law Firm Files Class Action
CORELOGIC CREDCO: Sued in Va. Over Inaccurate Credit Reports
CSGO LOTTO: Washington Court Dismisses RICO Class Action

CST BRANDS: Faces "Savage" Suit Over Proposed Sale to Circle K
CST BRANDS: Faces Securities Class Action in Texas
CUMBERLAND COUNTY, NC: Employees File Suit Over Severance Pay
CYPRESS LAWN: "Correa" Suit to Recover Unpaid Overtime Pay
DAYTON, MN: Police Chief Must Address "Orduno" Discovery Order

DENSO CORPORATION: Sued in Mich. Over Spark Plug Price-Fixing
DOLE PACKAGED: "All Natural" Label Class Decertification Affirmed
EAGLE MARINE: Oct. 18 Hearing Set for "O'Neal" FLSA Claims
EARLYSHARES.COM: Has Made Unsolicited Calls, Action Claims
ECCO SELECT: Faces "Pearce" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime

EI DUPONT: 3rd Cir. Voids Employer's Practice of Offsetting
ESPERANZA MANAGEMENT: Former Servers Sue Over Unpaid Gratuities
EVERBANK FINANCIAL: Sued Over Proposed Teachers Insurance Merger
FLORIDA POWER: Faces "Gil" Suit in Southern Dist. of Florida
FORD MOTOR: Lead Applicant Loses Bid to Halt Settlement Offers

GATEWAY PLAZA: Plaintiff Accuses Landlord of Intimidation Tactics
GENERAL MILLS: Faces Class Action Over Deceptive "Healthy" Claims
GEO GROUP: Faces "Birdsell" Class Suit in C.D. California
GLOBAL CREDIT: Faces "Gold" Suit Over Debt Collection Policies
GLOBAL CREDIT: Faces "Neuhaus" Suit Over Debt Collection Policies

GOOGLE: Age Discrimination Suit Gets Conditional Certification
GRANT THORNTON: Dismissed as Defendant in La. Securities Suit
GREAT AMERICAN INSURANCE: Shareholders Challenge Merger Deal
GUAM: H-2b Visa Class Action May be Necessary to Resolve Issue
GUARDIAN EYES: Fails to Pay Employees OT, "McElrafth" Suit Says

INDIANA: BMV Challenges Cohen & Malad's Attorney Fees Request
INTERNATIONAL BANK: 5th Cir. Sends Overtime Suit to Arbitration
JB MEDICAL MANAGEMENT: Faces "Schwanke" Suit in M.D. Fla.
KRAFT FOODS: $1.75MM Accord in "Rodriguez" Case Gets Final OK
KY UNG WONG MIN: "Allaico" Suit to Recover Unpaid Overtime Pay

LABOR READY: Faces "Rezendes" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
LANDCAR CASUALTY: Faces "Scholl" Suit in District of Oregon
LOYALTYONE: Air Miles Alters Rewards Programs Amid Class Action
LTD FINANCIAL: Faces "Bakon" Suit in Eastern District of New York
MARICOPA COUNTY, AZ: Sheriff Arpaio Faces Contempt Charges

MDC PARTNERS: NY Court Dismisses Shareholder Class Action
MDL 2672: Puerto Rico Employee Retirement System to Lead Case
MISSISSIPPI: Class Suit Challenges Sodomy Law
NATIONWIDE MUTUAL: Sued in Ga. Over Pre-Recorded Advertisements
NCAA: Ex-UCLA Football Captain Files Concussion Suit

NCAA: Now Facing 43 Concussion-Related Lawsuits
NDG COFFEE: Faces "Calle" Suit in S.D.N.Y.
NELSON MANDELA METROPOLITAN: Suit Mulled Over Shutdown
NEW RESIDENTIAL: Judge Narrows Claims in Securities Action
ONE NOTE: Faces "Youngblood" Suit in Southern Dist. of California

OPTIMUM HOME: Faces "Khyzhnyy" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
PASON SYSTEMS: "Balo" Labor Case Transferred to S.D. Tex.
PROBITY HEALTH: Faces "Moody" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
PROGRESSIVE INSURANCE: Williams Can't Proceed as Class Action
QUALITY DINING: "Cicero" Labor Case Transferred to D.N.J.

RAPTOR PHARMACEUTICAL: Shareholder Challenges Horizon Merger
RIMAX CONTRACTORS: "Arzola" Labor Case Transferred to M.D. Fla.
ROTHENERG VENTURES: Faces "Fanelli" Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.
SAINT VINCENT: Sued Over Mandatory Flu Vaccination Policy
SBOCA LLC: Faces Gorss Motels Class Suit in Connecticut

SERES THERAPEUTICS: Sued Over Misleading Financial Reports
SILVERCORP METALS: Obtains Favorable Ruling in Class Action
SPECTRUM PHARMACEUTICALS: Sued Over Misleading Financial Reports
TALON AIR: Faces "Gonzalez" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
SQUARE INC: Court Dismisses "White" for Lack of Standing

ST PAUL, MN: Faces Class Action Over Right-of-Way Assessments
STEWART'S SHOPS: Judge Certifies Employees' Wage Class Action
TENET HEALTHCARE: Shareholder Sues Over Stock Price Drop
UNITED STATES: Supreme Court to Hear Post-9/11 Arrest Cases
VERITAS ENTERTAINMENT: Golan May File Third Amended Complaint

VISA: Class Action Over EMV Car Reader Can Proceed
WELLS FARGO: 401(K) Participant Files Class Action in Minneapolis
WEST VIRGINIA: Medicaid I/DD Waiver Class Action Can Proceed
WILLIAMS-SONOMA: Case Management Conference Moved to Feb. 2017
YAHOO! INC: New York Man Files Data Breach Class Action

YAHOO! INC: Lawyers Raise Concern Over Fraud Risks After Hack
YAHOO! INC: Illegally Discloses Consumers Info, Suit Says
YAHOO! INC: Faces Six Class Actions Over 2014 Security Breach

* New York Courts Render CPLR Article 9 Class Action Rulings
* Women Lawyers Reflect on Decision to Sue Employers


                            *********


59TH ST LD: Faces "Wilson" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
------------------------------------------------------------
Angel Wilson, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated v. 59th St. LD Oklahoma City, LLC d/b/a Little Darlings,
Case No. 5:16-cv-01124-C (W.D. Ok., September 27, 2016), is
brought against the Defendant for failure to compensate adult
entertainers one and one half times minimum wage when their total
hours worked exceeded 40 hours.

59th St. LD Oklahoma City, LLC owns and operates the exotic
entertainer dance club, Little Darlings located at 1833 S. Morgan
Rd., Oklahoma City, OK 73128.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      William B. Federman, Esq.
      Joshua D. Wells, Esq.
      FEDERMAN & SHERWOOD
      10205 N. Pennsylvania Avenue
      Oklahoma City, OK  73120
      Telephone: (405) 235-1560
      Facsimile: (405) 239-2112
      E-mail: wbf@federmanlaw.com
              jdw@federmanlaw.com

         - and -

      Cullin A. O'Brien, Esq.
      CULLIN O'BRIEN LAW, P.A.
      6541 NE 21st Way
      Ft. Lauderdale, FL 33308
      Telephone: (561) 676-6370
      Facsimile: (561) 320-0285
      E-mail: cullin@cullinobrienlaw.com


ALLSTATE INSURANCE: Faces "Thompson" Suit in N.D. of Alabama
------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Allstate Insurance
Company. The case is captioned Danny L Thompson, individually and
on behalf of a class of persons similarly situated, the Plaintiff,
v. Allstate Insurance Company, the Defendant, Case No. 2:16-cv-
01620-KOB (N.D. Ala., Sept. 30, 2016). The case is assigned to
Hon. Chief Judge Karon O Bowdre.

Allstate is a personal lines insurer in the United States. The
company also has personal lines insurance operations in Canada.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Garrett Parker Dennis, Esq.
          ALEXANDER SHUNNARAH INJURY LAWYERS
          3626 Clairmont Avenue So.
          Birmingham, AL 35222
          Telephone: (205) 983 8144
          Facsimile: (205) 983 8444
          E-mail: gdennis@asilpc.com


AMAZON.COM: Delivery Drivers File Class Action Over Job Status
--------------------------------------------------------------
Angel Gonzalez, writing for Seattle Times, reports that three
drivers who have made deliveries on contract for Amazon.com are
suing the company, saying they should be considered employees, not
contractors.

Their case follows similar legal actions against tech firms
relying on freelancers to carry the weight of a significant part
of their operations.

The complaint, filed late on Oct. 4 in U.S. District Court in
Seattle, was brought forth by Shannon Liss-Riordan, the attorney
who led two class-action lawsuits by discontented drivers against
Uber.  These suits yielded a proposed $100 million settlement that
was later blocked by the court.

In the Amazon lawsuit, the drivers allege the tech giant has
violated federal labor laws by failing to ensure they earn the
minimum wage after paying for gas and maintenance, and by not
paying overtime. The lawsuit seeks class-action status.

The complaint underscores the conflicts brewing in the so-called
"gig economy," in which independent contractors enabled by
technology play a critical role but have fewer privileges than
traditional full-time workers.

It also shows the challenges Amazon faces as it aggressively
experiments in the field of logistics.

Amazon's rapid growth has strained its traditional logistics
partners, and so has its quest to provide nearly immediate
gratification to customers.

That has prompted Amazon to come up with new solutions for moving
its goods around, ranging from a fleet of airplanes to toying with
its own last-mile delivery network in several cities.

The lawsuit names both Amazon.com Inc. and Amazon Logistics, a
program in which the retail juggernaut contracts with local
delivery providers, from single drivers to companies with their
own employees.

Amazon also contracts directly with individuals to provide
deliveries through a service called Amazon Flex, an Uber-like
program in which individuals sign up. All the drivers suing have
worked for Amazon Flex, said Ms. Liss-Riordan.

Asked about the suit, Amazon said in a statement that with Amazon
Flex "anyone can earn up to $25 per hour by delivering packages
when and where they want.  We launched the program last year and
feedback from Flex drivers has been very positive -- they really
enjoy being their own boss."

The complaint says the drivers had a direct contract relationship
with Amazon.  But it argues that instead of independent
contractors, they are "actually employees" because they are highly
supervised and were trained by the company on how to deal with
customers.

Drivers must follow "Amazon's instructions regarding where to make
deliveries, in what order, and which route to take," the complaint
states.

These contractors can be fired at Amazon's discretion, and their
services are "fully integrated into Amazon's business," making
them indistinguishable from other employees.

"Amazon is yet another company that is saving on labor costs by
hiring delivery drivers who perform the work that the company does
and not calling them employees," Ms. Liss-Riordan said in an
interview.

The plaintiffs are Bernadean Rittmann and Freddie Carroll, Amazon
delivery drivers from Las Vegas who previously delivered for the
company in Seattle.

Another plaintiff in a similar situation, Julia Wehmeyer, lives in
Plano, Texas, and still delivers for Amazon there.

The plaintiffs say they take care of their own gas and
car-maintenance expenses, which makes their wages fall below the
federal, state and local minimum levels.

It's not the first lawsuit that claims Amazon is wrongly
characterizing the status of these workers.  Last year, four
former delivery drivers for Prime Now sued the company in a
similar complaint, according to news reports.

Uber, the ride-sharing company, settled two class-action lawsuits
led by Ms. Liss-Riordan in April for $84 million (plus an
additional $16 million if the company goes public and meets other
milestones.)

Uber agreed to improvements in drivers' working conditions.  At
the same time, Uber CEO Travis Kalanick wrote in a blog post that
the settlement recognized the drivers should "remain as
independent contractors, not employees."

But a San Francisco judge rejected the agreement in August because
it apparently underestimated the amount of penalties due to the
state of California, according to Bloomberg.


AMERICAN RECOVERY: Illegally Collects Debt, "Gentile" Suit Says
---------------------------------------------------------------
Donald Gentile, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated v. American Recovery Service Incorporated of California
Incorporated in California, registered in Florida as American
Recovery Service Incorporated of California, Case No. 9:16-cv-
81649-BB (S.D. Fla., September 28, 2016), seeks to stop the
Defendant's unfair and unconscionable means to collect a debt.

American Recovery Service Incorporated of California is a
collection agency with headquarters in Thousand Oaks, California.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


AN SAN JOSE: Does Not Properly Pay Employees, "Spicker" Suit Says
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Dieter Spicker, Ross Clark, and Ben Francia, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated v. An San Jose Luxury
Imports, Inc. d/b/a Mercedes-Benz of Stevens Creek and Park Avenue
Motors, Case No. 16CV300466 (Cal. Super. Ct., September 28, 2016),
is brought against the Defendants for failure to compensate the
class for all hours worked, pay proper minimum wages and overtime
wages, maintain proper piece rate records, and properly pay wages
at separation.

The Defendants operate a used car dealership company in Santa
Clara, California.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      David A. Rosenfeld, Esq.
      Caren P. Sencer, Esq.
      Caroline N. Cohen, Esq.
      WEINBERG, ROGER, & ROSENFELD
      1001 Marina Village Parkway, Suite 200
      Alameda, CA 94501
      Telephone: (510) 337-1001
      Facsimile: (510) 337-1023
      E-mail: drosenfeld@unioncounsel.net
              csencer@unioncounsel.net


ANTHEM HEALTH: "Pape" Suit Moved from Cir. Ct. to E.D. Ken.
-----------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit titled Douglas Pape, on behalf of himself
and all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. Anthem Health
Plans of Kentucky, Inc., the Defendant, Case No. 16-CI-3207, was
removed from the Fayette Circuit Court to the U.S. District Court
for the Eastern District of Kentucky (Lexington). The District
Court Clerk assigned Case No. 5:16-cv-00373-DCR to the proceeding.
The case is assigned to Hon. Judge Danny C. Reeves.

Anthem Health provides health insurance products and related
services in the state of Kentucky.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Jordan Lewis, Esq.
          Robert R. Sparks
          STRAUSS & TROY CO., LPA - CINCINNATI
          150 E. Fourth Street
          Federal Reserve Building, Fourth Floor
          Cincinnati, OH 45202-4018
          Telephone: (513) 621 2120
          Facsimile: (513) 241 8259
          E-mail: rrsparks@strausstroy.com

The Defendant is represented by:

          Darryl W. Durham, Esq.
          Martin J. Bishop, Esq.
          Rebecca R. Hanson, Esq.
          WEBER & ROSE, P.S.C.
          471 W Main St., Suite 400
          Louisville, KY 40202
          Telephone: (502) 589 2200
          Facsimile: (502) 589 3400
          E-mail: ddurham@weberandrose.com


ANTONELLI COLLEGE: No Consolidation Yet in "Borden" Suit
--------------------------------------------------------
In the case, ANNIE BORDEN, Individually and on Behalf of Those
Similarly Situated, Plaintiffs, v. ANTONELLI COLLEGE, et al.,
Defendants, TENESHA ADAMS, Individually and on Behalf of Those
Similarly Situated, Plaintiffs, v. ANTONELLI COLLEGE, et al.,
Defendants, Case Nos. 1:16-cv-519, 1:16-cv-520 (S.D. Ohio),
District Judge Timothy S. Black denied the motions to consolidate
Plaintiff Borden' and Plaintiff Adams' class action claims.

The lead plaintiff in each case is or was a student of the
Practical Nursing Program (PNP) at Antonelli College, who
allegedly suffered harm as a result of the false and deceptive
advertising by Antonelli. Each plaintiff seeks to represent a
class of current and former students who enrolled in the PNP at
Antonelli College between 2013 and the present.

The Court held that the consolidation should be evaluated once the
Defendant's summary judgment motions are granted. The Court finds
that it will actually promote judicial economy to keep the cases
separate at the mean time. For purposes of initial discovery, the
Court anticipates that a calendar identical to Adams' case will be
entered in Borden's case.

The Court will revisit the issue of consolidation after the
December 15, 2016 status conference, upon request.

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

Annie Borden, Plaintiff, represented by Adam S. Brown --
abrown@cumminsbrownlaw.com -- Cummins & Brown LLC.

Annie Borden, Plaintiff, represented by Phyllis Elaine Brown --
phyllis@pebrownlaw.com -- Cummins & Brown LLC & Richard Stuart
Wayne -- rswayne@strausstroy.com -- Strauss & Troy.

Antonelli College, et al., Defendants, represented by Adam P.
Hall, Frost Brown Todd LLC, Ryan Steven Lett, Frost Brown Todd
LLC, Kathryn Jean Bushby -- kbushby@maynardcooper.com -- Maynard
Cooper & Gale, PC, pro hac vice & Ollie Ancil Tres Cleveland, III,
Maynard Cooper & Gale, PC, pro hac vice.


AUSTRALIA: Oakey Base Contamination Class Action Gets Funding
-------------------------------------------------------------
Katherine Gregory, writing for ABC News, reports that residents of
a Darling Downs town affected by contaminated groundwater are one
step closer to pursuing a class action against the Federal
Government after securing funding, their lawyer says.

Toxic firefighting chemicals perfluorooctane sulfonate (PFOS) and
perfluorooctanoic acid (PFOA) have leached into groundwater
beneath at least 30 Australian Defence bases, including the Oakey
Army Aviation Centre in Queensland.

A recent United Nations report ruled the chemicals had significant
human and environmental health effects.

Shine Lawyers' legal partner Peter Shannon said after receiving
funding from litigator funders IMF Bentham, the firm now had the
green light for legal action and to win residents compensation.

"The funding is approved but it has to be conditional upon enough
people joining the action to warrant bringing what is an expensive
and complex piece of litigation," Mr. Shannon said.
"It's fantastic that an organization as large and as experienced
as IMF are willing to back funding and assure people of funding."

He said the process would be highly regulated.

"[It's] very different to normal litigation and widely
misunderstood and that's why it will take us a while to explain to
people before they make the decision whether they'll want to be
involved," Mr. Shannon said.

About 300 people are interested in the action.


BANK OF NEW YORK: Court Certifies "Becker" Suit as Class
--------------------------------------------------------
In the case, LEONARD BECKER v. THE BANK OF NEW YORK MELLON TRUST
COMPANY, N.A. and J.P. MORGAN TRUST COMPANY, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION,
Civil Action. No. 11-6460, Consolidated with No. 12-6412 (E.D.
Pa.), District Judge Legrome D. Davis granted Plaintiff Leonard
Becker's Motion for Class Certification.

The Class in the consolidated civil actions is composed of:

     all persons or entities who purchased or otherwise acquired
     the bonds identified as the Borough of Langhorne Manor
     Higher Education and Health Authority Hospital Revenue
     Bonds, Series of 1992 (The Lower Bucks Hospital), and who
     are holders of an Allowed Class A3 Claim pursuant to Section
     5.1.3(A)(ii) of the Plan for reorganization of Lower Bucks
     Hospital, which Plan was confirmed under Chapter 11 of the
     Bankruptcy Code.

Excluded from the class are Defendants and any person, firm,
trust, corporation, or other entity related to or affiliated with
any Defendant and any officers and directors.

The Court appointed Plaintiff Leonard Becker as the class
representative and the law firm Barrack, Rodos & Bacine as the
class counsel.

A copy of the Court's Order dated October 5, 2016 is available at
https://goo.gl/51Nuez from Leagle.com.

LEONARD BECKER, Plaintiff, represented by DANIEL E. BACINE,
BARRACK RODOS & BACINE.

LEONARD BECKER, Plaintiff, represented by LISA M. PORT, BARRACK,
RODOS & BACINE.

THE BANK OF NEW YORK MELLON TRUST COMPANY, N.A., et al.,
Defendants, represented by CHRISTINE CESARE --
cbcesare@bryancave.com -- BRYAN CAVE LLP, pro hac vice, HOWARD M.
ROGATNICK -- hmrogatnick@bryancave.com -- BRYAN CAVE LLP, pro hac
vice, STEPHANIE WICKOUSKI -- stephanie.wickouski@bryancave.com --
BRYAN CAVE LLP, pro hac vice, THOMAS J. SCHELL --
tjschell@bryancave.com -- BRYAN CAVE LLP, pro hac vice, NATALIE D.
RAMSEY -- nramsey@mmwr.com -- MONTGOMERY, MC CRACKEN, WALKER &
RHOADS & PATRICK T. RYAN -- pryan@mmwr.com -- MONTGOMERY MCCRACKEN
WALKER & RHOADS, LLP.

SAUL EWING LLP, et al., Respondents, represented by TIMOTHY W.
CALLAHAN, II -- tcallahan@saul.com -- SAUL EWING LLP.

BLANK ROME LLP, et al., Respondents, represented by JEREMY A. RIST
-- Rist@BlankRome.com -- BLANK ROME LLP.


BORGESS MEDICAL: Illegally Collects Debt, "Brown" Action Claims
---------------------------------------------------------------
Charles G. Brown, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated v. Borgess Medical Center, Medical Financial Solutions, a
division of Accretive Health, Inc., Case No. 1:16-cv-01186-PLM-RSK
(W.D. Mich., September 28, 2016), seeks to stop the Defendant's
unfair and unconscionable means to collect a debt.

Borgess Medical Center operates a hospital located at 1521 Gull
Rd, Kalamazoo, MI 49048.

Medical Financial Solutions is in the business of providing
collection services to the healthcare industry.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Nicholas Allan Reyna, Esq.
      LAW OFFICES OF NICHOLAS A. REYNA PC
      528 Bridge St., Ste. 1A
      Grand Rapids, MI 49504
      Telephone: (616) 235-4444
      E-mail: nickreyna7@hotmail.com

         - and -

      Brian P. Parker, Esq.
      LAW OFFICES OF BRIAN P. PARKER, P.C.
      2000 Town Center, Ste. 1900
      Southfield, MI 48075
      Telephone: (248) 642-6268
      E-mail: brianparker@collectionstopper.com

CANADA: RCMP to Settle Workplace Harassment Class Actions
---------------------------------------------------------
Douglas Quan, writing for National Post, reports that the RCMP
commissioner is expected to issue an apology as part of a historic
settlement reached with the plaintiffs in two proposed class-
action lawsuits alleging systemic gender-based harassment and
discrimination within the force, sources say.

Any female member who experienced harassment or discrimination
will be eligible to apply for damages.  Amounts will depend on the
extent and nature of the injuries experienced by the members, a
source said.  The potential number of Mounties who could be
eligible is in the thousands and compensation could reach $100
million or more.

As part of the settlement, the force will also announce new
details of how it plans to change the workplace culture.

Despite efforts by the Mounties over the years to implement
respectful-workplace initiatives, ongoing "harassment litigation"
has continued to dog the force.  The reaching of a settlement is a
significant event, said Angela Workman-Stark, a former RCMP chief
superintendent who played a key role in helping the force address
harassment and bullying.

"For the women, it's a resolution for them.  I think it's an
acknowledgment of the issues they brought forward.  I think it's
great for the organization to move forward and take
responsibility.  Resolution and recognition is an important
piece," said Ms. Workman-Stark, who left the force earlier this
year.

The announcement will take place in Ottawa.  Bob Paulson, the
commissioner, and Public Safety Minister Ralph Goodale will be
joined by the lead plaintiff Linda Gillis Davidson.

MaryAnn Mihychuk, the minister of employment, workforce
development and labour, will also appear at the press conference.

Ms. Davidson, who retired in 2012 as an inspector and previously
worked on the prime minister's security detail, alleged in court
documents that for most of her 27-year career, she was subjected
to bullying and belittling from male officers that left her
mentally anguished and even suicidal.

The harassment, she alleged, took many forms: unwanted grabbing
and kissing; crude jokes, including the placement of ketchup-
stained tampons in her locker; and constant questioning about her
sexual orientation and abilities.

"I experienced this treatment irrespective of my detachment,
posting, rank or seniority," she wrote in an affidavit. "I never
felt that I could rely on senior officers to protect me."

Over the course of her 20-year career as a constable, Ms. Merlo
said she endured bullying, crude sexual jokes and double
standards, according to court records and a book she published in
2013, No One to Tell.

"We kept our mouths shut, and we allowed the horrible things we'd
experienced to take root inside us, just as we allowed the rot
within our organization to proceed unchecked," she wrote.

Reached on Oct. 5 after flying to Ottawa, Ms. Merlo said she was
bound by confidentiality and unable to comment prior to the
announcement.

In order for the settlement to become official, the class-action
lawsuits will have to be certified by a judge and the settlements
approved.

While the announcement is a major step forward, the force will
need to continue to be mindful of barriers that prevent people
from participating in the workplace, Ms.
Workman-Stark said.

Members need to know that they are valued and trusted and
encouraged to give feedback, she said.  These things need to be
monitored through surveys, audits and other initiatives, she
added.

"It can't be a one-time thing."


CAPITAL ACCOUNTS: Faces "Mohammed" Suit in E.D. of Texas
--------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Capital Accounts,
LLC. The case is titled Zohaib Mohammed and Hira Bhura, on behalf
of themselves and others similarly situated, the Plaintiffs, v.
Capital Accounts, LLC, the Defendant, Case No. 4:16-cv-00755-ALM
(E.D. Tex., Sept. 30, 2016). The case is assigned to Hon. Judge
Amos L. Mazzant, III.

Capital Accounts specializes in the collection of overdue
balances.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Aaron David Radbil, Esq.
          GREENWALD DAVIDSON RADBIL PLLC
          5550 Glades Road, Suite 500
          Boca Raton, FL 33431
          Telephone: (561) 826 5477
          Facsimile: (561) 961 5684
          E-mail: aradbil@gdrlawfirm.com


CENTRAL FREIGHT: "Henry" Remanded to Sacramento Superior Court
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, RICKEY HENRY, an individual, on behalf of himself,
and on behalf of all persons similarly situated, Plaintiff, v.
CENTRAL FREIGHT LINES, INC., a Corporation, and DOES 1 through 50,
inclusive, Defendants, No. 2:16-cv-0280-JAM-EFB (E.D. Cal.),
District Judge John A. Mendez approved the Plaintiff's motion to
remand the class suit to the Superior Court for the County of
Sacramento.

The Court cited the Defendant's failure to show that the amount in
controversy exceeds the $5 million jurisdictional threshold
required by the Class Action Fairness Act. Moreover, the Court can
no longer decide on the Defendant's motion to change venue
following its decision to remand the case.

A copy of the Court's Order dated October 5, 2016 is available at
https://goo.gl/H33S1P from Leagle.com.

Rickey Henry, Plaintiff, represented by Aparajit Bhowmik --
aj@bamlawlj.com -- Blumenthal, Nordrehaug & Bhowmik.

Rickey Henry, Plaintiff, represented by Kyle R. Nordrehaug --
kyle@bamlawca.com -- Blumenthal Nordrehaug and Bhowmik, Norman
Blumenthal -- norm@bamlawlj.com -- Blumenthal Nordrehaug &
Bhowmik, Ruchira Piya Mukherjee -- piya@bamlawlj.com --
Blumenthal, Nordrehaug & Bhowmik & Victoria Bree Rivapalacio --
victoria@bamlawca.com -- Blumenthal, Nordrehaug & Bhowmik.

Central Freight Lines, Inc., Defendant, represented by Jonathan
Hisataka Liu -- jonathan.liu@ogletreedeakins.com -- Ogletree,
Deakins, Nash, Smoak & Stewart, P.C., Timothy L. Johnson --
tim.johnson@ogletreedeakins.com -- Ogletree Deakins Nash Smoak &
Stewart, PC & Spencer C. Skeen -- spencer.skeen@odnss.com --
Ogletree, Deakins, Nash, Smoak & Stewart PC.


CEP AMERICA: Faces "Young" Suit in California Superior Court
------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against CEP America, LLC.
The case is entitled YOUNG, JEFFREY WON LONG, SAN MATEO, TERESA,
and ARAMILLO, CARLOS EDWARD, AS INDIVIDUALS AND ON BEHALF OF ALL
OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED, the Plaintiffs, v. MEDAMERICA PHYSICIAN
SOLUTIONS, INC., DOES 1-100, and CEP AMERICA, LLC, the Defendants,
Case No. CGC 16 554619 (Cal. Super. Ct., Sept. 30, 2016).

CEP America provides acute care management and staffing solutions
in the United States.


CIBC: Ontario Court Certifies Securities Class Action
-----------------------------------------------------
Rochon Genova LLP on Oct. 5 disclosed that a Class Action was
certified on February 3, 2014 by the Court of Appeal for Ontario
(the "Court") in relation to CIBC's representations in connection
with its exposure to the U.S. subprime mortgage market through
collateralized debt obligations ("CDOs") and credit default swaps
("CDS"), which resulted in CIBC eventually taking gross
write-downs on those positions totalling $9.3 billion (the
"Action").  The Court also granted leave (permission to proceed)
to the plaintiffs to commence an action under the secondary market
liability provisions of the Ontario Securities Act, which permit a
person who acquires a company's security after a misrepresentation
has been made in a company's public disclosure to recover damages
without proof of reliance on the misrepresentation, subject to
certain defences which may be asserted in this Action.

In December 2015, the Supreme Court of Canada upheld the Court's
certification and leave orders.  The defendants deny that the
claims in the Action have merit.  The substance and accuracy of
the claims have not yet been determined by a court.

Who is a Class Member?

The Action has been certified on behalf of all persons or
entities, excluding U.S. residents, who purchased CIBC common
shares between May 31, 2007 and February 28, 2008 on the TSX ("the
Class").

What are My Rights?

Class Members are automatically included in the Class, will be
bound by any judgment (successful or not) and will not be able to
bring their own individual action.  Class Members are not exposed
to any adverse costs.  If the Class is successful and a settlement
is reached, a settlement notice, describing the terms of the
settlement, will be provided to the Class.

Class Members who DO NOT want to participate in the Action must
opt out by January 3, 2017.  A Class Member who opts out will not
be entitled to participate in the Action and will not be entitled
to share in the amount of any award or any settlement achieved. To
opt out, you must submit a signed letter stating that you choose
to opt out of the Class to:

Attention: CIBC Securities Class Action
c/o Crawford Class Action Services
Suite 3-505, 133 Weber St N
Waterloo, ON N2J 3G9
Fax: 1-888-842-1332
Email: CIBCSecuritiesClassAction@crawco.ca

A valid opt-out request must include: (i) the date(s) on which you
purchased CIBC securities; (ii) the number of securities
purchased; (iii) the price at which you purchased CIBC securities;
and (iv) your name, address, telephone number and signature.  If
you are submitting an opt-out request on behalf of a corporation
or other entity, you must state your position and provide your
authority to bind the corporation or entity.

Class Counsel and Legal Fees

The Class is represented by Rochon Genova LLP.  Legal fees will be
paid on a contingency basis from any amounts recovered and any
such fee award to Class Counsel must be approved by the Ontario
Superior Court.  Legal fees, disbursements and applicable taxes
will be payable only in the event of success in the Action. As a
Class Member, you will not be required to pay any costs in the
event that the Action is unsuccessful.

How Do I Get More Information?

The claims, orders of the courts and other information are
available on Class Counsel's website at www.rochongenova.com.
If you have questions, please contact Class Counsel:

Joel P. Rochon
ROCHON GENOVA LLP
121 Richmond Street West, Suite 900
Toronto, ON M5H 2K1
Tel: 416-363-9893
Email: contact@rochongenova.com

The publication of this notice was authorized by the Ontario
Superior Court of Justice Please Do Not Contact the Court


CITIMORTGAGE INC: 11th Cir. Drops "Nicklaw" Case Appeal
-------------------------------------------------------
Circuit Judge William Pryor of the United States Court of Appeals,
Eleventh Circuit, dismissed for lack of jurisdiction the case of
ROGER NICKLAW, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. CITIMORTGAGE, INC., Defendant-
Appellee, No. 15-14216 (11th Cir.)

Roger Nicklaw sold real estate and used the proceeds to satisfy a
mortgage owned by CitiMortgage, Inc., the New York Property Law
required CitiMortgage to file within 30 days a certificate of
discharge with the county clerk to record that a mortgagor had
satisfied his mortgage. But CitiMortgage failed to record the
satisfaction of mortgage until more than 90 days after the date of
satisfaction.

Nicklaw discovered that the certificate had been recorded late. He
filed a putative class action against CitiMortgage in the Southern
District of Florida that alleged that CitiMortgage violated
sections 275 and 1921 of the New York Property Law by failing to
record the certificate of discharge until over 90 days after he
satisfied his mortgage.

CitiMortgage extended an offer of judgment to Nicklaw, which
Nicklaw refused to accept. CitiMortgage filed a motion to dismiss
the complaint on the ground that the offer of judgment rendered
the case moot. The district court agreed and dismissed Nicklaw's
complaint. Nicklaw did not appeal the dismissal.

In October 2014, Nicklaw filed a second complaint against
CitiMortgage in the Eastern District of Missouri, which was
transferred to the Southern District of Florida. The complaint
alleges that CitiMortgage violated sections 275 and 1921 when it
filed the certificate of discharge more than 90 days after he
satisfied his mortgage. It does not allege whether Nicklaw or any
other member of the putative class was aware that the certificate
of discharge had not been recorded within the statutory time
period. It alleges only that the satisfaction of the mortgage was
recorded late. CitiMortgage moved to dismiss Nicklaw's second
complaint on the ground that the previous dismissal for mootness
had preclusive effect. A magistrate judge recommended the
complaint be dismissed based on the earlier ruling on mootness,
which the district court adopted.

Nicklaw filed an appeal and CitiMortgage moved to dismiss the
appeal for lack of jurisdiction.

Judge Pryor dismissed the appeal for lack of jurisdiction, finding
that Nicklaw lacks standing to sue CitiMortgage. Judge Pryor held
that Nicklaw has failed to allege that he sustained a concrete
injury. He does not allege that his credit suffered or that he or
anyone else knew that the certificate of discharge had not been
recorded within the statutory period. By alleging only that
CitiMortgage recorded the certificate late and nothing else,
Nicklaw has failed to establish that he suffered or could suffer
any harm that could constitute a concrete injury.

A copy of Judge Pryor order dated October 6, 2016, is available at
https://goo.gl/pxlYZM from Leagle.com.

For Plaintiff-Appellant:

Scott Rhead Shepherd, Esq.
Nathan C. Zipperian, Esq.
Shepherd, Finkelman, Miller & Shah, LLP
875 Third Avenue, Suite 800
New York, NY 10022
Telephone: 212-419-0156
Facsimile: 866-300-7367

     - and -

Todd S. Garber -- tgarber@fbfglaw.com -- at Finkelstein
Blankinship, Frei-Pearson & Garber, LLP

Lucia Nale -- lnale@mayerbrown.com -- Thomas V. Panoff --
tpanoff@mayerbrown.com -- Christopher Comstock --
ccomstock@mayerbrown.com -- at Mayer Brown; April Boyer --
april.boyer@klgates.com -- Stephen Allan McGuinness --
stephen.mcguinness@klgates.com -- at K&L Gates; Louis F. Bonacorsi
-- lfbonacorsi@bryancave.com -- at Bryan Cave

The United States Court of Appeals, Eleventh Circuit panel
consists of Circuit Judges William Pryor and Stanley Marcus and
District Judge Roger H. Lawson, Jr.


COASTAL INDUSTRIES: Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages
---------------------------------------------------------------
Jose Felix Sarmiento, Jose Luis Sarmiento, and Leonidas Mejia, for
themselves and on behalf of all other similarly situated v.
Coastal Industries, LLC, Coastal Bridge Company, LLC, and Kelly
Sills, Case No. 3:16-cv-00638-BAJ-EWD (M.D. La., September 27,
2016), seeks to recover unpaid overtime wages and damages pursuant
to the Fair Labor Standards Act.

The Defendants operate a large scale construction company in Baton
Rouge, Louisiana.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Daniel B. Davis, Esq.
      Randall E. Estes, Esq.
      ESTES DAVIS LAW, LLC
      850 North Boulevard
      Baton Rouge, LA 70802
      Telephone: (225) 336-3394
      Facsimile: (225) 384-5419
      E-mail: Dan@EstesDavisLaw.com
              Randy@EstesDavisLaw.com

COGNIZANT TECHNOLOGY: Rosen Law Firm Files Class Action
-------------------------------------------------------
Rosen Law Firm, a global investor rights law firm, on Oct. 6
disclosed that it has filed a class action lawsuit on behalf of
purchasers of Cognizant Technology Solutions Corporation
securities (CTSH) from February 25, 2016 through September 30,
2016, both dates inclusive (the "Class Period").

To join the Cognizant class action, go to the website at
http://www.rosenlegal.com/cases-959.htmlor call Phillip Kim, Esq.
or Kevin Chan, Esq. toll-free at 866-767-3653 or email
pkim@rosenlegal.com or kchan@rosenlegal.com for information on the
class action.

NO CLASS HAS YET BEEN CERTIFIED IN THE ABOVE ACTION. UNTIL A CLASS
IS CERTIFIED, YOU ARE NOT REPRESENTED BY COUNSEL UNLESS YOU RETAIN
ONE. YOU MAY ALSO REMAIN AN ABSENT CLASS MEMBER AND DO NOTHING AT
THIS POINT. YOU MAY RETAIN COUNSEL OF YOUR CHOICE.

According to the lawsuit, throughout the Class Period defendants
made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose
that: (1) Cognizant lacked effective internal controls over
financial reporting; (2) certain improper payments were for
permits and building licenses for some of its 12 facilities in
India; and (3) as a result, defendants' statements about
Cognizant's business, operations and prospects were materially
false and misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis at all
relevant times.  When the true details entered the market, the
lawsuit claims that investors suffered damage.

A class action lawsuit has already been filed. If you wish to
serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no later than
December 5, 2016.  If you wish to join the litigation, go to
http://www.rosenlegal.com/cases-959.htmlor to discuss your rights
or interests regarding this class action, please contact Phillip
Kim or Kevin Chan of Rosen Law Firm toll free at 866-767-3653 or
via email at pkim@rosenlegal.com or kchan@rosenlegal.com.

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

Contact Information:

Laurence Rosen, Esq.
Phillip Kim, Esq.
Kevin Chan, Esq.
The Rosen Law Firm, P.A.
275 Madison Avenue, 34th Floor
New York, NY 10016
Tel: (212) 686-1060
Toll Free: (866) 767-3653
Fax: (212) 202-3827
lrosen@rosenlegal.com
pkim@rosenlegal.com
kchan@rosenlegal.com
www.rosenlegal.com


CORELOGIC CREDCO: Sued in Va. Over Inaccurate Credit Reports
------------------------------------------------------------
Ruth Taylor, individually and on behalf of a class of similarly
situated individuals v. Corelogic Credco, LLC, Case No. 3:16-cv-
00792-HEH (E.D. Va., September 27, 2016), is brought against the
Defendant for violation of the Fair Credit Reporting Act,
specifically by failing to establish or to follow reasonable
procedures to assure maximum possible accuracy in the preparation
of the consumer reports it furnished regarding the Plaintiff and
the putative class members by erroneously listing one or more
discharged debts as due and owing and past due where it was
apparent that the consumer had received a bankruptcy discharge.

Corelogic Credco, LLC is engaged in the assembly of information
contained in the databases of Equifax, Experian and Trans Union
for the purpose of furnishing such information to third parties.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Kristi Cahoon Kelly, Esq.
      Andrew J. Guzzo, Esq.
      KELLY & CRANDALL, PLC
      4084 University Drive, Suite 202A
      Fairfax, VA 22030
      Telephone: (703) 424-7570
      Facsimile: (703) 591-0167
      E-mail: kkelly@kellyandcrandall.com
              aguzzo@kellyandcrandall.com

         - and -

      Emily Connor Fort, Esq.
      Mark C. Leffler, Esq.
      BOLEMAN LAW FINN, P.C.
      2104 W. Laburnum Ave., Suite 201
      Richmond, VA 23227
      Telephone: (804) 358-9900
      E-mail: ecfort@bolemanlaw.com


CSGO LOTTO: Washington Court Dismisses RICO Class Action
--------------------------------------------------------
Sam Nordmark, writing for Daily Dot, reports that a class-action
lawsuit against third-party Counter-Strike: Global Offensive skin
gambling site CSGO Lotto appears to have been dealt a major blow,
after the court overseeing the case ruled that it wouldn't go
federal.

The ruling, which was given by the Washington Western District
Court on Oct. 4, states that the plaintiffs were arguing that
gambling site CSGO Lotto and one of its owners, Trevor "TmarTn"
Martin, had engaged in fraudulent activity so egregious that it
violated the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act
(RICO).  Mr. Martin, who is also a part-owner of successful
esports team EnVyUs, frequently promoted CSGO Lotto to his massive
YouTube following without disclosing that he had an ownership role
at the site, leading to community uproar against Martin and CSGO
Lotto.

In the proceedings, however, the defendants argued that
"plaintiffs who enter into transactions knowing that there are a
wide range of possible outcomes cannot state a RICO claim when
they receive less than favorable outcomes within that range."  The
court sided with the defendants, and ruled out a RICO standing as
it did not consider gambling losses "sufficient injury to
'business or property.'"

Additionally, the plaintiffs' second option of taking the case
federal via the Class Action Fairness Act (CAFA) also proved to be
unsuccessful.  In a post on the CS:GO subreddit, esports attorney
Bryce Blum offered the following explanation."In order to get
federal jurisdiction through CAFA, the matter in controversy has
to exceed $5,000,000.  While plaintiffs provided facts about the
economics of skin betting and Valve's CSGO revenue, they did not
assert an actual damages figure an instead relied on 'common
sense' arguments that the amount of damages exceeded $5,000,000,"
Mr. Blum concludes this section by simply writing "The court
didn't buy these arguments."

Despite this outcome, it doesn't mean the class-action suit itself
has been dismissed and the plaintiffs are free to appeal the
Washington Western District Court's ruling.


CST BRANDS: Faces "Savage" Suit Over Proposed Sale to Circle K
--------------------------------------------------------------
Harry Savage, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. CST Brands, Inc., Kim Lubel, Alan Schoenbaum, Donna M.
Boles, Roger G. Burton, Rocky B. Dewbre, Thomas (Tad) W. Dickson,
Ruben M. Escobedo, Denise Incandela, Joseph E. Reece, Stephen
Smith, Joseph V. Topper, Jr., Michael Wargotz, Circle K Stores,
Inc., and Ultra Acquisition Corp., Case No. 5:16-cv-00968 (W.D.
Tex., September 28, 2016), is brought on behalf of all public
shareholders of CST Brands, Inc., to enjoin the proposed
acquisition of CST Brands by Circle K Stores Inc. by means of an
unfair process and for an unfair price.

CST Brands, Inc. is one of the largest independent retail and
wholesale distributors of motor fuel, convenience merchandise and
services in North America.

Circle K Stores, Inc. operates and franchises convenience stores
in North America.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

         - and -

      Shane T. Rowley, Esq.
      LEVI & KORSINSKY, LLP
      733 Summer Street, Suite 304
      Stamford, CT  06901
      Telephone: (212) 363-7500
      Facsimile: (212) 682-3010
      E-mail: srowley@zlk.com


CST BRANDS: Faces Securities Class Action in Texas
--------------------------------------------------
Gainey McKenna & Egleston on Oct. 5 disclosed that a class action
lawsuit has been filed against CST Brands, Inc. ("CST" or the
"Company") in the United States District Court for the Western
District of Texas on behalf of current stockholders of CST,
seeking to pursue remedies under the Securities Exchange Act of
1934 (the "Exchange Act").

The Complaint alleges that on August 22, 2016, CST issued a press
release announcing that it had entered into an Agreement and Plan
of Merger (the "Merger Agreement") to sell CST to Couche-Tard,
Inc. ("Couche-Tard").  Under the terms of the Merger Agreement,
Couche-Tard will acquire all outstanding shares of CST for $48.53
in cash per CST common share (the "Merger Consideration").
Couche-Tard will also, through its acquisition of CST, acquire
CST's interest in CrossAmerica Partners LP ("CrossAmerica" or
"CAPL"), a leading wholesale fuels distributor and owner and
lessor of real estate used in the retail distribution of motor
fuels, and associated Incentive Distribution Rights ("IDRs").

The Complaint alleges that the transaction is the result of an
unfair process and provides the Company's shareholders with
inadequate consideration.  Further, the Complaint alleges that
both the value to CST shareholders contemplated in the transaction
and the process by which Defendants propose to consummate the
transaction are fundamentally unfair to public shareholders of the
Company.

If you wish to discuss your rights or interests regarding this
class action, please contact Thomas J. McKenna, Esq. or Gregory M.
Egleston, Esq. of Gainey McKenna & Egleston at (212) 983-1300, or
via e-mail at tjmckenna@gme-law.com or gegleston@gme-law.com

Please visit our website at http://www.gme-law.comfor more
information about the firm.


CUMBERLAND COUNTY, NC: Employees File Suit Over Severance Pay
-------------------------------------------------------------
Mary Pols, writing for Portland Press Herald, reports that saying
they were forced to work under vastly different -- and inferior --
- terms by new management, five current and former employees of
the Cross Insurance Arena have filed a class action lawsuit
against their former employer, the Cumberland County Recreation
District.

The employees, including the former marketing director, who logged
27 years with the arena, say they are owed severance after all
arena employees were fired when new management took over arena
operations in 2015, even though some of the employees were
subsequently rehired.

Their attorneys said at least 120 past and present employees at
the arena, formerly the Cumberland County Civic Center, might be
eligible to participate in the class action if it is certified.

"There may well be quite a bit more," said attorney
Roberta de Araujo of the Augusta law firm Johnson, Webbert &
Young.

The Cumberland County Recreation District turned arena operations
over to Global Spectrum -- now known as Spectra, a Philadelphia-
based division of Comcast -- in March 2015.

Matt Tarasevich -- mtarasevich@bernsteinshur.com -- the Bernstein
Shurr attorney who represents the Cumberland County Recreation
District, said in an email that the district had received the
complaint, is reviewing the claims and "will respond in due
course."

It's not possible to put a dollar value on the suit at this point,
Ms. de Araujo said.  State severance pay law requires that any
employee who had worked for the arena for at least three years be
paid severance equal to one week's pay for every year of
employment at the time they were terminated.

Employees received a termination letter from the Cumberland County
Recreation District (now the Cross Insurance Arena) stating "It is
our understanding that Global intends to offer you employment at
the Arena, effective March 9, 2015 at 12:00 a.m., in the same
position and at the same rate of pay as you had with CIA."  The
letter also said Global "intends to offer similar benefits."

But the employees named in the suit, including former marketing
director Roberta Wright and concessions manager Matt Drivas, say
they were forced to apply for new jobs with Spectra, that not all
of the employees were rehired and that the new terms of employment
were "substantially inferior terms."

Those terms included fewer paid holidays (the number dropped from
13 to 8), working "significantly" more hours without additional
compensation and not being allowed to take comp time for excess
hours worked.  The complaint also alleges that employees were
forced to pay "considerably more" for health insurance.

Morever, under their previous employment agreement, employees said
they could only be terminated for just cause and could sue if they
did not agree there was cause.  The lawsuit alleges that Spectra -
- as long as it doesn't discriminate unlawfully, can fire
employees for good reason, bad reason or no reason at all.

Ms. Wright has retired and Ms. Drivas, who says he was told he had
to choose between the civic center and a similar job he held with
the Portland Sea Dogs, left the civic center in favor of the
baseball team.  "The loss of my job with the Center cost me the
majority of my annual income and retirement," Ms. Drivas said in a
news release.  The other three plaintiffs, James Leo, Robert Payne
Jr. and Gregory Moyes, still work for the arena.

Attorneys said they couldn't put a dollar value on the suit
because no class action has yet been established.

There are some union employees at the civic center, mostly
stagehands, according to attorney Jeff Young.  But those
represented in this suit, who include the three employees still
working for the Cross arena in the concessions and operations
area, are not union members.

Mr. Young said his firm has been in negotiations with the
Cumberland County Recreation District for a year.  "Unfortunately
we were never able to resolve the dispute," Mr. Young said.  "So
they knew this was coming."


CYPRESS LAWN: "Correa" Suit to Recover Unpaid Overtime Pay
----------------------------------------------------------
Filiberto Correa, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. Cypress Lawn Specialists, Inc. and Robert
F. Ratliff, Defendants, Case No. 1:16-cv-05279 (N.D. Ill.,
September 22, 2016), seeks relief, including unpaid overtime
wages, liquidated damages, state law penalties, other equitable
relief and attorney's fees and costs for violation of the Fair
Labor Standards Act, the Illinois Minimum Wage Law, and the
Illinois Wage Payment and Collection Act.

Cypress offers various landscape maintenance, landscape
construction, and snow removal services. Plaintiff worked for the
Defendants as a general laborer and worker. He claims to be denied
overtime pay.

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Marni Willenson, Esq.
      WILLENSON LAW, LLC
      542 S. Dearborn St., Suite 610
      Chicago, IL 60605
      Tel: (312) 508-5380
      Fax: (312) 508-5382

            - and -

      Meghan A. VanLeuwen
      FARMWORKER & LANDSCAPER ADVOCACY PROJECT
      33 N. LaSalle St., Suite 900
      Chicago, IL 60602
      Tel: (312) 784-3541
      Email: mvanleuwen@flapillinois.org


DAYTON, MN: Police Chief Must Address "Orduno" Discovery Order
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, Samantha Orduno, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Richard Pietrzak, in his
individual capacity as the Chief of Police of the City of Dayton;
City of Dayton; John and Jane Does (1-120), acting in their
individual capacity as supervisors in the City of Dayton,
Defendants, Civil No. 14-1393 ADM/JSM (D. Minn.), District Judge
Ann D. Montgomery rejects the Defendants' objection to the
Discovery Order, which required the Defendants to provide an
explanation for Defendant Pietrzak's purpose for accessing the
drivers records of 200 individuals, rather than 5,747 individuals.

Orduno alleges Defendant Pietrzak, while employed as Chief of
Police in the City of Dayton, Minnesota, accessed from the
Minnesota Driver and Vehicle Services database the Plaintiff's
personal information and that of at least 850 others for a purpose
not permitted under the Driver's Privacy Protection Act.

While the Defendant argued that the limited discovery request is
still overly broad and unduly burdensome, the issuing judge of the
Order was mindful of proportionality when she narrowed the
Plaintiff's discovery request from the driver's records of over
5,000 individuals to 200. Under the circumstances of the case, the
number of individuals and accesses is proportional because the
Plaintiff is seeking to demonstrate a pattern of misuse over a
period of several years.

Additionally, the Court noted that a narrower discovery request is
not overly burdensome, particularly given the repetitive nature of
many of the accesses on the list. Defendants argue that each of
the accesses will require approximately 30 minutes to investigate,
resulting in a total of 335 staff hours and $8,921 in staff time.
However, the Court held that more than 150 of the accesses -- over
20% -- were of the same individual. The list also includes many
groups of individuals with the same last name who were accessed on
the same date. Many of the family groups accessed by Defendant
Pietrzak include 5 or more individuals, with one group consisting
of 17 members. The Court further noted that it is likely a single
explanation will apply to multiple accesses of a given
individual's information or to accesses of many individuals from
the same family, thereby eliminating the need for a full 30 minute
investigation of each and every one of the 671 accesses. Under the
circumstances, the discovery will not impose an undue burden on
the City of Dayton's resources, and any burden is outweighed by
the likely benefit of the discovery.

A copy of the Court's Order dated October 5, 2016 is available at
https://goo.gl/JtemQ9 from Leagle.com.

Samantha Orduno, Plaintiff, represented by Jeffrey M. Montpetit
-- jeffrey.montpetit@knowyourrights.com -- SiebenCarey.

Samantha Orduno, Plaintiff, represented by Jonathan A. Strauss --
JonS@sapientialaw.com -- Sapientia Law Group PLLC, Lorenz F. Fett,
Jr., Sapientia Law Group, Marcia K. Miller --
marcia.miller@knowyourrights.com -- SiebenCarey, Sonia L. Miller-
Van Oort, Sapientia Law Group & Susan M. Holden --
susan.holden@knowyourrights.com -- SiebenCarey, P.A..

Richard Pietrzak, et al., Defendants, represented by Jon K.
Iverson -- jon@irc-law.com -- Iverson Reuvers Condon, Stephanie A.
Angolkar -- stephanie@irc-law.com -- Iverson Reuvers Condon &
Susan M. Tindal -- susan@irc-law.com -- Iverson Reuvers Condon.


DENSO CORPORATION: Sued in Mich. Over Spark Plug Price-Fixing
-------------------------------------------------------------
KMB/CT, Inc. d/b/a KMB Warehouse Distributors, Inc., Thrifty Auto
Supply, and Irving Levine Automotive Distributors, Inc.,
individually and on behalf of a class of all others similarly
situated v. DENSO Corporation, DENSO International America, Inc.,
and DENSO Products & Services Americas f/k/a Denso Sales
California, Inc., Case No. 2:16-cv-13506-AJT-MKM (E.D. Mich.,
September 28, 2016), arises from the Defendants' and others'
alleged unlawful combination, agreement and conspiracy to rig bids
and fix, raise, maintain, or stabilize prices of Spark Plugs  sold
in the United States and elsewhere at supra-competitive levels.

The Defendants manufacture and supply Spark Plugs that are sold
throughout the United States, or installed in motor vehicles
manufactured or sold throughout the United States.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      David H. Fink, Esq.
      Darryl Bressack, Esq.
      FINK + ASSOCIATES LAW
      38500 Woodward Avenue; Suite 350
      Bloomfield Hills, MI 48304
      Telephone: (248) 971-2500
      E-mail: dfink@finkandassociateslaw.com
              dbressack@finkandassociateslaw.com

        - and -

      Joseph C. Kohn, Esq.
      William E. Hoese, Esq.
      Douglas A. Abrahams, Esq.
      KOHN, SWIFT & GRAF, P.C.
      One South Broad Street, Suite 2100
      Philadelphia, PA 19107
      Telephone: (215) 238-1700
      E-mail: jkohn@kohnswift.com
              whoese@kohnswift.com
              dabrahams@kohnswift.com

         - and -

      Gregory P. Hansel, Esq.
      Randall B. Weill, Esq.
      Michael S. Smith, Esq.
      PRETI, FLAHERTY, BELIVEAU & PACHIOS LLP
      One City Center
      P.O. Box 9546
      Portland, ME 04112-9546
      Telephone: (207) 791-3000
      E-mail: ghansel@preti.com
              rweill@preti.com
              msmith@preti.com

         - and -

      Steven A. Kanner, Esq.
      William H. London, Esq.
      Michael E. Moskovitz, Esq.
      FREED KANNER LONDON & MILLEN LLC
      2201 Waukegan Road, Suite 130
      Bannockburn, IL 60015
      Telephone: (224) 632-4500
      E-mail: skanner@fklmlaw.com
              wlondon@fklmlaw.com
              mmoskovitz@fklmlaw.com

         - and -

      Eugene A. Spector, Esq.
      William G. Caldes, Esq.
      Jonathan M. Jagher, Esq.
      Jeffrey L. Spector, Esq.
      SPECTOR ROSEMAN KODROFF & WILLIS, P.C.
      1818 Market Street, Suite 2500
      Philadelphia, PA 19103
      Telephone: (215) 496-0300
      E-mail: espector@srkw-law.com
              bcaldes@srkw-law.com
              jjagher@srkw-law.com
              jspector@srkw-law.com

         - and -

      M. John Dominguez, Esq.
      COHEN MILSTEIN SELLERS & TOLL PLLC
      2925 PGA Boulevard, Suite 204
      Palm Beach Gardens, FL 33410
      Telephone: (561) 515-1400
      E-mail: jdominguez@cohenmilstein.com

         - and -

      David A. Young, Esq.
      COHEN, MILSTEIN SELLERS & TOLL PLLC
      1100 New York Ave., NW, Suite 500
      Washington, D.C. 20005
      Telephone: (202) 408-4600
      E-mail: dyoung@cohenmilstein.com


DOLE PACKAGED: "All Natural" Label Class Decertification Affirmed
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Charles R.A. Morse -- cramorse@jonesday.com -- Sharyl A. Reisman -
- sareisman@jonesday.com -- Louis A. Chaiten --
lachaiten@jonesday.com -- Darren K. Cottriel, Rebekah Byers
Kcehowski and David M. Monde, of Jones Day, in an article for
Lexology, report that on September 30, 2016, in a closely watched
case, the Ninth Circuit affirmed a district court's
decertification ruling based on a faulty damages model but
reversed in part the district court's ruling that "All Natural
Fruit" labeling on Dole products is not likely to deceive
consumers. Brazil v. Dole Packaged Foods, LLC, No. 14-17480 (9th
Cir. Sept. 30, 2016) (unpublished).  The opinion is unpublished
but will likely have repercussions for class actions in and out of
the Ninth Circuit.

District Court -- Decertifying the Class and Granting Summary
Judgment

The plaintiff in Brazil claimed Dole's "All Natural" label was
misleading because the products contained synthetic citric and
ascorbic acids.  Among other claims, he alleged violations of
various California consumer protection statutes and sought to
certify a class.  Initially, the district court certified an
injunction class under Rule 23(b)(2) and a damages class under
Rule 23(b)(3).  On Dole's motion, the district court later
decertified the damages class based on lack of predominance,
because the plaintiff's damages model did not accurately measure
the value of the "All Natural" claim and, thus, did not permit
restitution on a classwide basis.  More specifically, the
plaintiff's hedonic regression analysis was not "capable of
controlling for all other factors and isolating the price premium
attributable to Dole's 'All Natural' label only." Brazil v. Dole
Packaged Foods, LLC, No. 12-cv-01831-LHK, 2014 WL 5794873, at *13
(N.D. Cal. Nov. 6, 2014).  On the merits, and based on a standard
set forth in nonbinding 2013 FDA guidance about the use of the
word "natural" to describe food products, the court granted
summary judgment to Dole.  There was, according to the court, no
evidence that reasonable consumers would not normally expect to
find citric and ascorbic acids in "natural" fruit.

Ninth Circuit -- Affirming Decertification and Reversing Summary
Judgment

The Ninth Circuit affirmed in part and reversed in part.  The
court affirmed the district court's order decertifying the damages
class.  On the merits of Brazil's individual damages case,
however, the Ninth Circuit reversed the district court's order
granting summary judgment to Dole.

Class Certification. The Ninth Circuit affirmed the district
court's decertification order, finding the plaintiff's damages
must be limited to "the price premium attributable to Dole's 'All
Natural Fruit' labels" and that the plaintiff "did not explain how
this premium could be calculated with proof common to the class."
No. 14-17480, slip op. at 6-7.  The Ninth Circuit also rejected
the plaintiff's claim that under a theory of "nonrestitutionary
disgorgement," the class could recover without establishing the
price premium attributable to the "All Natural" claim.  The Ninth
Circuit observed that "restitution and disgorgement are
functionally the same remedy." Id. at 7. The injunction class
action, which was never decertified, will be permitted to proceed.

The Merits (Plaintiff's Individual Claim). The district court
granted Dole's motion for summary judgment because the plaintiff
"offered no evidence that citric acid and ascorbic acid, the two
allegedly synthetic ingredients found in the challenged Dole
products, 'would not normally be expected to be in' those
products." Brazil v. Dole Packaged Foods, LLC, No. 12-CV-01831-
LHK, 2014 WL 6901867, at *5 (N.D. Cal. Dec. 8, 2014).  The "would-
not-normally-be-expected" standard was set forth in 2013 FDA
guidance relating to the use of the word "natural" in food labels.
Id.

The Ninth Circuit reversed. It relied on more recent FDA warning
letters to food sellers, which advised that "foods that naturally
contain citric acid (such as tomatoes) may not be labeled 'all
natural' if synthetic citric acid is added to them." No. 14-17480,
slip op. at 4.  The Ninth Circuit concluded that those letters,
along with the plaintiff's testimony that he was deceived,
conflicting expert witness testimony regarding the naturalness of
synthetic citric and ascorbic acids, and the label itself "could
allow a trier of fact to conclude that Dole's description of its
products as 'All Natural Fruit' is misleading to a reasonable
consumer." Id. at 3.

The court did, however, reject the plaintiff's claims for the sale
of "illegal products."  The plaintiff argued Dole's sales were
illegal under California law because Dole had made deceptive
misrepresentations about the fruit on its website.  Because
"Brazil did not see the allegedly offending statements before he
purchased the fruit," the claims could not have influenced
Brazil's purchase; that is, he could not have relied on the claim
(a necessary element for his unfair competition claim).  The court
also rejected Brazil's "outlandish theory" that he could be liable
for possessing "illegal" fruit. Id. at 6.

Implications

The Ninth Circuit's opinion will likely prove useful for both
defendants and plaintiffs.  For defendants, the ruling on class
certification reaffirms that class-action plaintiffs seeking to
recover money (as distinguished from injunctive relief) must
provide an adequate damages model that shows the price premium
(the "value") attributable to the alleged misleading product label
("All Natural" in Brazil).  To satisfy the predominance
requirement for certification of a damages class under Rule
23(b)(3), plaintiffs must "explain how this premium could be
calculated with proof common to the class." Id. Challenging
putative class-action plaintiffs on this score is often
successful, but it requires detailed analysis and convincing
expert testimony.  The Ninth Circuit's decision confirms the
importance of damages models in class-action cases involving food
labels.

On the other hand, plaintiffs suing over "All Natural" labels will
take some comfort in the merits portion of the Ninth Circuit's
decision -- including the Ninth Circuit's treatment of the FDA
warning letters and plaintiff's testimony of deception. By moving
away from the district court's notion that a plaintiff alleging
deception must show that a reasonable consumer would not expect to
find the added substance in the product, the Ninth Circuit has
made it easier for plaintiffs to pursue "All Natural" claims based
on small disparities between a product's label and the product's
contents.  Under the Ninth Circuit's approach, plaintiffs may
bring such claims even if reasonable consumers would expect the
natural version of a synthetic ingredient to be in the product.
Nonetheless, on the plus side for class-action defendants, the
Ninth Circuit rejected Brazil's claim that the sale of Dole's "All
Natural" fruit was "illegal" under the Unfair Competition Law
because Brazil did not see the label before purchasing the
product.


EAGLE MARINE: Oct. 18 Hearing Set for "O'Neal" FLSA Claims
----------------------------------------------------------
In the case, IVAN O'NEAL, on behalf of himself and all other
similarly situated persons, Plaintiff, v. EAGLE MARINE
CONTRACTING, LLC d/b/a EM CONTRACTING and d/b/a EM CONTRACTING
LLC, RAPHAEL G. BURCHFIELD, Defendants, Civil Action No. 16-cv-
00401-KD-B (S.D. Ala.), District Judge Kristi K. DuBose will hold
a hearing for the collective action complaint under the Fair Labor
Standards Act ("FLSA") on October 18, 2016.

The Plaintiff was also ordered to file an amended response, due on
October 12, 2016, clarifying whether he has been fully compensated
for his claim of unpaid overtime compensation and liquidated
damages.

The Court noted that if the Plaintiff asserts that the Defendants'
direct deposit did not fully compensate him for his claimed
amounts of unpaid overtime compensation and liquidated damages,
Plaintiff shall state what amounts he claims he is owed for unpaid
overtime compensation and liquidated damages.

A copy of the Court's Order dated October 5, 2016 is available at
https://goo.gl/rVajf3 from Leagle.com.

Ivan O'Neal, Plaintiff, represented by Ian David Rosenthal,
Rosenthal Parks LLP.

Ivan O'Neal, Plaintiff, represented by Richard W. Fuquay.

Eagle Marine Contracting, LLC, et al., Defendants, represented by
Arnold W. Umbach, III -- tumbach@starneslaw.com -- Starnes Davis
Florie LLP & Breanna Harris Young -- byoung@starneslaw.com.


EARLYSHARES.COM: Has Made Unsolicited Calls, Action Claims
----------------------------------------------------------
Lawrence E. Schwanke d/b/a Back to Basics Family Chiropractic
DC, individually and as the representative of a class of
similarly-situated persons v. EarlyShares.com, Inc. and John Does
1-12, Case No. 5:16-cv-00593-CEM-PRL (M.D. Fla., September 28,
2016), seeks to stop the Defendants' practice of using an
artificial and prerecorded voice to deliver a message without
prior express consent of the called party.

EarlyShares.com, Inc. operates a financial service company located
at 1200 Brickell Ave. Suite 510 Miami, FL 33131.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

ECCO SELECT: Faces "Pearce" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
-------------------------------------------------------------
Roxanne Pearce, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated v. ECCO Select Corporation, Case No. 4:16-cv-01051-DW
(W.D. Miss., September 27, 2016), is brought against the
Defendants for failure to pay overtime wages in violation of the
Fair Labor Standards Act.

ECCO Select Corporation is a nationwide IT support company
incorporated in Missouri, with its principal place of business in
Kansas City, Missouri.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Eric L. Dirks, Esq.
      Jordan Baehr, Esq.
      WILLIAMS DIRKS DAMERON, LLC
      1100 Main Street, Suite 2600
      Kansas City, MO 64105
      Telephone: (816) 876-2600
      Facsimile: (816) 221-8763
      E-mail: dirks@williamsdirks.com
              jbaehr@williamsdirks.com


EI DUPONT: 3rd Cir. Voids Employer's Practice of Offsetting
-----------------------------------------------------------
Circuit Judge Marjorie O. Rendell of the United States Court of
Appeals, Third Circuit, reversed the district court's decision and
remanded the case, entitled BOBBI-JO SMILEY; AMBER BLOW; KELSEY
TURNER, Appellants, v. E.I. DUPONT DE NEMOURS AND COMPANY; ADECCO
USA, INC, No. 14-4583 (3d Cir.)

Plaintiffs Bobbi-Jo Smiley, Amber Blow, and Kelsey Turner worked
12-hour shifts at DuPont De Nemours & Company's manufacturing
plant in Towanda, Pennsylvania. In addition to working their 12-
hour shifts, plaintiffs had to be on-site before and after their
shifts to don and doff uniforms and protective gear. DuPont also
required them to participate in shift relief, which involved
employees from the outgoing shift sharing information about the
status of work with incoming shift employees. The time spent
donning, doffing, and providing shift relief varied, but ranged
from approximately 30 to 60 minutes a day.

DuPont chose to compensate plaintiffs for meal breaks, despite no
Fair Labor Standards Act requirement to do so during their 12-hour
shifts. Employees who worked 12-hour, four-shift schedules, were
entitled to one 30-minute paid lunch break per shift, in addition
to two non-consecutive 30-minute breaks. The paid break time
always exceeded the amount of time plaintiffs spent donning and
doffing and providing shift relief.

DuPont treated the compensation for meal breaks similarly to other
types of compensation given to employees. It included the
compensation given for paid meal breaks when it calculated
employees' regular rate of pay, and meal break time was included
in employees' paystubs as part of their total hours worked each
week.

Plaintiffs brought a putative collective action and class action
against DuPont, claiming that DuPont violated the Fair Labor
Standards Act and Pennsylvania's Wage Payment and Collection Law
by requiring plaintiffs to work before and after their 12-hour
shifts without paying them overtime. Plaintiffs sought to recover
overtime compensation for time spent donning and doffing their
uniforms and protective gear and performing shift relief.

DuPont argued that their claims fail because it could offset the
paid breaks DuPont voluntarily provided plaintiffs against the
unpaid donning and doffing and shift-relief time. Plaintiffs filed
a motion to conditionally certify a FLSA collective action, which
the District Court granted.

DuPont filed a motion for summary judgment, which the district
court granted, holding that the FLSA allowed DuPont to use paid
non-work time to offset the required overtime and dismissing the
lawsuit entirely. The district court held that plaintiffs were not
owed any additional compensation because the amount of paid non-
work time exceeded unpaid work time. Although it recognized that
the FLSA does not expressly grant employers permission to use paid
non-work time to offset unpaid work time, the district court
nonetheless concluded offset was not specifically prohibited and
therefore granted summary judgment in favor of DuPont. Plaintiffs
appealed.

Judge Rendell held that the FLSA and applicable regulations, as
well as the precedent decision in Wheeler v. Hampton, compel the
opposite result. In Wheeler, the court held that an employer may
not use a compensation to offset other compensation owed under the
FLSA and that offsetting was limited to the type addressed by
section 207(h), which only pertains to extra compensation, which
is distinct from regular straight time pay.

Given the decision in Wheeler, where limiting offsetting to extra
compensation is not included in the regular rate. Judge Rendell
reversed the district court's order and remanded the case for
further proceeding.

A copy of Judge Rendell's opinion dated October 7, 2016, is
available at https://goo.gl/mqrGhF from Leagle.com.

Patricia V. Pierce -- p.pierce@gpeff.com -- at Greenblatt Pierce
Engle Funt & Flores; Thomas M. Marrone -- at More Marrone, Counsel
for Appellants, Bobbi-Jo Smiley, Amber Blow, and Kelsey Turner

David S. Fryman -- fryman@ballardspahr.com -- Amy L. Bashore --
bashorea@ballardspahr.com -- at Ballard Spahr, Counsel for
Appellee, E. I. du Pont de Nemours and Company

A. Patricia Diulus-Myers -- DiulusMP@jacksonlewis.com -- Eric R.
Magnus -- MagnusE@jacksonlewis.com -- at Jackson Lewis, Counsel
for Appellee, Adecco USA, Inc.

Counsel for Amicus Curiae, Secretary, United States, Department of
Labor:

Richel Goldberg, Esq.
United States Department of Labor
Division of Fair Labor Standards
Room N2716, 200 Constitution Avenue, N.W.
Washington, DC 20210

The United States Court of Appeals, Third Circuit panel consists
of Judges Marjorie O. Rendell, Thomas I. Vanaskie and Cheryl Ann
Krause.


ESPERANZA MANAGEMENT: Former Servers Sue Over Unpaid Gratuities
---------------------------------------------------------------
John Christensen, writing for The Chronicle-Express, reports that
two former servers at the Esperanza Mansion (currently up for sale
in an online auction) have filed a class action lawsuit against
the business and its owner, David Wegman.  The named plaintiffs,
Shari Folts and Gail Owen, on behalf of themselves and all others
employed at Esperanza (through their attorneys, Justin M.
Cardello, Cordello Law PLLC and Robert L. Mullin, Ferr & Mullin
P.C.) have brought a class action complaint against Esperanza
Management LLC, Esperanza Properties LLC, the Wegman Group LLC; as
well as David Wegman individually and as owner of those
businesses.

The lawsuit seeks to recover damages for unpaid wages on behalf of
banquet service workers, including servers, bartenders, and
bussers who have worked at Esperanza Mansion, claiming Esperanza
illegally retained gratuities customers paid as service charges
during the previous six years in violation of N.Y. Labor Law.

According to the documents filed in Yates County Court, Folts
worked as a banquet server at the mansion from approximately Sept.
2008 until Oct. 2012, as did Owen from June 2011 until Oct. 2012,
and were paid on an hourly basis.  "The Class" plaintiffs are
estimated at more than 40 banquet service staff including servers,
bussers, and bartenders from six years prior to the lawsuit and
continuing through its final judgment.

The suit claims Esperanza and Wegman illegally kept mandatory
charges collected from customers in violation of the law instead
of passing them on to his employees.

Referred to as a "service charge" on menus, the plaintiffs contend
it failed to include the necessary disclaimers indicating that
these mandatory charges were in fact kept by Wegman, and not
distributed to banquet service employees who provided service to
the guests.

"Instead, defendants retained the mandatory charge, and plaintiffs
are paid on an hourly basis and do not receive any of the
collected mandatory charge for service," states the suit.  "As a
result of defendants' policy, the named plaintiffs and the class
are owed the gratuities illegally retained by defendants from
service charges paid by customers."

The suit claims Wegman failed to operate Esperanza as legally
separate by corporate formalities necessary to operate as
corporations; failing to hold annual meetings or maintaining
appropriate corporate records; transferring assets and debts
freely between all the entities; operating them for his own
benefit and maintaining control over these entities as closed
companies; and intermingling assets and debts of his own with
Esperanza Management to avoid full liability to protect his own
interests.

When contacted, Wegman deferred requests for comment to his
attorney, Colleen Holland of Boylan Code LLP in Rochester, who
says she cannot comment on the details, "but we plan to vigorously
defend against the allegations made by these former servers."  No
response to the suit has been filed with the Yates County Clerk's
Office.

The plaintiffs are demanding an order restraining the alleged pay
violations plus the unpaid gratuities and costs.


EVERBANK FINANCIAL: Sued Over Proposed Teachers Insurance Merger
----------------------------------------------------------------
Paul Parshall, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. Everbank Financial Corp., Robert Clements, Blake
Wilson, Scott M. Sturt, Joseph D. Hikel, Merrick R. Kleeman, W.
Radford Lovett, II, Arrington H. Mixon, Robert J. Mylod, Jr.,
Russell B. Newton, III, William Sanford, Richard P. Schifter,
Teachers Insurance and Annuity Association of America, TCT
Holdings, Inc., and Dolphin Sub Corporation, Case No. 3:16-cv-
01235-TJC-PDB (M.D. Fla., September 27, 2016), is brought on
behalf of all public stockholders of Everbank Financial Corp., to
enjoin the proposed merger of Everbank and Teachers Insurance and
Annuity Association of America, through a flawed process and
inadequate consideration.

Everbank Financial Corp. is a unitary savings and loan holding
company headquartered in Jacksonville, Florida.

Teachers Insurance and Annuity Association of America is a
financial services organization that is a retirement provider for
people who work in the academic, research, medical and cultural
fields.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Christopher S. Polaszek, Esq.
      THE POLASZEK LAW FIRM, PLLC
      3407 W. Kennedy Blvd.
      Tampa, FL 33609
      Telephone: (813) 574-778
      E-mail: chris@polaszeklaw.com

         - and -

      Seth D. Rigrodsky, Esq.
      Brian D. Long, Esq.
      Gina M. Serra, Esq.
      Jeremy J. Riley, Esq
      RIGRODSKY & LONG, P.A.
      2 Righter Parkway, Suite 120
      Wilmington, DE 19803
      Telephone: (302) 295-5310
      E-mail: sdr@rl-legal.com
              bdl@rl-legal.com
              gms@rl-legal.com
              jjr@rl-legal.com


FLORIDA POWER: Faces "Gil" Suit in Southern Dist. of Florida
------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Florida Power and
Light Company. The case is captioned Juan Carlos Gil and Andres
Gomez, on their own behalf, and on behalf of all other individuals
similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. Florida Power and Light
Company, the Defendant, Case No. 1:16-cv-24180-UU (S.D. Fla.,
Sept. 30, 2016). The case is assigned to Hon. Judge Ursula Ungaro.

Florida Power & Light Company, the principal subsidiary of NextEra
Energy Inc., is a Juno Beach, Florida-based power utility company
serving roughly 4.7 million accounts and 9 million people in
Florida.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Scott Richard Dinin, Esq.
          SCOTT R. DININ, P.A.
          4200 NW 7th Avenue
          Miami, FL 33127
          Telephone: (786) 431 1333
          Facsimile: (786) 513 7700
          E-mail: srd@dininlaw.com


FORD MOTOR: Lead Applicant Loses Bid to Halt Settlement Offers
--------------------------------------------------------------
King & Wood Mallesons reports that recent class action judgments
have considered the potential for conflicts of interests arising
in the course of class actions.  The latest example of this arose
in the Ford class action where Justice Perram of the Federal Court
refused to grant orders sought by the lead applicant to restrain
the respondent from communicating offers of settlement to group
members.  In doing so, his Honour, emphasized the role the Court
plays in protecting the interests of non-party group members (ie
group members who have not retained the lead applicant's lawyers).
In this case, his Honour found that non-party group members were
not being unfairly treated by the direct offers being made:
rather, it was the lead applicant and her lawyers whose interests
might be affected by a reduction in the size of the class if
people accepted the offers.

Why did the lead applicant want these orders?

In May 2016, a class action was commenced against Ford Motor
Company of Australia Limited, claiming that:

   -- Ford had imported, sold, supplied and distributed vehicles
with automatic transmissions that were defective, in breach of a
statutory guarantee under the Australian Consumer Law; and

   -- Ford's promotional materials failed to mention the existence
of the alleged problems, and therefore constituted misleading or
deceptive conduct.

This is an 'open' class action, with the class being persons who
had purchased the affected vehicles within the relevant timeframe.
As is common, the firm representing the applicant, Bannister Law,
has a dedicated website through which persons can register their
interest in participating in the class action and enter into a fee
agreement with Bannister Law (on a no-win no-fee basis).  To date,
not all purchasers of the allegedly defective vehicles have
contacted Bannister Law. In fact, many approached Ford directly
and, in some of these cases, Ford has communicated offers of
settlement to vehicle owners which have included releases of the
owner's rights and confidentiality clauses.

The lead applicant sought orders restraining Ford from (among
other things):

   -- sending letters offering settlement to group members; and

   -- communicating with group members other than in accordance
with a protocol proposed by the applicant.

The Court's jurisdiction and role as guardian

The Court accepted that it had power to restrain the ability of a
respondent to communicate with group members under s 33ZF of the
Federal Court of Australia Act 1976 (Cth) (Act), using its general
power to make orders that it thinks "appropriate or necessary to
ensure that justice is done in the proceeding."

Perram J emphasized the need for the Court to ensure that group
members not before the Court were not unjustly disadvantaged by
the actions of the parties who were.  His Honour noted that in
using its jurisdiction, the Court must look out for the interests
of the non-party group members, rather than the interests of those
running the class action.  In exercising its powers, Perram J
noted, the Court's role is akin to that of a guardian.

Unfairness and injustice in settlement offers

Turning to whether Ford's direct settlement offers to group
members were fair and just, Perram J cited the decision of
Courtney v Medtel, in which Sackville J held the following
conditions were appropriate for settlement offers:

   -- the offer be in writing;

   -- the consequences of accepting and not accepting the offer be
explained;

   -- the period for acceptance be sufficient for a Group Member
who wishes to do so to have a genuine opportunity to obtain legal
advice; and

   -- making it clear that the Group Member is entitled to seek
and might benefit from independent legal advice.

Perram J considered the context of the offer to be critical in
considering the settlement offers: in each instance, the
communication process was initiated by the customer and not Ford,
in that it was the customer and not Ford who made initial contact
regarding the allegedly defective vehicle.  Ford was not "actively
seeking out group members to persuade them to surrender their
rights as group members" and the fact that vehicle owners were
seeking out Ford meant that there was nothing exploitative about
the situation.  The four criteria referred to above were held to
have been met by Ford.

Conflicts of interest

The lead applicant made several submissions in respect of content
that she considered should have been included in Ford's offers of
settlement, including:

   -- naming Bannister Law as a potential source of advice in
terms of deciding whether to accept each offer;

   -- noting that the vehicle owner might get more or less in the
class action;

   -- requiring the vehicle owner when accepting the offer to say
whether they had, or had not, obtained legal advice; and

   -- notifying vehicle owners of ways of finding out about the
class action, specifically via Bannister Law's website.

Perram J rejected each of these submissions.  In doing so, His
Honour highlighted a concern in the conduct of class actions
regarding the conflicts of interest which may arise.  Perram J
stated that there was no legitimate basis upon which s 33ZF(1)
might warrant any intervention by the Court.  His Honour went on
to note that:

It is not necessary to resolve . . . the question whether
Bannister Law might itself have a conflict between its own
potential interest in expanding the class and its duty to give
disinterested advice to a vehicle owner on whether to stay in the
class action or accept Ford's offer and be removed from it.

The very nature of class actions is such that conflicts may arise
in relation to litigation funding arrangements, fee arrangements
with law firms, disclosures to group members and the terms of
proposed settlements.  In considering the proposed settlement of
the Willmott Forests class action, Murphy J noted that several
potential conflicts of interest existed under the terms of
settlement proposed, including between:

His Honour refused to approve the proposed settlement on the basis
that the settlements may constitute a significant detriment for
non-participating (and largely non-client) class members, stating
that:

The settlements should not be approved until the conflicts are
recognized and properly dealt with.

The Federal Court's draft Class Actions Practice Note expressly
requires applicant's solicitors and litigation funders to disclose
any potential conflicts of interests to the applicant and class
members.  King & Wood Mallesons expects this practice note to be
finalized later this year.

The case is Capic v Ford Motor Company of Australia Limited.


GATEWAY PLAZA: Plaintiff Accuses Landlord of Intimidation Tactics
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Colin Mixson, writing for Downtown Express, reports that the
ongoing class-action lawsuit against the landlord and management
of Battery Park City's Gateway Plaza is getting nasty, with a
former deputy mayor accusing the head of the tenants association
of intimidating plaintiffs on behalf of Gateway's landlord -- a
charge he vehemently denies.

Gateway tenant and chairwoman of Community Board 1's Battery Park
City Committee Ninfa Segarra says that shortly after she agreed to
join the lawsuit, Gateway Plaza Tenants Association president
Glenn Plaskin threatened her lease.

"Mr. Plaskin told me he found out I joined the Gateway class
action . . . then asked me if I understood the 'dangers' involved
in the case," Ms. Segarra testified in a Sept. 6 affidavit filed
in support of a cease-and-desist motion accusing Mr. Plaskin of
acting on behalf Gateway's management and landlord to convince
plaintiffs to drop out of the lawsuit.

Mr. Plaskin emphatically rejected Ms. Segarra's accusations in a
responding affidavit, denying that he has ever threatened a
Gateway tenant, or ever acted as an agent of the lawsuit
defendants.

"I have never threatened any tenant, nor would I," said
Mr. Plaskin.  "As President of the Gateway Plaza Tenants
Association, I advocate for the rights of the tenants and for
improving the quality of life at Gateway.  I absolutely do not
work for Gateway management."

Ms. Segarra, who served as a deputy mayor for Rudy Giuliani, had
agreed to join the lawsuit to replace other plaintiffs
representing the class who dropped out, potentially scuttling the
class-action suit.

The class action was first brought against Marina Towers
Associates and Gateway Plaza Management in 2014 by two Gateway
tenants, Maureen Koetz and Jennifer Rajkumar, who alleged that
tenants were forced to endure freezing temperatures and pay
exorbitant heating bills as a result of "defective" windows and
heating units at the six-building, 1,712-unit complex.

The suit had to be refiled, however, after Ms. Rajkumar was
accused of plagiarizing complaint documents that law firms Morgan
& Morgan and Newman Ferrara claimed to have written.  The two
firms later joined the refiled suit, and tenants Barbara Stoebel
and David Spencer replaced Ms. Rajkumar and Ms. Koetz as
representative plaintiffs.

In August, the plaintiffs' attorneys filed another motion
requesting that Ms. Stoebel and Mr. Spencer be replaced as the
suit's named plaintiffs by Gateway tenants Pauline Wolf -- who has
since withdrawn from the suit  --  and Ms. Segarra, who will
become the sole remaining plaintiff when and if the judge approves
the motion.

Ms. Segarra alleges that she was approached by Mr. Plaskin just
days after the motion to include her as a named plaintiff were
filed with the courts, and that he insinuated that Gateway's
landlord would refuse to renew her lease if she was indeed named
in the suit, according to court documents.

"[Plaskin] stated something to the effect of: "Don't you want to
get a lease renewal? Participating in a lawsuit can cause you
problems," read the affidavit filed earlier this month.

The plaintiffs' attorneys are now leveraging Ms. Segarra's
testimony against Mr. Plaskin in order to obtain a cease-and-
desist order against the tenant's association president, and
approve discovery of any correspondences between Mr. Plaskin and
the defendants, according to court documents.

In his response, Mr. Plaskin said that Ms. Segarra had distorted
his comments to her, and that he actually told her the lawsuit was
complicating his ongoing efforts renew an agreement with Gateway
Plaza's landlord, the LeFrak Organization to extend rent
stabilization beyond 2020.

Furthermore, Mr. Plaskin said that, as president of the tenants
association, he has remained neutral in regards to the class
action lawsuit and, as such, has in the past declined to provide
interviews on the suit or provide any statements at tenant
association meetings other than to state that the GPTA board voted
unanimously to remain neutral, he testified in an affidavit filed
on Sept. 24.

Mr. Plaskin acknowledged that did call one of the plaintiffs'
lawyers earlier this year about dropping the suit, testifying in
his affidavit that he initially expressed concern that the lawsuit
may harm the building's ability to retain its rent stabilized
status, before inquiring as to whether it could be dropped.

LeFrak has already begun to resolve the underlying cause of the
lawsuit's main grievance, agreeing a year ago to replace all
10,000 of its notoriously drafty windows.

"Gateway has commenced a window replacement project," said a
spokesperson for the management.  "The project is expected to be
complete by fall 2017 pending any unforeseen delays."


GENERAL MILLS: Faces Class Action Over Deceptive "Healthy" Claims
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Steve Myers, writing for Natural Products Insider, reports that
General Mills touts its products as healthy, but they contain
unhealthy levels of sugar, according to a class action lawsuit
filed by consumers.

The suit, filed Aug. 29 in U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of California, San Francisco, alleged General Mills made
false claims for a number of its cereals and breakfast bars,
including Cheerios, Fiber One and Nature Valley brands.

In the filing, plaintiffs Bev Truxel and Stephen Hadley stated the
science on the dangers of excessive sugar intake is "compelling,"
yet General Mills has marketed its high-sugar products using
health and wellness claims.

"These claims, however, are deceptive because they are
incompatible with the significant dangers of the excessive added
sugar consumption to which these foods contribute," they argued,
in the complaint.

The lawsuit noted that of all the forms of sugar used as
sweeteners, fructose appears to be the most dangerous, and an
addiction to sugar has created a vicious cycle leading to epidemic
obesity and chronic illness, including type 2 diabetes,
cardiovascular disease, Alzheimer's, liver disease and some
cancers.

"In 2014, the cereal industry used 816 million pounds of sugar, or
about 2.5 lbs. for each of the 318.9 million people in the U.S. in
2014," the suit stated.  "That is 1,134 grams per person, or 3
grams per person, per day, for every man, woman, and child in the
United States. That totals more than 361 billion grams of sugar in
one year."

According to the complaint, General Mills is the sixth largest
food company in the world, and produces the top-selling cereal in
United States -- Honey Nut Cheerios (US$502.2 million in 2015
sales).

"General Mills has maintained . . . to this day . . . a policy and
practice of labeling high-sugar foods -- those that contribute
significantly more than 5 percent of calories from sugar, and thus
whose regular consumption is likely to contribute to increased
risk for, and contraction of chronic disease -- with various
health and wellness claims that suggest its foods are healthy,
when they are not," the plaintiffs alleged.

General Mills is accused in the suit of both originating and
repeating aggressive health and wellness claims.  The plaintiffs
listed out numerous instances of misleading statements associated
with General Mills products, including "whole grain," "lightly
sweetened" "wholesome," "nourish," "goodness" and "no high
fructose corn syrup."

One quirky statement in the lawsuit indicates the plaintiffs are
willing to continue their longstanding loyalty as consumers of
General Mills products if certain changes are made.  "If they
could be assured through prospective injunctive relief that, if a
General Mills food label sets forth health and wellness claims,
the product does not contain excess sugar, they would consider
purchasing General Mills products bearing such claims in the
future."

The class action filing, which specifically alleged violations of
California's False advertising Law, Consumers Legal Remedies Act
and Unfair Competition Law, asks the court to make General Mills
change its practice of false and misleading claims and
advertising, as well as pay restitution to cover the money
consumers paid for products marketed and advertised with such
claims.

At press time, attorneys for General Mills had not responded to
INSIDER's request for comment.


GEO GROUP: Faces "Birdsell" Class Suit in C.D. California
---------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been commenced against The GEO Group
Inc.

The case is captioned Angela Birdsell, on behalf of herself and
all others similarly situated v. The GEO Group Inc. and Does 1-10,
inclusive, Case No. 5:16-cv-02054 (C.D. Cal., September 27, 2016).

The GEO Group Inc. is a Florida-based company specializing in
corrections, detention and mental health treatment.

Angela Birdsell is a pro se plaintiff.


GLOBAL CREDIT: Faces "Gold" Suit Over Debt Collection Policies
--------------------------------------------------------------
Libby Gold, on behalf of herself and all other similarly situated
consumers v. Global Credit & Collection Corp., Case No. 1:16-cv-
05404 (E.D.N.Y., September 27, 2016), seeks to stop the
Defendant's unfair and unconscionable means to collect a debt.

Global Credit & Collection Corp. operates a debt collection firm
in New York.

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


GLOBAL CREDIT: Faces "Neuhaus" Suit Over Debt Collection Policies
-----------------------------------------------------------------
David Neuhaus, on behalf of himself and all other similarly
situated consumers v. Global Credit & Collection Corp., Case No.
1:16-cv-05414 (E.D.N.Y., September 28, 2016), seeks to stop the
Defendant's unfair and unconscionable means to collect a debt.

Global Credit & Collection Corp. operates a debt collection firm
in New York.

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

GOOGLE: Age Discrimination Suit Gets Conditional Certification
--------------------------------------------------------------
Ethan Baron, writing for SiliconBeat, reports that an age-
discrimination lawsuit against Google has cleared a hurdle -- over
Google's objections -- and received conditional certification as a
class action.

"How does age factor into one's Googleyness?" Judge Beth Freeman
of U.S. District Court in San Jose wrote at the start of her order
handed down on Oct. 5.

Conditional certification is the first of two stages in approving
a lawsuit as a class action and allows court-authorized notices to
be sent to potential plaintiffs who could join the lawsuit.

Plaintiff Cheryl Fillekes claims Google interviewed her in person
for four different jobs from 2007 to 2014, "including some
occasions when Google affirmatively reached out to her about the
opening based on her impressive qualifications and didn't hire
her," according to a court filing.  She was 47 when first
interviewed, the document said.

Ms. Fillekes' lawsuit also revealed that Google is under federal
investigation over age-discrimination complaints.

Judge Freeman said she found none of Google's arguments against
Ms. Fillekes' motion for class certification to be compelling.
Google had argued, for example, that it had a policy against age
discrimination.  "Having such a policy does not necessarily shield
a company from a discrimination suit, particularly in light of the
evidence and allegations presented here," the judge wrote.

Among Ms. Fillekes' allegations is her claim that a Google
recruiter told her to put her graduation dates on her resume so
the company could see how old she was.  Ms. Fillekes also
submitted to the court declarations from seven people she claimed
had experiences with Google similar to hers.

A Google spokesperson described the lawsuit's allegations as
"without merit," and said the company would continue to defend its
position vigorously.  "We have strong policies against
discrimination on any unlawful basis, including age," the
spokesperson said.

While the lawsuit has cleared a hurdle, it was a relatively easy
one to get over, as evidentiary requirements in the first stage of
class action certification are "relaxed," Judge Freeman noted.
The second stage, when the class action may be legally certified,
has more stringent requirements for evidence.


GRANT THORNTON: Dismissed as Defendant in La. Securities Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
Stroock & Stroock & Lavan LLP client Grant Thornton International
Ltd. was dismissed from a federal lawsuit seeking $100 million in
damages from numerous defendants for alleged securities law
violations.  On September 15, 2016, District Court Judge Shelley
D. Dick of the Middle District of Louisiana dismissed all claims
against Grant Thornton International Ltd., which have been pending
since 2013, for lack of personal jurisdiction.

The victory follows Stroock's earlier successful appeal to the
United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, which in a
matter of first impression, vacated the District Court's prior
order remanding the case to state court and directed that the case
proceed in federal court under the Court's bankruptcy subject
matter jurisdiction.  Stroock then continued to advocate for
dismissal of Grant Thornton International Ltd. for lack of
personal jurisdiction.  This is an actively evolving area of the
law where it has become increasingly difficult to bring claims
against foreign entities in US courts when those claims do not
arise from contacts between those entities and the relevant forum
in the US.  The Court agreed that was the case here.

Stroock attorneys representing Grant Thornton International Ltd.
were James L. Bernard -- jbernard@stroock.com -- and David M.
Cheifetz -- dcheifetz@stroock.com -- along with Craig Isenberg --
cisenberg@barrassousdin.com -- and Stephen L. Miles --
smiles@barrassousdin.com -- of Barrasso, Usdin, Kupperman, Freeman
& Sarver in New Orleans.

Stroock's Bernard and Cheifetz said, "We are extremely pleased
with the Court's decision, including that Grant Thornton
International Ltd. is a non-practicing UK-based umbrella entity
that had nothing to do with the audit reports or transactions at
issue in this case and had no relevant contacts with the US that
would subject it to the jurisdiction of US courts."

Additional Matter Details

Plaintiffs were several Louisiana municipal pension funds that
brought various claims in Louisiana state court seeking to recover
their alleged $100 million lost investment in a bankrupt Cayman
Islands hedge fund.  Plaintiffs alleged that Grant Thornton
International Ltd was liable for plaintiffs' losses in connection
with audit reports prepared for the fund.

The Court found that Grant Thornton International Ltd. is a
non-practicing international umbrella entity, incorporated in
England and Wales and headquartered in London, which performs no
audit work.  The Court then evaluated Grant Thornton International
Ltd's alleged contacts with the United States and found that it
had insufficient contacts with the United States for either
general or specific personal jurisdiction.

The Court agreed with Stroock's argument that absent exceptional
circumstances, which were not present in this case, controlling
authority from the United States Supreme Court excluded the
possibility for general jurisdiction in the United States over a
United Kingdom entity such as Grant Thornton International Ltd.
The Court further agreed that the plaintiffs did not meet their
burden to establish specific jurisdiction over Grant Thornton
International Ltd. because the plaintiffs did not plead any direct
or purposeful communication by Grant Thornton International Ltd
directed at the United States from which the claims arose.

Earlier in the proceedings, after defendants removed the case to
federal court, Judge Dick decided to abstain from exercising
federal subject matter jurisdiction and ordered the case remanded
to Louisiana state court without deciding Grant Thornton
International Ltd's pending motion to dismiss.  Stroock
successfully led the appeal of that decision on various
bankruptcy-related grounds to the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals,
which, after considering several issues of first impression,
unanimously vacated the District Court's abstention and remand
order and required the District Court to exercise its federal
jurisdiction over the claims.  Following the Supreme Court's
denial of plaintiffs' petition for certiorari, to which Stroock
filed an opposition, Judge Dick then granted Grant Thornton
International Ltd's motion to dismiss for lack of personal
jurisdiction.

Stroock & Stroock & Lavan LLP -- http://www.stroock.com-- is a
law firm providing transactional, regulatory and litigation
guidance to financial institutions, multinational corporations,
investment funds and entrepreneurs in the U.S. and abroad.  With a
rich history dating back 140 years, the firm has offices in New
York, Washington, DC, Los Angeles and Miami.


GREAT AMERICAN INSURANCE: Shareholders Challenge Merger Deal
------------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reported that shareholders claim in a
federal class action in Cleveland, that Great American Insurance
Co. is trying to buy National Interstate Corp. stock too cheaply
by issuing misleading financial information to get the proposed
merger approved.


GUAM: H-2b Visa Class Action May be Necessary to Resolve Issue
--------------------------------------------------------------
Ken Quintanilla, writing for KUAM, reports that Congresswoman
Madeleine Bordallo says a class action lawsuit over the denial of
H-2b visas is unfortunate, but believes it may be "necessary to
resolve the current impasse in a more permanent fashion."  On Oct.
5, Attorney Jennifer Davis on behalf of 12 companies on Guam filed
the lawsuit in the District Court of Guam against officials from
the federal government.

Ms. Bordallo says the nearly 100% denial rate of H-2b visas over
the past year continues to negatively impact our island.  She adds
the denial of visas is concerning as Guam's organic workforce
cannot meet our current labor demands especially with the
specialties that many of these H-2b workers provide.

Ms. Bordallo says she will fight for the inclusion of her
legislative fix for this problem in the Fiscal Year 2017 defense
authorization bill.


GUARDIAN EYES: Fails to Pay Employees OT, "McElrafth" Suit Says
---------------------------------------------------------------
Shandra McElrafth, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated v. Guardian Eyes LLC, Case No. 5:16-cv-02394 (N.D. Ohio,
September 27, 2016), is brought against the Defendant for failure
to pay non-exempt home health aides, overtime compensation at the
rate of one and one-half times their regular rate of pay for the
hours they worked over 40 each workweek.

Guardian Eyes LLC is a home health care business.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      David J. Steiner, Esq.
      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
      Telephone: (216) 696-5000
      Facsimile: (216) 696-7005
      E-mail: david@lazzarolawfirm.com
              chastity@lazzarolawfirm.com
              anthony@lazzarolawfirm.com
              lori@lazzarolawfirm.com


INDIANA: BMV Challenges Cohen & Malad's Attorney Fees Request
-------------------------------------------------------------
The Indiana Lawyer reports that the Indiana Bureau of Motor
Vehicles is once again challenging an Indianapolis law firm's
motion to collect attorney fees in the class action it brought
against the BMV for years of customer overcharges.

After plaintiff's counsel in Tammy Raab v. Kent W. Abernathy,
Indiana Bureau of Motor Vehicles, 49D11-1310-PL-038001, filed a
motion for attorney fees for creating a $28.75 million common fund
to benefit customers who had been overcharged for BMV services for
several years, the BMV's counsel filed an opposition to the motion
on Oct. 4, saying that the common fund does not exist and that
Cohen & Malad, the firm representing the class, is trying to
capitalize on a moot lawsuit.

Earlier in September, Irwin Levin -- ilevin@cohenandmalad.com --
filed an application for a temporary restraining order and a
preliminary injunction for the attorney fees, a motion the BMV
also opposed.  The Marion Superior Court rejected that application
on Sept. 16.

In a memorandum of support filed along with the motion for
attorney fees on Sept. 19, Mr. Levin, a Cohen & Malad attorney who
has acted as lead plaintiff's counsel in the class action, said
that because a $28.75 million common fund was created for the
refunds as a direct result of his firm's efforts in the suit, he
and the firm are entitled to one-third of the total as attorney
fees.

In his filing, Mr. Levin wrote that the efforts of the class's
counsel in the suit had forced the BMV to identify more than 100
additional customer overcharges in 2015 that the bureau had not
previously identified.  Because the plaintiff's counsel had led to
the identification of the additional overcharges, a $28.75 million
common fund had been created, and existing caselaw required that
part of that fund be put toward attorney fees,
Mr. Levin said.

In his Oct. 4 response to Mr. Levin's latest filing, Carl Hayes,
lead counsel for the BMV in the case, maintained that the common
fund does not exist.

The Indiana Court of Appeals has held that a common fund exists
when a class action ends in a settlement or a judgment for the
class, two things that have not happened in the Raab v. Abernathy
case, Mr. Hayes wrote.

Further, Mr. Hayes argued that a common fund must exist "under the
supervision of the court."  The BMV began distributing the funds
one month before the class-action suit was filed, Mr. Hayes said,
so the refunds were never under court supervision.

In his September filing, Levin had argued that the BMV began
distributing the $28.75 in refunds without court approval in an
attempt to "execute an end-run around the Court and the certified
Class, to avoid facing a determination of liability by the Court
and the prevent the Court from awarding attorneys' fees to Class
Counsel for their efforts in obtaining the very benefits sought
through this lawsuit."

But Mr. Hayes argued in his Oct. 4 filing that the class action
was moot at the time of its filing in October 2013.  The BMV had
already begun the refund process in September 2013, Mr. Hayes
wrote, so the suit had no legal merit.

"Plaintiff's Counsel presumes they are entitled to fees for filing
and litigating a moot, legally deficient lawsuit that never had
the potential to benefit anyone but Plaintiff's Counsel," Mr.
Hayes wrote in the opposition filing.

A bench trial was held Sept. 28 on the case in Marion Superior
Court, Civil Division 11.  The judge, John Hanley, asked for
additional time to issue a ruling on the case.


INTERNATIONAL BANK: 5th Cir. Sends Overtime Suit to Arbitration
---------------------------------------------------------------
Robert Iafolla, writing for Reuters, reports that a federal
appeals court sent a collective action for overtime claims against
a Texas bank to arbitration, ruling that a former bank teller's
arbitration agreement should have been addressed at the outset of
the litigation.

In a unanimous decision handed down on Oct. 4, a three-judge panel
of the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals reversed a federal judge
in Corpus Christi, Texas who held that a bid by the International
Bank of Commerce (IBC) to force the claims into arbitration must
wait until after the decision as to whether to certify the
collective is made.


JB MEDICAL MANAGEMENT: Faces "Schwanke" Suit in M.D. Fla.
---------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against JB Medical
Management Solutions, Inc. The case is styled Lawrence E.
Schwanke, doing business as Back to Basics Family Chiropractic DC,
a Florida resident, individually and as the representative of a
class of similarly-situated persons, the Plaintiff, v. JB Medical
Management Solutions, Inc., McKesson Corporation, McKesson
Business Performance Services, McKesson Technology Solutions,
McKesson Provider Technologies, McKesson Technologies, Inc., and
John Does 1-12, the Defendants, Case No. 5:16-cv-00597-JSM-PRL
(M.D. Fla., Sept. 30, 2016). The case is assigned to Hon. Judge
James S. Moody, Jr.

JB Medical is a billing service provider.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


KRAFT FOODS: $1.75MM Accord in "Rodriguez" Case Gets Final OK
-------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, JOSE RODRIGUEZ, on behalf of himself and of all
others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. KRAFT FOODS GROUP, INC.,
a Virginia corporation, and DOES 1 through 100, inclusive,
Defendant, Case No. 1:14-cv-1137-LJO-EPG (E.D. Cal.), District
Judge Erica P. Grosjean granted the Plaintiffs' Motion for Final
Approval of Class Action Settlement.

For purposes of the Settlement, the Settlement Class shall consist
of all persons, who were employed by Kraft Heinz in California as
hourly paid production employees at any time between June 5, 2010,
through March 3, 2016.

Under the terms of the settlement, the total settlement amount is
$1,750,000.00, without a reversion.

The Court ordered that:

     (a) the law firm of Westrup and Associates be appointed as
         class counsel for the settlement class, and should be
         awarded $448,549.69 in attorneys' fees and $13,507.84 in
         costs;

     (b) the Notice of Lien filed on August 26, 2016 against
         Duane Westrup and all the named entities in the Notice
         should be released;

     (c) Plaintiff Jose Rodriguez be appointed as a suitable
         class representative for the settlement class and be
         awarded $10,000.00 as a representative service payment;

     (d) the settlement administrator CPT Group Inc., be awarded
         $15,000.00;

     (e) the parties be directed to effectuate the settlement
         terms as set forth in the settlement agreement, and the
         settlement administrator should calculate and pay the
         claims of the class members in accordance with the terms
         set in the Settlement Agreement; and,

     (f) the Private Attorneys General Act (PAGA) penalties of
         $7,500.00 should be distributed as follows: 75%
         (approximately $5,625.00) to the Labor and Workforce
         Development Agency, and the remaining 25% (approximately
         $1,875.00) paid on a pro rata basis to class members.

The Court ordered that the action be dismissed and judgment be
entered in accordance with the terms of the settlement agreement;
however, the Court shall retain continuing jurisdiction to
interpret, implement, and enforce the settlement, and all related
orders and judgments.

A copy of the Court's FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS REGARDING: (1)
PLAINTIFFS' MOTION FOR FINAL APPROVAL OF CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT
and (2) PLAINTIFFS' MOTION FOR ATTORNEYS' FEES, COSTS, EXPENSES
AND CLASS REPRESENTATIVE INCENTIVE AWARDS dated Oct. 4, 2016, is
available at https://is.gd/2gN6vW from Leagle.com.

Jose Rodriguez, Plaintiff, represented by Cat Nguyen Bulaon,
Westrup & Associates.

Jose Rodriguez, Plaintiff, represented by Phillip R. Poliner,
Westrup Klick LLP & R. Duane Westrup, Westrup Klick LLP.

Kraft Foods Group, Inc., Defendant, represented by Douglas J.
Farmer, Ogletree Deakins Nash Smoak & Stewart, PC & Victoria Lyons
Tallman, Ogletree Deakins Nash Smoak & Stewart, P.C..

FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS REGARDING: (1) PLAINTIFFS' MOTION FOR
FINAL APPROVAL OF CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT and (2) PLAINTIFFS'
MOTION FOR ATTORNEYS' FEES, COSTS, EXPENSES AND CLASS
REPRESENTATIVE INCENTIVE AWARDS


Jose Rodriguez, Plaintiff, represented by Cat Nguyen Bulaon,
Westrup & Associates.

Jose Rodriguez, Plaintiff, represented by Phillip R. Poliner,
Westrup Klick LLP & R. Duane Westrup, Westrup Klick LLP.

Kraft Foods Group, Inc., Defendant, represented by Douglas J.
Farmer -- douglas.farmer@ogletreedeakins.com -- Ogletree Deakins
Nash Smoak & Stewart, PC & Victoria Lyons Tallman --
victoriatallman@dwt.com -- Ogletree Deakins Nash Smoak & Stewart,
P.C..


KY UNG WONG MIN: "Allaico" Suit to Recover Unpaid Overtime Pay
--------------------------------------------------------------
Avelino Tenezaca Allaico, individually and on behalf of others
similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Ky Ung Wong Min, individually
and 45 Queens Electric Supply Co. Inc., Defendants, Case No. 1:16-
cv-05279 (E.D. N.Y., September 22, 2016), seeks unpaid overtime
compensation, liquidated damages, penalties, pre-judgment and
post-judgment interest, attorneys' fees and costs pursuant to the
Fair Labor Standards and New York Labor Laws.

45 Queens Electric Supply Co. employed Plaintiff as a salesman at
their store located at 45-36 3rd St., Long Island NY 11101.

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Darren P.B. Rumack, Esq.
      THE KLEIN LAW GROUP
      11 Broadway Suite 960
      New York, NY 10004
      Phone: 212-344-9022
      Fax: 212-344-0301


LABOR READY: Faces "Rezendes" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
---------------------------------------------------------------
Raymondo Rezendes, on his own behalf and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. Labor Ready Northeast Inc., Case No. 2:16-
cv-00495-GZS (D. Me., September 27, 2016), is brought against the
Defendants for failure to pay overtime wages in violation of the
Fair Labor Standards Act.

Labor Ready Northeast Inc. provides temporary manual labor to its
customers through various locations throughout the country,
including three locations in Maine.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Andrew Schmidt, Esq.
      Peter Mancuso, Esq
      ANDREW SCHMIDT LAW, PLLC
      97 India St.
      Portland, ME 0410
      Telephone: (207) 619-0320
      E-mail: andy@maineworkerjustice.com

LANDCAR CASUALTY: Faces "Scholl" Suit in District of Oregon
-----------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Landcar Casualty
Company. The case is captioned Patrick Scholl, on behalf of
himself and all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v.
Landcar Casualty Company, the Defendant, Case No. 3:16-cv-01922-AC
(D. Oreg., Sept. 30, 2016). The case is assigned to Hon.
Magistrate Judge John V. Acosta.

Landcar Insurance is a Utah-based casualty insurance provider
originally founded in 1989.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Keil M. Mueller, Esq.
          Steve D. Larson, Esq.
          STOLL STOLL BERNE LOKTING & SHLACHTER P.C.
          209 SW Oak Street, Suite 500
          Portland, OR 97204
          Telephone: (503) 227 1600
          Facsimile: (503) 227 6840
          E-mail: kmueller@stollberne.com
                  slarson@stollberne.com


LOYALTYONE: Air Miles Alters Rewards Programs Amid Class Action
---------------------------------------------------------------
Sophia Harris, writing for CBC News, reports that after hearing
complaints from customers this summer, Air Miles said it has
changed the rules of its loyalty program.

It explains that it previously gave members access to different
rewards based on their individual personal preferences.

But Air Miles says members' access to rewards is now solely based
on their status level or tier within the program: blue, gold or
onyx.

According to the new rules, gold status -- achieved by collecting
at least 1,000 miles in a year -- gives members access to a bigger
selection of flights and merchandise.  Elite onyx members -- those
who earn at least 6,000 miles in a year -- get an even wider
selection of those rewards.

The shift brings Air Miles more in line with some other rewards
programs that offer extra perks to users who pile up more points.

It made the change because the original formula of tailoring
rewards to personal tastes "was confusing to collectors,"
spokeswoman Natasha Lasiuk said in an email to CBC News.

Air Miles has been under fire in the past for how it doled out --
or said it doled out -- member access to merchandise.  Rewards
expert Patrick Sojka says its new approach appears more
transparent.

But, based on recent developments with the rewards program, he
questions if Air Miles is being upfront even now.

"I need to have proof in the pudding that that's not just what
they're saying, that that is actually happening," said Mr. Sojka,
with the Calgary-based information site Rewards Canada.

Playing a 'shady game'?

The shift to tiers comes around the same time a proposed class-
action lawsuit was launched against Air Miles' owner, Toronto-
based LoyaltyOne.  The suit alleges the rewards program made it
"increasingly difficult" for members to redeem miles that start
expiring on Jan. 1.

Prior to the legal action, CBC News ran stories over the summer in
which Air Miles collectors complained that when they logged in to
the Air Miles website with a membership with few miles, they got
access to premium rewards they couldn't afford.

But when they logged in with a different account -- with enough
miles to acquire those premium products -- the same items
vanished.

"It seems like a shady game they are playing," collector
Tara Wells, of Sackville, N.B., told CBC News in July.

She said she saw great rewards including a vacuum, a food
processor, a digital camera and a 3-D printer when logging in
using her husband's blue account.  He didn't have enough miles to
buy the items.

But when Ms. Wells logged in using her father's gold account,
which had enough miles to buy the items, they were nowhere to be
found.

The loyalty program tells CBC News that "from time to time," up
until the new change, it based what rewards people could access
according to their personal preferences and shopping habits "to
give collectors a tailored experience."

That explanation doesn't make sense to Ms. Wells.  "There was no
rhyme or reason to what I was seeing in my husband's account and
my father's account.  They were just random things.  Like, neither
of them have babies, but there was baby stuff."

New recruits saw inaccessible rewards

Air Miles now also offers another explanation why people with few
miles had access to rewards they couldn't afford.  Spokeswoman
Lasiuk explained that over the past 12 months, new collectors saw
premium merchandise to encourage them "to be more engaged in the
program, to essentially show them what they could get if they got
more miles."

Ms. Wells says her husband has been an Air Miles member for 16
years, so this explanation doesn't make sense either.

"That's just words, empty words," Ms. Wells said.  "I mean, there
was no reason for us to see this digital 3-D printer for 15,000
points that we couldn't have gotten and then my father couldn't
see it and he could have gotten it."

Mr. Sojka suggests the reason various members were blocked from
accessing some rewards was because the program was creating
roadblocks to redeeming soon-to-expire miles.

"They're probably trying to cover their butt to make sure that
they do write off however many dollars worth of miles at the end
of this year," he said.

At the close of 2011, Air Miles introduced a five-year expiry date
on reward miles. That means on Jan.1, 2017, any unused miles
collected before 2012 will expire and become worthless.

Retailers pay Air Miles to supply them with miles they can offer
customers as an incentive to shop at their stores.  In return, the
loyalty program must supply collectors with rewards. So unredeemed
miles generate the biggest profit.

However, Ms. Lasiuk told CBC News that the program provides a
bigger rewards selection than ever before and that members are
finding numerous ways to redeem their miles.

Collector Wells says she believes Air Miles could still do a
better job of providing members with reward choices.  She believes
all collectors should have access to all the program's items,
regardless of personal preferences, one's tier or anything else.

"Everybody should see everything," she said.  "Then you could
choose what you could afford and what you want."


LTD FINANCIAL: Faces "Bakon" Suit in Eastern District of New York
-----------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against LTD Financial
Services, L.P. The case is titled Michael Bakon, on behalf of
himself and all other similarly situated consumers, the Plaintiff,
v. LTD Financial Services, L.P., the Defendant, Case No. 1:16-cv-
05461 (E.D.N.Y. Fla., Sept. 30, 2016).

LTD Financial is a debt collector.

The Plaintiff appears pro se.


MARICOPA COUNTY, AZ: Sheriff Arpaio Faces Contempt Charges
----------------------------------------------------------
Jamie Ross, writing for Courthouse News Service, reported that
the Justice Department in Phoenix, will pursue criminal contempt
charges against Maricopa County Sheriff Joe Arpaio over violations
of a federal judge's order to stop racially profiling Latinos.

The announcement came on October 11, morning during a status
conference scheduled following a criminal referral from U.S.
District Judge G. Murray Snow in August against Arpaio, Chief
Deputy Gerald Sheridan, Capt. Steve Bailey, and Arpaio's former
attorney Michele Iafrate.

Meanwhile, early voting begins on October 12, in Maricopa County,
where Arpaio is up for re-election. The self-proclaimed "America's
Toughest Sheriff" has suffered waning popularity following the
eight-year racial profiling case, which has cost taxpayers nearly
$50 million in legal fees.

John Keller, an attorney for the U.S. Department of Justice,
indicated that the government would not pursue criminal charges
against Sheridan, Bailey and Iafrate, however, over the
concealment and obstruction of evidence because the statute of
limitations has run out.

U.S. District Judge Susan Bolton, who will oversee criminal
contempt proceedings, said she would need to look into the matter
further due to a delay in the civil contempt proceedings following
a motion by Arpaio to disqualify Snow.

"They were adjourned for a substantial period of time for a motion
to disqualify the judge, so they could not continue while that was
considered," Bolton said.

The charges stem from proceedings held in 2015 that led to Snow
finding Arpaio, Sheridan, and two other sheriff's aides guilty of
civil contempt for violating orders to stop racially profiling
Latinos following a 2007 class action.

Snow had issued a preliminary injunction in the class action in
2011, banning sheriff's deputies from stopping and detaining
Latinos based on their race.

Shortly after the injunction, Arpaio issued a statement saying, "I
will continue to enforce illegal immigration laws." Three months
later, the department issued another statement saying, "Arpaio
remains adamant about the fact that his office will continue to
enforce both state and federal illegal immigrations laws as long
as the laws are on the books."

Snow found those statements to be evidence the six-term lawman was
aware of the preliminary injunction but unlawfully continued to
enforce all federal immigration laws.

Due to concerns about the statute of limitations, Bolton agreed to
separate the criminal contempt charge over violation of the
preliminary injunction against Arpaio from the other charges.

Keller asked Bolton to accept a sentencing cap of six months
against the 84-year-old Arpaio due to his age, and to proceed with
the criminal contempt charges as a bench trial rather than before
a jury. But Mel McDonald, Arpaio's attorney, raised concerns with
a bench trial.

"We would need to do some research on the issue of whether or not
we would be entitled to a jury trial," McDonald told Bolton.

McDonald asked Bolton to prepare "some type of a charging
document," to officially lodge criminal contempt charges against
Arpaio.

Bolton agreed, and will issue an order to show cause that will
include Judge Snow's order "as the essential facts constituting
the charged contempt."

The criminal contempt trial against Arpaio is scheduled for Dec.
6. McDonald said he would ask for additional time to prepare.

Arpaio will not be arrested or arraigned on the charges, and
McDonald said he would enter a not guilty plea on behalf of the
lawman.

While Arpaio easily won his primary race in August with 66 percent
of the vote, the battle against Democratic challenger Paul Penzone
is expected to be close.  Arpaio narrowly beat Penzone, a former
Phoenix police officer, in 2012, with 50 percent of the vote. A
July poll conducted by the Lincoln Strategy Group showed Penzone
ahead of Arpaio, 52.3 percent to 47.7 percent.

Penzone filed a defamation lawsuit against Arpaio last month,
claiming Arpaio's campaign is airing attack ads falsely accusing
Penzone of assaulting his ex-wife.


MDC PARTNERS: NY Court Dismisses Shareholder Class Action
---------------------------------------------------------
MDC Partners Inc. ("MDC Partners" or the "Company") on Oct. 5
disclosed that the U.S. District Court presiding over North
Collier Fire Control and Rescue District Firefighter Pension Plan,
et al v. MDC Partners Inc., et al, No. 15 Civ. 6034 (S.D.N.Y.),
granted the Company's motion to dismiss the plaintiffs' amended
complaint in its entirety with prejudice, and directed the Clerk
of the Court to "close the case."

"We are extremely pleased with the Court's decision," said
Scott L. Kauffman, MDC Partners' Chairman and Chief Executive
Officer.  "We defended and promptly moved to dismiss this suit
because we believed strongly that the plaintiffs' allegations
concerning the Company's accounting practices and disclosures were
without merit, and it is gratifying that the Court dismissed this
class action case in its entirety."

Lead Plaintiffs North Collier Fire Control and Rescue District
Firefighter Pension Plan ("North Collier Fire") and Plymouth
County Retirement Association ("Plymouth County" and, collectively
with North Collier Fire, "Plaintiffs") bring this putative class
action lawsuit against MDC Partners, Inc. ("MDC") and four of
MDC's current and former officers and directors. Plaintiffs allege
that, throughout the period from October 28, 2013 through April
27, 2015 (the "Class Period"), MDC overstated goodwill associated
with certain poorly performing or defunct subsidiaries; reported
earnings using a misleading version of EBITDA (earnings before
interest, taxes, depreciation, and amortization); failed to
disclose all of the compensation paid to MDC's then-CEO,
president, and chairman; and falsely reported that its internal
controls over financial reporting were adequate. Plaintiffs assert
that their reliance on these four categories of false or
misleading statements caused injury to them and to all other
persons who acquired MDC's Class A subordinate voting shares
during the Class Period, in violation of Section 10(b) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the "Exchange Act"), 15 U.S.C.
Sec. 78j(b); Securities and Exchange Commission ("SEC") Rule 10b-
5, 17 C.F.R. Sec. 240.10b-5; and Section 20(a) of the Exchange
Act, 15 U.S.C. Sec. 78t(a).

A copy of Judge Richard J. Sullivan's Sept. 30 Opinion and Order
is available at https://is.gd/2Ay3eo from Leagle.com.

                     About MDC Partners Inc.

MDC Partners -- http://www.mdc-partners.com-- is one of the
fastest-growing and most influential marketing and communications
networks in the world.  Its 50+ advertising, public relations,
media, branding, digital, social and event marketing agencies are
responsible for some of the most memorable and engaging campaigns
for the world's most respected brands.  As "The Place Where Great
Talent Lives," MDC Partners is known for its unique partnership
model, empowering the most entrepreneurial and innovative talent
to drive competitive advantage and business growth for clients. By
leveraging technology, data analytics, insights, and strategic
consulting solutions, MDC Partners drives measurable results and
optimizes return on marketing investment for over 1,700 clients
worldwide.


MDL 2672: Puerto Rico Employee Retirement System to Lead Case
-------------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reported that a federal judge in San
Francisco on October 11, made Puerto Rico's public employees'
retirement system the lead plaintiff in a securities class action
against Volkswagen related to the emissions cheating scandal,
given the fund's $66 million loss.

U.S. District Judge Charles Breyer also made the fund's attorneys
at Abraham, Frutcher & Twersky the putative class' lead counsel.

The case is captioned, IN RE: VOLKSWAGEN "CLEAN DIESEL" MARKETING,
SALES PRACTICES, AND PRODUCTS LIABILITY LITIGATION, MDL No. 2672
CRB (JSC) (N.D. Cal).


MISSISSIPPI: Class Suit Challenges Sodomy Law
---------------------------------------------
Erik De La Garza, writing for Courthouse News Service, reported
that a federal class action in Jackson, Miss., filed more than a
decade after the Supreme Court struck down state sodomy laws
challenges a Mississippi statute that requires people convicted of
having anal sex to register as sex offenders.

The lawsuit was filed on behalf of five Mississippi residents who
say they were convicted under various sodomy prohibitions,
including the "unnatural intercourse" law, and Louisiana's "crime
against nature by solicitation" law.  Their convictions in
Mississippi, or out-of-state convictions for violations of sodomy
statutes "that Mississippi deems equivalent to unnatural
intercourse," requires them to register as sex offenders,
according to the lawsuit, which was filed on October 7, in
Southern Mississippi federal court.

The plaintiffs -- who used pseudonyms in the lawsuit to protect
their identities -- say the law is discriminatory and
unenforceable in light of the U.S. Supreme Court's 2003 ruling in
Lawrence v. Texas invalidating all state laws against gay sex as
unconstitutional.

They sued Mississippi Attorney General Jim Hood and four other
officials, including law enforcement leaders.

"Despite this clear proclamation made more than a decade ago,
Mississippi continues to enforce its criminal statute prohibiting
sodomy, title unnatural intercourse, by requiring people convicted
of unnatural intercourse to register as sex offenders and follow
myriad, onerous prescriptions on their everyday life," the 29-page
complaint states.

All five plaintiffs have been convicted of a "crime against nature
committed with mankind," one dating back to 1979.

Arthur Doe says in the complaint that he has one conviction under
the state's unnatural intercourse law and no other convictions
that would trigger registration requirements in Mississippi.
Still, the man says, when he was released from prison in 2008
after serving a 30-month sentence for a nonviolent crime, his
federal probation officer advised him that the 1979 unnatural-
intercourse conviction triggered the registration requirement.

"Arthur Doe has suffered harm, including loss of housing and
physical assault when exposed as a registrant," the complaint
says.

Registering as a sex offender causes humiliation and shame, and
places significant barriers for people to find employment and
housing, according to the federal lawsuit.

The plaintiffs say the Mississippi law is "indistinguishable from
the sodomy statute struck down as facially unconstitutional by the
Supreme Court."  They want the law enjoined as unconstitutional,
and their names expunged from the registry.

The proposed class is represented by Jackson attorney Robert
McDuff with McDuff & Byrd, and Ghita Schwarz with the Center for
Constitutional Rights in New York City.

The Mississippi attorney general's office did not immediately
respond on October 11, to an emailed request for comment.


NATIONWIDE MUTUAL: Sued in Ga. Over Pre-Recorded Advertisements
---------------------------------------------------------------
Dianne Rice-Redding, Ricky Coleman, and Ken Johansen, individually
and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Nationwide
Mutual Insurance Company, Case No. 1:16-cv-03634-TCB (N.D. Ga.,
September 27, 2016), seeks to end the Defendant's practice of
marketing services through use of pre-recorded messages.

Nationwide Mutual Insurance Company operates an insurance and
financial services company headquartered in Columbus, Ohio.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Steven H. Koval, Esq.
      THE KOVAL FIRM, LLC
      3575 Piedmont Road Building 15, Suite 120
      Atlanta, GA  30305
      Telephone: (404) 513-6651
      Facsimile: (404) 549-4654
      E-mail: shkoval@aol.com


NCAA: Ex-UCLA Football Captain Files Concussion Suit
----------------------------------------------------
Nathan Fenno, writing for Los Angeles Times, reports that a former
UCLA football captain sued the NCAA and Pac-12 Conference over
concussions on Oct. 4 in a case that seeks to include every Bruins
football player from 1959 to 2010.

Tom Sullivan, who played 35 games as a defensive back from 1979 to
1982, alleged in the class-action lawsuit filed in U.S. District
Court in Indiana that he sustained more than 20 concussions during
his college career.

"As a result of these injuries, Mr. Sullivan now suffers from
memory loss, a decline in cognitive functioning, light
sensitivity, anxiety, headaches and other debilitating issues,"
the complaint said.

Seventeen other concussion lawsuits against the NCAA were filed in
federal court on Oct. 4 and Oct. 5 by Chicago-based Edelson PC,
the law firm representing Mr. Sullivan.  Many of the complaints
used language similar to that in his case.

In a statement, Donald Remy, the NCAA's chief legal officer,
called the lawsuits "mere copycats" and "questionable class
actions."

"This strategy will not work," the statement said.  "The NCAA does
not believe that these complaints present legitimate legal
arguments and expects that they can be disposed of early by the
court."

The Pac-12 didn't immediately respond to a request for comment.  A
UCLA spokesman declined comment.

Mr. Sullivan's lawsuit said the NCAA and Pac-12 "actively
concealed" the long-term consequences of traumatic brain injuries
"to protect the very profitable business of 'amateur' college
football."

Though UCLA isn't a defendant in the case, the lawsuit alleged the
school didn't provide "appropriate medical treatment" for
Sullivan's concussions and had "no adequate concussion management
protocols or policies in place" through at least 2010.

"In fact, although Sullivan sustained repetitive concussive and
sub-concussive hits in practices and games for their profit and
promotion, the NCAA and the Pac-12 failed to adopt or implement
adequate concussion management safety protocols or return to play
guidelines," the complaint said.  "Accordingly, every time
Sullivan suffered a concussive or sub-concussive hit, he would
quickly be returned to the field of play."

The lawsuit's six counts include negligence and fraudulent
concealment.  The suit seeks unspecified monetary damages.


NCAA: Now Facing 43 Concussion-Related Lawsuits
-----------------------------------------------
The Associated Press reports that the NCAA is now facing 43 class-
action lawsuits related to the handling of concussions by Division
I football programs after 18 more were recently filed .

The complaints also name college conferences and in some cases
schools.  The Chicago-based law firm Edelson PC has been filing
the lawsuits in batches since May.

The latest were filed on Oct. 4 on behalf of former players from
Texas A&M, UCLA, Maryland, Richmond, Idaho, South Carolina,
Mississippi, Syracuse, Pittsburgh, Georgia Tech, Notre Dame,
Alabama and Iowa.

On Oct. 3, former players from Memphis, Ball State, Rutgers,
Eastern Michigan and Florida A&M filed lawsuits.

The players are seeking damages for injuries they claim are the
result of mishandled concussions they suffered while playing
college football.

A judge in a previous case ruled one large class-action concussion
lawsuit could not be filed against the NCAA.


NDG COFFEE: Faces "Calle" Suit in S.D.N.Y.
------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against NDG Coffee Shop Inc.
The case is captioned Jose Wilmer Calle, Severiano Castaneda
Rivera, Hitler Calle, Victor Anibal Ugsha Chugchilan, Pedro
Ramirez Lozano, and Marino Casteneda Rivera, individually and on
behalf of others similarly situated, the Plaintiffs, v. NDG Coffee
Shop Inc., doing business as: Big Nick's Burger & Pizza Joint Too;
Pizza Joint Too Inc., doing business as Big Nick's Burger & Pizza
Joint Too; Dimitrios Galanopoulos; and Niko Galanopolous, the
Defendants, Case No.: 1:16-cv-07702 (S.D.N.Y., Sept. 30, 2016).

NDG is engaged in the restaurants business in New York, New York.

The Plaintiffs appear pro se.


NELSON MANDELA METROPOLITAN: Suit Mulled Over Shutdown
------------------------------------------------------
Derrick Spies, writing for News24, reports that a group of parents
and students is planning to take legal action against the Nelson
Mandela Metropolitan University if it does not allow students to
complete their 2016 academic year.

The Concerned Association of Parents and Others for Tertiary
Education at Universities was formed at a special meeting at the
German Club in Port Elizabeth on Oct. 5.

Attorney Brin Brody told about 200 parents, students and other
residents of the proposal to seek a high court interdict against
the university to force it to open its doors.  The intention was
to bring a class action suit against the university.

A number of those present signed powers of attorney and a
committee was formed.  Kobus Gerber, of the Nelson Mandela Bay
Ratepayers Association, was elected chairperson.

The committee was set to travel to Grahamstown on Oct. 6 to
consult Mr. Brody and his associates.  A letter of demand would be
drafted to the university to demand that academic work resume as a
matter of urgency.

Mr. Brody said he would seek the assistance of advocates Izack
Smuts, Bruce Dyke, and Hannelie Bakker.

Breach of contractual obligations

Should the university fail to take action, they will lodge an
urgent application at the Grahamstown High Court on Oct. 4.  They
were concerned that protesting students could disrupt proceedings
if it was lodged in Port Elizabeth.

The application would consist of four parts: that the matter was
urgent; that the university take the necessary steps to reopen;
take steps to protect its property and ensure the safety of staff
and students and; if necessary, call police and security guards.

Mr. Brody said the basis of the application would be that the
university was in breach of contractual obligations entered into
with paying students in terms of the Consumer Protection Act.

Should the university not open, it could be sued for damages.  Not
only would students be able to sue for their fees paid for the
2016 academic year, but the university could face lawsuits
relating to future loss of income.


NEW RESIDENTIAL: Judge Narrows Claims in Securities Action
----------------------------------------------------------
Vice Chancellor Tamika Montgomery-Reeves of the Court of Chancery
of Delaware, granted in part and denied in part defendants' motion
to dismiss, in the case CHESTER COUNTY EMPLOYEES' RETIREMENT FUND,
Plaintiff, v. NEW RESIDENTIAL INVESTMENT CORP., WESLEY R. EDENS,
MICHAEL NIERENBERG, ALAN L. TYSON, DAVID SALTZMAN, KEVIN J.
FINNERTY, DOUGLAS L. JACOBS, FIG LLC, FORTRESS INVESTMENT GROUP
LLC and FORTRESS OPERATING ENTITY I LP, Defendants, C.A. No.
11058-VCMR. (Del. Ch.)

Plaintiff Chester County Employees' Retirement Fund is a
stockholder of New Residential.

Nominal defendant New Residential is a publically traded Real
Estate Investment Trust (REIT) that primarily invests in and
manages residential real estate, including excess mortgage
servicing rights and residential mortgage-backed securities.
Newcastle Investment Corp. (formed New Residential as a wholly
owned subsidiary and spun it off to Newcastle stockholders on May
15, 2013. New Residential is a permanent capital vehicle in the
Fortress web of companies. New Residential stock trades on the New
York Stock Exchange under the symbol NRZ.

Defendant FIG LLC (FIG) managed New Residential pursuant to the
Second Amended and Restated Management and Advisory Agreement,
dated August 5, 2014. All New Residential officers and employees
are FIG employees. Defendant Fortress Operating Entity I LP (FOE
I) is the sole managing member of FIG. Defendant Fortress
Investment Group LLC (Fortress) allegedly owns 100% of the stock
of FIG Corp.

Defendants Wesley R. Edens, Kevin J. Finnerty, Douglas L. Jacobs,
Michael Nierenberg, David Saltzman, and Alan L. Tyson are New
Residential directors.

Nationstar Mortgage Holdings, Inc. are companies in which Fortress
indirectly owns majority equity stakes. Fortress affiliates own
74.7% of Nationstar and 85.3% of Springleaf Financial Holdings
LLC. Springleaf Financial Holdings LLC owns 74.8% of the equity of
Springleaf.

Home Loan Servicing Solutions, Ltd.  (HLSS) is a publicly traded
company that owns mortgage-servicing rights (MSRs), which are
rights to fees from servicing mortgage loans, and Excess MSRs,
which are rights to fees on mortgages serviced by another party.

Plaintiff filed its original complaint on May 22, 2015 and the
amended complaint on October 30, 2015.  Plaintiff asserts direct
and derivative breach of fiduciary duty claims against the members
of the New Residential board of directors, New Residential's
manager FIG LLC, FIG's owner FOE I, and Fortress, which allegedly
controls New Residential, FIG, and FOE I.

Plaintiff alleges that the defendants caused New Residential to
overpay for the assets of HLSS in order to advantage other real
estate assets of Fortress and to maximize management fees,
incentive compensation, and stock option awards to Fortress and
its affiliates (count I and count II).

Plaintiff also seeks a declaratory judgment that certain
limitations on the fiduciary duties of Fortress affiliates in the
New Residential certificate of incorporation and limitations on
FIG's liability in the New Residential management agreement are
not valid defenses in this case. Similarly, plaintiff seeks a
declaratory judgment that a termination agreement between HLSS and
New Residential purporting to release all New Residential
stockholder claims against HLSS is not a valid defense in this
action (count III).

Defendants move to dismiss the complaint under Court of Chancery
Rules 23.1 and 12(b)(6). Defendants argue that all of plaintiff's
claims are derivative because they amount to claims for corporate
overpayment. Defendants contend that a majority of the New
Residential board is disinterested and independent, and that even
if a majority of the board is beholden to Fortress, Fortress is
not interested in the underlying transactions. Defendants also
argue that the complaint should be dismissed as to Fortress, FOE
I, and FIG because they do not owe fiduciary duties to New
Residential. As to the declaratory judgment claims, defendants
contend that plaintiff's claims are not ripe because defendants
have not raised the certificate of incorporation, management
agreement, or termination agreement as defenses.

Vice Chancellor Montgomery-Reeves granted defendants' motion to
dismiss as to counts I and II with leave to replead. Defendants'
motion to dismiss Count III as unripe is granted as to the
Termination Agreement, the Management Agreement, and the as
applied challenge to the New Residential certificate of
incorporation, with leave to replead. The motion is denied as to
the facial validity challenge to the certificate of incorporation.

Vice Chancellor Montgomery-Reeves held that plaintiff has not
alleged that the options FOE I received and the fees FIG received
were material to Fortress and plaintiff has not cast a reasonable
doubt on the New Residential directors' independence.

A copy of Vice Chancellor Montgomery-Reeves's memorandum opinion
dated October 7, 2016, is available at https://goo.gl/wZEwr1 from
Leagle.com.

Michael Hanrahan -- MHanrahan@Prickett.com -- Paul A. Fioravanti,
Jr. -- PAFioravanti@Prickett.com -- Corinne Elise Amato --
CEAmato@prickett.com -- Kevin H. Davenport --
KHDavenport@Prickett.com --at JONES & ELLIOTT, P.A.; Mark A. Topaz
-- mtopaz@ktmc.com -- Lee D. Rudy -- lrudy@ktmc.com -- Michael C.
Wagner -- mwagner@ktmc.com -- Justin O. Reliford --
jreliford@ktmc.com -- at KESSLER TOPAZ MELTZER & CHECK LLP,
Attorneys for Plaintiff

Robert S. Saunders -- rob.saunders@skadden.com -- Ronald N. Brown,
III -- ron.brown@skadden.com -- Sarah R. Martin --
sarah.martin@skadden.com -- Scott D. Musoff --
scott.musoff@skadden.com -- at SKADDEN, ARPS, SLATE, MEAGHER &
FLOM LLP, Attorneys for Defendants


ONE NOTE: Faces "Youngblood" Suit in Southern Dist. of California
-----------------------------------------------------------------
A lawsuit has been filed against One Note Capital. The case is
entitled Antonio Youngblood, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. One Note Capital and
Does 1-10, inclusive, the Defendant, Case No. 3:16-cv-02469-L-BGS
(S.D. Cal., Sept. 30, 2016). The case is assigned to Hon. Judge M.
James Lorenz.

One Note is engaged in the money lending business.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Todd M. Friedman, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF
          TODD M. FRIEDMAN, P.C.
          21550 Oxnard Street, Suite 780
          Woodland Hills, CA 91367
          Telephone: (877) 206 4741
          Facsimile: (866) 633 0228
          E-mail: tfriedman@AttorneysForConsumers.com


OPTIMUM HOME: Faces "Khyzhnyy" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
----------------------------------------------------------------
Andriy Khyzhnyy, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. Optimum Home Care LLC d/b/a Home Care
Solutions and Loreta Colombo, Case No. 1:16-cv-07596 (S.D.N.Y.,
September 28, 2016), is brought against the Defendants for failure
to pay overtime wages in violation of the Fair Labor Standards
Act.

Optimum Home Care LLC operates home health care service company in
New York.

Andriy Khyzhnyy is a pro se plaintiff.


PASON SYSTEMS: "Balo" Labor Case Transferred to S.D. Tex.
---------------------------------------------------------
The case captioned Christian Balo, on behalf of himself and all
others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Pason Systems USA Corp.
Defendant, Case No. 2:16-cv-91 (D.N.M., April 18, 2016), was
transferred to the U.S. District Court for the Southern District
of Texas on September 22, 2016, and assigned Case No. 4:16-cv-
02857.

Plaintiff seeks overtime, damages, including liquidated damages,
costs and expenses of this action including reasonable attorneys'
fees and expert fees, pre-judgment and post-judgment interest and
all such other and further legal and equitable relief under the
Fair Labor Standards Act.

Plaintiffs are represented by:

      George Zachary Goldberg, Esq.
      Rachael Rustmann, Esq.
      James Mark Loren, Esq.
      GOLDBERG & LOREN, PA
      3102 Maple Avenue, Ste. 450
      Dallas, TX 75201
      Tel: (800) 719-1617 ext 1002
      Email: ggoldberg@goldbergdohan.com
             rrustmann@goldbergloren.com
             jloren@lorenlaw.com

Defendants are represented by:

      Donald L. Samuels, Esq.
      BRYAN CAVE LLP
      1700 Lincoln St., Ste. 4100
      Denver, CO 80203
      Tel: (303) 866-0548
      Fax: (303) 866-0200
      Email: donald.samuels@bryancave.com


PROBITY HEALTH: Faces "Moody" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
---------------------------------------------------------------
Kyona Moody, individually and on behalf of all similarly situated
individuals v. Probity Health, Inc., Case No. 1:16-cv-03271-JFM
(D. Md., September 28, 2016), is brought against the Defendants
for failure to pay overtime wages in violation of the Fair Labor
Standards Act.

Probity Health, Inc. provides skilled nursing and aide services to
older adults, adults and younger adults.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Robert K. Jenner, Esq.
      Justin A. Browne, Esq.
      JANET, JENNER & SUGGS, LLC
      Commerce Center
      East 1777 Reisterstown Road, Suite 165
      Baltimore, MD 21208
      Telephone: (410) 653-3200
      Facsimile: (410) 653-6903
      E-mail: Rjenner@Myadvocates.com
              Jbrowne@Myadvocates.com

         - and -

      Jacob R. Rusch, Esq.
      David H. Grounds, Esq.
      Molly E. Nephew, Esq.
      JOHNSON BECKER, PLLC
      444 Cedar Street, Suite 1800
      Saint Paul, MN 55101
      Telephone: (612) 436-1800
      Facsimile: (612) 436-1801
      E-mail: jrusch@johnsonbecker.com
              dgrounds@johnsonbecker.com
              mnephew@johnsonbecker.com


PROGRESSIVE INSURANCE: Williams Can't Proceed as Class Action
-------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, MAURICE WILLIAMS, Plaintiff, v. PROGRESSIVE INSURANCE
CO., Defendant, No. 4:16-CV-01214 JAR (E.D. Mo.), District Judge
John A. Ross granted the Defendant's motion to strike the class
action claim in the Plaintiff's complaint.

The case attempts to invoke the rule that class representatives
cannot appear pro se. The Plaintiff may bring her own claims to
the federal court without counsel, but not the claims of others,
the Court said.

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

Maurice Williams, Plaintiff, Pro se.

Progressive Insurance Company, Defendant, represented by:

     Daniel E. Wilke, Esq.
     James A. Wilke, Esq.
     WILKE AND WILKE, P.C.
     2708 Olive St
     St. Louis, MO 63103
     Tel: 314-371-0800


QUALITY DINING: "Cicero" Labor Case Transferred to D.N.J.
---------------------------------------------------------
The case captioned Cynthia Cicero, on behalf of herself and
similarly situated employees, Plaintiff, v. Quality Dining, Inc.,
Southwest Dining, Inc., Grayling Corporation, Defendants, Case No.
3:16-cv-00512 (N.D. Ind., August 4, 2016), was transferred to the
U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey on
September 21, 2016, and assigned Case No. 1:16-cv-05806.

Defendant operates 46 Chili's Grill franchises all over the U.S.
Plaintiff worked at their Delran, New Jersey location as a server.
Cicero complained about the tip-credit being implemented, making
their wages fall below the minimum.

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Edward J. Chester, Esq.
      CHESTER LAW OFFICE
      230 N. Main St., Suite 2
      Elkhart, IN 46516
      Phone: (574) 296-1515
      Fax: (574) 295-9316
      Email: ed@chesterlawoffice.com

             - and -

      Peter Winebrake, Esq.
      R. Andrew Santillo, Esq.
      Mark J. Gottesfeld, Esq.
      WINEBRAKE & SANTILLO, LLC
      715 Twining Road, Suite 211
      Dresher, PA 19025
      Phone: (215) 884-2491

            - and -

      Jerry Martin, Esq.
      Seth Hyatt, Esq.
      BARRETT JOHNSTON MARTIN & GARRISON LLC
      414 Union Street, Suite 900
      Nashville, TN 37219


RAPTOR PHARMACEUTICAL: Shareholder Challenges Horizon Merger
------------------------------------------------------------
Sean Kelly, writing for Courthouse News Service, reported that in
a federal class action in Wilmington, Del., a shareholder of
orphan drug-maker Raptor Pharmaceutical Corp. claims its directors
are selling it on the cheap to Horizon Pharma, on unreasonable
terms that stifle competing offers.

Jesse Jordan claims that Horizon's offer of $9 per share resulted
from a flawed and inadequate process that "fails to adequately
compensate Raptor shareholders for their stake in the Company,
despite its strategic positioning as a leader in an expanding
marketplace."  He cites Raptor's "strong growth over the last few
months," which is expected to continue, but says if the merger
goes through, "stockholders will have no participation in the
success of the future combined companies."

Raptor makes the orphan drugs Quinsair and Procysbi.

Orphan drugs are drugs targeted at diseases so rare there is no
financial incentive for a company to do the research and
development on it. To encourage the research, the federal Orphan
Drug Act of 1983 gave drug-makers opportunities for tax credits,
extended patent protection, research and development grants, and
waived FDA fees to develop drugs and vaccines for diseases that
affect fewer than 200,000 Americans. The Rare Diseases Act of 2002
strengthened the Orphan Drug Act.

Procysbi is used to treat a rare metabolic disorder known as
nephropathic cystinosis in the United States.

Quinsair is used to manage pulmonary infections in cystic fibrosis
patients in the European Union and Canada.

Analysts of the deal say the Raptor deal will provide an immediate
revenue boost to Horizon.

Jordan claims: "The sale of the company is being timed in an
effort to curb any future increase in the share price of Raptor
common stock, thus ensuring that Horizon can effectuate its
takeover on the cheap."

Among the onerous deal protection devices that preclude other
bidders from topping Horizon's offer are strict nonsolicitation
and "last look" provisions, Jordan says. "Defendants agreed to
certain onerous and preclusive deal protection devices that
operate conjunctively to make the tender offer a fait accompli and
ensure that no competing offers will emerge for the company."

He says the merger agreement forbids Raptor from seeking superior
bids without giving Horizon "unfettered access to confidential,
nonpublic information about competing proposals from third
parties" to top the bid. It also gives Horizon four days to come
up with a counteroffer "that only matches the superior third-party
offer."

And in the unlikely event that the company decides to pursue an
alternative offer, Raptor has to pay Horizon a termination fee of
$30 million.

Jordan says Raptor's SEC filings to solicit stockholders to tender
their Raptor shares in the proposed $800 million deal are
"materially deficient." He criticizes Raptor's financial advisers
for the deal, Centerview Partners LLC and Leerink Partners LLC. He
says their financial projections omit pertinent information
shareholders need to determine whether the tender offer is fair.

"Centerview and Leerink's fairness opinion and analyses fails to
include key inputs and assumptions underlying these analyses,"
Jordan says, and without this information, "Raptor's public
stockholders are unable to fully understand these analyses."

Jordan wants the merger enjoined for violating the Securities
Exchange Act, and because of its "material misstatements and
omissions."  He is represented by Brian Long with Rigrodsky & Long
in Wilmington, and by Shane Rowley with Levi & Korsinsky in
Stamford, Conn.


RIMAX CONTRACTORS: "Arzola" Labor Case Transferred to M.D. Fla.
---------------------------------------------------------------
The case captioned Jesus Arzola and Maynor Martinez, on behalf of
themselves and other persons similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v.
Rimax Contractors, Inc., Defendant, Case No. 2:16-cv-00718 (E.D.
La., August 15, 2016), was transferred to the U.S. District Court
for the Middle District of Florida on September 22, 2016.

Plaintiffs seek to recover from Defendant unpaid wages, interest,
liquidated damages, and attorneys' fees and costs under the Fair
Labor Standards Act.

Plaintiffs are represented by:

      Roberto L. Costales, Esq.
      Emily Westermeier
      COSTALES LAW OFFICE
      3801 Canal Street, Suite 207
      New Orleans, LA 70119
      Tel: (504) 534-5005

            - and -

      William Henry Beaumont, Esq.
      WILLIAM H. BEAUMONT LAW
      3801 Canal Street, Suite 207
      New Orleans, LA 70119
      Tel: (504) 483-8008

Rimax is represented by:

      Tiffany Delome Downs, Esq.
      FORD & HARRISON, LLP (ATLANTA)
      271 17th St., NW, Suite 1900
      Atlanta, GA 30363
      Tel: (404) 888-3961
      Fax: (404) 888-3863


ROTHENERG VENTURES: Faces "Fanelli" Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.
-----------------------------------------------------------
A lawsuit has been filed against Rothenerg Ventures Management
Company LLC. The case is styled FANELLI, KATIE AN INDIVIDUAL AND
ON BEHALF OF ALL OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED, the Plaintiff, v.
ROTHENERG VENTURES MANAGEMENT COMPANY LLC and DOES 1-50 INCLUSIVE,
the Defendant, Case No. CGC 16 554609 (Cal. Super. Ct., Sept. 30,
2016).

Rothenberg Ventures operates as a venture capital firm.


SAINT VINCENT: Sued Over Mandatory Flu Vaccination Policy
---------------------------------------------------------
P.J. D'Annunzio, writing for The Legal Intelligencer, reports that
the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission has taken up the case
of a group of nurses and medical workers who claim they were fired
from an Erie-based hospital over their religious objections to
mandatory flu vaccinations.

In a complaint filed against Saint Vincent Health Center in the
U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania, the
commission alleged that the hospital failed to accommodate the
religious beliefs of the six plaintiffs, all adherents of
different religious sects.  The suit focused on Saint Vincent's
mandatory flu vaccination policy, which requires all employees to
either receive the shot, or wear a face mask for the duration of
flu season.

The parties filing suit, made up of a sonographer, a clerk, and
four registered nurses, argued that Saint Vincent's policy -- and
their subsequent firings for failing to comply -- were
discriminatory.

Each plaintiff requested a religious exemption from the hospital
and provided passages from religious texts explaining their
positions, according to the commission's complaint.  Each was also
allegedly denied an exemption for not providing "proof of
religious doctrine."

"In religious accommodation cases, the standard is not whether
company officials agree with the employee's religious beliefs or
whether those beliefs are the recognized position or official
doctrine of any particular religious organization or group," EEOC
Philadelphia regional attorney Debra M. Lawrence said in a
statement.  "Absent proof establishing an undue hardship, federal
law requires an employer to provide reasonable accommodations for
sincerely held employee religious beliefs, even if some may
consider those beliefs idiosyncratic."

The hospital has not yet responded in court filings.

"Saint Vincent Hospital's mandatory flu vaccination policy allows
employees to apply for an exemption to the policy based upon
religious beliefs or health concerns," a Saint Vincent
spokesperson said in an email.  "Requests for exemption are always
given careful and appropriate consideration.  We respectfully
disagree with the EEOC's position and characterization of how the
employee claims outlined in its lawsuit were handled by the
hospital."

A similar case filed in the Eastern District was dismissed in
August.  In that case, the court granted Mercy Fitzgerald
Hospital's motion to toss plaintiff Paul Fallon's suit, reasoning
that the former psychiatric crisis intake worker had no religious
discrimination claim based on his refusal to accept a flu shot and
subsequent termination.

U.S. District Judge Gerald J. Pappert of the Eastern District of
Pennsylvania held that Fallon, who did not "belong to a religious
congregation," did not hold a constitutionally protected religious
belief, according to Judge Pappert's opinion.

"Fallon's stated opposition to vaccinations is entirely personal,
political, sociological and economic -- the very definition of
secular philosophy as opposed to -- religious orientation," Judge
Pappert said.


SBOCA LLC: Faces Gorss Motels Class Suit in Connecticut
-------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been commenced against Sboca, LLC and
John Does 1-5.

The case is captioned Gorss Motels Inc., individually and as the
representative of a class of similarly-situated persons v. Sboca,
LLC and John Does 1-5, Case No. 3:16-cv-01630 (D. Conn., September
28, 2016).

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

SERES THERAPEUTICS: Sued Over Misleading Financial Reports
----------------------------------------------------------
Mariusz Mazurek, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. Seres Therapeutics, Inc., Roger J.
Pomerantz, and Eric D. Shaff, Case No. 1:16-cv-11943 (D. Mass.,
September 28, 2016), alleges that the Defendants made false and
misleading statements, as well as failed to disclose material
adverse facts about the Company's business, operations, and
prospects.

Seres Therapeutics, Inc. is a clinical stage biopharmaceutical
company with a focus on microbiome therapeutics.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Shannon L. Hopkins, Esq.
      LEVI & KORSINSKY, LLP
      733 Summer Street, Suite 304
      Stamford, CO 06901
      Telephone: (203) 992-4523
      Facsimile: (212) 363-7171
      E-mail: shopkins@zlk.com


SILVERCORP METALS: Obtains Favorable Ruling in Class Action
-----------------------------------------------------------
John F. Nucci, Esq. -- JFNucci@mintz.com -- of Mintz, Levin, Cohn,
Ferris, Glovsky and Popeo, P.C., in an article for The National
Law Review, reports that the Canadian court system has issued a
number of decisions which have altered the practice of bringing --
or defending against -- a securities class action for secondary
market misrepresentation. In its recent decision in Mask v.
Silvercorp Metals, Inc. ("Mask"), the Court of Appeals for Ontario
further clarified the evidentiary standard to be applied on a
motion for leave and certification of a proposed class action.
Its decidedly defendant-friendly decision is relevant to any
entity which finds itself defending against such a claim in
Ontario.

Background
At issue in Mask was a proposed class action claim against
defendant Silvercorp Metals, Inc. ("Silvercorp"), a Canadian
company which operates mining properties in China.  In 2010 and
2011, Silvercorp periodically released public reports about a
mining project in China.  Those releases contained technical
reports prepared by BK Exploration Associates ("BK"), which
provided estimates of the silver, lead, and zinc resources and
reserves at the mining project.  On September 2 and September 13,
2011, anonymous internet postings questioned Silvercorp's
accounting and alleged that it overstated the quantity and quality
of its mineral resources and reserves.  This caused Silvercorp's
share price to plummet by 30 percent, and forced Silvercorp to
issue a press release refuting the anonymous allegations.

The Trial Court Denies Leave to Bring a Class Action
In 2014, the plaintiff shareholder brought suit against
Silvercorp, alleging statutory and common law claims for
misrepresentation, failure to make timely disclosure, and
negligence in publishing the 2010 and 2011 reports.  The plaintiff
moved for leave to bring a class action.  As required by Section
138.8(1) of the Ontario Securities Act, the plaintiff produced
evidence purporting to show that a) the action was brought in good
faith, and b) there was a reasonable possibility that the action
would be resolved at trial in favor of the plaintiff.
Specifically, the plaintiff produced expert evidence from a
professional geologist named Mohan Srivastava, in the form of a
report from June 12, 2013, which criticized the quality of BK's
report and pointed out differences between predictions and actual
production.

The defendant, in response, produced uncontroverted evidence to
the contrary.  Silvercorp produced as evidence subsequent reports
prepared by its own expert, Patrick Stephenson.  Mr. Stephenson's
report provided detailed evidence showing that there was, in fact,
"no material discrepancy" between the predictions and production.
His report made clear that Silvercorp had not made any material
misrepresentation, and that it had simply been the victim of the
anonymous posters who had shorted its shares in order to make a
profit when the price fell.  Notably,
Mr. Srivastava's subsequently filed report -- prepared and
presented on behalf of the plaintiff -- did not address
Mr. Stephenson's evidence.

Faced with this evidence, the motion judge found that the
plaintiff's secondary market misrepresentation claim was "so weak
or has been so successfully rebutted by the defendants that it has
no reasonable possibility of success."  The claim was summarily
dismissed.

The Appeals Court Affirms
On appeal, the plaintiff argued that the motion judge misapplied
the test for leave. In support, the plaintiff cited
Theratechnologies Inc. v. 121851 Canada Inc., where the Supreme
Court of Canada held that a plaintiff must only show "a plausible
analysis of the applicable legislative provisions and some
credible evidence in support of the claim."  The plaintiff's
position was that once he presented some credible evidence in
support of his claim, the test was satisfied and leave should be
granted without considering the evidence submitted by the
defendant.

The Court disagreed.  In doing so, it noted that the reason
Section 138.8(1) was enacted was to prevent unmeritorious claims
from going forward.  As such, the statute requires "a reasoned
consideration of the evidence to ensure that the action has some
merit." That purpose would be completely defeated if the court
could only "reasonably consider" the self-serving evidence
presented by a prospective class representative, particularly
where, as here, the defendant's proffered evidence shows that the
claim lacks merit.  Thus, the Court was correct in not only
allowing, but requiring a motion judge to consider all evidence in
determining whether the bar for leave is met.

The Takeaway
This decision is particularly noteworthy to parties facing claims
of secondary market misrepresentation in Canada.  Canadian courts
have repeatedly reinforced their desire to weed out meritless
claims as early as possible.  As Mask reinforces, a party
defending against such a claim can -- and should -- take full
advantage of that position by presenting evidence in its favor
immediately.


SPECTRUM PHARMACEUTICALS: Sued Over Misleading Financial Reports
----------------------------------------------------------------
Glen Hartsock, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. Spectrum Pharmaceuticals, Inc., and Rajesh Shrotriya,
Case No. 2:16-cv-02279 (D. Nev., September 28, 2016), alleges that
the Defendants made false and misleading statements, as well as
failed to disclose material adverse facts about the Company's
business, operations, and prospects.

Spectrum Pharmaceuticals, Inc. is a pharmaceutical company in
Henderson, Nevada.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Jeffrey C. Block, Esq.
      Joel A. Fleming, Esq.
      BLOCK & LEVITON LLP
      155 Federal Street, Suite 400
      Boston, MA 02110
      Telephone: (617) 398-5600
      Facsimile: (617) 507-6020
      E-mail: jeff@blockesq.com
              joel@blockesq.com

        - and -

      Telia U. Williams, Esq.
      LAW OFFICE OF TELIA U. WILLIAMS
      9359 10161 Park Run Drive, Suite 150
      Las Vegas, NV 89145
      Telephone: (702) 835-6866
      Facsimile: (702) 363-8851
      E-mail: telia@telialaw.com


TALON AIR: Faces "Gonzalez" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
-------------------------------------------------------------
Margarita Gonzalez, individually, and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. Talon Air Inc., and Adam Katz, Case No.
516962/2016 (N.Y. Super. Ct., September 27, 2016), is brought
against the Defendants for failure to pay overtime wages in
violation of the New York Labor Law.

The Defendants were in the business of providing charter flights,
and aircraft management and maintenance services.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


SQUARE INC: Court Dismisses "White" for Lack of Standing
--------------------------------------------------------
Robert S. Gebhard, Esq., of Sedgwick LLP, in an article for
Lexology, reports that a recent decision by the United States
District Court in Robert E. White v. Square, Inc., (N.D. Cal.
2016) provides an interesting discussion of the standing
requirements for the assertion of discrimination claims against
online businesses pursuant to the California Unruh Civil Rights
Act.

Key Facts

The defendant provided point of sale processing of debit and
credit card transactions on smartphones and computer tablets.  The
service allowed individuals and businesses to accept electronic
payments without directly creating and maintaining merchant
accounts.  In order to subscribe to these services, users were
required to create an online account pursuant to a seller
agreement, which required specific confirmation that no payments
would be processed for certain business activities, including
transactions with bankruptcy attorneys or collection agencies
engaged in the collection of debt.

The plaintiff, a bankruptcy attorney, filed a class action suit
against the card processor for unlawful discrimination after
learning of the specific prohibition against bankruptcy attorney
transactions.  The class action complaint was brought under
California's Unruh Civil Rights Act, which generally prohibits
arbitrary occupational discrimination.

The bankruptcy attorney did not attempt to subscribe to the
service by creating an online account, nor was he denied the
service after attempting to process payments for his bankruptcy
services.  Instead, the attorney alleged that he was dissuaded
from seeking to become a customer based on his awareness of the
card processor's prohibition against the processing of payments to
bankruptcy attorneys.

Procedural History

The suit was filed after the court had dismissed an earlier suit
brought by a different bankruptcy law firm.  In that earlier suit,
the law firm had signed up for the card processing service, but
the account was terminated after the card processor learned that
the firm was violating the service agreement.  The court dismissed
that suit and sent the parties to arbitration because the online
subscriber agreement contained an arbitration clause requiring the
parties to arbitrate their dispute.

In the new suit, the bankruptcy attorney alleged that he was a
personal friend and colleague of the two partners of the law firm
that had commenced the first action.  He further alleged that he
had read the court's file for the first action and learned of the
card processor's allegedly discriminatory practices.  He also
alleged that he had visited the processor's website on several
occasions with the intent of subscribing, but refused to click on
the link to open an account based on his knowledge of the
processor's prohibition against bankruptcy attorney transactions.

California Unruh Civil Rights Act

The suit was filed pursuant to the California Unruh Civil Rights
Act, which guarantees "full and equal accommodations, advantages,
facilities, privileges, or services in all business
establishments" regardless of race, color, religion, ancestry,
national origin, disability, medical condition, marital status or
sexual orientation.  The Act also specifically provides that no
business establishment shall discriminate against or refuse to
contract with persons who have one or more of these
characteristics. Courts have interpreted this Act as also
generally prohibiting any arbitrary occupational discrimination.

The Act imposes actual damages for each offense, along with
possible treble damages, but not less than $4,000 for each
violation, plus attorney's fees.

Key Arguments

The processor moved to dismiss the new suit arguing that the
attorney was a mere bystander who had not suffered any asserted
discrimination because he had not attempted to create an online
account, and thus was never rejected or terminated pursuant to the
allegedly discriminatory policy.  The processor also alleged that
the suit was an improper attempt to sidestep the arbitration
requirement which was a stated term of the subscriber agreement
that must be executed as a condition to creating the online
account.

The bankruptcy attorney urged the court to reject the processor's
"no click/no standing" defense asserting that he had at least
attempted to subscribe to the card processor's service within the
meaning of the law.  The attorney also argued that that he should
not be required to engage in the "futile gesture" of subjecting
himself to the actual discrimination, i.e. refusal of service or
termination of the online account, as a condition to bringing the
suit.

Court's Ruling

The court dismissed the suit for lack of standing after finding
that the attorney had not suffered a cognizable injury under the
statute because he had not tendered the purchase price to the
processor and was not refused service.  The court followed a
California state appellate decision upholding the dismissal of
discrimination claims by a male plaintiff against an internet
dating service that offered certain free services to woman, but
not to men, after finding that the male plaintiff lacked to
standing to sue because he had never subscribed to the dating
service.

The court also rejected application of the "futile gesture rule"
to California's Unruh Act.

The bankruptcy attorney has recently moved for reconsideration
based on certain newly discovered evidence.


ST PAUL, MN: Faces Class Action Over Right-of-Way Assessments
-------------------------------------------------------------
Jessie Van Berkel, writing for Star Tribune, reports that three
attorneys told St. Paul leaders on Oct. 5 they will file a class-
action lawsuit on behalf of all property owners in the city if St.
Paul continues to move forward with its unusual -- and, according
to the attorneys, illegal -- process for funding street
maintenance.

The City Council nevertheless confirmed the 2016 right-of-way
assessment costs on Oct. 5, since most of the work the assessments
paid for has already been completed.

But city officials said they are looking into changing the
process, following a Minnesota Supreme Court ruling that
determined the assessment is actually a tax.

Most cities, like Minneapolis, assess residents for certain
projects that benefit their property. In St. Paul, the city
assesses almost all property owners annually based on their street
or alley frontage.

St. Paul expects to get $32.5 million from assessments in 2017,
$2.2 million more than it received this year.  The city relies on
the money to pay for services from street sweeping to snow removal
to tree trimming.

The state Supreme Court ruled in August that the assessments are
an additional tax -- not a fee, as the city argued -- and that
they are subject to tax restrictions.

That ruling spurred the attorneys to look into a class-action
lawsuit.  It also prompted policymakers to evaluate potential
changes to the assessment program, City Attorney Samuel Clark
said.

"Ultimately, that decision is going to be up to the council," he
said.

As for the potential class-action lawsuit, Mr. Clark said, "I
can't respond to a case that hasn't been filed yet."

Council members on Oct. 5 scheduled a public hearing for Nov. 2 on
the proposed 2017 assessments.  But Council President Russ Stark
said the city could change its assessment process after the
hearing.

Currently, how much a property owner is assessed depends on the
property type, its location in the city and what sort of right-of-
way runs alongside it.  For example, a homeowner with 50 feet of
frontage on an arterial street is expected to pay $217.50 next
year, $14 more than this year.

But downtown, owners of all types of properties, except
condominiums, would pay $20.63 for every foot located along a
paved street, up $1.35 from 2016.

Shifting, sharing the costs

St. Paul began assessing nearly all properties with right-of-way
footage in 2002, under Mayor Randy Kelly.

Attorney Jack Hoeschler, one of the attorneys who plans to bring
the class-action suit, said the assessments allowed cash-strapped
city officials to gather more money from residents without
appearing to increase taxes.

"They shifted a whole bunch of these costs from above the line on
your tax statement . . . into this special category.  And it
appeared below the line and allowed elected officials to say, 'We
are holding the line on taxes,'" Mr. Hoeschler said.

A 2011 policy document gives another reason for the assessments:
It is a way for the city to distribute the cost of street
maintenance more broadly, on both taxable and tax-exempt
properties.

St. Paul has an unusually high number of tax-exempt properties,
including religious, government and educational institutions.
About one-third of the properties in the city do not have to pay
property taxes.

The individual property assessments have been relatively small, so
for many years no one fought the policy, Mr. Hoeschler said.

A challenge from churches

In 2011, he started representing two downtown churches that
challenged the city over what they felt were unfair assessment
burdens.

That case made its way to the state Supreme Court, which in August
sent it back to the District Court, saying that an essential
question remains unanswered: Are the churches paying more for
assessments than they are seeing in benefits?

State law dictates that cities can charge assessments to fund
public improvements, such as replacing streetlights and patching
up streets, but only if the property owners who are assessed get a
special benefit from the improvement program.  That benefit --
measured by how much the property value increases -- must be equal
or greater than the assessment.

A trial to determine the answer to that question is scheduled for
early December, Mr. Hoeschler said.


STEWART'S SHOPS: Judge Certifies Employees' Wage Class Action
-------------------------------------------------------------
Michael DeMasi, writing for Albany Business Review, reports that a
lawsuit alleging Stewart's Shops didn't pay employees for all the
hours they worked on the job has been certified as a "class
action" by a federal judge, according to the plaintiffs'
attorneys.

U.S. District Court Judge Thomas J. McAvoy ruled Sept. 28 the case
meets the requirements to proceed as a class action, according to
lawyers at E. Stewart Jones Hacker Murphy, LLP.

"The next step in the process is to send out notifications to the
employees and former employees who may have been adversely
affected by the pay practices in Stewart's Shops locations," the
attorneys said in a prepared statement.

In response, a spokeswoman for Stewart's, Maria D'Amelia, released
the following statement:

"Two-thirds of the original charges brought against us have
already been denied class status.  We feel strongly that the
remaining will be denied class status as well, once all the
evidence can be considered.

"It should be noted that with federal law, letters to employees
have to go out before a judge can review the evidence. These
notices are solely a step in the process and in no way an
admission or indication of guilt.  It is unfortunate that we have
to go through this process, as this same change on the state level
has already been thrown out.

"We value our partners, who are part owners in our company, and
have a long history of being fair to them, both with pay and
benefits."

The Malta-based convenience store chain has 335 stores in upstate
New York and Vermont, and $1.5 billion in sales.

The company was sued in January 2014 by a former employee claiming
she and other workers were not paid for all of the hours they were
on the job.  The lawsuit sought $20 million in damages and class-
action status on behalf of all non-exempt hourly employees who
worked for the company the previous three years.

Judge McAvoy ruled the case met the requirements as a class action
for claims that employees were not paid mandatory call-in pay for
store meetings and were deprived of an uninterrupted meal break,
according to the plaintiffs' attorneys, Ryan M. Finn and David I.
Iversen.

They said that under federal law a collective action has been
certified for full-time employees who worked more than forty hours
in any given week and were deprived of overtime compensation.

The firm is also representing clients with similar wage and hour
claims against Wal-Mart, Speedway, and Suit-Kote Corporation.


TENET HEALTHCARE: Shareholder Sues Over Stock Price Drop
--------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reported that Tenet Healthcare Corp.
shares fell by 4 percent after the company settled kickback
allegations for $514 million, shareholders claim in a federal
class action in Dallas.


UNITED STATES: Supreme Court to Hear Post-9/11 Arrest Cases
-----------------------------------------------------------
William Dotinga, writing for Courthouse News Service, reported
that the Supreme Court on October 11, agreed to wade into a
14-year-old class action brought by undocumented Muslims and Arabs
who were rounded up on the thinnest of pretexts and abused in jail
in the months following the 9/11 terror attacks.

Lead plaintiff Ibrahim Turkmen brought his class action in 2002,
claiming that then-Federal Bureau of Investigation director Robert
Mueller's directive to follow up on all of the 96,000 leads
gleaned from a tip hotline he set up following the attacks created
a dragnet that led to hundreds of mostly Muslim held in abusive
custody at Metropolitan Detention Center in Brooklyn and Passaic
County Jail in New Jersey.

Turkmen's lawsuit gained traction with the release of two scathing
reports by the FBI's inspector general detailing how MDC officials
slammed detainees against a wall, kept them in lockdown 23 hours a
day, and placed them in solitary confinement.

The men blame discrimination for their rough treatment in custody.

Prison staff allegedly referred to the men as "camel[s]," "fucking
Muslims," and "Arabic asshole[s]."

Although officials said the lockups were a necessity given post-
9/11 national security concerns, a Second Circuit panel ruled in
2015 that a climate of "hysteria" following the attacks caused the
men's suffering and that it would take further discovery to
determine whether "concern for the safety of our nation justified
the violation of the constitutional rights on which this nation
was built."

The panel ordered Mueller, former U.S. Attorney General John
Ashcroft, former immigration chief James Ziglar and MDC wardens
Dennis Hasty and James Sherman to face the class' due process,
equal protection and conspiracy claims. Claims of class members
held at Passaic County Jail were dismissed.

The full Second Circuit refused to revisit its panel's decision
this past December, saying "it's time to move the case forward."

In taking up appeals brought by both the class and the government,
the Supreme Court agreed to consider three questions: Whether the
Second Circuit panel improperly refused the class' request for
damages on their Fifth Amendment claims because the claims did not
arise in a "new context" under Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents
of Federal Bureau of Narcotics; whether the panel improperly
denied Ziglar qualified immunity; and whether the panel improperly
advanced the class' fourth amended complaint, which the government
says relied on hypothetical possibilities, assumption and
insinuations of discrimination not backed by evidence.

Per its custom, the high court did not comment on its decision to
hear the case.


VERITAS ENTERTAINMENT: Golan May File Third Amended Complaint
-------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, RON GOLAN, et al., Plaintiff, v. VERITAS
ENTERTAINMENT, LLC, et al., Defendants, No. 4:14CV00069 ERW (E.D.
Mo.), Senior District Judge E. Richard Webber granted the
Plaintiffs' Motion for Leave to File the Attached Third Amended
Class Action Complaint invoking the Telephone Consumer Protection
Act.

As regards the Plaintiffs' Motion to Compel, the Defendants
asserted that the reports sought by the Plaintiffs have already
been produced in prior discovery. The Court noted that if the
Defendants' responses were not true, the Plaintiffs will be
permitted to renew their Motion to Compel as it relates to their
requests. Otherwise, the Court will deny the portion of the Motion
to Compel, as moot.

A copy of the Court's Order dated October 5, 2016 is available at
https://goo.gl/ah8H1w from Leagle.com.

Dorit Golan, et al., Plaintiffs, represented by Robert Schultz,
SCHULTZ AND ASSOCIATES, L.L.P. & Ronald J. Eisenberg, SCHULTZ AND
ASSOCIATES, L.L.P..

Veritas Entertainment, LLC, Defendant, Pro Se.

Veritas Marketing Group, LLC, et al., Defendants, represented by
Ari Nicholas Rothman, VENABLE LLP, Cicely I. Lubben --
cicely.lubben@stinson.com -- STINSON AND LEONARD LLP, Ronald M.
Jacobs -- rmjacobs@Venable.com -- VENABLE LLP & Danielle E.
Sunberg -- desunberg@Venable.com -- VENABLE LLP.

FreeEats.com, Inc., et al., Defendants, represented by Steven H.
Schwartz -- sschwartz@bjpc.com -- BROWN AND JAMES, P.C., Elizabeth
S. Silker, BROWN AND JAMES, P.C. & Teresa M. Young --
tyoung@bjpc.com -- BROWN AND JAMES, P.C..


VISA: Class Action Over EMV Car Reader Can Proceed
--------------------------------------------------
PYMNTS reports that it's been a year since the EMV card reader
deadline.  Now, the big card companies -- Visa, Mastercard,
American Express and others -- are all facing a class-action
lawsuit brought by retailers over the new chip readers.

Florida-based B&R Supermarket Inc. and Grove Liquors LLC are suing
on behalf of merchants nationwide, alleging that the credit card
companies conspired to dump fraudulent transactions on merchants
that didn't make the EMV card deadline.  The complaint was filed
as a violation of the Sherman Antitrust Act.

A San Francisco-based federal judge permitted the suit to proceed,
saying that the two merchants "plausibly allege an impermissible
conspiracy" by the card companies to impose the penalty on
merchants who had not implemented the card reader by the deadline
of Oct. 1, 2015.

The complaint includes the example that some merchants have been
allegedly responsible for more than $10,000 in fraudulent
transactions and fees.  The plaintiffs are seeking an unspecified
amount of damages, on top of costs and attorneys fees.

"This is a pretty big whack for the small merchants," the
merchants' attorney, Patrick J. Coughlin, told Law360. "It's very
punitive for them."

According to Bloomberg, Mastercard representatives have expressed
their disappointment with the status of the case but are hoping to
put the issue behind them and build relationships with customers.
American Express has declined to comment, and Visa has not
responded.

Banks that were originally named as defendants were dismissed from
the case, but time will tell if they are added back in, which is
something U.S. District Judge William Alsup said is being
considered.


WELLS FARGO: 401(K) Participant Files Class Action in Minneapolis
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reported that a Wells Fargo employee and
401(k) participant claims in a federal class action in Minneapolis
that the bank's withholding of information about the creation of
unauthorized customer accounts caused company stock to drop 12
percent.


WEST VIRGINIA: Medicaid I/DD Waiver Class Action Can Proceed
------------------------------------------------------------
Lori Kersey, writing for Charleston Gazette-Mail, reports that
more people who are affected by cuts to West Virginia's Medicaid
Intellectual/Developmental Disabilities waiver program may join a
lawsuit against the state Department of Health and Human
Resources, a federal judge has ruled.

In a ruling filed Sept. 30, U.S. District Judge Thomas Johnston
granted class-action status to a lawsuit filed by the nonprofit
law firm Mountain State Justice on behalf of five disabled
residents over the cuts.  The judge has scheduled a settlement
conference in the case for Oct. 28 in Charleston and denied the
DHHR's request to dismiss a portion of the lawsuit.

The lawsuit argues that the way the DHHR has run its I/DD waiver
program violates the Americans with Disabilities Act.  Mountain
State Justice attorneys asked for an injunction against the DHHR
last year, on behalf of five waiver recipients, to make the agency
reverse course on cuts to the program that went into effect this
year.

MSJ attorneys Gary Smith, Bren Pomponio and Lydia Milnes have been
appointed counsel for the class.

The I/DD waiver program provides severely disabled West Virginia
Medicaid recipients money for in-home services and community-based
programs.

The state Bureau for Medical Services, which administers the
Medicaid program, contracts with APS Healthcare Inc. to conduct an
"annual assessment of each program participant's abilities and
needs," according to last month's order.  Each person's budget
from APS is determined by a "secret and proprietary computer
algorithm."

Before fall 2014, APS made independent decisions on granting funds
exceeding a participant's budget, and routinely granted them, an
earlier order states.

That changed in September 2014, when Bureau of Medical Services
employees saw that the program was exceeding its budget and told
APS to stop unilaterally approving program plans that exceed the
budgets, the order stated.

"These denials resulted in substantial decreases from 2014 to 2015
in the total benefits Plaintiffs received through the I/DD waiver
program, even though Plaintiffs' need for services did not
diminish during this time period," the judge wrote.  "This lower
funding correspondingly results in a reduction of services
Plaintiffs can purchase."

Last month, Judge Johnston issued a preliminary injunction
ordering the DHHR to reinstate the five plaintiffs' individualized
budgets to the amounts they received in 2014.  In the order, the
judge did not rule on whether those in the class-action lawsuit
will have their 2014 budgets reinstated.

The class will be defined as, "All persons who were or will be at
any time on or after Oct. 1, 2014, qualified individuals with
disabilities resident in West Virginia who are eligible recipients
of I/DD Home and Community-Based Waiver Program services and
subject to a benefit and service eligibility process utilizing
APS's proprietary budget calculation," the judge wrote.

Reached for comment on Oct. 5, DHHR spokeswoman Allison Adler said
the department hadn't received official notification of the
ruling.

"We will be happy to comment after that is issued and reviewed,"
she wrote in an email to the Gazette-Mail.

Later in the day, Jeremiah Samples, deputy secretary of the DHHR,
said the department will comply with the order and is considering
its options.

"As the State of West Virginia continues to face difficult
financial issues, the DHHR remains committed to providing services
to our most vulnerable citizens," Mr. Samples said in a written
statement.


WILLIAMS-SONOMA: Case Management Conference Moved to Feb. 2017
--------------------------------------------------------------
District Judge William H. Orrick ordered that a Case Management
Conference shall be continued until February 7, 2017 in the case
styled, WILLIAM RUSHING, Individually and on Behalf of all Others
Similarly Situated, Plaintiff, v. WILLIAMS-SONOMA, INC., a
Delaware corporation, also d/b/a Williams-Sonoma, and Williams-
Sonoma Home, Pottery Barn, PB Teen, and PB Dorm, Pottery Barn
Kids, Pottery Barn Baby, and West Elm; WILLIAMS-SONOMA DTC, INC.,
a California corporation; WILLIAMS-SONOMA ADVERTISING, INC., a
California corporation; and DOES 1-30, Defendants, Case No. 3:16-
cv-01421-WHO (N.D. Cal.).

The Court further set the hearing on the Defendant's motion to
dismiss for January 11, 2017.

The Court's Orders are entered pursuant to the parties'
stipulation that:

     (a) if the Plaintiff files a Fifth Amended Complaint by
         October 24, 2016, Defendants' obligation to respond to
         the Fourth Amended Complaint will become moot, and
         Defendants will respond to the Fifth Amended Complaint
         on or before November 14, 2016;

     (b) if the Defendants file a motion to dismiss the Fifth
         Amended Complaint, the following briefing schedule shall
         Apply: (i) Plaintiff shall file his opposition on or
         before December 6, 2016; and (ii) Defendants shall file
         their reply on or before December 20, 2016;

     (c) if the Plaintiff advises Defendants that he intends to
         file a Fifth Amended Complaint after October 24, 2016,
         the parties agree to confer regarding the briefing
         schedule for any motion to dismiss the Fifth Amended
         Complaint;

     (d) if the Plaintiff does not file a Fifth Amended Complaint
         by October 24, 2016 and advises Defendants that he will
         not be filing a Fifth Amended Complaint on or before
         October 24, 2016, Defendants' deadline to respond to the
         Fourth Amended Complaint shall be November 14, 2016;

     (e) if the Defendants file a motion to dismiss the Fourth
         Amended Complaint, the following briefing schedule shall
         apply: (i) Plaintiff shall file his opposition on or
         before December 6, 2016; and (ii) Defendants shall file
         their reply on or before December 20, 2016; and,

     (f) the CMC, currently set for November 8, 2016, and all
         related deadlines are continued until at least 30 days
         after ruling on Defendants' motion to dismiss either the
         Fourth Amended Complaint or Fifth Amended Complaint.

A copy of the Court's Order dated October 5, 2016 is available at
https://goo.gl/Tyuozf from Leagle.com.

William Rushing, Plaintiff, represented by George Richard Baker --
richard@bakerlawpc.com -- Baker Law PC.

William Rushing, Plaintiff, represented by Audra Elizabeth
Petrolle, Rose Law Group, pro hac vice, Kathryn Honecker --
khonecker@roselawgroup.com -- Rose Law Group, pc, pro hac vice &
Lauren Marie Nageotte, Rose Law Group, pc, pro hac vice.

Williams-Sonoma, Inc., et al., Defendants, represented by Eric
James DiIulio -- ediiulio@sheppardmullin.com -- Sheppard Mullin
Richter & Hampton LLP, Benjamin Okhaifo Aigboboh --
baigboboh@sheppardmullin.com -- Sheppard Mullin Richter Hampton
LLP, Dylan John Price -- dprice@sheppardmullin.com -- Sheppard
Mullin Richter & Hampton LLP & P. Craig Cardon --
ccardon@sheppardmullin.com -- Sheppard Mullin Richter & Hampton
LLP.


YAHOO! INC: New York Man Files Data Breach Class Action
-------------------------------------------------------
Wadi Reformado, writing for Northern California Record, reports
that a New York man alleges a Sunnyvale corporation failed to
properly secure its users' personal information and has filed a
class-action suit.

Ronald Schwartz filed a complaint on behalf of all others
similarly situated on Sept. 23 in the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of California, San Jose Division against Yahoo!
Inc. alleging gross negligence.

According to the complaint, the plaintiff alleges that he suffered
damages from having his personal information stolen in a 2014 data
breach that was announced in September.  The plaintiff holds
Yahoo! Inc. responsible because the defendant allegedly failed to
implement necessary steps in securing plaintiff's personal
information.

The plaintiff requests a trial by jury and seeks damages,
injunctive and equitable relief, all legal fees plus interest and
any other relief as the court deems just.  He is represented by
Shawn A. Williams -- shawnw@rgrdlaw.com -- of Robbins Geller
Rudman & Dowd LLP in San Francisco, Paul J. Geller and Stuart A.
Davidson -- SDavidson@rgrdlaw.com -- of Robbins Geller Rudman &
Dowd LLP in Boca Raton, Florida; and Joel H. Bernstein --
jbernstein@labaton.com -- Corban S. Rhodes --
crhodes@labaton.com -- and Ross M. Kamhi -- rkamhi@labaton.com --
of Labaton Sucharow LLP in New York.

U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, San
Jose Division Case number 5:16-cv-05456-NC


YAHOO! INC: Lawyers Raise Concern Over Fraud Risks After Hack
-------------------------------------------------------------
Jack Detsch, writing for The Christian Science Monitor, reports
lawyers behind a class action lawsuit against Yahoo over its
recently disclosed data breach say fraudsters are now looking to
dupe victims with tech support scams.

In the weeks since Yahoo announced the digital attack, which
initially occurred in 2014 and exposed information about 500
million accounts, scammers posing as company officials have
attempted to trick users into paying hundreds of dollars for phony
security upgrades.

"As Yahoo put the knife in the backs of its customers by
recklessly failing to secure their data, criminals are now
twisting those knives by setting up fake Yahoo customer service
phone numbers," said Stuart Davidson, an attorney at the law firm
Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd.  "All of this would not have
happened had Yahoo upheld its promise to protect its customers'
data."

Mr. Davidson is part of the legal team representing
Ronald Schwartz, who filed a class action suit against Yahoo over
the breach.  Mr. Davidson said he's spoken with at least six
people who have been scammed by calling phony tech support
hotlines that have surfaced online.  Fraudsters are demanding up
to $500 to "secure" victims' computers from further harm, he said.

In a letter to users, Yahoo recommended users promptly change
passwords and security questions, and adopt a different means of
verifying their accounts such as two-factor authentication.  But
the potential harm for users exposed in the breach could stretch
beyond just their Yahoo accounts.

While the breach did not include financial data, cybersecurity
experts worry that victims in the breach could face problems with
other digital accounts, too, especially if people reused their
Yahoo passwords.

Yahoo said that "state-sponsored" hackers were responsible for
stealing the data but did not name any specific country or group.

In an unrelated case, Reuters reported on Oct. 4 that Yahoo built
a custom tool last year for the US government to scan users'
emails.  That news, coupled with revelations of the breach, caused
many tech reporters, journalists, and privacy advocates to urge
users to delete their Yahoo accounts.

When asked about US intelligence efforts to search Yahoo emails,
National Security Agency Director Adm. Michael Rogers on Oct. 5
refused to confirm or deny the Reuters story.

It's unclear if revelations of Yahoo's alleged willingness to
allow the government to search emails without users consent will
compel additional legal action against the company.

"It does certainly dovetail with our allegations," said
Mr. Davidson, the lawyer in the class action case.  "What I find
most interesting is that, if the story is true that Yahoo has been
giving the government access to user emails, Yahoo cannot blame
criminals this time.  This one is all on Yahoo."


YAHOO! INC: Illegally Discloses Consumers Info, Suit Says
---------------------------------------------------------
Brendan Quinn, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. Yahoo!, Incorporated, and Does 1 through 200,
inclusive, Case No. BC635382 (Cal. Super. Ct., September 27,
2016), seeks redress for the Defendant's unlawful and negligent
disclosure of millions of users' account information, including
their names, e-mail address, telephone numbers, dates of birth,
passwords and, in some cases, encrypted or unencrypted security
questions and answers.

Yahoo!, Incorporated is a large technology company that provides
various services, including personal e-mail accounts.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Nathan M. Smith, Esq.
      BROWN NERI, SMITH & KHAN LLP
      11766 Wilshire Blvd., Suite 1670
      Los Angeles, CA 90025
      Telephone: (310) 593-9890
      Facsimile: (310) 593-9980
      E-mail: nate@bnsklaw.com

         - and -

      D. Greg Blankinship, Esq.
      Jeremiah Frei-Pearson, Esq.
      FINKELSTEIN, BLANKlNSIDP, FREI-PEARSON & GARBER, LLP
      445 Hamilton Ave, Suite 605
      White Plains, NY 10601
      Telephone: (914) 298-3281
      Facsimile: (914) 908-6709
      E-mail: gblankinship@fbfglaw.com
              Jfrei-pearson@fbfglaw.com


YAHOO! INC: Faces Six Class Actions Over 2014 Security Breach
-------------------------------------------------------------
Amanda Bronstad, writing for Law.com, reports that at least six
class actions have been filed against Yahoo! Inc. in the wake of
the announcement of a security breach that compromised an
estimated 500 million account holders.

Yahoo said on Sept. 22 that the accounts had been stolen in 2014
by what it called a "state-sponsored actor," compromising customer
names, email addresses, telephone numbers, birth dates and
passwords.

The suits are all consumer class actions filed in federal and
state courts in California and Illinois -- many by lawyers who've
brought successful data-breach cases before.  As with most
data-breach cases, plaintiffs lawyers could face an uphill battle
in arguing that most customers were actually injured by the hack.
To that end, they have asserted in the lawsuits that financial
information like bank and credit and debit card information might
have been compromised, despite Yahoo's assurances to the contrary.

"It depends on how a user uses email," said John Yanchunis of
Morgan & Morgan's Tampa office, who filed a class action in the
U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California on
behalf of a New York man who claims he had to change all his bank
accounts since the breach.  Mr. Yanchunis has been lead counsel in
data-breach litigation against Target Corp., Home Depot Inc. and
the U.S. Office of Personnel Management.  "They can buy consumer
purchases, provide debit card, credit card information, other
sensitive information about their personal lives because in
essence this is the way people communicate.  It's a treasure trove
of information."

David Casey -- dcasey@cglaw.com -- managing partner of Casey Gerry
Schenk Francavilla Blatt & Penfield in San Diego, who has filed
cases in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of
California and San Diego Superior Court against Yahoo, said he's
talked to consumers who've already reported that their financial
information was stolen.

"A number of people who have contacted us have had financial
information breached and didn't know why it was occurring," he
said.  "We're in the early stages, but had a number of people
coming in complaining about that."

One suit notes that consumers have had to pay to freeze their
credit and debit accounts.  The suits all were brought under
negligence and other common law claims, consumer statutes in
California and Illinois, as well as California and federal data-
breach statutes.

All the cases allege that Yahoo's failure to identify the breach
for two years is longer than most companies have taken when
hacked.

In fact, questions have been raised about whether Yahoo CEO
Marissa Mayer might have known about the breach in July, when the
company was finishing its $4.8 billion sale to Verizon
Communications Inc.  To that point, U.S. Senator Mark Warner,
D-Virginia, co-founder of the Senate cybersecurity caucus, wrote a
letter on Sept. 26 to U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
Chairwoman Mary Jo White to look into whether Yahoo was in
violation of federal securities laws by failing to notify
investors of its breach four days after identifying the breach.

"The public ought to know what senior executives at Yahoo knew of
the breach, and when they knew it," he said in a statement.

So far, no shareholder class actions have been filed.

Yahoo spokeswoman Megan Levinson declined to comment.


* New York Courts Render CPLR Article 9 Class Action Rulings
------------------------------------------------------------
Thomas A. Dickerson and Leonard B. Austin, writing for New York
Law Journal, report that a number of trial court and appellate
court decisions were rendered in 2016 interpreting CPLR Article 9,
New York State's class action statute. Since the Court of Appeals
rendered its seminal decision in Borden v. 400 East 55th Street
Associates,1 24 N.Y. 3d 382 (2014), there has been a noticeable
change in the receptivity of New York courts in making our class
action statute more readily available to groups of litigants,
especially consumers, employees and tenants.
This year the courts dealt with a variety of class action issues
including whether non-residents are entitled to receive notice to
opt out of a derivative class action seeking declaratory and
injunctive relief, the certifiability of labor law class actions
seeking back pay for interns and unpaid funds earned by Buffalo
Jills cheerleaders, the impact of a mandatory arbitration clause
on commonality in an action by waitstaff seeking a share of
gratuities, breach of contract claims by customers who received
inferior and adulterated heating oil, injunctive relief sought by
customers of Macy's suspected of shoplifting and when is notice to
putative class members of a pre-certification discontinuance
necessary.

Opt-Out Notice
InJiannaras v. Alfant, 27 N.Y.3d 349 (2016), aff'g 124 A.D.3d 582
(2d Dept. 2015) the Court of Appeals, after examining a proposed
no opt-out settlement of a shareholders' class action seeking,
primarily, equitable relief in challenging a proposed merger,
determined that opt-out notice must be given to those non-resident
class members who also sought monetary damages in addition to
equitable relief, relying upon Matter of Colt Industries
Shareholder Litigation, 77 N.Y.2d 185 (1991).  As noted by the
court, "The proposed settlement would release and extinguish any
and all damage claims relating to the merger without affording
class members an opportunity to 'opt-out,' thereby prohibiting
class members from pursuing any individual claims that are
separate and apart from the class settlement."
While the proposed no-opt-out settlement may be appropriate for
New York State residents in a class action seeking, primarily,
equitable relief ["We held [in Colt] that 'there is no due process
right to opt out of a class that seeks predominantly equitable
relief'"], it is not appropriate to "bind [non-resident class
members] with no ties to New York State to a settlement that
purported to extinguish [their] rights to bring an action in
damages in another jurisdiction."

The court also stated that "As we recognized in [Colt], 'unlike
rule 23' which defines three types of class actions and requires
notice and opt-out rights only as to one type of class, the
New York statute 'contemplates that a Judge may choose to exercise
discretion to permit a class member to opt out of a class' Indeed,
the CPLR authorizes trial judges to expand due process rights
where a class settlement would extinguish
out-of-state class members' damages claims separate from
class-wide equitable relief."

Interns Want to Be Paid
In Rodriquez v. 5W Public Relations, 156571/14 (J. Kern) (Sup. Ct.
N.Y. Co. July 29, 2016), a class of interns sought to recover
unpaid wages claiming a violation of Labor Law Section 663 and 12
NYCRR 142.2.1 [failure to pay minimum wages] and Labor Law Section
198 [failure to pay any wages].  In denying class certification
the New York Supreme Court, New York County, found that common
questions did not predominate over individual questions since
whether defendants' internship program created employment
relationships could only be answered with individualized proof
taking into consideration both the benefit of the work to the
employer and the experiences of the individual intern.

The Buffalo Jills
In Ferrari v. Mateczun, 804125-2014, NYLJ (J. Drury) (N.Y. Sup.
Ct. Erie Co. Jan. 4, 2016) a class of Buffalo Jills sought
compensation for their work as cheerleaders for the Buffalo Bills
football team.  The Jills claimed that they were forced to sign
"Agreements" wherein they agreed that "at all times [they] are
independent contractors" yet were bound by "The Code of Conduct
[which] detailed stringent conditions for [their] work as a Jill
which called into question [their] status as an independent
contractor."

In granting certification of the Jills' Labor Law claims, the
Supreme Court, Erie County, noted that the predominating common
question is the "misclassification of the Jills cheerleaders as
independent contractors."  The court also found that the plaintiff
could testify, through representative proof, for the members of
the class (134) since they were all treated the same way.

Gratuities for Waitstaff
In Maor v. Hornblower, 51 Misc.3d 1231 (Sup. Ct. N.Y. Co. 2016), a
class of waitstaff sought a share of the 20 percent to 22 percent
gratuities charged to customers which was withheld allegedly in
violation of Labor Law Section 196-d.  In opposition to class
certification the defendants asserted that there was a lack of
commonality and typicality because unlike the named "temp"
plaintiffs, all waitstaff hired internally "signed mandatory
arbitration clauses."

In granting certification, the Supreme Court, New York Co., found
the arbitration clause unenforceable.  "New York's standard for
class certification is more forgiving than the federal standard
and New York has articulated a preference for allowing wage claims
to proceed as class actions' It is beyond improbable' that any
[class member] would try to recover her tips when, compelled' to
travel from New York to San Francisco to appear before an
arbitrator."

Adulterated Fuel Oil
In BMW Group v. Castle Oil Corporation, 139 A.D.3d 78 (1st Dept.
2016) a class of customers sued heating-oil suppliers for breach
of contract and Uniform Commercial Code (UCC) warranties alleging
that defendants provided an inferior, adulterated heating oil,
specifically that the "fuel oil that was delivered to them
contained oils of lesser value mixed into the ordered grade of
fuel oil, so that the delivered product did not meet the standards
of the parties' contracts."

In reversing the trial court's dismissal of the complaint on the
grounds that plaintiffs did not allege that any injury was caused
to them by the use or the burning of the blended oil, the
Appellate Division, First Department, found otherwise in that
plaintiffs alleged that the waste oil contaminants "impair the
performance of the heating systems in which they are introduced
and the fuel oil adulterated with waste oil has a lower heat
content so that [the customers] needed to purchase more oil than
they would have if they had received 100% fuel oil."
Accused Shoplifters

In Orellana v. Macy's Retail Holdings, 2016 WL 3917637 (Sup. Ct.
N.Y. Co. 2016). a class of customers sought to preliminarily
enjoin Macy's from demanding payment of civil penalties from
individuals suspected of shoplifting while they were in Macy's
custody.  The class action, the genesis of which was plaintiff's
detention for an alleged shoplifting incident, asserted the
illegality of, inter alia, "Macy's shoplifting prevention
practice, including Macy's alleged practice of coercing
unsuspecting consumers into signing confessions while being
detained for alleged shoplifting and exacting monetary penalties
from accused shoplifters at the time they are detained."
At issue was the proper interpretation of General Business Law
(GBL) Section 218 and General Obligations Law (GOL) Section
11-105 which when combined give retail stores the ability to
detain and demand payment of civil penalties if upon investigation
it is determined that the individual was shoplifting.  In granting
a preliminary injunction, the Supreme Court, New York County,
found that Macy's misused these statutes to deny the due process
rights of suspected shoplifters by denying them an opportunity to
"object, have a hearing, or receive guidance from counsel before
signing a confession of shoplifting, and/or agreeing to pay civil
penalties because the civil penalties, are being demanded at the
time the individual is under detention by Macy's."  The injunction
was limited to demanding payment of civil penalties while a
suspected shoplifter is detained in Macy's custody.

Discontinuances
On occasion a purported class action may be discontinued prior to
class certification. However, the court must be vigilant in
approving such discontinuances and should consider, if necessary,
ordering class notice.  In Desrosiers v. Ellis, 139 A.D.3d 473
(1st Dept. 2016).  The First Department reversed a trial court
decision which denied plaintiff's cross-motion pursuant to CPLR
908 to notify putative class members of a pre-class certification
discontinuance.

At issue was the timing of the cross-motion and whether it was
time-barred by the 60-day period in which to seek class
certification pursuant to CPLR 902.  In finding that CPLR 908 "is
not rendered inoperable simply because the time to move for class
certification has expired," the court relied upon the rule that
the commencement of a class action tolls the running of the
statute of limitations until a final decision on the
appropriateness of class-action status.


* Women Lawyers Reflect on Decision to Sue Employers
----------------------------------------------------
Nell Gluckman, writing for The American Lawyer, reports that in
August, Chadbourne & Parke partner Kerrie Campbell made headlines
when she sued her firm for gender discrimination, claiming that it
pays female partners less and denies them leadership
opportunities. (Chadbourne denies the allegations.) She joins at
least three other female lawyers at big firms who have filed
gender discrimination suits in 2016.

But it's a good bet that such suits are filed by only a small
percentage of female lawyers who feel that they have experienced
discrimination.  Most aren't willing to put their jobs on the
line.  What happens to the women who do? We tracked down several
former plaintiffs who had sued law firms, and found that their
fates varied -- but none have stayed in Big Law.

Amy Cherry-Abitbol, a former associate in the Tokyo office of now-
defunct Cou-dert Brothers, sued Coudert in the 1990s.  She claimed
that the firm refused to give her work and told her to leave the
firm's office after she returned from maternity leave in 1991.
The case went to trial in Manhattan Supreme Court, but Cherry-
Abitbol settled for a reported $500,000 to $750,000.

After leaving Coudert, Cherry-Abitbol took a job in-house at
American International Group Inc. until she left in 1997 to start
a boutique firm with her husband.  After a stint doing residential
development on eastern Long Island ended during the 2008 economic
downturn, Cherry-Abitbol attended Harvard Business School's New
Path program for women seeking to change careers. Now she's
opening a wellness center near her home in the Hamptons, with
plans to begin construction in early 2017.

"Sometimes the entrepreneurial route is the way to go," she says.
"I can see sometimes that men will bristle a bit taking
instructions from women, but it doesn't matter because you're in
control."

Francine Griesing, a former Greenberg Traurig shareholder, also
chose the entrepreneurial route.  She sued Greenberg Traurig in
2012, claiming that the firm paid its female attorneys less and
that she was forced to leave the firm after complaining about
allegedly unfair pay practices.  She settled with Greenberg
Traurig the following year under undisclosed terms.

Ms. Griesing says she considered joining another big firm, but her
family and friends encouraged her to open her own firm. Griesing
Law started in Philadelphia in 2010 with Ms. Griesing, an
associate and her assistant.  Now the full-service firm employs 14
lawyers, including 13 women, and has 300 clients.

At Ms. Griesing's firm, there are no origination credits because,
she says, "everyone contributes to bringing in the work and
serving it."  Most of the lawyers have children.  If they can't
make it to the office for a meeting, someone will cover for them;
it's not taken as a sign they're not committed to the job,
Ms. Griesing says.

Not all the lawyers who sued their former firms speak so highly
about their post-settlement career trajectories.

"It had a devastating effect on me," says Bonnie Porter, a former
Boies, Schiller & Flexner associate who sued the firm in 2002,
claiming that it routinely routed women away from the partnership
track.  Ms. Porter, who joined Hinkley, Allen & Snyder after
leaving Boies Schiller, says that the firm gathered statements
from female attorneys that undermined her claims.  Feeling
betrayed by former colleagues and deciding that they could not
afford to litigate the case properly, she and her co-plaintiff
settled for $37,500 each.  In 2003, the Equal Employment
Opportunity Commission found reasonable cause to believe that
women at the firm were not treated the same as men.

A spokesman for the firm said: "As the firm and its lawyers,
including her women colleagues, said at the time, Ms. Porter's
lawsuit was without merit."

Ms. Porter worked at Brune & Richard for Hillary Richard, who had
represented her in the discrimination case, before moving to
Maine, where she's now a writer.  At Hinkley Allen, however, she
suspected that people treated her differently because of her case.

"I thought people would look at me like 'Wow, she's a really
courageous person.' Instead, it was 'I don't want to be tainted by
her,'" she says.


                            *********

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  * * *