CAR_Public/161018.mbx              C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

            Tuesday, October 18, 2016, Vol. 18, No. 208




                            Headlines

21ST CENTURY: Faces Medical Data Breach Class Suit in Tampa
AIR METHODS: Faces Class Action Over Helicopter Ride Fees
ALL ABOUT FAMILIES: Faces "Wright" Suit Over Unpaid OT Wages
AMERICAN VALET: Faces "Deschaaf" Suit in District of Arizona
APPLE INC: More Law Firms Join "Touch Disease" Class Action

APPLIED MATERIALS: Stewart Seeks Certification of Three Classes
AUGUST SYSTEMS: Able Home Wants Certification of 3 TCPA Classes
AUSTRALIA: NSW Education Department Faces Class Action
B. RILEY: Delaware Court Dismissed Stockholder Action
BALTIMORE, MD: Police Union Files Class Action Over Unpaid OT

BERMAN & RABIN: Faces "Robberson" Suit in Southern Dist. of Ill.
BP: More Deep Horizon Oil Spill Victims Still Await Compensation
BRIGHTON TOWNSHIP, MI: Residents File Sewer Suit in 44th Circuit
CAPITAL ONE: Faces "Combs" Suit in Eastern District of Virginia
CENTRAIS ELETRICAS: Motion to Dismiss Investors' Action Underway

CHECK RECOVERY: Faces "King" Suit in District of South Carolina
CIMIC: Ichthys Class Action Liability Likely at Least $25 Mil.
COLLECTION PROFESSIONALS: Ill. Court Dismisses "Ebreo" Class Suit
COLUMBUS, GA: Sued Over Fees Charged to Domestic Violence Victims
COSTCO WHOLESALE: Canned Chicken Contains 40% Water, Suit Says

COSTCO WHOLESALE: Class Action Appeal Remains Pending
CYCLONE AUTO: Faces "Garcia" Suit in Eastern Dist. of New York
COSTCO WHOLESALE: Faces "La Vigne" Suit in S.D. of New York
CROSSTEX INTERNATIONAL: Faces Whiting Suit in C.D. of California
CUNA MUTUAL: Wins Final Approval of "Ogrizovich" Class Settlement

DALEY & WANZER: "Bland" Suit Moved from Cir. Ct. to S.D. Fla.
DALLAS, TX: School Bus Drivers Sue Over Traffic Tickets
DEBBIE'S STAFFING: Pierre Seeks to Certify Two Classes in Iowa
DELAWARE, USA: Certification of Class Sought in "Saunders" Suit
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA: Court Refuses to Certify "Smith" Class

EARLYSHARES.COM INC: Schwanke Seeks Certification of TCPA Class
ELECTROLUX HOME: Faces "Kukich" Suit in District of Maryland
ENHANCED RECOVERY: Andrades Seeks to Certify Class Under FDCPA
ENTERPRISE RENT-A-CAR: "Fisher" Suit Moved to N.D. of California
EQT PRODUCTION: Kay Co Seeks to Certify Lessors Class, Subclasses

FAMILY FITNESS: "Amsler" Suit to Recover Overtime Pay
FIRSTSOURCE ADVANTAGE: Garcia Seeks to Certify Class Under FDCPA
G&B GLAUBER: Faces "Camara" Suit in Eastern Dist. of New York
GC SERVICES: Ocampo Seeks Certification of Two FDCPA Classes
GEORGIA: OSD Class Action Lead Plaintiff Issues Statement

GIANT EAGLE: Sued Over Misleading Merchandise Advertisement
GILSTER-MARY LEE: Bid to Certify Class in "Hood" Suit Denied
GLOBAL TEL*LINK: "Ortega" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Wages
HORMEL FOODS: Faces "Phelps" Suit in Southern Dist. of Florida
HYUNDAI: Reaches Settlement with Sonata Owners in U.S.

HYUNDAI: South Korean Sonata Owners Not Included in Settlement
INDIANA: Class Action Seeks Overhaul of Defender System
INFINITY ENERGY: Faces "Cross" Suit in Southern Dist. of Cal.
INFOBLOX: Class Suit Challenges $1.6 Billion Vistas Merger
INOYVN: Runcorn Residents Sue Over Weston Point Incinerator

INTERACTIVE INTELLIGENCE: Faces Class Action Over $1.4-Bil. Sale
INTERNATIONAL UNION: Moves to Certify "Barnes 2 Retirees Class"
J CREW: Faces "Parker" Suit Over FACTA Violation
JB MEDICAL: Certification of TCPA Class Sought in "Schwanke" Suit
JOHNSON & JOHNSON'S: Aveeno Labeling Class Action Can Proceed

KEY ENERGY: Faces Class Action Over Alleged Unpaid Wages
LA BODEGA: "Cayon" Suit Moved from Cir. Ct. to S.D. of Florida
LINEAR TECHNOLOGY: Faces Class Action Over Merger Deal
LOYALTYONE: Updates Loyalty Program Following Customer Complaints
LUMBER LIQUIDATORS: "Abad" Suit Consolidated in MDL 2743

MARATHON OIL: Faces Class Action Over Unpaid Royalties
MARICOPA, AZ: Hearing Held in Suit Versus Arpaio
MCDONALD'S CORP: Salazar Seeks to Certify Class of Crew Members
MDL 1869: CSX Still Awaits Ruling on Class Certification Bid
MERCHANT ACCOUNT: Faces "Trisdale" Suit in Eastern Dist. of Cal.

MOSSY OAK: "Mercado" Suit to Recover Overtime Pay
MUDTECH SERVICES: Certification of Class Sought in "Gallow" Suit
MYLAN: Faces Security Fraud Suit Over Epipen Pricing
MYOFUNCTIONAL RESEARCH: Faces Whiting Suit in C.D. California
NATIONAL BEVERAGE: Dec. 5 Class Action Lead Plaintiff Motion Set

NATIONAL COLLEGIATE: "Clayton" Sues Over Head Injuries in Football
NATIONAL COLLEGIATE: "Bonds" Sues Over Head Injuries in Football
NATIONAL COLLEGIATE: "Bozeman" Sues Over Football Head Injuries
NATIONAL COLLEGIATE: Student Athletes Say They Deserve Wages
NELNET INC: Faces "Pickett" Suit in Middle District of Florida

PALMETTO SOLAR: Faces False Advertising Class Action in Louisiana
PEPSICO INC: "Lipkind" Sues Over False Labeling and Advertising
POLY PAK: Does Not Properly Pay Employees, "Selmond" Suit Claims
PRIME COMMUNICATIONS: Blumenthal Nordrehaug Sues Over Unpaid OT
PRUDENTIAL SECURITY: Kritcher Seeks to Certify Class Under FLSA

PUMA BIOTECHNOLOGY: Law Firm Probes Potential Securities Claims
RACKSPACE HOSTING: Suit Challenges $4.3 Billion Apollo Merger
REWALK ROBOTICS: Sued in Cal. Over Misleading Financial Reports
ROYAL BANK: RGL Expects Claims to Rise Following Data Leak
ROBERT HALF: Attorney Fees in Employment Class Action Upheld

SAMSUNG: CPSC Issues Warning on Top-Load Washing Machines
SABRE COMPANIES: Court Certifies Operators Class in "Nelson" Suit
SPECTRA ENERGY: Faces "Parshall" Suit Over Sale to Enbridge
STUDENT FINANCIAL: Faces "Vaughn" Suit in S.D. of California
TEMPUR-SEALY INT'L: Court Refuses to Certify Class in "Todd" Suit

TENET HEALTHCARE: Dec. 6 Lead Plaintiff Motion Deadline Set
TESLA MOTORS: Shareholder Suits Over SolarCity Merger Pile Up
TRANS UNION: Certification of Class Sought in "Dennis" Suit
TRUMP ORGANIZATION: Faces Sexual Harassment, Gender Bias Suits
TURN: Consumers Want Reversal of Privacy Case Arbitration Ruling

TYSON FOODS: Loses Bid for New Trial in Worker Gear Suit
TYSON FOODS: Faces Class Actions Over Alleged Price-Fixing
UKA'S BIG: Faces "Phan" Suit Over FACTA Violation
UNITED COLLECTION: Class Certification Sought in "Ocampo" Suit
UNITED CONSUMER: Faces "Smith" Suit in Central Dist. of Cal.

UNITED STATES: Faces "Flora" Suit in Western District of Virginia
UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA: Doesn't Properly Pay Workers, Suit Says
VIRTUS INVESTMENT: Law Firm Probes Potential Securities Claims
VOXX INTERNATIONAL: Plaintiffs Did Not File Amended Complaint
WEINSTEIN PINSON: Class Certification Sought in "Marquez" Suit

WELLS FARGO: Fake Accounts Scandal Jeopardizes Employees' Future
WEST VIRGINIA, USA: Court Certifies Class in Michael T. Suit
WEST VIRGINIA AMERICAN: Wins Motion to Dismiss Lost Wages Claims
XBIOTECH INC: Court Grants Motion to Dismiss Securities Suit
YAHOO! CANADA: Account Holders File Data Breach Class Action

YUM! BRANDS: Appeal Pending Over Underpaid Meal Premium Claims
ZOCDOC INC: "Chambers" Suit to Recover Overtime Pay

* NCDRC Says CP Act Can Be Filed for Benefit of Consumers Only
* Stephen Engstrom Withdraws From Class Actions After Sanctions


                            *********


21ST CENTURY: Faces Medical Data Breach Class Suit in Tampa
-----------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reported that 21st Century Oncology
Services and affiliates may have allowed hackers access to 2.2
million patients' and former patients' medical records, its
customers say in a federal class action in Tampa.


AIR METHODS: Faces Class Action Over Helicopter Ride Fees
---------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reported that a federal class action in
Mobile, Ala., claims Air Methods Corp. and Rocky Mountain Holdings
unfairly charged an accident victim $51,200 for a 59-mile
helicopter ride to a hospital.


ALL ABOUT FAMILIES: Faces "Wright" Suit Over Unpaid OT Wages
------------------------------------------------------------
Sandy Bonton Wright, Individually and on behalf of others
similarly situated v. All About Families, Inc. and Patsy Ware,
Case No. 1:16-cv-01399-DDD-JPM (W.D. Lo., October 6, 2016), is
brought against the Defendants for failure to pay minimum wage and
overtime compensation in violation of the Fair Labor Standards
Act.

All About Families, Inc. is a community based, family centered
agency dedicated to supporting children with special health care
needs and their families.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Kenneth D. St. Pe, Esq.
      KENNETH D. ST. PE, LLC
      311 West University Avenue, Suite A
      Lafayette, LO 70506
      Telephone: (337) 534-4043
      Facsimile: (337) 534-8379


AMERICAN VALET: Faces "Deschaaf" Suit in District of Arizona
------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against American Valet and
Limousine Incorporated. The case is captioned Sheila Deschaaf, on
behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, the
Plaintiff, v. American Valet & Limousine Incorporated, doing
business as American Valet; American Valet Charters LLC, doing
business as American Valet; and Unknown Parties named as Does 1-
100 (inclusive), the Defendant, Case No. 2:16-cv-03464-GMS (D.
Ariz., Oct. 11, 2016). The case is assigned to Hon. Judge G Murray
Snow.

American Valet is in the valet parking business.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Chant Yedalian, Esq.
          CHANT & COMPANY
          1010 N Central Ave.
          Glendale, CA 91202
          Telephone: (877) 574 7100
          Facsimile: (877) 574 9411
          E-mail: chant@chant.mobi

               - and -

          David Wendell Williams, Esq.
          DAVIS MILES MCGUIRE GARDNER PLLC
          40 E Rio Salado Pkwy., Ste. 425
          Tempe, AZ 85281
          Telephone: (480) 733 6800
          Facsimile: (480) 733 3748
          E-mail: dwilliams@davismiles.com


APPLE INC: More Law Firms Join "Touch Disease" Class Action
-----------------------------------------------------------
Alan F., writing for phoneArena.com, reports that three more law
firms have joined the class action law suit filed against Apple
over the "Touch Disease" that has affected some Apple iPhone 6 and
Apple iPhone 6 Plus models.  You know that your iPhone has this
disease when you see a flickering gray bar covering the width of
the screen, near the top of the display.  Another clue that your
iPhone has come down with this disease is the screen's lack of
response to input.  And the third sign that your iPhone might have
"Touch Disease" can be found in the mail box.  It's a letter from
an unknown law firm asking you to join a class action suit against
Apple.

Back in August, Apple was hit with a class action suit as the lead
plaintiff stated that the affected iPhone models have a flaw in
design that causes all of the issues.  Jason Villmer, the owner of
one repair shop, said that the manufacturing defect makes the
iPhone 6 and iPhone 6 Plus "a ticking time bomb." He adds that all
iPhone 6 and iPhone 6 Plus units have a touch of the disease.

Experts believe that touchscreen controller chips are at fault.
The chips are losing contact with the motherboard after a period
of time, preventing them from working.  A metal plate added at the
time of the phone's production would have prevented all of the
problems from happening.  Apple is requesting that those with an
out-of-warranty iPhone, pay for a replacement.  However, those who
have spent $329 for a replacement refurbished iPhone are finding
the same problem occurring on the refurbished model just a few
days or weeks after receiving them.

Apple has claimed ignorance about the issue, even though five
current and former Apple Geniuses say that Apple is aware of
"Touch Disease."  An updated lawsuit has been filed that adds
several new plaintiffs and three new law firms to the case.  There
are now 9,539 members of the class who have experienced the "Touch
Disease."


APPLIED MATERIALS: Stewart Seeks Certification of Three Classes
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Plaintiff in the lawsuit captioned MARIA STEWART, on behalf of
all others similarly situated v. APPLIED MATERIALS, INC. WELFARE
PLAN, Case No. 3:15-cv-02632-JST (N.D. Cal), filed with the Court
her unopposed motion for certification of settlement classes under
Rule 23(b)(3) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.

Maria Stewart, on behalf of her minor son, Neil Stewart, and all
others similarly situated, informs the Court the she has reached a
settlement agreement with the Defendant.  Hence, she seeks
certification of settlement classes, which consist of all
individuals, who:

   (1) (a) have been participants or beneficiaries in the Plan at
        any time during the Class Period; (b) who while enrolled
        in the Plan received Speech Therapy to treat ASD [autism
        spectrum disorder] during the Class Period and had an
        Autism diagnosis at the time of that Speech Therapy; and
        (c) were either age six or older at the time of receipt
        of that Speech Therapy or were age five or younger and
        had exceeded 60 Speech Therapy visits in a calendar year;
        and either

        (i)  submitted claims for reimbursement of Speech Therapy
             to the Plan and the Claims Processor denied those
             claims ("Class One"); or

        (ii) did not submit a claim to the Plan and were not
             otherwise reimbursed for the therapy ("Class Two");
             or,

   (2) are the parents and guardians of the individuals described
       in Paragraph (1) above; or

   (3) are the Successors-in-Interest of the individuals
       described in Paragraph (1) above.

In her lawsuit, Ms. Stewart alleged that the Plan's imposition of
an age-based exclusion of and visit limitations on Speech Therapy
to treat ASD violated the Paul Wellstone and Pete Domenici Mental
Health Parity and Addiction Equity Act of 2008.

Under the terms of the Settlement Agreement, the Plan will pay for
eligible Speech Therapy that occurred before January 1, 2016,
regardless of the patient's age and number of visits during a
calendar year.  Under the Settlement, the Plan agrees to assess
claims without applying age-based exclusions or visit limitations.
For any participant or beneficiary with an autism diagnosis, and
who was previously denied coverage -- and for any such participant
or beneficiary who seeks coverage in the future -- the Plan will
not deny coverage for past incurred Speech Therapy claims based on
an age-based exclusion or visit limitations.

The Court will commence a hearing on November 17, 2016, at 2:00
p.m., to consider the Motion.

A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=mta66v8E

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Glenn R. Kantor, Esq.
          Lisa S. Kantor, Esq.
          Timothy J. Rozelle, Esq.
          KANTOR & KANTOR, LLP
          19839 Nordhoff Street
          Northridge, CA 91324
          Telephone: (818) 886-2525
          Facsimile: (818) 350-6272
          E-mail: gkantor@kantorlaw.net
                  lkantor@kantorlaw.net
                  trozelle@kantorlaw.net


AUGUST SYSTEMS: Able Home Wants Certification of 3 TCPA Classes
---------------------------------------------------------------
Able Home Health, LLC, asks that the Court enter an order
determining that the action styled ABLE HOME HEALTH, LLC, on
behalf of plaintiff and the class members defined herein v. AUGUST
SYSTEMS, INC., and JOHN DOES 1-10, Case No. 1:16-cv-09379 (N.D.
Ill.), may proceed as a class action against the Defendant.  The
Plaintiff defines the classes as:

     For purposes of Count I, alleging violation of the Telephone
     Consumer Protection Act, 47 U.S.C. Section 227, plaintiff
     seeks to represent a class consisting of (a) all persons
     with fax numbers (b) who, on or after a date four years
     prior to the filing of this action (28 U.S.C. Section 1658),
     (c) were sent faxes by or on behalf of defendant August
     Systems, Inc., promoting its goods or services for sale (d)
     which did not contain a compliant opt out notice.  By
     "compliant opt out notice" is meant one (i) on the first
     page of the fax (ii) that states that the recipient may make
     a request to the sender not to send any future unsolicited
     advertisements to a telephone facsimile machine (iii) that
     states that failure to comply, within the shortest
     reasonable time, as determined by the Federal Communications
     Commission, is unlawful; (iv) that provides instructions on
     how to submit an opt out request and (v) that includes a
     domestic contact telephone and facsimile machine number and
     a cost-free mechanism for the recipient to transmit such a
     request to the sender that permit a request to be made at
     any time on any day of the week.

     For purposes of Count II, alleging violation of the Illinois
     Consumer Fraud Act, 815 ILCS 505/2, plaintiff seeks to
     represent a class consisting of (a) all persons with
     Illinois fax numbers (b) who, on or after a date three years
     prior to the filing of this action, (c) were sent faxes by
     or on behalf of defendant August Systems, Inc., promoting
     its goods or services for sale (d) which did not contain a
     compliant opt out notice.

     For purposes of Count III, alleging conversion, Count IV,
     alleging nuisance, and Count V, alleging trespass to
     chattels, plaintiff seeks to represent a class consisting of
     (a) all persons with Illinois fax numbers (b) who, on or
     after a date three years prior to the filing of this action,
     (c) were sent faxes by or on behalf of defendant August
     Systems, Inc., promoting its goods or services for sale
     (d) which did not contain a compliant opt out notice.

Able Home also asks that it be appointed class representative and
that Edelman, Combs, Latturner & Goodwin, LLC be appointed counsel
for the class.

A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=T6UqsNXJ

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


AUSTRALIA: NSW Education Department Faces Class Action
------------------------------------------------------
Robert Ballantyne, writing for the educator, reports that more
than 300 former students and staff have launched legal action
against the NSW Education Department, claiming that toxic
substances in their school's soil led to cancer.

Nearly half of the 320 former Camden High School students and
their loved ones who initiated the class action lawsuit have
cancer.  Thirty former students have died from the disease.

Camden High School was built in 1956 beside a former gas works and
later expanded across the neighboring site.  The school was closed
in 2001 by the NSW Education Department, which sold the land for
$7.5m. The 2.6ha site has remained empty ever since.

Joe Bonura, injury compensation lawyer at Marsdens Law Group, said
the number of people that had come forward since the case was
first publicized in 2013 had almost doubled, with one-third
suffering from cancer.

He told 7 News that there was "a very real possibility of the link
between their attendance at the school and their illnesses".

The class action is expected to be lodged next year once lawyers
have built a database and have gathered expert evidence.

The NSW Education Department is refusing to comment, pending the
legal proceedings.


B. RILEY: Delaware Court Dismissed Stockholder Action
-----------------------------------------------------
B. Riley Financial, Inc. said in its Form 8-K Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on October 11, 2016, that
the Court of Chancery of Delaware has entered an order dismissing
a stockholder action with prejudice as to plaintiffs Morris
Akerman, Daniel Pannucci, and Jeweltex Manufacturing Inc.
Retirement Plan, and without prejudice as to all other plaintiffs.

Between May 12, 2016 and June 10, 2016, three stockholders of
United Online, Inc. ("United Online") filed complaints in the
Court of Chancery of Delaware against United Online, its board
members and B. Riley Financial, Inc. ("B. Riley") alleging
breaches of fiduciary duty. The complaints were filed in
connection with the execution of the merger agreement dated May 4,
2016, between United Online and B. Riley and alleged that the
merger consideration offered by B. Riley was unfair and inadequate
consideration for the shares of United Online stock. These
putative class actions complaints, among other things, sought
additional disclosure of facts relating to the merger and certain
standstill agreements executed by United Online and certain
potential purchasers of its business.

In response to these actions, on June 16, 2016, United Online
notified fifteen counterparties to certain standstill agreements
that United Online was granting a limited waiver of those
standstills, solely to allow parties to privately approach the
United Online Board of Directors in connection with an acquisition
proposal (the "Standstill Waivers"). That same day, United Online
filed certain supplemental disclosures concerning the Standstill
Waivers on Form 8-K with the United States Securities and Exchange
Commission.

On August 23, 2016, the Court of Chancery entered an order
dismissing the stockholder action with prejudice as to plaintiffs
Morris Akerman, Daniel Pannucci, and Jeweltex Manufacturing Inc.
Retirement Plan, and without prejudice as to all other plaintiffs
and any absent members of the putative class. Pursuant to the
order, the Court of Chancery retained jurisdiction solely for the
purpose of determining the plaintiffs' anticipated application for
an award of attorneys' fees and reimbursement of expenses.

Plaintiffs' counsel in the stockholder actions expressed their
intention to petition the Court for fees and reimbursement of
expenses in connection with the Standstill Waivers and the
supplemental disclosures contained in the June 16, 2016 Form 8-K.
After negotiations, and to eliminate any risk associated with the
plaintiffs' fee petition, B. Riley has agreed to pay, and will
cause to be paid, fees and expenses in the amount of $275,000
within 10 days of the entry of an order closing the case. This fee
has not been approved or ruled upon by the Court of Chancery of
Delaware.


BALTIMORE, MD: Police Union Files Class Action Over Unpaid OT
-------------------------------------------------------------
Justin Fenton, writing for The Baltimore Sun, reports that
Baltimore's police union is seeking class-action status for a
lawsuit filed against the city recently in U.S. District Court
that alleges a widespread and ongoing practice of underpayment of
overtime for officers.

The lawsuit claims that the city has been miscalculating overtime
rates for officers for at least three years -- a time period that
has seen police overtime spike amid a reduction in police staffing
and rising violent crime.

Attorneys for the union, who did not respond to requests for
comment, said in their complaint that they can't put a number or
dollar figure on the amount of loss, but that it affects more than
2,600 police union members.  They are seeking damages plus
interest.

"The sworn men and women of the Baltimore Police Department work
tirelessly to keep Baltimore City safe," the lawsuit says.
"Plaintiffs simply ask to be compensated for overtime hours in
accordance with all laws."

City officials declined to address the claims in the lawsuit or
provide background on the dispute.

"We are reviewing the allegations of the lawsuit and will respond
to the complaint accordingly," city spokesman Anthony McCarthy
said.  "It is our policy not to comment on ongoing litigation."

The suit cites the Fair Labor Standards Act, which established the
40-hour work week and overtime pay for some workers exceeding it,
and says it affects "all officers in the same manner."

Officers are supposed to be paid 1.5 times their hourly wage for
overtime work, the union said citing its memorandum of
understanding with the city.

The lawsuit shows payslips for officers in three different classes
covered by the contract.  The union's calculations for the time
officers worked and what they were paid shows them being paid 3
percent less than time-and-a-half.

The union's lawyers say they raised concerns about overtime pay
rates before October 2014, and said the city corrected the error.
That month, the union filed a grievance requesting city
re-calculate "all affected member's overtime rate of pay for the
last three years prior to correcting their mistake."

But now, the union alleges, the city reverted to the previous,
incorrect overtime rates.

Earlier this year, police said overtime was expected to reach $49
million for the fiscal year ending in June -- more than three
times the amount budgeted.  Police sought to curb spending for the
final weeks of the year, and the final amount spent on overtime
for the year was $39.8 million, Mr. McCarthy said on Oct. 7.

In fiscal year 2015, $20.1 million was budgeted for police
overtime, and $35.1 million was spent, including an estimated
$7.75 million during the unrest in April and May after Freddie
Gray's death from a spinal injury sustained in police custody.

Contributing to the spike in overtime payment is a decline in
manpower, with hundreds of positions frozen, in addition to
regular vacancies and officers on suspension or medical leave.

The lawsuit asks the court to certify its law firm, Schlachman,
Belsky & Weiner, as counsel for the class of affected officers.

The union has several ongoing legal fights with the city.

A longstanding legal action related to pension changes continues
in state courts, while the union recently claimed a victory over
promotions after an officer sued claiming supervisor vacancies
were not being filled in a "reasonable period of time."


BERMAN & RABIN: Faces "Robberson" Suit in Southern Dist. of Ill.
----------------------------------------------------------------
A lawsuit has been filed against Berman and Rabin, P.A. The case
is styled Aaron K. Robberson, individually and on behalf of others
similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. Berman and Rabin, P.A., and
Unknown Party, Does 1-4, the Defendant, Case No. 3:16-cv-01124-
MJR-SCW (S.D. Ill., Oct. 11, 2016). The case is assigned to Chief
Judge Hon. Michael J. Reagan.

Berman and Rabin is a collection agency company.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Nathan D. Sturycz, Esq.
          STURYCZ WATTS LLC - EDWARDSVILLE
          100 N. Main Street, Suite 10
          Edwardsville, IL 62025
          Telephone: (877) 314 3223
          Facsimile: (888) 632 6937
          E-mail: nathan@swattslaw.com


BP: More Deep Horizon Oil Spill Victims Still Await Compensation
----------------------------------------------------------------
Linda Marsa, writing for Newsweek, reports that Scott Porter
remembers the last time he felt completely well.  It was a warm,
clear day with sparkling blue skies in June 2010.  A deep-sea
diver and marine biologist, he was taking a TV news crew out on a
30-foot catamaran to one of his favorite spots in the Gulf of
Mexico, a coral reef growing on an abandoned oil platform at Main
Pass 311.  It lies about 40 miles north of the Deepwater Horizon
drilling rig, which had exploded six weeks earlier.  The rig's
severely damaged wellhead a mile below the surface was still
gushing thousands of barrels of oil a day -- and ongoing coverage
of the accident continued to generate headlines.  Federal
officials had assured Mr. Porter that the water around the reef
was safe, but the acrid smell of crude permeated the air.  The
minute he plunged into the murky seas, he found himself immersed
in a 40-foot-thick mucous plume of oil and chemical dispersants.

"At midday, it's normally light enough to read a book even 60 feet
below," Mr. Porter says.  "But the oil blocked out so much
sunlight, I couldn't read my gauges."  Mr. Porter recalled the
incident while picking over heaping platters of boiled shrimp and
crawfish, specialties at Big Al's, a popular Cajun-style eatery in
Houma, about 60 miles southwest of New Orleans -- and in the heart
of Louisiana oil country.  Mr. Porter, who consults for oil
companies and environmental groups, lives nearby in this bustling
metropolis of 30,000.  It's a starting point for fishermen headed
to the Gulf and for oil crews that bunk in chain hotels crowded
along the town's main drag before heading out to the rigs for two-
to three-week stints.

Mr. Porter has spent a lot of time underwater -- more than 6,000
dives over a 20-year career, he estimates -- but that dive was
different.  "I felt like I was marinating in a vat of industrial
solvents," scowls the 49-year-old native of the Texarkana twin
cities.  When he got home that night, he developed a terribly
itchy skin rash.  He felt as if his lungs were seared by fire,
with an intense burning sensation in his chest that he knew from
experience was chemical pneumonia, caused by inhaling harsh
solvents.  But he kept diving.  And after each subsequent dive, he
developed more ailments -- chest colds, a burning throat, pounding
migraines, bone-deep lethargy and nausea.  Many other Gulf
residents are stricken with some of the same odd symptoms -- and
more.  They include migraines, skin rashes, bloody diarrhea, bouts
of pneumonia, nausea, seizures, muscle cramps, profound depression
and anxiety, severe mental fuzziness and even blackouts.

The oil spill, the worst in maritime history, dumped 4.2 million
barrels of oil, and officials released 1.8 million gallons of
Corexit, a chemical dispersant used to break up the oil, into the
Gulf before the well was sealed.  Six years later, controversy
still rages about the wisdom of carpet-bombing the Gulf with these
chemicals, and newly released documents reveal that government
scientists expressed concern at the time about the health
consequences of mixing such large quantities of dispersants with
the millions of barrels of sweet crude. Occupational health
experts now believe it created a toxic mix that sickened thousands
of locals -- including some of the 47,000 people that worked in
some capacity on BP's cleanup operation -- crippling them with
chemically induced illnesses that doctors are unable to treat.

"There is a core of very sick patients who undoubtedly will be ill
for the remainder of their lives as the result of exposure to
chemicals involved in the Deepwater Horizon tragedy," says
Dr. Michael Robichaux, an ear, nose and throat specialist in south
Louisiana and a former state senator.

In the initial aftermath of the spill, Dr. Robichaux treated
dozens of people, including Mr. Porter.  They ranged from a
3-year-old boy, who had seizures from swimming in a pool next to
an oil-soaked beach, to a cleanup worker who was blinded when his
optic nerves were irreversibly scarred after exposure to chemicals
near the oil booms.  A family friend, the wife of a fisherman who
worked on one of the cleanup boats, had developed a leukemia-like
blood disorder that apparently stemmed from washing her husband's
oil-drenched clothes.  "A lot of the women were no longer
menstruating, or their menstrual cycles had gone out of whack,"
recalls Dr. Robichaux.  "I was seeing a lot of people -- children
even -- who had seizures, dizziness and all sorts of other
neurological problems."  Mr. Porter buttonholed everyone he could
think of -- medical specialists, federal officials, local
politicians and even his sister-in-law, who is a family doctor in
Memphis, Tennessee -- to find out exactly what he had been exposed
to but never got satisfactory answers.  "I knew the dangerous
nature of these compounds, but they kept telling us it was
perfectly safe," says the marine scientist.  He then made the
connection himself, especially when his dive partners began
experiencing even scarier symptoms, like uncontrollable ear and
nose bleeds, and bloody stool.

"That set off alarms," recalls Mr. Porter, who came to the bleak
conclusion that he was being sickened simply by being in the
water.  He found out later that the National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration wouldn't allow its divers in the
contaminated waters, according to documents obtained by the
Government Accountability Project.  In the years since, he's
suffered from chest pains and bouts of vertigo, and in the middle
of conversations he sometimes experiences memory lapses that make
him feel as if his brain were stuck in first gear.  "I forget
everything the minute I read it," he admits, "and my girlfriend
says I'm getting worse.  "Many of the ailments plaguing workers
and residents in the Gulf region mirror what has been seen after
previous spills, such as that of the Exxon Valdez, where many
workers claimed they suffered from brain damage from exposure to
the neurotoxins in the oil.  Others suffered from infertility,
endocrine disorders, heart damage, chronic respiratory ills,
premature aging, a decline in cognitive function, long-term
depression and nerve damage, according to numerous studies.

"Exposure to organic solvents causes the same intellectual effect
as lead poisoning," says Dr. Michael Harbut, a professor at
Michigan State University and an environmental and occupational
health expert who served as a consultant for the plaintiffs on the
medical class-action suit filed against BP.  Among those who were
most heavily exposed, he warns, "we'll see chronic adverse health
effects, including liver and kidney disease, birth defects and
developmental disorders.  Over time, we'll see a bump in certain
cancers that are related to industrial solvents, such as leukemia,
lymphomas and lung and skin cancers."

Combining dispersants with oil unleashes hazardous substances
contained in crude, such as heavy metals, benzene, hexane and
toluene, which are known carcinogens that can also cause brain
damage.  Dispersants like Corexit are a mixture of solvents and
surfactants that break down the oil into tiny droplets to make
them more easily absorbed into the ground and eaten by
microorganisms.  But it also makes the toxic parts of the oil
small enough to seep through the skin and spread throughout the
body.

What's worse is that when the ocean water evaporates, the
chemicals become aerosolized and are carried aloft by the high
winds on the Gulf, sickening people who inhale the tainted air.
"We were getting calls night and day.  The fumes were choking
folks along the coast, and people were trapped," recalls
Marylee Orr, a longtime environmental activist in Baton Rouge and
executive director of the Louisiana Environmental Action Network.
"It's not like they could just walk away from their homes or their
jobs."

Even in May 2010, in the first few weeks of the cleanup,
government scientists were already worried about this toxic brew,
newly released documents reveal.

By October 2010, so many locals had gotten ill and filed lawsuits
that the district court judge pulled them together into a
class-action suit to avoid clogging up the courts with piecemeal
litigation.  In 2012, BP agreed to a complex class-action $7.8
billion medical settlement that would compensate victims up to
$60,700 per person and allowed people to file further claims if
they developed more serious problems.  More than 37,500 victims
have filed claims, according to the latest figures from the claims
administrator, yet only a tiny fraction of the claims have been
paid.  Countless more have opted out of the settlement and are
pursuing individual lawsuits, and it may be many years before they
see any money."

These health problems are ongoing and in some cases getting
worse," says Shanna Devine, an investigator with the Government
Accountability Project.  "Based on the dozens of people I've
spoken with and their neighbors, the cancer rates are going up
dramatically since the spill took place.  The legal battle has
been horrible -- people can't make their mortgages, and the
economic impact has been devastating."

Both the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and BP insist that
Corexit itself is as safe as dishwashing liquid; the ingredients
in the dispersants are also found in household cleaners, hand
lotion and cosmetics.  But the safety manual put out by Nalco, the
maker of Corexit, lists some of these chemicals' health effects:
chemical pneumonia, eye irritations, dermatitis, nausea and
internal bleeding.  One type of Corexit even contains
butoxyethanol, which has been linked to a host of hazards,
including respiratory ills, headaches, infertility in women and
miscarriages.

The EPA held recent public hearings raising questions about the
wisdom of using dispersants to contain spills.  Proposed EPA rule
changes would create tighter standards for toxicity tests,
stricter environmental monitoring, periodic reviews of how
dispersants are used during spills and a ban on their use in
freshwater, among other provisions.  But they won't go into effect
until 2018.  In the meantime, public health experts continue to
grapple with the health consequences of this disaster.  The
National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences is in the
midst of a 10-year study tracking 33,000 people exposed to the
oil.  Researchers recruited participants from every part of the
Gulf, ranging from fishermen and cleanup workers to people working
on rigs siphoning off oil and operating the vessels and aircraft
that were spraying dispersants into the water.  They've already
found higher rates of respiratory problems, skin conditions and
depression.  But it could be several years before they confirm
what other ills came from the disaster.  Until then, officials
cannot be sure what they should have done differently.  The next
oil spill could be little more than an opportunity to make all the
same mistakes.


BRIGHTON TOWNSHIP, MI: Residents File Sewer Suit in 44th Circuit
----------------------------------------------------------------
WHMI reports that a group of disgruntled residents who believe
they are paying exorbitant sewer rates have filed a class-action
lawsuit against Brighton Township in the state's 44th Circuit
Court.  Brighton Township residents Dennis Shoner and Barbara
Potocki are representing "a class of similarly situated persons
and entities", according to the lawsuit.  The two recently
withdrew a federal class-action lawsuit against the township that
was filed in June in US District Court.

On Oct. 5, a lawsuit was filed in 44th Circuit Court by attorneys
Potocki says are "experienced with tax law".  The lawsuit
challenges charges currently assessed in relation to the
construction, operation and maintenance of the township's Sanitary
Sewer System.  It further states that the overcharges are
"unlawful" and "are motivated by a revenue-raising and not a
regulatory purpose".  The problem, as both the township and the
affected residents see it, is that the sewer system was built in
2003 based on projections which showed a significant population
increase, and therefore a major increase in the number of sewage
treatment system users based on new homes coming in.  However the
recession hit a few years later, and the township's population
stagnated.  Because there were few new hookups, the system has
been running at about 40% of capacity. The plaintiffs are seeking
a refund of all overcharges collected and that the township pay
into a common fund to benefit those represented in the lawsuit.
Ms. Potocki says she trusts their attorneys' "judgment and
integrity", but declined to comment further, stating that the
issue is "ongoing."


CAPITAL ONE: Faces "Combs" Suit in Eastern District of Virginia
---------------------------------------------------------------
A lawsuit has been filed against Capital One Bank. The case is
titled Ernestine Combs, on behalf of herself and all others
similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. Capital One Bank, the
Defendant, Case No. 3:16-cv-00827-REP(E.D. Va., Oct. 11, 2016).
The case is assigned to Hon. District Judge Robert E. Payne.

Capital One is an American bank holding company specializing in
credit cards, home loans, auto loans, banking and savings
products.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Christopher Colt North, Esq.
          William Leonard Downing, Esq.
          THE CONSUMER AND EMPLOYEE
          RIGHTS LAW FIRM PC
          751 A Thimble Shoals Blvd
          Newport News, VA 23606
          Telephone: (757) 873 1010
          Facsimile: (757) 873 8375
          E-mail: cnorthlaw@aol.com
                  wdowninglaw@aol.com


CENTRAIS ELETRICAS: Motion to Dismiss Investors' Action Underway
----------------------------------------------------------------
Centrais Eletricas Brasileiras S.A. - Eletrobras said in its Form
20-F Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on
October 11, 2016, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2015,
that the Company's motion to dismiss the second amended complaint
in the investors' consolidated class action remains pending.

The Company said, "Between July 22, 2015 and August 15, 2015, two
putative securities class action complaints were filed against us
and certain of our employees in the United States District Court
for the Southern District of New York (SDNY). On October 2, 2015,
these actions were consolidated and the Court appointed lead
plaintiffs, Dominique Lavoie and the City of Providence. The
plaintiffs filed a consolidated amended complaint on December 8,
2015 purportedly on behalf of investors who purchased our U.S.
exchange-traded securities between August 17, 2010 and June 24,
2015, and filed a second amended complaint on February 26, 2016.
The second amended complaint alleges, among other things, that we
and the individual defendants knew or should have known about
alleged fraud committed against us by a cartel of construction
firms, as well as bribes and kickbacks allegedly solicited and
received by our employees; that we and the individual defendants
made material misstatements and omissions regarding the alleged
fraud; and that our stock price declined when the alleged fraud
was disclosed."

"The plaintiffs have not specified an amount of damages they are
seeking, although such amount, when specified, could be material
to us On April 15, 2016, we filed a motion to dismiss the second
amended complaint, which was fully briefed and then submitted to
the Court on June 17, 2016. The motion remains under consideration
by the Court; oral argument has been requested but not yet
scheduled. Eletrobras retained US legal counsel and is defending
itself against the allegations made in the lawsuits. There has
been no substantive decision as to the claim or specific
definition as to the amounts involved."

"We believe the filings of these complaints do not create a
present obligation or of the Company, under IAS 37. Because the
litigation is still in its early stages, the discovery process has
not yet begun, and the outcome of the litigation is subject
considerable uncertainty, it is not possible at this stage for
management of the Company to reliably estimate, the potential loss
or range of loss, if any, that may result for the ultimate outcome
of these legal proceedings. Therefore, no provision has been
recognized in our consolidated financial statements. The ultimate
outcome of these legal proceedings could have a material adverse
effect on the Company's consolidated financial position, results
of operations and cash flows in the future."


CHECK RECOVERY: Faces "King" Suit in District of South Carolina
---------------------------------------------------------------
A lawsuit has been filed against Check Recovery Bureau Inc. The
case is entitled Robert E King, Jr., Individually and on Behalf of
all Others Similarly Situated, the Plaintiff, v. Check Recovery
Bureau Inc., the Defendant, Case No. 6:16-cv-03357-BHH (D. S.
Car., Oct. 11, 2016). The case is assigned to Hon. Bruce Howe
Hendricks.

Check Recovery is a debit collection agency.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          David Andrew Maxfield, Esq.
          DAVID MAXFIELD LAW OFFICE
          5217 N Trenholm Road, Suite B
          Columbia, SC 29206
          Telephone: (803) 509 6800
          E-mail: dave@consumerlawsc.com


CIMIC: Ichthys Class Action Liability Likely at Least $25 Mil.
--------------------------------------------------------------
Connie Loizos, writing for Australian Financial Review, reports
that it is strange that construction group CIMIC's takeover bid
for engineering group UGL makes no mention of the legal action
stemming from its disastrous Ichthys LNG project in the Northern
Territory.

After all, it is the liabilities generated by the Ichthys project
which have given CIMIC the confidence to launch its aggressive
takeover bid.

It is very rare in Australia for a hostile bid to be declared
final and unconditional on the day it is lobbed at the target
company.

Mind you aggression has been a feature of the management style and
corporate expansion strategy of CIMIC's CEO Marcelino Fernandez
Verdes.  This towering matador of Spanish business is always keen
to go in for the kill as quickly as possible.

But his "my way or the highway" approach does not go all the way
to explaining why he was willing to put up $524 million in cash
without even looking at the UGL books.

Mr. Fernandez Verdes obviously sees value in UGL that was not
recognized by the market.  That is evident from the 47 per cent
premium to the last closing price and the 33 per cent premium to
the three month volume weighted average price.

Chanticleer believes the "matador" is supremely confident about
winning control of UGL because the Ichthys problem project leaves
the target company with virtually no power to negotiate a higher
offer.

UGL's history with Ichthys is appalling.  When the project started
in 2012 it seemed like a straightforward $550 million joint
venture with US company CH2M Hill to build a combined cycle power
plant.

A year later the company told shareholders the project would make
a contribution to profits in 2014.

But in 2014 the project went off the rails. Shareholders learned
about the problems not from the company itself but from a
disclosure made by CH2M Hill to the Securities and Exchange
Commission.

CH2M told the SEC on August 8, 2014 that it was facing "materially
adverse" results because of the Ichthys project.

On August 25, then CEO of UGL Richard Leupen told analysts on a
results call that the Ichthys power project was "about probably 25
per cent or 30 per cent complete, and we've taken all of our costs
into account and forecasts to date".

"I'm not aware of any issues in any of those [power] projects that
should unduly concern anyone, but my attitude on construction risk
is you balance it by having a very large recurring revenue base in
maintenance," he said.

"The company later took a $175 million provision to cover a blow
out in costs.  That provision has since been lifted by $200
million to $375 million under new chief executive Ross Taylor. But
the exact amount of the liability has not been quantified."

UGL has told the market that the cost blow outs at Ichthys can be
blamed on the failure of suppliers to deliver equipment on time
and in budget.  There have also been significant changes in scope.

Another Ichthys liability that it is not possible to quantify is a
class action being funded by IMF Bentham backed by fund manager
Clime Asset Management.

The liability is likely to be at least $25 million and possibly
$40 million depending on the number of shareholders that get on
board.

CIMIC's lawyers, Minter Ellison, probably thought that it was not
worth mentioning the class action because the company has not
mentioned it in an ASX release.

However, the unknown level of liabilities for the completion of
the Ichthys project which is related to litigation that will have
to be taken by UGL would seem to be relevant.

This will have to be included in the target statement.


COLLECTION PROFESSIONALS: Ill. Court Dismisses "Ebreo" Class Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The Clerk of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of
Illinois made a docket entry on September 30, 2016, in the case
captioned Ares Ebreo v. Collection Professionals, Inc., Case No.
1:15-cv-10302 (N.D. Ill.), relating to a hearing held before the
Honorable Sharon Johnson Coleman.

The minute entry states that:

   -- Plaintiff's motion to certify class is withdrawn without
      prejudice;

   -- Plaintiff's remaining individual claims are dismissed with
      leave to reinstate in 30 days pursuant to settlement; and

   -- Civil case is terminated.

A copy of the Notification of Docket Entry is available at no
charge at http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=Zz2Tv6KJ


COLUMBUS, GA: Sued Over Fees Charged to Domestic Violence Victims
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Eva Fedderly, writing for Courthouse News Service, reported that
a class action claims Columbus, Georgia, wrongly charges the
victims of domestic violence a fee in lieu of incarceration if
they refuse to testify against those who abused them.

The Southern Center for Human Rights filed the federal complaint
on behalf of one of those victims, 22-year-old Cleopatra Harrison,
on Oct. 5.

"Under the official policy of the Consolidated Government of
Columbus, Georgia, women who experience domestic violence are
required to aid local law enforcement agencies in prosecuting
people accused of violence against them," the complaint states.

"Women who express their lack of interest in doing so are ordered
to pay a fee of at least $50 -- and often several times that
amount -- without any consideration of the circumstances of their
cases or their reasons for desiring not to prosecute. People
ordered to pay these illegal fees are further threatened with
summary incarceration if they fail to pay," it continues.

The lawsuit claims Harrison was subjected to the policy after she
told the city prosecutor she did not want to testify against her
boyfriend, who was charged with assaulting her.

"Without any further inquiry, Defendant Judge Michael Cielinski
assessed a $150 'victim assessment' fee against Harrison.
Harrison, who is indigent, lacked the funds to immediately pay the
fee, so she was given a document warning that an arrest warrant
would be summarily issued if she failed to pay within one week,"
the complaint says.

"Minutes after Harrison was assessed a $150 fee for expressing her
wish not to pursue criminal charges, Harrison was shoved against a
courthouse wall by Defendant Officer Michael Lincoln, handcuffed,
placed in jail, and charged with giving Lincoln unspecified 'fake
information; four days earlier," the complaint continues.

"We don't know how long this practice has been going on," Sarah
Geraghty, the managing attorney for the Southern Center for Human
Rights, told Courthouse News. "Our court watchers observed it
happening on a number of occasions in and we have audio tapes
documenting the practice."

The organization maintains that under Georgia law the city has no
authority to punish victims of domestic violence.

Harrison is suing the city for allegedly violating her rights
under the First, Fourth, and Fourteenth Amendments, as well as
wrongful imprisonment, malicious prosecution, conversion, and
unjust enrichment.

"We've asked for class certification for the purpose of seeking
the return of these 'victim fees' for the victims," Geraghty said.

In addition to the city, the other named defendants are Chief
Judge of Columbus Recorder's Court Michael Cielinski; Sheriff John
Darr, Chief of Police Ricky Boren, and police officer Michael
Lincoln.

The case is captioned, CLEOPATRA HARRISON, Plaintiff, CONSOLIDATED
GOVERNMENT OF COLUMBUS, GEORGIA, MICHAEL CIELINSKI, Chief Judge,
Columbus Recorder's Court, in his official and individual
capacities, JOHN DARR, Sheriff of Muscogee County, Georgia, in his
official capacity for injunctive relief, RICKY BOREN, Chief of
Police, Columbus Police Department, in his official capacity for
injunctive relief, MICHAEL LINCOLN, Police Officer, Columbus
Police Department, in his individual capacity, Defendants., (M.D.
Ga).


COSTCO WHOLESALE: Canned Chicken Contains 40% Water, Suit Says
--------------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reported that federal class action claims
in Manhattan, that Costco's house brand Kirkland canned chicken
contains 40 to 44 percent water, not chicken.


COSTCO WHOLESALE: Class Action Appeal Remains Pending
-----------------------------------------------------
Costco Wholesale Corporation said in its Form 10-K Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on October 12, 2016,
that the fiscal year ended August 28, 2016, that the Company's
appeal remains pending with respect to the Court's final judgment
in a class action lawsuit.

Numerous putative class actions have been brought around the
United States against motor fuel retailers, including the Company,
alleging that they have been overcharging consumers by selling
gasoline or diesel that is warmer than 60 degrees without
adjusting the volume sold to compensate for heat-related expansion
or disclosing the effect of such expansion on the energy
equivalent received by the consumer.

The Company is named in the following actions: Raphael Sagalyn, et
al., v. Chevron USA, Inc., et al., Case No. 07-430 (D. Md.);
Phyllis Lerner, et al., v. Costco Wholesale Corporation, et al.,
Case No. 07-1216 (C.D. Cal.); Linda A. Williams, et al., v. BP
Corporation North America, Inc., et al., Case No. 07-179 (M.D.
Ala.); James Graham, et al. v. Chevron USA, Inc., et al., Civil
Action No. 07-193 (E.D. Va.); Betty A. Delgado, et al., v.
Allsups, Convenience Stores, Inc., et al., Case No. 07-202
(D.N.M.); Gary Kohut, et al. v. Chevron USA, Inc., et al., Case
No. 07-285 (D. Nev.); Mark Rushing, et al., v. Alon USA, Inc., et
al., Case No. 06-7621 (N.D. Cal.); James Vanderbilt, et al., v. BP
Corporation North America, Inc., et al., Case No. 06-1052 (W.D.
Mo.); Zachary Wilson, et al., v. Ampride, Inc., et al., Case No.
06-2582 (D.Kan.); Diane Foster, et al., v. BP North America
Petroleum, Inc., et al., Case No. 07-02059 (W.D. Tenn.); Mara
Redstone, et al., v. Chevron USA, Inc., et al., Case No. 07-20751
(S.D. Fla.); Fred Aguirre, et al. v. BP West Coast Products LLC,
et al., Case No. 07-1534 (N.D. Cal.); J.C. Wash, et al., v.
Chevron USA, Inc., et al.; Case No. 4:07cv37 (E.D. Mo.); Jonathan
Charles Conlin, et al., v. Chevron USA, Inc., et al.; Case No. 07
0317 (M.D. Tenn.); William Barker, et al. v. Chevron USA, Inc., et
al.; Case No. 07-cv-00293 (D.N.M.); Melissa J. Couch, et al. v. BP
Products North America, Inc., et al., Case No. 07cv291 (E.D.
Tex.); S. Garrett Cook, Jr., et al., v. Hess Corporation, et al.,
Case No. 07cv750 (M.D. Ala.); Jeff Jenkins, et al. v. Amoco Oil
Company, et al., Case No. 07-cv-00661 (D. Utah); and Mark Wyatt,
et al., v. B. P. America Corp., et al., Case No. 07-1754 (S.D.
Cal.).

On June 18, 2007, the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation
assigned the action, entitled In re Motor Fuel Temperature Sales
Practices Litigation, MDL Docket No 1840, to Judge Kathryn Vratil
in the United States District Court for the District of Kansas.

On April 12, 2009, the Company agreed to settle the actions in
which it is named as a defendant. Under the settlement, which was
subject to final approval by the court, the Company agreed, to the
extent allowed by law and subject to other terms and conditions in
the agreement, to install over five years from the effective date
of the settlement temperature-correcting dispensers in the States
of Alabama, Arizona, California, Florida, Georgia, Kentucky,
Nevada, New Mexico, North Carolina, South Carolina, Tennessee,
Texas, Utah, and Virginia. Other than payments to class
representatives, the settlement does not provide for cash payments
to class members.

On September 22, 2011, the court preliminarily approved a revised
settlement, which did not materially alter the terms. On April 24,
2012, the court granted final approval of the revised settlement.

A class member who objected has filed a notice of appeal from the
order approving the settlement.

Plaintiffs have moved for an award of $10 million in attorneys'
fees, as well as an award of costs and payments to class
representatives. A report and recommendation has been issued in
favor of a fee award of $3.8 million, to which the Company is
objecting. On August 24, 2016, the district court affirmed the
report and recommendation.

On March 20, 2014, the Company filed a notice invoking a "most
favored nation" provision under the settlement, under which it
seeks to adopt provisions in later settlements with certain other
defendants. The motion was denied on January 23, 2015. Final
judgment was entered on September 22, 2015, and the Company has
filed a notice of appeal.


CYCLONE AUTO: Faces "Garcia" Suit in Eastern Dist. of New York
--------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Cyclone Auto Body
Collision, Inc. The case is captioned Mario Garcia and Luis Angel
Corte Jaramillo, individually and on behalf of others similarly
situated, the Plaintiff, v. Cyclone Auto Body Collision, Inc.
doing business as Cyclone Auto Body & Collision; Daniel Fabro; and
Ambrose Fabro, the Defendants, Case No. (E.D.N.Y., Oct. 12, 2016).

Cyclone Auto provides services for auto Body, collision, towing
and mechanical repairs.

The Plaintiffs appear pro se.


COSTCO WHOLESALE: Faces "La Vigne" Suit in S.D. of New York
-----------------------------------------------------------
A lawsuit has been filed against Costco Wholesale Corporation. The
case is captioned Mary La Vigne and Kristen Hessler, on behalf of
themselves and all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v.
Costco Wholesale Corporation, the Defendant, Case No. 7:16-cv-
07924 (S.D.N.Y., Oct. 11, 2016).

Costco Wholesale is an American membership-only warehouse club
that provides a wide selection of merchandise.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Patricia I. Avery, Esq.
          WOLF POPPER LLP
          845 Third Avenue
          New York, NY 10022
          Telephone: (212) 759 4600
          Facsimile: (212) 486 2093
          E-mail: pavery@wolfpopper.com


CROSSTEX INTERNATIONAL: Faces Whiting Suit in C.D. of California
----------------------------------------------------------------
A lawsuit has been filed against Crosstex International, Inc. The
case is styled Whiting, DDS, Inc., doing business as Whiting
Family Dental, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, the Plaintiff, v. Crosstex International, Inc., doing
business as Crosstex, the Defendant, Case No. 5:16-cv-02144 (C.D.
Cal., Oct. 11, 2016).

CrossTex offers infection control products.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Seth Lehrman, Esq.
          FARMER JAFFE WEISSING
          EDWARDS FISTOS LEHRMAN PL
          425 North Andrews Avenue Suite 2
          Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301
          Telephone: (954) 524 2820
          Facsimile: (954) 524 2822
          E-mail: seth@pathtojustice.com


CUNA MUTUAL: Wins Final Approval of "Ogrizovich" Class Settlement
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The Hon. David Stewart Cercone entered a final order approving
settlement and judgment of dismissal with prejudice in the lawsuit
styled RONALD ALLEN OGRIZOVICH and DONNA LYNN OGRIZOVICH, Husband
and Wife, BRENDA RENNER, and on behalf of a group of similarly
situated individuals v. CUNA MUTUAL GROUP a/k/a CUNA MUTUAL
INSURANCE SOCIETY, its affiliates and subsidiaries, CLEARVIEW
FEDERAL CREDIT UNION, and GNC COMMUNITY FEDERAL CREDIT UNION, Case
No. 2:09-cv-00371-DSC (W.D. Pa.).

The Plaintiffs' amended complaint alleges that GNC improperly
charged interest on the premiums for credit disability insurance
issued to its members Via CMFG Life.  As part of the Court's
preliminary approval order, the Court certified the Settlement
Class, for settlement purposes only, defined as:

     "Settlement Class" means all persons in Pennsylvania who
     enrolled in monthly premium credit disability insurance on
     or after July 9, 2003 from CMFG Life via GNC in conjunction
     with a loan from GNC and who were charged interest on the
     premiums for such credit disability insurance from July 9,
     2003 to July 1, 2012.

Judge Cercone affirms this definition of the Settlement Class for
purposes of the Final Judgment.

The Agreement provides for the Settlement of the Action with GNC
and CMFG Life on behalf of Plaintiff Renner and the Settlement
Class Members, subject to approval by the Court of its terms.  The
Agreement, the Settlement and the Final Judgment are not to be
deemed admissions of liability or fault by GNC or CMFG Life, or a
finding of the validity of any claims in the Action or of any
wrongdoing or violation of law by GNC or CMFG Life.

The Class Counsel will receive attorneys' fees and costs in the
amount of $50,271.

Plaintiff Brenda Renner and the Settlement Class are represented
by:

          Kenneth R. Behrend, Esq.
          BEHREND ERNSBERGER, P.C.
          355 Fifth Avenue - Suite 1200
          Pittsburgh, PA 15222
          Telephone: (412) 391-2515
          E-mail: Behrendlawyers@aol.com

Defendants GNC Community Federal Credit Union and CMFG Life
Insurance Company, f/k/a CUN A Mutual Insurance Society, are
represented by:

          Roger K. Heidenreich, Esq.
          DENTONS US LLP
          One Metropolitan Square, Suite 3000
          St. Louis, MO 63102
          Telephone: (314) 259-5805
          E-mail: roger.heidenreich@dentons.com


DALEY & WANZER: "Bland" Suit Moved from Cir. Ct. to S.D. Fla.
-------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit titled Don H Bland and other similarly
situated employees, the Plaintiff, v. Daley & Wanzer, INC., a
Foreign Profit Corporation and Herbert Fleck, Jr., Individually,
the Defendants, Case No. 502016CA009378XXXXMB, was removed from
the 15th Judicial Circuit Court, to the U.S. District Court for
the Southern District of Florida (West Palm Beach). The District
Court Clerk assigned Case No. 9:16-cv-81705-KAM to the proceeding.
The case is assigned to Hon. Judge Kenneth A. Marra.

Daley & Wanzer is a family owned and operated moving and storage
company.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

The Defendants are represented by:

          Linda J. Ehrlich, Esq.
          5355 Town Center Road, Suite 801
          Boca Raton, FL 33486
          Telephone: (561) 391 4900
          Facsimile: (561) 368 9274
          E-mail: orechetdin@aol.com


DALLAS, TX: School Bus Drivers Sue Over Traffic Tickets
-------------------------------------------------------
David Lee, writing for Courthouse News Service, reported that
Dallas drivers filed a class action against the city and its
schools, claiming they are illegally issuing traffic tickets for
passing stopped school buses, using photos taken by cameras on the
buses' Stop arms.

David Sewell and four others sued the cities of Dallas and
Carrollton and Dallas County Schools on October 10, in Dallas
County Court. Dallas County Schools operate school buses for
independent school districts in the county.

Sewell was fined $300 after a bench trial in June in Carrollton
Municipal Court for passing a stopped school bus. He claims the
photographic enforcement and administrative adjudication of school
bus stop-arm violations was never authorized by the state: that
bills in the Legislature that would have allowed it failed in the
past four legislative sessions.

"No bill, law, statute, or constitutional amendment has ever been
passed that would authorize any local government in Texas to enact
camera-enforced school bus stop arm ordinances which conflict with
statutorily established 'Rules of the Road' in Texas," the 53-page
complaint states.

"Despite such a clear lack of authorization, each of the defendant
cities have passed illegal ordinances that, among other things,
hold vehicle owners liable for a minimum of $300 if their vehicle
is photographed passing a school bus with the stop arm engaged,
regardless of who was actually driving the vehicle."

The plaintiffs say the Texas Transportation Code grants no
authority to local authorities to pass ordinances that conflict
with it.

"Each defendant city acknowledges in each of the introductory
recitals that section 545.066 creates a criminal penalty for
passing a school bus while the stop arm is extended," the
complaint states.

Sewell cites a nonbinding opinion by the Texas Attorney General's
office in 2002 that concluded cities could not use automated
enforcement equipment to impose a civil penalty for running a
school bus.

"The Attorney General noted Texas cities were prohibited from
doing this, because making the running of a school bus camera a
civil penalty would conflict with state law that makes the running
of a school bus camera a crime (a misdemeanor) under
Transportation Code," the complaint states.

Sewell also claims that the city ordinances "create an irrefutable
presumption" that the car owners are guilty, that they were the
driver during the alleged violation.

"The only way a registered owner can even attempt to overcome this
presumption is if either the vehicle owner is in the business of
selling, leasing, or renting vehicles and the vehicle was in fact
at the time of the alleged violation being rented, leased or test
driven by another person or if the registered owner did not hold
legal title to the vehicle at the time of the alleged violation,"
the complaint states. "This presumption and limited exceptions to
liability violate the rights guaranteed to plaintiffs and others
similarly situated to plaintiffs under the Bill of Rights of the
Texas Constitution against self-incrimination, since in any
criminal proceeding in Texas, one accused of a crime is presumed
innocent."

Dallas County Schools declined to comment Tuesday evening, citing
the litigation.

"However, Dallas County Schools' highest priority is student
safety," it said in a statement. "We will continue to seek ways to
stop drivers from violating the law when it comes to stop arms and
keeping children safe when buses are loading or unloading."

Last week the agency fired more than a dozen bus drivers and
suspended 229 others for committing traffic violations on the job,
including committing stop arm violations themselves and running
red lights.

Dallas County Schools said an internal investigation found 483
citations from January 2014 to September 2016 that involved 242
drivers. Dallas County Schools board president Larry Duncan said
at the time that there were "multiple failures at all levels
because staff did not follow procedures and there was no
oversight." He said an accountant has been made responsible for
following up on every ticket.

The plaintiffs seek class certification damages and an injunction
for violations of the Texas Constitution. They are represented by:

          LeDouglas G. Johnson, Esq.
          Genator Johnson
          1001 J Elmer Weaver Freeway
          Cedar Hill, TX 75104

and La Shon Fleming Bruce in Houston.


DEBBIE'S STAFFING: Pierre Seeks to Certify Two Classes in Iowa
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Plaintiff in the lawsuit styled LAFFITE PIERRE v. DEBBIE'S
STAFFING SERVICES, INC., Case No. 3:15-cv-00089-JAJ-RAW (S.D.
Iowa), moves for certification of these two classes:

   (1) Rule 23(b)(2) Class is defined as:

       All African American employees and applicants of Debbie's
       Staffing who Debbie's Staffing has excluded or will
       exclude from working at Quality Associates as a result of
       Debbie's Staffing's use of criminal background screening
       criteria1 without conducting individualized assessments.

       Plaintiff also seeks to certify a Rule 23(b)(2) ICRA [Iowa
       Civil Rights Act] sub-class identical to the general class
       but limited to those individuals who were excluded from
       working at Quality Associates' location in Iowa; and

   (2) Rule 23(b)(3) Class is defined as:

       All African Americans who since April 19, 20113 have been
       excluded from working at Quality Associates as a result of
       Debbie's Staffing's use of criminal background screening
       criteria4 without conducting individualized assessments.

       Plaintiff also seeks to certify a Rule 23(b)(3) ICRA
       sub-class identical to the general class but limited to
       those individuals who were excluded from working at a
       location in Iowa.

Mr. Pierre reserves the right to supplement the Motion and all of
its accompanying documents pursuant to his outstanding discovery
requests set forth in numerous discovery-related motions pending
before the Court, including but not limited to his motion to
compel and his 30(b)(6) deposition notice that is pending a
protective order ruling.

Mr. Pierre also asks the Court to appoint him as a class
representative for both of the classes, appoint his counsel as
class counsel, and approve and authorize distribution of a Class
Notice to the Rule 23(b)(3) class, with an opportunity to opt out,
after he submits a proposed Class Notice within 14 days of an
order granting class certification and Debbie's Staffing submits
its response no later than seven days after his submission.

A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=BNLAARR8

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Thomas A. Newkirk, Esq.
          Leonard Bates, Esq.
          Thomas Bullock, Esq.
          NEWKIRK ZWAGERMAN, P.L.C.
          515 E. Locust Street, Suite 300
          Des Moines, IA 50309
          Telephone: (515) 883-2000
          Facsimile: (515) 883-2004
          E-mail: tnewkirk@newkirklaw.com
                  lbates@newkirklaw.com
                  tbullock@newkirklaw.com

The Defendant is represented by:

          Jeffrey D. Patton, Esq.
          SPILMAN THOMAS & BATTLE, PLLC
          110 Oakwood Drive, Suite 500
          Winston-Salem, NC 27103
          Telephone: (336) 725-4710
          Facsimile: (336) 725-4476
          E-mail: jpatton@spilmanlaw.com

               - and -

          Stacey L. Cormican, Esq.
          NYEMASTER GOODE, P.C.
          625 First Street SE, Suite 400
          Cedar Rapids, IA 52401
          Telephone: (319) 286-7048
          Facsimile: (319) 286-7050
          E-mail: slcormican@nyemaster.com

               - and -

          Thomas M. Cunningham, Esq.
          NYEMASTER GOODE, P.C.
          700 Walnut Street, Suite 1600
          Des Moines, IA 50309
          Telephone: (515) 283-3100
          Facsimile: (515) 283-3108
          E-mail: tmc@nyemaster.com


DELAWARE, USA: Certification of Class Sought in "Saunders" Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Robert Saunders moves for class certification in the lawsuit
titled ROBERT SAUNDERS v. DR. VINCENT CARR, et al., Case No. 1:15-
cv-01184-GMS (D. Del.).

Saunders is an inmate at the James T. Vaughn Correctional Center
in Smyrna, Delaware.  Dr. Vincent Carr is the Medical Director of
the Delaware Department of Correction.

A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=D4vr4QhP

In a 2013 lawsuit, Saunders sued Delaware Governor Jack Markell
("Markell"), former Delaware Department of Correction ("DOC")
Commissioner Carl Danberg ("Danberg"), current DOC Commissioner
Robert Coupe ("Coupe"), the DOC, Healthcare Director Dr. Vincent
Carr ("Dr. Carr"), former VCC Warden Perry Phelps ("Phelps"), VCC
Deputy Warden James Scarborough ("Scarborough"), Bureau Chief of
Correctional Healthcare Services James Welch ("Welch"), Medical
Director Dr. Laurie Spraga ("Dr. Spraga"), and VCC Director
ofNursing Michelle Swell-Jones ("Jones").  In that case, Saunders
stated he suffers from a number of medical conditions including a
kidney cyst, glaucoma, cataracts in both eyes, degenerative disc
disease, brain tumors, irregular heartbeat, uncontrolled
urination, and serious dermatologic issues; and alleged that he is
an individual with disabilities and that the unconstitutional
conditions have denied him access to prison services and
activities in violation of the ADA.


DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA: Court Refuses to Certify "Smith" Class
------------------------------------------------------------
The Hon. Royce C. Lamberth denied the Plaintiff's motion for class
certification filed in the lawsuit styled MAGGIE SMITH v. DISTRICT
OF COLUMBIA, Case No. 1:15-cv-00737-RCL (D.D.C.), , without
prejudice to renewal after liability has been determined in
accordance with the parties' agreement.

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


EARLYSHARES.COM INC: Schwanke Seeks Certification of TCPA Class
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Plaintiff in the lawsuit captioned LAWRENCE E. SCHWANKE, DC,
d/b/a BACK TO BASICS FAMILY CHIROPRACTIC, a Florida resident,
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.), moves for entry of an order
certifying this class:

     Each person that was sent one or more facsimiles promoting
     the "Small Business Challenge" sponsored by EarlyShares that
     did not state on its first page that the fax recipient may
     request that the sender not send any future fax and that the
     failure to comply with such a request within 30 days would
     be unlawful.

Mr. Schwanke asserts that the Motion is filed soon after the
filing of the class action complaint in order to avoid an attempt
by the Defendants to moot his individual claims.  However, he
contends, additional discovery is necessary for the Court to
determine whether to certify the class he seeks to represent.  As
a result, he will seek leave pursuant to L.R. 4.04(b) to pursue
class discovery as soon as practicable.

The case involves common fact questions about the Defendants' fax
campaign and common legal questions under the Telephone Consumer
Protection Act.

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

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Phillip A. Bock, Esq.
          BOCK, HATCH, LEWIS & OPPENHEIM, LLC
          P.O. Box 416474
          Miami Beach, FL 33141
          Telephone: (312) 658-5500
          Facsimile: (312) 658-5555
          E-mail: phil@classlawyers.com


ELECTROLUX HOME: Faces "Kukich" Suit in District of Maryland
------------------------------------------------------------
A lawsuit has been filed against Electrolux Home Products, Inc.
The case is titled Alex N. Kukich, Individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. Electrolux Home
Products, Inc., the Defendant, Case No. 1:16-cv-03412 (D. Md.,
Oct. 11, 2016).

Electrolux manufactures and markets home appliances in North
America.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Andrew N Friedman, Esq.
          COHEN MILSTEIN
          SELLERS & TOLL PLLC
          1100 New York Ave NW, Suite 500 East
          Washington, DC 20005-3964
          Telephone: (202) 408 4600
          Facsimile: (202) 408 4699
          E-mail: afriedman@cohenmilstein.com


ENHANCED RECOVERY: Andrades Seeks to Certify Class Under FDCPA
--------------------------------------------------------------
Luciano Andrades asks the Court to certify that the claims set
forth in his complaint in the lawsuit entitled LUCIANO ANDRADES,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v.
ENHANCED RECOVERY COMPANY, LLC, Case No. 1:16-cv-09413 (N.D.
Ill.), may proceed on behalf of this class:

     (1) all persons with addresses in the State of Illinois (2)
     from whom Defendant attempted to collect a debt (4)
     originating from a TMobile account (3) upon which Defendant
     attempted to collect a collection fee.

Mr. Andrades also asks the Court to name him as class
representative, to appoint his lawyers as counsel for the class
and to allow him to file a memorandum in support of the Motion
after taking class discovery.

The Case is brought against the Defendant for alleged violations
of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act.  The Plaintiff alleges
that the Defendant violated the FDCPA by attempting to collect a
collection fee that exceeded any fee authorized by him.

A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=MIVJh7YA

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


ENTERPRISE RENT-A-CAR: "Fisher" Suit Moved to N.D. of California
----------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit titled Keana Fisher, Individually and on
Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, the Plaintiff, v.
Enterprise Rent-a-Car Company of Los Angeles, the Defendant, Case
No. 16CIV01521, was removed from the San Mateo Circuit Court, to
the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California
(San Francisco). The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 3:16-
cv-05882 to the proceeding.

Founded in 1980, Enterprise Rent-A-Car Company is a large-sized
organization in the passenger car leasing industry.

The Plaintiff appears pro se.


EQT PRODUCTION: Kay Co Seeks to Certify Lessors Class, Subclasses
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The Plaintiffs move the Court to order that the civil action
captioned THE KAY COMPANY, LLC, WILLIAM CATHER, Trustee of Diana
Goff Cather Trusts, and JAMES E. HAMRIC III, and all other persons
and entities similarly situated v. EQT PRODUCTION COMPANY, a
Pennsylvania corporation; EQT CORPORATION, a Pennsylvania
corporation; EQT ENERGY, LLC, a Delaware limited liability
company; EQT INVESTMENTS HOLDINGS, LLC, a Delaware limited
liability company; EQT GATHERING, LLC, a Delaware limited
liability company; and EQT MIDSTREAM PARTNERS, LP, a Delaware
limited partnership, Case No. 1:13-cv-00151-JPB-JES (N.D.W. Va.),
be certified and proceed as a class action.

The Plaintiffs seek to represent a class that consists of:

     All EQT natural gas lessors that received or were due to be
     paid royalties from defendants and EQT's production or sale
     of natural gas which was produced within the boundaries of
     the State of West Virginia from their natural gas or mineral
     estates during the period beginning after December 8, 2008,
     and extending to the present (during any time within their
     leasehold period.)

While there are overarching issues common to all of the class, the
Plaintiffs contend they also seek to prosecute the classes for
relief on behalf of two subclasses:

    (a) All EQT natural gas lessors with flat rate leases
        converted by operation of W. Va. Code, Section 22-6-8 and
        that received or were due to be paid royalties from
        defendants and EQT's production or sale of natural gas
        which was produced within the boundaries of the State of
        West Virginia from their estates during the period
        beginning after December 8, 2008, and extending to the
        present (during any time within their leasehold period);
        and

    (b) All EQT natural gas lessors that received or were due to
        be paid royalties from defendants and EQT's production or
        sale of natural gas which was produced within the
        boundaries of the State of West Virginia from their
        estates during the period beginning after December 8,
        2008, and extending to the present (during any time
        within their leasehold period,) except for those lessors
        holding flat rate leases converted according to W. Va.
        Code, Section 22-6-8.

There would be excepted from the class the following:

   (1) Flat rate leases which have not been converted unless by
       operation of W. Va. Code Section 22-6-8, the West Virginia
       Supreme Court finds that they are to be converted or
       grants relief in the appeal now pending before the West
       Virginia Supreme Court; and

   (2) Excluded from the classes are officers and agents of any
       defendant or subsidiary of any defendant named in this
       lawsuit or any lawsuit involving the same or similar
       claims as those alleged in this lawsuit; any attorney for
       any such defendant; any attorney for any plaintiff in this
       lawsuit or in any lawsuit involving the same or similar
       claims as those alleged in this lawsuit against any such
       defendant; and any judicial officer who presides over this
       lawsuit or over any other lawsuit involving the same or
       similar claims as those alleged in this lawsuit against
       any such defendant.

The Plaintiffs also ask the Court to name them class
representatives and that Marvin W. Masters and Michael W. Carey
and their firms be named as class counsel.

A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=VYT6NRYQ

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Marvin W. Masters, Esq.
          THE MASTERS LAW FIRM LC
          181 Summers Street
          Charleston, WV 25301
          Telephone: (304) 342-3106
          E-mail: mwm@themasterslawfirm.com

               - and -

          Michael W. Carey, Esq.
          Robert E. Douglas, Esq.
          CAREY, SCOTT, DOUGLAS & KESSLER, PLLC
          707 Virginia Street East, Suite 901
          Charleston, WV 25301
          Telephone: (304) 345-1234
          Facsimile: (304) 342-1105
          E-mail: mwcarey@csdlawfirm.com
                  redouglas@citynet.net

               - and -

          Thomas W. Pettit, Esq.
          THOMAS W. PETTIT, L.C.
          Post Office Box 189
          Barboursville, WV 25504
          Telephone: (304) 736-8700
          E-mail: twpettit@comcast.net

The Defendants are represented by:

          David K. Hendrickson, Esq.
          Carl L. Fletcher, Jr., Esq.
          HENDRICKSON & LONG PLLC
          214 Capitol Street
          Post Office Box 11070
          Charleston, WV 25339
          E-mail: daveh@handl.com
                  cfletcher@handl.com


FAMILY FITNESS: "Amsler" Suit to Recover Overtime Pay
-----------------------------------------------------
David Amsler, Roberto Avila, Jose Benitez, Dustin Bookhout,
Rolando Castro, Chace Corbett, Greg Gamby, Dustin Gutkowski, Damon
Hodge, Robby Karl, Lindsey Allentia Lloyd, Jacob Martin, Chris
Mays, Herman Mccord, Colin Padilla, Philip Pollard, Brenton
Robinson, Walter Rush, Iii, Tim Spicer, Anthony Tate, Jeffrey
Votaw, and Terry Watson on behalf of themselves and all others
similarly situated Plaintiffs v. FT Fitness OPCO, LLC, TXFF1 LLC,
TXFF2 LLC, TXFF3 LLC, TXFF4 LLC, TXFF5 LLC, Texas Family Fitness 6
LLC, TXFF7 LLC, Texas Family Fitness 8 LLC, TXFF9 Texas Family
Fitness 10 LLC, Texas Family Fitness 11 LLC, Texas Family Fitness
Of Carrollton LLC, Texas Family Fitness Of Mesquite LLC, TXFFPE
LLC, and Texas Family Fitness of White Rock LLC, Defendants, Case
No. 1:16-cv-2632 (W.D. Tex., October 4, 2016), seeks overtime
compensation, punitive damages, liquidated damages, interest, and
attorneys' fees and costs under the Fair Labor Standards Act.

Plaintiffs are/were General Managers and Assistant General
Managers, Sales Counselors and Personal Trainers who have worked
unpaid overtime hours for Defendants.

The Family Fitness group owns and operates health and fitness
facilities in the State of Texas and the State of Kansas.

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Richard C. Dalton, Esq.
      1343 West Causeway Approach
      Mandeville, LA 70471
      Tel. (985) 778-2215
      Fax: (985) 778-2233
      E-mail: rdalton746@aol.com


FIRSTSOURCE ADVANTAGE: Garcia Seeks to Certify Class Under FDCPA
----------------------------------------------------------------
Denise Garcia asks the Court to certify that the claims set forth
in her complaint in the lawsuit entitled DENISE GARCIA,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v.
FIRSTSOURCE ADVANTAGE, LLC, Case No. 1:16-cv-08055 (N.D. Ill.),
may proceed on behalf of a class defined as:

     (1) All persons in Illinois (2) to whom Defendant sent a
     letter to collect a debt (3) substantially similar to
     Exhibit C of Plaintiff's Complaint (4) which states that the
     offered settlement may have tax consequences (5) within one
     year of the complaint.

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

The Case is brought for alleged violations of the Fair Debt
Collection Practices Act.  The Plaintiff alleges that the
Defendant violated the FDCPA by making a materially false
statement that certain amounts of the alleged debt that are
discharged would be reported to the IRS, when it could not legally
report certain amounts.

A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=Vz7vRfIh

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


G&B GLAUBER: Faces "Camara" Suit in Eastern Dist. of New York
-------------------------------------------------------------
A lawsuit has been filed against G&B Glauber Brothers Mens & Boys
Clothing Inc. The case is entitled Amady Camara, Mamadou
Coulibaly, Bocar Diallo, Abraham Diamolaye, Mouhamadou L. Fall,
Adama Kane Serigne Kebe, Mamadou Sy, and Goumba Abdou Diokhane,
individually and in behalf of all other persons similarly
situated, the Plaintiffs, v. G&B Glauber Brothers Mens & Boys
Clothing Inc., jointly and severally; GB Clothing International
LLC, jointly and severally; and Abraham Biermans, jointly and
severally, the Defendants, Case No. 1:16-cv-05674 (E.D.N.Y., Oct.
11, 2016).

The Defendant supplies men's & boy's clothing.

The Plaintiffs appear pro se.


GC SERVICES: Ocampo Seeks Certification of Two FDCPA Classes
------------------------------------------------------------
Jose Luis Ocampo asks the Court to certify that the claims set
forth in his complaint in the lawsuit titled JOSE LUIS OCAMPO,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. GC
SERVICES INTERNATIONAL, LLC, d/b/a GC SERVICES LIMITED
PARTNERSHIP, Case No. 1:16-cv-09388 (N.D. Ill.), may proceed on
behalf of these classes:

     Amount of Debt Class:

     (1) all persons similarly situated in the State of Illinois
     (2) from whom Defendant attempted to collect a delinquent
     consumer debt, (3) upon which Defendants sent a letter
     substantially similar to that of Exhibit C which (4) is the
     initial communication with the person and which (5) states
     that the balance may include the cost of leased equipment
     charges.


     Credit Reporting Threat Class:

     (1) all persons similarly situated in the State of Illinois
     (2) from whom Defendant attempted to collect a delinquent
     consumer debt, (3) upon which Defendants sent a letter
     substantially similar to that of Exhibit C which states that
     (4) GCS's client authorized GCS to report the alleged debt
     to the major consumer reporting agencies if GCS is unable to
     resolve their account.

Mr. Ocampo brings the class action against the Defendant for
alleged violations of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act.  He
alleges that the Defendant violated the FDCPA by failing to
effectively state the amount of the alleged debt in its initial
communication with him, and in making deceptive and misleading
representations regarding its intention to report his account to a
credit bureau.

Mr. Ocampo also asks the Court to name him as class
representative, to appoint his lawyers as counsel for the classes
and allow him to file a memorandum in support of the Motion after
taking class discovery.

A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=t6M1sY8Z

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


GEORGIA: OSD Class Action Lead Plaintiff Issues Statement
---------------------------------------------------------
Maureen Downey, writing for Get Schooled, reports that
Melissa Ladd is a parent of three and teaches fifth grade at
Poplar Road Elementary in Coweta County.  Dr. Ladd has a doctorate
in the field of school improvement and is a finalist for the
prestigious national Horace Mann Teaching Award.

She is also one of three named plaintiffs in a class-action
lawsuit over the language in the Amendment 1 "Opportunity School
District" ballot question.  The lead plaintiffs -- Ms. Ladd,
Atlanta parent Kimberly Brooks, and the Rev. Timothy McDonald  --
charge the ballot language is "so misleading and deceptive that it
violates the due process and voting rights of all Georgia voters."

In this piece, Ms. Ladd responds to amendment backers who contend
OSD opponents don't care about the students in struggling schools.
This is one of the strongest pieces I've seen from an opponent
because Ladd addresses a key issue in high-poverty schools -- the
relationships between staff and students and staff and parents.

Ignoring the longstanding relationships schools have with the
local communities can undermine takeover efforts.  The postmortems
on why the Tennessee Achievement School District -- on which the
OSD is modeled in large part -- missed the mark often blame the
inability of the charter school operators to win over the
community.

A story in Chalkbeat Tennessee noted:

Operators were not prepared for the high level of opposition they
would face in Memphis, or the compromises to their models they
would have to make to respond to the local district and the
community, the report says.

"This has been humbling for me," said one operator who came to
Tennessee from another state. "I've learned so much about just how
complex education can be in particular landscapes."

With that background, here is Ms. Ladd's piece.

By Melissa Ladd

Since filing our 41-page legal complaint over the so-called
"Opportunity School District" Amendment, proponents of state
takeover have lashed out, but they have ignored every substantive
argument made in our 41-page complaint.  To suggest the ballot
language is anything less than deceptive is not an "opinion"
grounded in reality.

The language is purposely misleading and endangers public schools.
But what I want to focus on here is the vapid claim made by OSD
proponents that those who oppose the school takeover amendment
rarely talk about "the kids."

As a mother and a Georgia public schoolteacher, I have dedicated
my entire life to enriching and improving the lives of children. I
have a master's degree in reading instruction and a doctorate in
school improvement.  I have conducted extensive research on the
most effective methods to close the achievement gap in reading for
public school students living in poverty.

Everything in my experience as an educator has led me to conclude
that the Opportunity School District is a bad deal for Georgia
students.

So, yes, by all means, let's talk about the kids.

Who exactly are these children whose future will be bought and
sold by the state takeover plan? According to the non-profit,
nonpartisan research organization Georgia Budget & Policy
Institute, the overwhelming majority are minority (88 percent are
black) and low-income (92 percent participate in the federal free-
and reduced-lunch program).

These children are often hungry, neglected or abused.  One young
boy in my classroom had 12 rotten teeth that were keeping him up
at night -- a condition that wasn't discovered until a routine
dental check at school.  Another student reached out to the school
counselor because her mother was suffering from unmedicated
schizophrenia.  The counselor made home visits to help the family
put together a plan for recovery.  Another young girl in my
classroom, a victim of rape, did not have transportation to go to
a counselor, much less the money to afford counseling. She relied
on school resources for help.

The children in these so-called "failing" schools are suffering
from unimaginable chronic stress as result of systemic poverty. As
a recent Children's Defense Fund study showed, chronic stress
actually changes a child's brain chemistry.  It severely inhibits
higher order thinking skills -- the kind tested by the Georgia
Milestones Assessment System.

The school is the only stable environment many of these children
have.  Teachers might be the only hug the kids get for the day.
Their school lunch may be the only warm meal they get for the day
or the only meal they get, period.  We are the last line of
defense for these kids, and no one can learn if their basic needs
aren't being met.  When you have a congregated population of
poverty, you are going to have a struggling school no matter how
hard the teacher tries.

The school takeover amendment does nothing to address these
concerns, and, in fact, will only make things worse by taking
three percent out of school budgets for "administrative
operations."

If we want to see real change in these communities, we need to
build relationships.  You cannot have an unelected political
appointee come into an impoverished area and get the parents to
trust what they are doing by firing all the teachers and replacing
them with strangers -- a very real concern given the new powers
Amendment 1 would grant the state education czar.

If opponents of the school takeover talk a lot about parents and
teachers, it isn't out of self-interest.  It's because we are the
only folks who can truly advocate for the kids.  If our children
are forced into a state-run system that lacks the checks and
balances offered by a local, elected school board, kids are going
to fall through the cracks.  Some out-of-state, for-profit
corporation won't know these kids' families, their situation or
their risk factors, the way local communities do.

Children are not mere products created by a corporation.  They are
worth more than just a test score.  But if we allow Amendment 1 to
pass, our kids will be nothing more than a statistical liability
to a school's bottom line. They deserve better.

So when it comes to Amendment 1, yes, let's please talk about the
kids.


GIANT EAGLE: Sued Over Misleading Merchandise Advertisement
-----------------------------------------------------------
John Haubrich, IV, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated v. Giant Eagle, Inc., Case No. GD-16-019133 (Penn. Cmmw.,
Pleas, October 6, 2016), seeks to end the Defendant's practice of
advertising and offering buy-one-get-one-free sales on items of
varying weights, priced for sale per pound which therefore have
varying prices, and deceptively charging its customers for the
most expensive items and gives the cheapest items for free despite
the difference in price.

Giant Eagle, Inc. sells grocery items and operates more than 400
retail locations throughout western Pennsylvania, central and
northern Ohio, northern West Virginia and western Maryland.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Jonathan Shub, Esq.
      KOHN SWIFT & GRAF, P.C.
      One South Broad Street Suite 2100
      Philadelphia, PA 19107
      Telephone: (215) 238-1700
      Facsimile: (215) 238-1968
      E-mail: jshub@kohnswift.com

         - and -

      Beth Ann Frederick, Esq.
      THE FREDERICK LAW GROUP, LLC
      60 Shryock Avenue
      Indiana, PA 15701
      Telephone: (724) 717-3566
      Facsimile: (724) 471-2594
      E-mail: bfrederick@fredericklg.com

GILSTER-MARY LEE: Bid to Certify Class in "Hood" Suit Denied
------------------------------------------------------------
The Hon. Douglas Harpool denied the Plaintiff's motion for class
certification under Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil
Procedure filed in the lawsuit titled PATRICIA HOOD, et al. v.
GILSTER-MARY LEE CORPORATION, Case No. 3:14-cv-05012-MDH (W.D.
Mo.).

The Plaintiffs originally filed the lawsuit in Jasper County,
Missouri, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly
situated alleging they are former or current employees of
defendant Gilster-Mary Lee, which owns and operates a microwave
popcorn packaging plant in Jasper, Missouri.  Nora De La Rosa, the
only remaining named Plaintiff, claims she suffers from lung
impairment and suffers from lung impairment that has not yet fully
manifested resulting from exposure to natural and artificial
butter flavoring products, compounds and ingredients, including
diacetyl.

In this case, the Plaintiff moves the Court to certify this class
of individuals:

     All persons who, prior to January 1, 2008, worked for a
     period of one (1) year or more at the Gilster-Mary Lee plant
     in Jasper, Missouri.

Judge Harpool stated that the Order should be construed narrowly
as denying certification of only the class as requested in the
Plaintiff's Motion.  He wrote that the Court finds that class
certification for purposes of medical monitoring is inappropriate
based on the 8th Circuit's holdings.  "Here, there may be numerous
differences between the class members, including some who may have
already been diagnosed with lung disease, may already be under the
care of a physician and/or medical monitoring, and those that may
have no symptoms at all," Judge Harpool opined.

"[W]hile the Court believes this case would be certified as a
class for medical monitoring in the state court system, the
federal law does not uphold the same result," Judge Harpool
stated.

A copy of the Order is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=noV3aAcL

Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Kenneth B. McClain, Esq.
          Michael S. Kilgore, Esq.
          HUMPHREY, FARRINGTON, & McCLAIN, PC
          221 West Lexington Avenue, Suite 400
          Independence, MO 64050
          Telephone: 816-398-7435
          Facsimile: 816-836-8966

Gilster-Mary Lee Corporation, Defendant, represented by Charles
Steiner Elbert -- celbert@shandselbert.com -- Douglas W. King --
dking@shandselbert.com -- at Shands, Elbert, Gianoulakis & Giljum
LLP


GLOBAL TEL*LINK: "Ortega" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Wages
------------------------------------------------------------
Antonio Ortega, an individual, appearing on behalf of himself and
all others similarly situated v. Global Tel*Link Corporation,
Cooper Communications Group, Inc. and DOES 1-10, inclusive, Case
No. BC636438 (Cal. Super. Ct., October 6, 2016), seeks to recover
unpaid overtime, minimum wages and damages pursuant to the Fair
Labor Standards Act.

The Defendants own and operate a telecommunications company that
provides installation, maintenance and repair service to telephone
and communications systems located in correctional facilities.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Allen Graves, Esq.
      Jacqueline Treu, Esq.
      THE GRAVES FIRM
      122 N. Baldwin Ave., Main Floor
      Sierra Madre, CA 91024
      Telephone: (626) 240-0575
      Facsimile: (626) 737-7013
      E-mail: allen@gravesfirm.com
              jacqueline@gravesfirm.com


HORMEL FOODS: Faces "Phelps" Suit in Southern Dist. of Florida
--------------------------------------------------------------
A lawsuit has been filed against Hormel Foods Corporation. The
case is styled BENJAMIN PHELPS, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. HORMEL FOODS
CORPORATION, the Defendant, Case No. 0:16-cv-62411-WPD (S.D. Fla.,
Oct. 11, 2016). The case is assigned to Hon. Judge William P.
Dimitrouleas.

Hormel Foods is a multinational manufacturer and marketer of high-
quality, brand-name food and meat products for consumers.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Phillip Timothy Howard, Esq.
          HOWARD & ASSOCIATES
          2120 Killarney Way, Suite 125
          Tallahassee, FL 32309
          Telephone: (850) 298 4455
          E-mail: tim@howardjustice.com


HYUNDAI: Reaches Settlement with Sonata Owners in U.S.
------------------------------------------------------
Shin Eun-jin, writing for The Chosunilbo, reports that Hyundai has
reached a settlement with 885,000 Sonata owners in the U.S.
agreeing to provide free engine inspections and repairs and
extending their warranty.

The automaker also agreed to reimburse the owners for repair costs
incurred so far.

According to a federal court in northern California on Oct. 9,
owners of 2011-2014 Sonata sedans with 2.0 and 2.4-liter Theta
engines filed the lawsuit last year.

The plaintiffs said their Sonatas suffered from engine stoppages
or noise and accused Hyundai of failing to inform them of these
problems.

Under the settlement, Hyundai will also compensate them for any
losses when they sell their used car.  One senior staffer at
Hyundai recently alleged that the automaker also tried to cover up
similar problems in Korea.

Hyundai says Sonatas sold domestically use Theta engines made in
Korea, but those sold abroad use engines manufactured in the U.S.
and the problems involve only some U.S.-made ones.


HYUNDAI: South Korean Sonata Owners Not Included in Settlement
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Hankyoreh reports that after engine defects in the Sonata,
automaker will still have to answer questions to South Korean car
owners

Facing a class-action suit in the US because of engine defects in
the Sonata, Hyundai Motor has agreed to cover the entire cost of
repairs for people who have bought the car.  Since a considerable
number of South Koreans with cars running on the same engines
claim to have suffered damage as well, they are expected to demand
the kind of compensation received by car owners in the US.
On Oct. 9, Hyundai announced that it had settled with plaintiffs
in the lawsuit by promising to provide the full cost of repairs
for owners of Sonatas produced at the company's Alabama plant
between 2011 and 2014 that are equipped with the Theta II engine.
Owners of the car filed the class-action lawsuit because Hyundai
had allegedly concealed the defect in the vehicles and continued
to sell them even though the engines were making a loud noise and
stalling.

There are 885,000 owners of the cars in the US. Hyundai agreed to
provide the owners with free testing and repairs and to compensate
owners who have already received repairs as well as owners who
sold the car at a loss because of the engine defect. While the
total amount of the settlement has not been calculated, a rate of
US$1,000 per car would yield US$885 million.  Barring any
unforeseen circumstances, a federal district court in northern
California is planning to give final approval to the settlement on
Dec. 15.

Last year, Hyundai acknowledged the engine defect in Sonatas
produced in the US between 2011 and 2012 and issued a recall.  In
this lawsuit, it agreed to compensate consumers not only for the
cars in question but also for cars manufactured between 2013 and
2014.  "We expanded the cars that are eligible for compensation by
extending the quality guarantee period by two years," said
Hyundai.

The engine used during this period was the Theta II (with a 2.0 or
2.4 liter displacement), which was installed in the YF Sonata. The
Theta II was released in 2007, and an upgraded version was
released in 2009.  It has been claimed that the piston heads
caused damage to the inside surface of the cylinders, resulting in
a loud noise or causing the engine to stall.

The big question is what Hyundai will do about the vehicles that
it produced in South Korea during the same period of time.  For
now, Hyundai has stated that domestic vehicles are not part of the
recall.  The automaker claims that it took the recall and
compensation measures for vehicles equipped with the Theta II
engine because of the transitory high error rate that occurred
among products produced at the American plant.  Since the error
rate is extremely low at products produced in South Korean plants,
the company says, they will not be recalled.

This is not the first time that problems have been raised about
the Theta engine.  Related complaints have been made for several
years now at websites catering to automobile hobbyists.  Recently,
allegations were also raised by a whistleblower inside Hyundai.

Vehicles that are equipped with the Theta II engine in South Korea
include not only the Hyundai Sonata and Grandeur 2.4, but also the
Kia K5 and K7.  Some car owners have reported that when they
visited a repair shop because of loud engine noise and stalling,
they were told that their cylinders were damaged.  But it has not
been clearly established whether this issue is caused by lubricant
or by a defect with the material of the car parts.

"It doesn't make sense for them to acknowledge the defect and to
issue a recall in the US and to ignore the issue in South Korea
when we're using the same engine," said an individual surnamed
Kim, who owns a K5.

"This is not an identical defect with the US but is rather a
problem that can occur occasionally in certain vehicles because of
issues with the manufacturing process," said the company.
"We decided on the recall because of cleanliness issues that
occurred during the assembly of the engines that were manufactured
at the factory in Alabama between 2011 and 2012. This included the
failure to properly clear away metal dust from the crankshaft
area," said a source at the company.

But despite Hyundai's explanations, accusations of reverse
discrimination against South Koreans are unlikely to be easily
assuaged.  These accusations are backed by suspicions that there
is a flaw with the engine itself.  This is becoming a question
that will have to be tackled by Hyundai, the manufacturer, and by
the Ministry of Land, Infrastructure and Transport, which is
responsible for assessing vehicle safety issues.


INDIANA: Class Action Seeks Overhaul of Defender System
-------------------------------------------------------
Virginia Black, writing for South Bend Tribune, reports that a
Fort Wayne attorney, however, thinks Indiana's entire public
defender system needs an overhaul.  That attorney, David Frank,
recently filed a federal class-action lawsuit on behalf of
misdemeanor defendants.

Because public defenders -- especially in misdemeanor cases -- are
overloaded, their incentive is to "greet 'em and plead 'em," David
Frank said.  "They want people to take a plea and close the case."

Felony public defenders are reimbursed with state money, but Frank
said those representing misdemeanor clients are reimbursed by
struggling county governments.

Among the lawsuit's allegations: misdemeanor public defenders
rarely take cases to trial; rarely seek to have charges dismissed
or file meaningful motions; and spend less than an hour on average
conferring with a client.


INFINITY ENERGY: Faces "Cross" Suit in Southern Dist. of Cal.
-------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Infinity Energy,
Inc. The case is captioned Patrick Cross, Individually and on
behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, the Plaintiff, v.
Infinity Energy, Inc., the Defendant, Case No. 3:16-cv-02527-MMA-
JLB (S.D. Cal., Oct. 12, 2016). The case is assigned to Hon. Judge
Michael M. Anello.

Infinity Energy offers all residential and commercial solar
services. The Company is partnered with Sunedison, the world's
largest renewable company.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Joshua Swigart, Esq.
          HYDE & SWIGART
          2221 Camino Del Rio South, Suite 101
          San Diego, CA 92108
          Telephone: (619) 233 7770
          Facsimile: (619) 297 1022
          E-mail: josh@westcoastlitigation.com


INFOBLOX: Class Suit Challenges $1.6 Billion Vistas Merger
----------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reported that directors are selling
Infoblox (computer network management) too cheaply through an
unfair process to Vista Equities, for $26.50 a share or $1.6
billion, shareholders say in a class action in Wilmington,
Delaware Chancery Court.


INOYVN: Runcorn Residents Sue Over Weston Point Incinerator
-----------------------------------------------------------
Oliver Clay, writing for Liverpool Echo, reports that an expert
witness providing evidence for a civil action over alleged
problems associated with Runcorn's energy-from-waste plant has
vowed to try to prevent a repeat of such issues at a proposed
incinerator in Aberdeen.

Scottish regional newspaper The Press And Journal reported that
Prof Rob Jackson said he was looking to make sure regulations
would be 'tight' if the GBP120m plant goes ahead.

He said that about 800 Runcorn residents were taking action over
the incinerator in Weston Point, which is being operated by
Viridor on behalf of Inoyvn, previously known as Ineos Chlor.

The paper reported that the Aberdeen plan is due to be decided
next month.

In a separate article it said four 'community councils' were
opposed to the proposals.

According to Aberdeen City Council, the incinerator would have a
capacity to process 150,000 tons of waste a year, a fraction of
the Runcorn plant, which can burn up to 850,000 tons.

The Scottish local authority said it collected 112,880 tons of
municipal waste in 2014, 37,331 tons of which was recycled and the
remainder sent to landfill.

It said it planned to be 'zero waste' by 2020.

The Press And Journal reported that Aberdeen council had said the
risks were 'negligible'.

In Runcorn, residents have been pursuing a class action in
relations to alleged issues such as smell, steam and noise making
life a misery in the neighbourhood.

Last November, the Environment Agency indicated that it did not
believe any permit breaches had taken place.

It said PM10 pollution levels were low and steam clouds dispersals
are quick because of their temperature.

The agency said that no further bad smells had emanated from the
plant from a roller-shutter door since the furnace was switched
on, but it conceded that lorries carrying raw waste could create
'transient odours'.

The residents' battle has continued for two years.


INTERACTIVE INTELLIGENCE: Faces Class Action Over $1.4-Bil. Sale
----------------------------------------------------------------
Jared Council, writing for Indianapolis Business Journal, reports
that an Interactive Intelligence Inc. shareholder has sued the
Indianapolis-based company and its board members over the firm's
forthcoming $1.4 billion sale to another company, claiming that
Interactive's value far exceeds the price and that the deal
precluded competing offers.

Scott Fischer -- an Interactive shareholder from Ellicott City,
Maryland -- filed the lawsuit in U.S. District Court on Oct. 6,
contesting the call-center software firm's $60.50 per-share
acquisition offer from California-based Genesys Telecommunications
Laboratories Inc.  The all-cash deal was announced Aug. 31 and is
slated to close by year's end.

Such suits aren't unusual when public companies are headed for a
sale.

The suit seeks class-action status.  It asks the court to enjoin
the acquisition until the company adopts a process to "obtain a
merger agreement providing the best possible terms for
[shareholders]," and until the company "discloses the material
information" that had been omitted from securities filings related
to deal.

"The proposed transaction is the product of a flawed process .. ,"
the suit said.  "Compounding the unfairness of the [transaction],
defendants issued materially incomplete and misleading
disclosures" in securities filings in September.

Fischer purchased 17 Interactive shares on Aug. 11 for $57.92
each, the lawsuit said, though it's unclear if he held other
shares.  Genesys' $60.50 per-share offer represents a 4.5 percent
premium over that price.

Attorneys with Connecticut-based Levi & Korinsky LLP, who
represent Fischer, did not return calls seeking comment. An
Interactive Intelligence spokesperson said the company does not
comment on pending or active litigation.

The lawsuit outlined the play-by-play of the eventual deal with
Genesys, which took root in 2012.

It then claimed that Interactive, in its deal with Genesys, agreed
to provisions that all but ensured Genesys would be the winning
bidder -- including restrictions on soliciting other offers and a
$43 million termination fee payable to Genesys if Interactive
backed out.

"By agreeing to all of the deal protection devices," the suit
said, Interactive board members "locked up the proposed
transaction and precluded other bidders from making successful
competing offers for the company."

Beyond that, the suit claimed, Interactive failed to disclose
executive financial projections, including free cash flow
estimates, in a Sept. 20 securities filing related to the deal.

"Stockholders are entitled to know about the company's promising
future financial prospects before being asked to vote on the
proposed transaction," the suit said.

"This is particularly true when the stockholders will be cashed
out of the company, because unlike a stock transaction, the
stockholders will have no participation in the success of the
future combined companies."


INTERNATIONAL UNION: Moves to Certify "Barnes 2 Retirees Class"
---------------------------------------------------------------
The parties in the lawsuit entitled BARNES GROUP INC., (including
its Associated Spring Division) v. INTERNATIONAL UNION, UNITED
AUTOMOBILE, AEROSPACE AND AGRICULTURAL IMPLEMENT WORKERS OF
AMERICA and FRANK ACAMPORA, PATRICK RYAN, JOHN G. GREENLAW JR.,
and MIKE KLAPPERICH, individually, and, as representatives of a
defendant class, Case No. 3:16-cv-00559-MPS (D. Conn.), jointly
filed their motion to certify the stipulated "Barnes 2 Retirees
Class," which consists of all individuals, who are:

   a. Barnes employees who retired between July 31, 1996 and
      April 6, 2016, the date the 2016-2017 MOA [Memorandum of
      Agreement, 2016-2017 Barnes-UAW National Retiree and Active
      Health Care Agreement] was ratified, and those who retire
      after that date but before the date set by the Court for
      closing of the Class, from either of the two Bristol
      Associated Spring plants2 and who were represented by UAW
      Local 7123 at the date of their retirement;

   b. Barnes employees who retired or will retire between
      August 1, 1993 and April 6, 2016, the date the 2016-2017
      MOA was ratified, from the Saline Associated Spring plant,
      or its predecessor plant in Ann Arbor, Michigan, who were
      represented by Local 38 at the date of their retirement;

   c. Barnes employees who retired or will retire between
      June 15, 1992 and April 6, 2016, the date the 2016-2017 MOA
      was ratified, and those who retire after that date but
      before the date set by the Court for closing of the Class,
      from the Corry Associated Spring plant and who were
      represented by Local 629 at the date of their retirement;

   d. Barnes employees who retired or will retire between
      July 23, 1992 and the April 6, 2016, the date the 2016-2017
      MOA was ratified, from the Dayton Associated Spring plant
      and who were represented by Local 1177 on the date of their
      retirement; and,

   e. the spouses and dependents of any retiree described above
      including the surviving spouse of any such retiree who is
      deceased.

The Parties move for an order appointing the named individual
defendants as class representatives and appointing counsel for the
individual defendants as counsel for the class.

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

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Hugh F. Murray, III, Esq.
          MCCARTER & ENGLISH, LLP
          City Place I - 36th Floor
          185 Asylum Street
          Hartford, CT 06103
          Telephone: (860) 275-6700
          E-mail: hmurray@mccarter.com

Defendant UAW is represented by:

          Nicole M. Rothgeb, Esq.
          Daniel E. Livingston, Esq.
          LIVINGSTON, ADLER, PULDA, MEIKLEJOHN & KELLY, P.C.
          557 Prospect Avenue
          Hartford, CT 06105
          Telephone: (860) 233-9821
          E-mail: nmrothgeb@lapm.org
                  delivingston@lapm.org

All Other Defendants are represented by:

          William M. Bloss, Esq.
          KOSKOFF, KOSKOFF, & BIEDER, P.C.
          350 Fairfield Avenue
          Bridgeport, CT 06604
          Telephone: (203) 336-4421
          E-mail: bbloss@koskoff.com


J CREW: Faces "Parker" Suit Over FACTA Violation
------------------------------------------------
Anita Parker, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated v. J. Crew Group, Inc., J. Crew L.L.C., and Does 1
through 100, Case No. 2016CH13203 (Ill. Ch. Ct., October 6, 2016),
is brought against the Defendants for violations of the Fair and
Accurate Credit Transactions Act, specifically by printing more
than the last 5 digits of the card number upon the receipts
provided to the credit card and debit card cardholders with whom
they transact business.

J. Crew Group, Inc. operates as a multi-brand apparel and
accessories retailer in the United States.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Robert A. Clifford, Esq.
      Shannon M. McNulty, Esq.
      CLIFFORD LAW OFFICES PC
      120 North LaSalle Street, 31st Floor
      Chicago, IL 60602
      Telephone: (312) 899-9090
      E-mail: rac@cliffordlaw.com
              smm@cliffordlaw.com

         - and -

      Chant Yedalian, Esq.
      CHANT & COMPANY
      A Professional Law Corporation
      1010 N. Central Ave.
      Glendale, CA 91202
      Telephone: (877) 574-7100
      E-mail: chant@chant.mobi

         - and -

      Brian Herrington, Esq.
      HERRINGTON LAW, PA
      1520 N. State St.
      Jackson, MS 39202
      Telephone: (601) 208-0013
      E-mail: brian@herringtonlawpa.com


JB MEDICAL: Certification of TCPA Class Sought in "Schwanke" Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The Plaintiff in the lawsuit entitled LAWRENCE E. SCHWANKE, DC,
d/b/a BACK TO BASICS FAMILY CHIROPRACTIC, a Florida resident,
individually and as the representative of a class of similarly-
situated persons 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, Case No. 5:16-cv-
00597-JSM-PRL (M.D. Fla.), moves for entry of an order certifying
this class:

     Every person sent one or more facsimiles from JB Medical at
     any time after September 29, 2012, about "Medisoft" and
     which did not state that the fax recipient could request
     that the sender not send any future fax and that the failure
     to comply with such a request within 30 days would be
     unlawful.

Mr. Schwanke tells the Court that the Motion is filed soon after
the filing of the class action complaint in order to avoid an
attempt by the Defendants to moot his individual claims.  However,
he asserts, additional discovery is necessary for the Court to
determine whether to certify the class he seeks to represent.  As
a result, he will seek leave pursuant to L.R. 4.04(b) to pursue
class discovery as soon as practicable.

The case involves common fact questions about the Defendants' fax
campaign and common legal questions under the Telephone Consumer
Protection Act.

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

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Phillip A. Bock, Esq.
          BOCK, HATCH, LEWIS & OPPENHEIM, LLC
          P.O. Box 416474
          Miami Beach, FL 33141
          Telephone: (312) 658-5500
          Facsimile: (312) 658-5555
          E-mail: phil@classlawyers.com


JOHNSON & JOHNSON'S: Aveeno Labeling Class Action Can Proceed
-------------------------------------------------------------
Georgina Caldwell, writing for Global Cosmetic News, reports that
a Federal Judge in New York has okayed a class action to be bought
against Johnson & Johnson's Aveeno brand.  Three classes of
consumers from California, Florida and New York have 'met
requirements' for class certification, according to a report
published by Law 360.

The cases challenge Aveeno's 'Active Naturals' labelling, claiming
that the tagline is misleading given that the products contain
synthetic ingredients.

Johnson & Johnson is arguing that the Active Naturals label is not
deceptive, as it cannot be interpreted as amounting to a '100
percent natural' claim, and merely refers to key natural
ingredients that provide 'proven benefits'.

The US FMCG manufacturer challenged the class certification on a
number of further points, namely that the plaintiffs had purchased
different products and the damages model offered by the group's
expert is flawed, but was unsuccessful.

The case is Goldemberg v. Johnson & Johnson Consumer Companies,
Inc., Case Number 7:13-cv-03073 (S.D.N.Y.).  The lawyers involved
in the case are Finkelstein Blankinship and Kramer Levin.


KEY ENERGY: Faces Class Action Over Alleged Unpaid Wages
--------------------------------------------------------
Wadi Reformado, writing for Northern California Record, reports
that a former employee has filed a class-action lawsuit against an
oil company for alleged unpaid wages.

Robert Pruitt filed a complaint on behalf of himself and all
others similarly situated on Sept. 29 in U.S. District Court for
the Eastern District of California against Key Energy Services LLC
and Does 1 through 25, alleging that they failed to provide fair
compensation to the plaintiff for his work.

According to the complaint, the plaintiff alleges that he worked
for more than 40 hours per week without being paid any overtime
compensation or given adequate meal breaks.  The plaintiff holds
Key Energy Services LLC and Does 1 through 25 responsible because
the defendants allegedly failed to pay overtime premiums to the
plaintiff for work done that exceeded 40 hours per week.

The plaintiff requests a trial by jury and seeks injunctive
relief, damages, liquidated damages, restitution, statutory
penalties, all legal fees and any other relief as the court deems
just.

The case number is 1:16-cv-01457-DAD-JLT (E.D. Calif.).  The
Plaintiff is represented by George P. Moschopoulos of The Law
Office of George Moschopoulos APC in Dana Point and Galvin B.
Kennedy of Kennedy Hodges LLP in Houston.


LA BODEGA: "Cayon" Suit Moved from Cir. Ct. to S.D. of Florida
--------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit titled Oscar Cayon, individually; and
other similarly situated individuals, the Plaintiff, v. La Bodega
Restaurant, Corp., a Florida Profit Corporation; Maxima J.
Velarde, individually; and Carlos G. Velarde, individually, the
Defendants, Case No. 16-021918-CA-01, was removed from the 11th
Judicial Circuit Court, to the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of Florida (Miami). The District Court Clerk
assigned Case No. 1:16-cv-24290-JEM to the proceeding. The
assigned Judge is Hon. Jose E. Martinez.

La Bodega is a basic Peruvian eatery offering ceviche and other
staples plus a store stocked with cooking supplies.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Anthony Maximillien Georges-Pierre, Esq.
          REMER & GEORGES-PIERRE, PLLC
          Court House Tower
          44 West Flagler Street, Suite 2200
          Miami, FL 33130
          Telephone: (305) 416 5000
          Facsimile: (305) 416 5005
          E-mail: agp@rgpattorneys.com

The Defendants are represented by:

          Victor Mariano Velarde, Esq.
          Peter Theodore Mavrick, Esq.
          MAVRICK LAW FIRM
          1620 West Oakland Park Boulevard, Suite 300
          Fort Lauderdale, FL 33311
          Telephone: (954) 916 7799
          E-mail: vvelarde@mavricklaw.com
                  peter@mavricklaw.com


LINEAR TECHNOLOGY: Faces Class Action Over Merger Deal
------------------------------------------------------
In a Form 8-K Report filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission on October 12, 2016, Linear Technology Corporation
filed supplemental disclosures to the definitive proxy
statement/prospectus on Schedule 14A it originally filed with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on September 16, 2016, to
provide additional information concerning certain litigation
relating to the Agreement and Plan of Merger (the "Merger
Agreement") by and among Linear Technology, Analog Devices, Inc.,
a Massachusetts corporation ("Analog Devices"), and Tahoe
Acquisition Corp., a Delaware corporation and wholly owned
subsidiary of Analog ("Merger Sub"), pursuant to which, among
other things, subject to the terms and conditions thereof, Merger
Sub will merge with and into Linear Technology, with Linear
Technology surviving the merger as a subsidiary of Analog Devices
(the "Merger"). The supplemental disclosures to the Proxy
Statement/Prospectus should be read in conjunction with the Proxy
Statement/Prospectus, which should be read in its entirety. To the
extent that information differs from or updates information
contained in the Proxy Statement/Prospectus, the information
contained herein supersedes the information contained in the Proxy
Statement/Prospectus. Defined terms used but not defined have the
meanings set forth in the Proxy Statement/Prospectus.

On September 28, 2016, a putative class action lawsuit relating to
the Merger was filed in the United States District Court for the
Northern District of California on behalf of a putative class of
Linear Technology's public shareholders, Guerra v. Linear
Technology Corp., et al., Civil Action No. 16CV05514 (the
"Lawsuit"). The Lawsuit generally alleges that Linear Technology
and its directors failed to comply with federal securities laws by
failing to disclose material information in the Proxy
Statement/Prospectus.

Linear Technology denies the allegations of the Lawsuit, believes
that the Proxy Statement/Prospectus disclosed all material
information, and denies that any supplemental disclosure is
necessary.

As previously disclosed in the Proxy Statement/Prospectus, an
annual meeting is being held today, October 18, 2016, at 3:00
p.m., local time, at Linear Technology's principal executive
office at 1630 McCarthy Boulevard, Milpitas, California 95035 ,
for the purpose of considering and voting upon, among other
things, the Merger Agreement and the Merger.

Linear Technology's board of directors unanimously recommends that
Linear Technology's shareholders vote "FOR" the Merger Proposal,
"FOR" the seven director nominees listed in the director election
proposal and "FOR" the other proposals being considered at the
annual meeting.


LOYALTYONE: Updates Loyalty Program Following Customer Complaints
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Sophia Harris, writing for CBC News, reports that Air Miles
announced a big change to its loyalty program.  It comes on the
heels of customer outcry that the program was unfairly blocking
members from accessing certain rewards.

So Air Miles says it has "simplified" its formula for how it doles
out reward choices.  Now members who collect more miles in the
year get to choose from a bigger selection of flights and
merchandise.

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

However, the customer outcry continues.

"I don't believe it," said Air Miles collector
Katherine McLaughlin of Oakville, Ont.  "They haven't been
forthright and transparent in what they are doing and then they
gave so many excuses to different people at different times."

"Fool me once, fool me no more," a reader commented on a CBC News
story about the new rules.

For months, Air Miles' owner, Toronto-based LoyaltyOne, provided
different explanations for how it tailored rewards -- from basing
it on personal preferences to basing it on a collector's activity
levels to showing customers varied products to see which ones
"resonate."

And this has some customers and industry analysts still
questioning what precisely is going on behind the scenes.

"It's like a teenager who has nine reasons why they're home late,"
said Lindsay Meredith, a marketing professor at Simon Fraser
University in B.C.

"Now your consumers don't know what the heck the truth is."

Disappearing rewards

In July, CBC News first reported that some Air Miles members were
blocked from various rewards.

CBC News had received many complaints from collectors who claimed
they found premium merchandise when searching online for items
using a membership with few miles.

But they said when they logged on to the website using an account
with enough miles to claim the items, the same premium products
had vanished.

At the time, Air Miles said the products people could access was
based on an individual collector's personal preferences and
activity level in the program.

It was explained to us that more active collectors had access to a
variety of items so that they were "seeing new things and it's not
the same product or reward at all times."

Collector McLaughlin got an additional explanation when she
contacted Air Miles on Aug. 30.  She was trying to find out why
she couldn't get a Bose Wave music system she'd seen advertised on
the website. She had the 6,900 miles to claim it.

She shared with CBC her online chat with an Air Miles customer
service representative.

The rep told her rewards are personalized, and that sometimes
rewards also vary because the program is testing out merchandise:
"From time to time, we offer a different product selection to
different collectors to see which products resonate the best."

"You must be joking," responded Ms. McLaughlin, who didn't believe
either explanation.

A week and half later, CBC News contacted Air Miles again, asking
for more details about rewards access.

This time, we got yet another explanation.  Air Miles said rewards
selection is based on how actively a member collects miles and
redeems them for rewards.

The system also factors in what tier or level members are in:
blue, gold or elite level onyx.

The more points you pile up in a year, the higher your tier.

"We reward collectors who are more engaged in the program,"
spokeswoman Kahina Haffad said in an email.

This time round, Air Miles was adamant that the products people
see have nothing to do with personal preferences.

Then, on Sept. 27, the Globe and Mail published an article in
which LoyaltyOne CEO Bryan Pearson said rewards were tailored
according to people's preferences.

'Confused' customers

So CBC News asked Air Miles again for clarification.  Spokeswoman
Natasha Lasiuk said rewards access used to be based on personal
preferences like shopping habits.

She explained that because customers were "confused" by this
system, rewards selection is now based solely on a member's tier
within the program: blue, gold or onyx.

The higher your tier, the more rewards you get to choose from.
That's it.

Ms. Lasiuk said the change happened at the end of the summer.  She
provided no specific date.

She also said that over the past 12 months, new collectors saw
premium merchandise that was out of their reach to encourage them
to collect more miles.

Will customers stay loyal?

The tier system is clearly laid out on the website, so one
presumes Air Miles is being upfront about the new regime.

But the question remains: why did the program have so many
explanations in the past for why people had different access to
rewards?

Professor Meredith suggests perhaps LoyaltyOne was avoiding
discussing a less palatable goal: to make it harder for customers
to cash in all their miles set to expire in January with the new
five-year expiry rule.

"If their underlying motive was indeed a backroom discussion
about, 'Let's figure out a way to grab a bunch of these points
back if we can,' they're sure as hell not going to release that
one publicly."

CBC News asked Air Miles if it had been trying to complicate the
redemption process by hiding rewards from certain collectors.

Ms. Lasiuk replied in an email that the program offers a bigger
rewards selection than ever before "and collectors are definitely
taking advantage."

She also told CBC News that Air Miles has made its "rewards
selection straight-forward for collectors."

But precisely how it offered rewards previously remains unclear.
And that's sure to inspire some members to question their
allegiance to the loyalty program, Professor Meredith says.

"They're going to have trouble, mark my words, downstream,
peddling Air Miles."


LUMBER LIQUIDATORS: "Abad" Suit Consolidated in MDL 2743
--------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit titled Jesus Abad, Ken Solorio, Julie
Solorio, Craig Weiss, Patty Cottington, Steve Cottington, Craig
Lyznick, Frances Ann Haygood, Jose Saldivar, and Chris Williams,
et al., individuals, on behalf of themselves and all others
similarly situated, the Plaintiffs, v. Lumber Liquidators, Inc.,
Case No. 2:15-cv-03795, was transferred from the U.S. District
Court for the Central District of California, to the U.S. District
Court for the Eastern District of Virginia -(Alexandria). The
Virginia Eastern District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:16-cv-
05013-AJT-TRJ to the proceeding.

The Abad case is being consolidated with MDL 2743 in re: Lumber
Liquidators Chinese-Manufactured Flooring Durability Marketing and
Sales Practices Litigation. The MDL was created by Order of the
United States Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation on
October 4, 2016. These cases concern the sale and marketing of
Chinese-manufactured laminate flooring sold by defendant Lumber
Liquidators. Despite being marketed as sufficiently durable for
residential use, the Plaintiffs allege that their laminate
flooring scratches too easily and fails to meet the advertised
industry standard. In its October 4, 2016 Order, the MDL Panel
found that the actions in this litigation involve common questions
of fact, and that centralization in the Eastern District of
Virginia will serve the convenience of the parties and witnesses
and promote the just and efficient conduct of the litigation. All
actions involve common factual questions regarding the durability
of Chinese-manufactured laminate flooring sold by Lumber
Liquidators under the "Dream Home" label, particularly the issue
of whether the laminates comply with the allegedly warranted
industry standard for use in residential settings. Presiding Judge
in the MDL is Hon. Anthony J. Trenga, United States District
Judge. The lead case is 1:16-md-02743-AJT-TRJ.

Lumber Liquidators is a specialty retailer of hardwood flooring.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

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

               - and -

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

               - and -

          Andrew J. McGuinness, Esq.
          122 S Main St, Suite 118
          P O Box 7711
          Ann Arbor, MI 48107
          Telephone: (734) 274 9374
          Facsimile: (734) 786 9935
          E-mail: drewmcg@topclasslaw.com

               - and -

          Daniel K. Bryson, Esq.
          Margaret P Sandwith, Esq.
          Patrick M Wallace, Esq.
          WHITFIELD, BRYSON & MASON, LLP
          900 W. Morgan St.
          Raleigh, NC 27603
          Telephone: (919) 600 5000
          Facsimile: (919) 600 5035
          E-mail: dan@wbmllp.com
                  pat@wbmllp.com

The Defendant is represented by:

          William F Tarantino, Esq.
          Kimberly Rhea Gosling, Esq.
          Lauren Lynn Wroblewski, Esq.
          William L Stern, Esq.
          MORRISON AND FOERSTER LLP
          425 Market Street Suite 3300
          San Francisco, CA 94105 2482
          Telephone: (415) 268 7000
          Facsimile: (415) 268 7522
          E-mail: wtarantino@mofo.com
                  kgosling@mofo.com
                  lwroblewski@mofo.com
                  wstern@mofo.com


MARATHON OIL: Faces Class Action Over Unpaid Royalties
------------------------------------------------------
Ryan Kocian, writing for Courthouse News Service, reported that
property owners in Oklahoma say in a federal class action in
Oklahoma, that Marathon Oil owes them more than $5 million in gas
and oil royalties.

Lead plaintiffs James and Judy Grellner sued on Oct. 6 on behalf
of all Oklahomans who have had mineral leases with Marathon since
Sept. 1, 2011. They claim the oil giant improperly reduced their
royalties for costs of "marketing, gathering, compressing,
dehydrating, treating, processing or transporting of hydrocarbons
produced from the unit."

Marathon pays royalties based on the net revenue it receives under
its gas contracts, the terms of which the landowners do not know
or approve, the Grellners say. The contracts are for services
needed to put the gas and its constituent parts into marketable
condition.

Oklahoma law requires the lessee (in this case Marathon) to bear
the costs of placing gas and its constituents into "Marketable
Condition" products, according to the 28-page complaint.

The Grellners say the deal was supposed to work this way: "The
lessor and lessee enter into a lease that allows the lessee to
take the minerals from the lessor's land. The usual revenue split
from a well was 1/8th to the lessor (royalty owner) and 7/8ths to
the lessee." But as wells have become more prevalent and drilling
rigs more efficient, royalty owners on recent leases have received
3/16th to 1/4th of the revenue, the complaint states.

The Grellners say that Marathon, like other lessees, uses internal
accounting methods to keep as much of the well revenue for itself
as possible.

"Rather than adopting transparency in its royalty calculation
formula, Marathon, like most lessees, has guarded its production
and accounting processes as confidential or proprietary, thereby,
depriving the royalty owners of information necessary to
understand how Marathon calculates royalties. Consequently, the
royalty owner is unaware of the lessee's actual practices, thereby
enabling the lessee to breach the oil and gas lease without
accountability," the complaint states.

The lawsuit discusses at length how raw gas from each well is
transformed into the two main products -- methane and fractionated
natural gas liquids (NGLs) -- before being sold on the market.

The gaseous mixture from a single well cannot be processed
economically, so mixtures from many wells are "gathered" together
into pipelines and delivered to a processing plant. These costs
include gathering, dehydration and compression.

Once enough gas mixture has been gathered, it goes to a processing
plant where it will be transformed into methane and mixed NGLs.
This leads to a cost to remove impurities, called a treatment
cost, as well as the final processing cost to turn the mixture
into methane gas.

The raw NGLs are separated from the gaseous mixture and processed
by a fractionator into marketable products. The NGLs, which are
used as a feedstock in the petrochemical and oil refining
industries, are considered a more valuable commodity than the
methane.

Neither the methane nor NGLs are commercially marketable at this
point. The producer (Marathon) sells the products in an arm's
length transaction at the prices established by commercial
markets.

The so-called "starting price" for gas products is always achieved
at a commercial market price, the complaint states. "Whichever
starting price is used in an arm's length transaction, that price
is the highest and best reasonable price for the valuable gas
products."

The Grellners say the "extraordinarily large dollars at stake and
the one-sided nature of the gas lessor-lessee relationship" all
help Marathon wrongfully retain gas revenue.

"All payment formulas, all affiliate and non-affiliate contractual
relationships, and all calculations are firmly kept in the
exclusive control of lessees, and they involve undisclosed
accounting and operational practices. As a result, there are many
ways that royalty owners are underpaid on their royalty interests,
and they never know it. The common thread through all of these
schemes is that they are typically buried in the internal lessee
accounting systems or royalty-payment formulas," the complaint
states.

The Grellners say Marathon underpays royalties for residue gas,
NGLs, drip condensate and other products, such as helium, by
taking excessive deductions under midstream services contracts.

Marathon settled a similar class action from 2010, the Grellners
say. This indicates to them that the company "continues its
improper payment practices with actual and willful knowledge and
intent."

Marathon said it does not comment on pending litigation.

The Grellners seek class certification and more than $5 million in
damages for breach of lease, breach of fiduciary duty and fraud.
They are represented by:

          Reagan Bradford, Esq.
          Lanier Law Firm
          6810 FM 1960 West
          Houston, TX 77069
          Tel: (713) 659-5200

and Rex Sharp of Prairie Village, Kan.


MARICOPA, AZ: Hearing Held in Suit Versus Arpaio
------------------------------------------------
Jamie Ross, writing for Courthouse News Service, reported that
civil rights attorneys told a federal judge in Phoenix, on October
13, that Sheriff Joe Arpaio and the Maricopa County Attorney's
Office used Arizona's identity theft laws to unconstitutionally
arrest undocumented immigrants.

In 2014, Puente Arizona filed a class action against Arpaio and
Maricopa County Attorney Bill Montgomery, challenging the
constitutionality of workplace raids performed by Arpaio's
deputies.

Puente claims Arpaio used two state identity laws, which
criminally punish people who use another person's identity to
secure a job, to conduct his workplace raids. Since Puente's suit,
Arpaio has disbanded the immigration investigation unit that
conducted the workplace raids.

Jessica Karp Bansal, an attorney for Puente, told the court in a
hearing on October 13, that there is plenty of evidence the
Arizona Legislature acted to pass the laws to "try to drive
undocumented immigrants out of the county and out of the state."

Bansal pointed to deposition testimony by former state Rep. Ray
Barnes, who sponsored one of the laws, where he said the law was
"meant to address the illegal immigration problem." Bansal also
referred to comments made by state Sen. Russell Pearce, a sponsor
of both laws, that they were a "huge step in stopping the invasion
of illegal aliens."

Pearce gained notoriety after he sponsored S.B. 1070, Arizona's
controversial immigration law that was largely overturned by the
U.S. Supreme Court. He was later voted out of office in a recall
election.

Anne Lai, another attorney for Puente, argued that the passage of
these laws created a "perfect storm" of unconstitutional actions
by Arpaio and the Maricopa County Attorney's Office, which
prosecuted undocumented immigrants arrested by Arpaio's deputies.

"Arizona and the county defendants have achieved what Congress
feared," Lai said.

Lai also argued that despite recent findings by the Ninth Circuit
that the laws were not preempted by federal law, "there is no rule
that Congress has to speak explicitly."

"The federal scheme has built-in flexibiity," Lai said. "The
defendants' focus is simply on retribution and bringing down the
hammer."

In May, a three-judge panel of the Ninth Circuit overturned
findings by U.S. District Judge David Campbell, who oversees the
class action, that the workplace raids were preempted by federal
law.

"Congress could not have intended to preempt the state from
sanctioning crimes that protect citizens of the state under
Arizona's traditional police powers without intruding on federal
immigration policy," Circuit Judge Richard Tallman wrote. "Thus,
we hold that despite the state legislative history, Congress did
not intend to preempt state criminal statutes like the identity
theft laws."

Assistant Arizona Attorney General Dominic Draye said Congress's
intent is clear in its encouragement of state governments to
enforce their own laws.

"Policies and practices can't trigger preemption without
congressional intent," Draye said.

Ann Uglietta, representing Maricopa County, agreed.  "This is
conduct that falls naturally within the county attorney's power,"
Uglietta said.

Arpaio's attorney, Renee Waters, argued that Arpaio exercised "a
traditional power" by allowing his deputies to arrest undocumented
immigrants during workplace raids.  "His duty to uphold the laws
means it's no surprise he would have enthusiastically enforced
these laws," Waters said.

It's unclear when Campbell will issue his decision in the case.

The lawsuit is just one in a slew of legal problems for Arpaio,
who was not present in court on October 13.

The six-term lawman faces federal criminal contempt charges lodged
by the Justice Department after he violated a court order in a
racial profiling class action.  He also faces a tough election
race against Democratic challenger Paul Penzone. A recent poll
conducted from Oct. 2-5 by Sherpa Public Affairs shows Penzone, a
former Phoenix police officer, leading Arpaio by 10 points.


MCDONALD'S CORP: Salazar Seeks to Certify Class of Crew Members
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Plaintiffs in the lawsuit titled GUADALUPE SALAZAR, et al., on
behalf of themselves and others similarly situated v. MCDONALD'S
CORP., et al., Case No. 3:14-cv-02096-RS (N.D. Cal.), ask the
Court to certify a proposed class that consists of:

     all individuals currently or formerly employed as hourly,
     non-exempt, non-managerial employees, including crew members
     and crew trainers, at one or more of the following eight
     franchised McDonald's restaurants at any time from March 12,
     2010 (four years before the filing of this action on
     March 12, 2014) through the mailing of class notice at:

     * 7300 Bancroft Avenue, Oakland, CA 94605 (Store No. 23467)

     * 6300 International Boulevard, Oakland, CA 94621 (Store No.
       10235)

     * 2520 East 12th Street, Oakland, CA 94601 (Store No. 1666)

     * 9725 International Boulevard, Oakland, CA 94603 (Store No.
       7100)

     * 2208 MacArthur Boulevard, Oakland, CA 94602 (Store No.
       7847)

     * 8400 Edgewater Drive, Oakland, CA 94621 (Store No. 30911)

     * 640 Hegenberger Road, Oakland, CA 94621 (Store No. 11834)

     * 1287 Washington Street, San Leandro, CA 94577 (Store No.
       6593)

The Plaintiffs also seek appointment of Guadalupe Salazar,
Genoveva Lopez, and Judith Zarate as class representatives and
Altshuler Berzon LLP and Cohen Milstein Sellers & Toll PLLC as
class counsel.

The Court will commence a hearing on December 8, 2016, at 1:30
p.m., to consider the Motion.

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

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Michael Rubin, Esq.
          Barbara J. Chisholm, Esq.
          P. Casey Pitts, Esq.
          Matthew J. Murray, Esq.
          Raphael N. Rajendra, Esq.
          ALTSHULER BERZON LLP
          177 Post Street, Suite 300
          San Francisco, CA 94108
          Telephone: (415) 421-7151
          Facsimile: (415) 362-8064
          E-mail: mrubin@altber.com
                  bchisholm@altber.com
                  cpitts@altber.com
                  mmurray@altber.com
                  rrajendra@altber.com

               - and -

          Joseph M. Sellers, Esq.
          Miriam R. Nemeth, Esq.
          COHEN MILSTEIN SELLERS & TOLL, PLLC
          1100 New York Ave NW, Suite 500
          Washington, DC 20005
          Telephone: (202) 408-4600
          Facsimile: (202) 408-4699
          E-mail: jsellers@cohenmilstein.com
                  mnemeth@cohenmilstein.com


MDL 1869: CSX Still Awaits Ruling on Class Certification Bid
------------------------------------------------------------
CSX Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on October 12, 2016, for the
quarterly period ended September 23, 2016, that in the Fuel
Surcharge Antitrust Litigation, the District Court has delayed
proceedings on the merits of the case pending the outcome of the
class certification remand proceedings. The court has given no
indication of timing on its ruling regarding class certification.

In May 2007, class action lawsuits were filed against CSXT and
three other U.S.-based Class I railroads alleging that the
defendants' fuel surcharge practices relating to contract and
unregulated traffic resulted from an illegal conspiracy in
violation of antitrust laws. In November 2007, the class action
lawsuits were consolidated in federal court in the District of
Columbia, where they are now pending. The suit seeks treble
damages allegedly sustained by purported class members as well as
attorneys' fees and other relief. Plaintiffs are expected to
allege damages at least equal to the fuel surcharges at issue.

In June 2012, the District Court certified the case as a class
action. The decision was not a ruling on the merits of plaintiffs'
claims, but rather a decision to allow the plaintiffs to seek to
prove the case as a class. The defendant railroads petitioned the
U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit for permission to
appeal the District Court's class certification decision. In
August 2013, the D.C. Circuit issued a decision vacating the class
certification decision and remanded the case to the District Court
to reconsider its class certification decision.

The District Court remand proceedings are underway and the class
certification hearing was held in September 2016. The District
Court has delayed proceedings on the merits of the case pending
the outcome of the class certification remand proceedings. The
court has given no indication of timing on its ruling regarding
class certification.

CSXT believes that its fuel surcharge practices were arrived at
and applied lawfully and that the case is without merit.
Accordingly, the Company intends to defend itself vigorously.
However, penalties for violating antitrust laws can be severe, and
resolution of this matter or an unexpected adverse decision on the
merits could have a material adverse effect on the Company's
financial condition, results of operations or liquidity in that
particular period.

The case is, In re Rail Freight Fuel Surcharge Antitrust
Litigation-MDL No. 1869 (D. D.C.).


MERCHANT ACCOUNT: Faces "Trisdale" Suit in Eastern Dist. of Cal.
----------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Merchant Account
Solutions LLC. The case is captioned Phillip Trisdale,
individually, and on behalf of other members of the general public
similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. Merchant Account Solutions
LLC, and International Card Services, LLC, the Defendant, Case No.
2:16-cv-02411-KJM-KJN (E.D. Cal., Oct. 12, 2016). The case is
assigned to Hon. District Judge Kimberly J. Mueller.

Founded in 2007, MAS is a payment solution provider. It provides
customers with advanced systems and technology.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


MOSSY OAK: "Mercado" Suit to Recover Overtime Pay
-------------------------------------------------
Julio Mercado, on behalf of himself and those similarly situated,
Plaintiff, v. Mossy Oak Fence of Brevard, LLC, a Florida Profit
Corporation, Defendant, Case No. 6:16-cv-01736, (M.D. Fla.,
October 4, 2016), seeks to recover overtime compensation,
liquidated damages and reasonable attorneys' fees and costs and
other relief under the Fair Labor Standards Act.

Mossy Oak Fence Company is a fence installation company located in
4640 US-1, Melbourne, FL 32935. Mercado was employed by Defendant
as a laborer in its Orlando, Florida location, installing and
repairing fences for the Defendant. He claims to have worked in
excess of 40 hours per week without overtime pay.

Plaintiff is represented by:

Carlos V. Leach, Esq.
      Morgan & Morgan
      20N Orange Ave., Suite 1600
      Orlando, FL 32801
      Tel: (407) 420-1414
      Email: cleach@forthepeople.com


MUDTECH SERVICES: Certification of Class Sought in "Gallow" Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Plaintiff in the lawsuit titled ALLEN GALLOW, individually and
on behalf of all others similarly situated v. MUDTECH SERVICES,
L.P., Case No. 2:15-cv-01482-NBF (W.D. Pa.), moves the Court to
certify as a class action his overtime claims under the
Pennsylvania Minimum Wage Act, the Ohio Minimum Fair Wage
Standards Act, and the Ohio Prompt Pay Act.

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

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Michael A. Josephson, Esq.
          Lindsay R. Itkin, Esq.
          Andrew W. Dunlap, Esq.
          Jessica M. Bresler, Esq.
          FIBICH, LEEBRON, COPELAND, BRIGGS & JOSEPHSON
          1150 Bissonnet Street
          Houston, TX 77005
          Telephone: (713) 751-0025
          Facsimile: (713) 751-0030
          E-mail: mjosephson@fibichlaw.com
                  litkin@fibichlaw.com
                  adunlap@fibichlaw.com
                  jbresler@fibichlaw.com

               - and -

          Richard J. (Rex) Burch, Esq.
          BRUCKNER BURCH PLLC
          8 Greenway Plaza, Suite 1500
          Houston, TX 77046
          Telephone: (713) 877-8788
          Facsimile: (710) 877-8065
          E-mail: rburch@brucknerburch.com

               - and -

          Joshua P. Geist, Esq.
          GOODRICH & GEIST, P.C.
          3634 California Ave.
          Pittsburgh, PA 15212
          Telephone: (412) 766-1455
          Facsimile: (412) 766-0300
          E-mail: josh@goodrichandgeist.com


MYLAN: Faces Security Fraud Suit Over Epipen Pricing
----------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reported that days after reaching a $495
million settlement with the United States about its Medicaid
classification of EpiPens, Mylan faces a federal class action in
Manhattan, alleging securities fraud. The drugmaker has been
hounded of late by consumers and Congress over EpiPen price-
gouging.


MYOFUNCTIONAL RESEARCH: Faces Whiting Suit in C.D. California
-------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Myofunctional
Research Company USA, Inc. The case is captioned Whiting, DDS,
Inc., doing business as Whiting Family Dental, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v.
Myofunctional Research Company USA, Inc., the Defendant, Case No.
8:16-cv-01863 (C.D. Cal., Oct. 12, 2016).

Myofunctional is a research service company located in Coral
Springs, Florida.

The Plaintiff appears pro se.


NATIONAL BEVERAGE: Dec. 5 Class Action Lead Plaintiff Motion Set
----------------------------------------------------------------
The following statement is being issued by Levi & Korsinsky, LLP:

To: All persons or entities who purchased or otherwise acquired
securities of National Beverage Corp. ("National Beverage")
(NASDAQ:FIZZ) between July 16, 2015 and September 28, 2016.

You are hereby notified that a securities class action lawsuit has
been commenced in the United States District Court for the Central
District of California.  If you purchased or otherwise acquired
National Beverage between July 16, 2015 and September 28, 2016,
your rights may be affected by this action.  To get more
information go to:

http://www.zlk.com/pslra/national-beverage-corp

or contact Joseph E. Levi, Esq. either via email at jlevi@zlk.com
or by telephone at (212) 363-7500, toll-free: (877) 363-5972.
There is no cost or obligation to you.

The Complaint alleges that throughout the Class Period defendants
made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose
that it lacked effective internal controls over financial
reporting.

On September 27, 2016, a report from Glaucus Research was issued
alleging, among other allegations, that: the Company's former CEO
and Chairman admitted to "manipulating FIZZ's earnings . . . [and]
directing his son to create fake invoices"; the Company refused to
allow a potential acquirer to perform adequate due diligence on
the Company, thus leading to the failure of the transaction; and
that the Company's officers are "compensated by a privately held
company" that disallows shareholder visibility. Following this
report, shares fell more than 8% to close at $42.67 per share on
September 28, 2016.

If you suffered a loss in National Beverage you have until
December 5, 2016 to request that the Court appoint you as lead
plaintiff.  Your ability to share in any recovery doesn't require
that you serve as a lead plaintiff.

Levi & Korsinsky -- http://www.zlk.com-- is a national firm with
offices in New York, New Jersey, California, Connecticut, and
Washington D.C.  The firm's attorneys have extensive expertise and
experience representing investors in securities litigation
involving financial fraud, and have recovered hundreds of millions
of dollars for aggrieved shareholders.


NATIONAL COLLEGIATE: "Clayton" Sues Over Head Injuries in Football
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Marcus Clayton, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. Syracuse University, American Athletic
Conference and National Collegiate Athletic Association,
Defendants, Case No. 1:16-cv-2635 (S.D. Ind., October 4, 2016),
seeks economic, monetary, actual, consequential, compensatory and
punitive damages, reasonable litigation expenses and attorneys'
fees, pre and post-judgment interest, injunctive and/or
declaratory relief and such other and further relief resulting
from negligence, fraudulent concealment, breach of implied and
express contract and unjust enrichment.

Clayton played football at Syracuse from 2003 to 2005 as a
receiver, kick returner, and cornerback. He claims to have
sustained concussions and that his ears would ring and his vision
would become blurry.

Syracuse University is an educational institution organized under
the laws of the State of New York. Defendant Syracuse maintains
its principal place of business at 900 South Crouse Avenue,
Syracuse, New York 13244.

American Athletic Conference is a corporation organized under the
laws of the District of Columbia. It maintains its principal place
of business at 15 Park Row West, Providence, Rhode Island 02903.
NCAA is an unincorporated association with its principal place of
business located at 700 West Washington Street, Indianapolis,
Indiana 46206.

The National Collegiate Athletic Association is the governing body
of collegiate athletics that oversees twenty-three college sports
with its principal place of business located at 700 West
Washington Street, Indianapolis, Indiana 46206.

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Jeff Raizner, Esq.
      RAIZNER SLANIA LLP
      2402 Dunlavy Street
      Houston, TX 77006
      Tel: (713) 554.9099
      Fax: (713) 554.9098
      Email: jraizner@raiznerlaw.com

           - and -

      Jay Edelson, Esq.
      Benjamin H. Richman, Esq.
      EDELSON PC
      350 North LaSalle Street, 13th Floor
      Chicago, IL 60654
      Tel: (312) 589-6370
      Fax: (312) 589-6378
      Email: jedelson@edelson.com
             brichman@edelson.com

           - and -

      Rafey S. Balabanian, Esq.
      EDELSON PC
      123 Townsend Street
      San Francisco, CA 94107
      Tel: (415) 212-9300
      Fax: (415) 373-9435
      Email: rbalabanian@edelson.com


NATIONAL COLLEGIATE: "Bonds" Sues Over Head Injuries in Football
----------------------------------------------------------------
Kerry Bonds, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. Southeastern Conference and National
Collegiate Athletic Association, Defendants, Case No. 1:16-cv-
02634 (S.D. Ind., October 10, 2016), seeks to obtain redress for
all persons injured by the Defendants' reckless disregard
resulting from negligence, fraudulent concealment, breach of
implied and express contract and unjust enrichment.

Southeastern Conference is an unincorporated athletic association
with its principal place of business located at 2201 Richard
Arrington Jr. Blvd. North, Birmingham, Alabama 35203.

National Collegiate Athletic Association is an unincorporated
athletic association with its principal place of business located
at 700 West Washington Street, Indianapolis, Indiana 46206.

Plaintiff is a former player now suffering from neurological and
cognitive damage, including symptoms of traumatic encephalopathy.

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Jeff Raizner, Esq.
      RAIZNER SLANIA LLP
      2402 Dunlavy Street
      Houston, TX 77006
      Tel: (713) 554.9099
      Fax: (713) 554.9098
      Email: jraizner@raiznerlaw.com

           - and -

      Jay Edelson, Esq.
      Benjamin H. Richman, Esq.
      EDELSON PC
      350 North LaSalle Street, 13th Floor
      Chicago, IL 60654
      Tel: (312) 589-6370
      Fax: (312) 589-6378
      Email: jedelson@edelson.com
             brichman@edelson.com

           - and -

      Rafey S. Balabanian, Esq.
      EDELSON PC
      123 Townsend Street
      San Francisco, CA 94107
      Tel: (415) 212-9300
      Fax: (415) 373-9435
      Email: rbalabanian@edelson.com

           - and -

      Benjamin H. Richman, Esq.
      EDELSON PC
      350 North LaSalle Street, 13th Floor
      Chicago, IL 60654
      Tel: 312.589.6370
      Fax: 312.589.6378
      Email: brichman@edelson.com


NATIONAL COLLEGIATE: "Bozeman" Sues Over Football Head Injuries
---------------------------------------------------------------
James Bozeman, individually and on behalf of all other similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. Southeastern Conference and National
Collegiate Athletic Association, Defendants, Case No. 1:16-cv-
02641 (S.D. Ind., October 10, 2016), seeks actual damages for
contractual breaches, as well as interest, reasonable attorneys'
fees, expenses, and costs resulting from negligence, fraudulent
concealment, breach of implied and express contract and unjust
enrichment.

Southeastern Conference is an unincorporated athletic association
with its principal place of business located at 2201 Richard
Arrington Jr. Blvd. North, Birmingham, Alabama 35203.

National Collegiate Athletic Association is an unincorporated
athletic association with its principal place of business located
at 700 West Washington Street, Indianapolis, Indiana 46206.

Plaintiff is a former player now suffering from neurological and
cognitive damage, including symptoms of traumatic encephalopathy.

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Jeff Raizner, Esq.
      RAIZNER SLANIA LLP
      2402 Dunlavy Street
      Houston, TX 77006
      Tel: (713) 554.9099
      Fax: (713) 554.9098
      Email: jraizner@raiznerlaw.com

           - and -

      Jay Edelson, Esq.
      Benjamin H. Richman, Esq.
      EDELSON PC
      350 North LaSalle Street, 13th Floor
      Chicago, IL 60654
      Tel: (312) 589-6370
      Fax: (312) 589-6378
      Email: jedelson@edelson.com
             brichman@edelson.com

           - and -

      Rafey S. Balabanian, Esq.
      EDELSON PC
      123 Townsend Street
      San Francisco, CA 94107
      Tel: (415) 212-9300
      Fax: (415) 373-9435
      Email: rbalabanian@edelson.com


NATIONAL COLLEGIATE: Student Athletes Say They Deserve Wages
------------------------------------------------------------
Jenie Mallari-Torres, writing for Northern California Record,
reports that a group of student athletes has filed a class-action
lawsuit against the National Collegiate Athletic Association
(NCAA) and PAC-12 Conference for alleged unpaid wages and
violation of the applicable minimum wage law.

Lamar Dawson filed a complaint individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated on Sept. 26 in the U.S. District Court
for the Northern District of California against the defendants,
alleging that they violated the fair labor standards act through
unlawful employee compensation.

According to the complaint, the plaintiffs allege that
Lamar Dawson and class members were employed jointly by the
defendants as student athletes playing football while attending
classes at the University of Southern California, they are
considered as nonexempt workers entitled to the protections of the
California Minimum Wage Order.  However, in the performance of
their duties for defendant NCAA, they supposedly worked more than
40 hours per week, yet did not receive overtime compensation for
the work, labor and services they have provided, more so, they
were not paid the required minimum wage.  As a result, the
plaintiffs claim to have suffered monetary losses.

The plaintiffs hold the National Collegiate Athletic Association
and PAC-12 Conference responsible because the defendants allegedly
failed to pay timely and adequate compensation or overtime wages
dues and failed to provide plaintiffs an accurate and itemized
wage statements.

The plaintiffs request a trial by jury and seek judgment in their
favor, be declared as class action, appoint class
representative/counsel, declare willful violations, damages,
interest, attorneys' fees, costs of suit and other relief as the
court deems just.  They are represented by Betsy C. Manifold --
manifold@whafh.com -- of Wolf Haldenstein Adler Freeman & Herz LLP
in San Diego, Jeffrey G. Smith -- smith@whafh.com -- and
Mark C. Rifkin -- rifkin@whafh.com -- of Wolf Haldenstein Adler
Freeman & Herz LLP in New York, John M. Kelson of The Law Offices
of John M. Kelson in Oakland and Attorney at Law Jerry K. Cimmet
in San Mateo.

U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California case
number 3:16-cv-05487


NELNET INC: Faces "Pickett" Suit in Middle District of Florida
--------------------------------------------------------------
A lawsuit has been filed against Nelnet, Inc. The case is
captioned Darrel Pickett, on behalf of himself and others
similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. Nelnet, Inc., the Defendant,
Case No. 6:16-cv-01765-PGB-KRS (M.D. Fla., Oct. 11, 2016). The
case is assigned to Hon. Judge Paul G. Byron.

Nelnet is a United States-based conglomerate that deals in the
administration and repayment of student loans and education
financial services. The company is headquartered in Lincoln,
Nebraska.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Aaron D. Radbil, Esq.
          James L. Davidson, Esq.
          Michael L. Greenwald, Esq.
          Greenwald Davidson Radbil, PLLC
          5550 Glades Rd. Ste 500
          Boca Raton, FL 33431
          Telephone: (561) 826 5477
          Facsimile: (561) 961 5684
          E-mail: aradbil@gdrlawfirm.com
                  jdavidson@gdrlawfirm.com
                  mgreenwald@gdrlawfirm.com


PALMETTO SOLAR: Faces False Advertising Class Action in Louisiana
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Michael Abella, writing for Louisiana Record, reports that a
Marrero couple alleges solar power companies falsely advertise the
amount of energy savings its equipment can generate for consumers.

William Mosby and Debra Mosby filed a complaint on behalf of all
others similarly situated on Sept. 2 in the U.S. District Court
for the Eastern District of Louisiana against Palmetto Solar
Louisiana LLC, Red River Solar LLC, Red River Solar LLC 2, Red
River Solar LLC 3 and Red River Solar LLC alleging that they
violated the Louisiana Unfair Trade Practice Act and Consumer
Protection Law.

According to the complaint, the plaintiffs allege that the
defendants are not forthcoming about the costs associated with
installing their solar equipment systems and oversell the
potential cost savings.  The plaintiffs holds Palmetto Solar
Louisiana LLC, Red River Solar LLC, Red River Solar LLC 2, Red
River Solar LLC 3 and Red River Solar LLC responsible because the
defendants allegedly advertised that their equipment would result
in significant cost of savings and overstated the solar power
savings to the point of believing that they would no longer get an
energy bill.

The plaintiffs request a trial by jury and seek an order
certifying this as a class action and appointing plaintiffs and
their counsel as class representatives, compensatory damages,
restitution, disgorgement of profits, court costs, attorneys' fees
and any other relief that the court may deem just and proper.
They are represented by Lawrence J. Centola III, Neil F. Nazareth
and Jason C. Landry of Martzell, Bickford & Centola in New Orleans
and Lawrence Blake Jones and Joshua L. Rubenstein --
jrubenstein@nola-law.com -- of Scheuermann & Jones LLC in New
Orleans.

U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana Case
number 2:16-cv-14431


PEPSICO INC: "Lipkind" Sues Over False Labeling and Advertising
---------------------------------------------------------------
Dina Lipkind, Lyle Takeshita and Chad Fenwick, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. PEPSICO,
INC., Defendant, Case No. 1:16-cv-05506, (E.D. N.Y., October 4,
2016), seeks damages, other monetary relief, declaratory relief
and an injunction to stop PepsiCo's misleading, false, and illegal
marketing of its Naked beverages.

PepsiCo manufactures, markets and sells "Naked," a juice and
smoothie beverage line marketed as highly nutritious drinks.
Plaintiff alleges that these claims are false and misleading
because they predominantly consist of cheaper and less nutritious
ingredients like apple juice. PepsiCo labels Naked beverages with
the prominent claim, "NO SUGAR ADDED," despite allegedly
containing 35-61 grams of sugar per serving. "Naked" products
display fruits and vegetables pictured on the label despite
containing a different set of ingredients per label.

PepsiCo, Inc., is a public corporation organized and existing
under the laws of the State of North Carolina with principal place
of business at 700 Anderson Hill Road, Purchase, New York 10577.

Plaintiff is represented by:

Michael R. Reese, Esq.
      George V. Granade
      REESE LLP
      100 West 93rd Street, 16th Floor
      New York, NY 10025
      Telephone: (212) 643-0500
      Facsimile: (212) 253-4272
      Email: mreese@reesellp.com
             ggranade@reesellp.com

             - and -

      Maia C. Kats, Esq.
      William Thanhauser
      CENTER FOR SCIENCE IN THE PUBLIC INTEREST
      1220 L Street, Northwest, Suite 300
      Washington, DC 20005
      Telephone: (202) 777-8381
      Facsimile: (202) 265-4954
      Email: mkats@cspinet.org
             wthanhauser@cspinet.org


POLY PAK: Does Not Properly Pay Employees, "Selmond" Suit Claims
----------------------------------------------------------------
Adolphe Selmond, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated v. Poly Pak America, Inc., Real Time Staffing Services,
and Does 1 through 100, 16 inclusive, Case No. BC636452 (Cal.
Super. Ct., October 6, 2016), is brought against the Defendants
for failure to pay wages, including minimum and overtime wages.

Poly Pak America, Inc. manufactures poly mailers, heavy duty bags,
poly bags, poly films, plastic pouches, and security bags.

Real Time Staffing Services operates an employment agency in Santa
Barbara, California.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Michael Nourmand, Esq.
      THE NOURMAND LAW FIRM, APC
      8822 West Olympic Boulevard
      Beverly Hills, CA 90211
      Telephone: (310) 553-3600
      Facsimile: (310) 553-3603

         - and -

       Mehrdad Bokhour, Esq.
       BIBIYAN & BOKHOUR, P.C.
       287 S. Robertson Blvd., Suite 303
       Beverly Hills, CA 90211
       Telephone: (310) 438-5555
       Facsimile: (310) 300-1705


PRIME COMMUNICATIONS: Blumenthal Nordrehaug Sues Over Unpaid OT
---------------------------------------------------------------
The San Francisco labor law attorneys at Blumenthal, Nordrehaug
and Bhowmik lodged a putative class action lawsuit against Prime
Communications of California for allegedly failing to provide
their hourly workers in California with the legally required
thirty minute uninterrupted meal periods.  The class action also
alleges that Prime Communications failed to pay all overtime
worked by their California employees and allegedly failed to
properly reimburse California employees for necessary business
expenses incurred.  The Prime Communications lawsuit, Case No.
16CIV01563 is currently pending in the San Mateo County Superior
Court.

The lawsuit filed against Prime Communications claims that the
company failed to accurately "record and pay Plaintiff and other
California Class Members for the actual amount of time these
employees worked, including overtime worked."  Under the
California Labor Code, an employee who is classified as
non-exempt and is paid on an hourly basis must be paid overtime
wages for time worked in excess of eight hours in a workday and
time worked over forty hours in a workweek.

The Complaint also alleges that the golden state employees working
for Prime Communications were not provided thirty minute
uninterrupted meal breaks prior to their fifth hour of work.
California law requires employers to provide their non-exempt
employees paid on an hourly basis with thirty minute meal periods
before the employee works five hours.

For more information about the class action lawsuit filed against
Prime Communications, please call Attorney Nicholas De Blouw at
the firm Blumenthal Nordrehuag and Bhomwik at (866) 771-7099.

Blumenthal, Nordrehaug and Bhowmik is a San Francisco employment
law firm that dedicates its practice to helping employees, fight
back against unfair business practices, including violations of
the California Labor Code and Fair Labor Standards Act.


PRUDENTIAL SECURITY: Kritcher Seeks to Certify Class Under FLSA
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Plaintiff in the lawsuit styled BRIAN KRITCHER, on behalf of
himself and all other persons similarly situated, known and
unknown v. PRUDENTIAL SECURITY, INC. and GREGORY WIER a Michigan
for-profit corporation and its corporate officer, Case No. 2:16-
cv-12637-BAF-EAS (E.D. Mich.), moves the Court for conditional
class certification and Court-supervised notice for this proposed
Fair Labor Standards Act class:

     All individuals who worked at any time during the past three
     years for Defendants as a security guard in a supervisory
     role, who were paid for their work on an hourly basis, and
     who were not paid an overtime premium of one and one-half
     times their regular rate of pay for hours worked over 40
     hours in any particular workweek.

Mr. Kritcher also asks the Court to appoint his counsel as counsel
for all employees, who join the Action without counsel of their
own, to approve his proposed notice to be mailed and e-mailed to
affected employees, to require the Defendants to identify and
produce the names, addresses, and e-mail addresses of affected
employees, and to allow 90 days after receipt of the Notice for
employees to opt in to the Case, if they so choose.

A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=rVEFvjr5

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Bryan Yaldou, Esq.
          Omar Badr, Esq.
          THE LAW OFFICES OF BRYAN YALDOU, PLLC
          23000 Telegraph, Suite 5
          Brownstown, MI 48134
          Telephone: (734) 692-9200
          Facsimile: (734) 692-9201
          E-mail: bryan@yaldoulaw.com

The Defendants are represented by:

          Dominic N. Hamden, Esq.
          LAW OFFICE OF DOMINIC N. HAMDEN, PLLC
          18 W. Main Street
          Milan, MI 48160
          Telephone: (734) 439-8884
          Facsimile: (734) 439-1254
          E-mail: dominichamden@gmail.com


PUMA BIOTECHNOLOGY: Law Firm Probes Potential Securities Claims
---------------------------------------------------------------
Johnson & Weaver, LLP, is investigating potential violations of
federal and state laws by certain officers and directors of Puma
Biotechnology, Inc.

On September 30, 2016, a federal court denied a motion to dismiss
a securities fraud class action filed against Puma and certain
executives.  Puma is a development-stage biopharmaceutical
company, focused on the acquisition, development and
commercialization of products to enhance cancer care.  The
company's lead product candidate is an investigational drug known
as PB272 ("neratinib"), which Puma touted as an extended adjuvant
treatment for human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 ("HER2")-
positive breast cancer.  Investors assert that during the class
period, Puma overstated the efficacy results from its Phase III
ExteNET trial, which compared extended adjuvant treatment with
neratinib to placebo in HER2-positive breast cancer patients who
were pre-treated with Roche's Herceptin.  The complaint if the
class action alleges that these statements misled investors into
thinking the disease-free survival rates over time showed an
increasing benefit for those on neratinib (a 33% improvement)
versus those on a placebo.  In response to Puma's statements
regarding the result of the trial, its stock increased $174.37 per
share by the close of the market on July 23, 2014, a one-day
increase of over 295%.

If you have held Puma shares continuously since at least July 22,
2014, you may have standing to hold Puma harmless from the damage
the officers and directors caused by making them personally
responsible.  You may also be able to assist in reforming the
Company's corporate governance to prevent future wrongdoing.

If you are a Puma shareholder and are interested in learning more
about the investigation or your legal rights and remedies, please
contact lead analyst Jim Baker (jimb@johnsonandweaver.com) at 619-
814-4471.  If you email, please include your phone number.


RACKSPACE HOSTING: Suit Challenges $4.3 Billion Apollo Merger
-------------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reported that directors are selling
Rackspace Hosting ("the number one managed cloud company") too
cheaply through an unfair process to Apollo Global Management, for
$32 a share or $4.3 billion, shareholders say in a class action in
Wilmington, Delaware Chancery Court.


REWALK ROBOTICS: Sued in Cal. Over Misleading Financial Reports
---------------------------------------------------------------
Arlin Ojeda, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. Rewalk Robotics Ltd., Larry Kasinski, AMi Kraft, Amit
Goffer, Jeff Dykan, Hadar Ron, Asaf Shina, Wayne B. Weisman,
Yasushi Ichiki, Aryeh Dan, Glenn Muir, Barclays Capital Inc.,
Jefferies LLC, and Canaccord Genuity Inc., Case No. 16-cv-01763
(Cal. Super. Ct., October 6, 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.

Rewalk Robotics Ltd. is a medical device company based in Israel
that was founded in 2001.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Frank Johnson, Esq.
      Phong L. Tran, Esq.
      Kristen L. O'Connor, Esq.
      JOHNSON & WEAVER, LLP
      600 West Broadway, Suite 1540
      San Diego, CA 92101
      Telephone: (619) 230-0063
      Facsimile: (619) 255-1856
      E-mail: Frank@johnsonandweaver.com
              PhongT@johnsonandweaver.com
              KristenO@johnsonandweaver.com


ROYAL BANK: RGL Expects Claims to Rise Following Data Leak
----------------------------------------------------------
Scott McCulloch, writing for Daily Record, reports that RGL
Management expects its class-action group will rise from around
140 at present to "more than 1,000" as it pursues litigation
alleging RBS "systematically sought to defraud its customers for
its own commercial purposes"

A group gathering claims against Royal Bank of Scotland for the
conduct of its disbanded Global Restructuring Group expects
claimant numbers will swell to more than 1,000 as a result of a
data leak proving RBS deliberately set out to profit from business
customers.

RGL Management Limited, incorporated in February for the purpose
of pursuing RBS for the actions of the now disbanded restructuring
arm Global Restructuring Group (GRG), plans to launch a legal
claim against RBS in early 2017.

The group, which is being funded by professional litigation
investors, said its headline claim in the litigation will be RBS,
through GRG, "systematically sought to defraud its customers for
its own commercial purposes".

The class action will also claim GRG targeted "asset-rich" small
to medium-sized enterprises (SMEs) on an "often invented" pretext
to then "hit them with heavy fees, placed them into a manufactured
insolvency process and then in many cases obtained their key
assets at undervalued rates".

RGL Management stated earlier in the month it expected to launch a
œ1 billion legal claim against RBS early next year on behalf of
around 140 businesses, having added around 100 new claimants
between April and October.

Those firms already signed up to the class action are pursing
claims on average of GBP6-GBP7 million.

However RGL Management now expects it will be pursuing claims on
behalf of more than 1,000 firms with "an aggregate claim size
reaching billions of pounds" following the publication of extracts
from a data leak of more than 17,000 internal RBS documents.

The leaked documents reveal GRG operated an internal project
codenamed "Dash for Cash" to run down lending and increase
profits.

The documents show RBS incentivized staff who identified companies
which could be moved to GRG and bonuses were also awarded based on
the volume of fees collected from companies which ended up in GRG.

Staff were also apparently incentivized to find ways to "provoke a
default" on customer debt.

The documents, reported to have come from a whistleblower within
the 73 per cent taxpayer-backed bank, suggest some customers were
referred to GRG simply for requesting a move to another lender.

Others were apparently referred to GRG for threatening to take
legal action against the bank or for questioning the banks'
motives or behavior.

RGL Management said it had worked with the BBC's Panorama team and
BuzzFeed to help provide details of GRG wrong-doing.

RGL argues claims made against GRG which fell outwith a six-year
timebar limit could now be resurrected, "by virtue of RBS's
concealment of the true nature of GRG's activities", first
outlined in businessman Lawrence Tomlinson's November 2013 report
outlining GRG's "unscrupulous" treatment of RBS business
customers.

Tomlinson's report claimed RBS had deliberately pushed some firms
into insolvency in order to buy back their assets at rock-bottom
prices.

In response, RBS instructed Magic Circle law firm Clifford Chance
-- who are also retained by RBS in other matters -- to undertake
an 'independent' review of the GRG business which found no
evidence in the 138 cases selected for review the bank has acted
improperly.

The Clifford Chance report also found no evidence the RBS property
arm, West Register, had deliberately targeted customer assets.

However the leaked documents show information on properties held
by customers in GRG was being passed to West Register.

Derek Sach, then global head of GRG, also sat on the committee of
West Register, which decided on which customer assets the bank
would purchase.

RGL Management, who state their focus is on "commercial returns",
said Humphries Kerstetter LLP and a team of counsel from 3 Hare
Court have been engaged to launch proceedings against RBS, with
proceedings scheduled to commence in early 2017.

Commenting on the progress of the claim, James Hayward, chief
executive of RGL Management Ltd, said: "Many of the victims of GRG
have claims that are time-barred.

"But those claims can be resurrected by virtue of RBS's
concealment of the true nature of GRG's activities.

"It will be forcefully argued that insufficient knowledge was
publicly available as to the truth of what happened until the 2013
publication of the Tomlinson report.

"Consequently, limitation ought not to run against these claims
until six years have expired from November 2013."

Mr. Hayward added: "The litigation will obtain redress for a
substantial body of RBS's former customers who have been deprived,
in most cases, of everything they owned at the hands of a bank
they thought was there to help them succeed."

RBS declined to comment on the latest statement from RGL
Management, though the bank stated earlier it believes it has a
"strong case" and will defend the claims "vigorously".

In 2013 the regulator the Financial Conduct Authority (FCA) was
ordered to investigate the allegations outlined in the Tomlinson
report by then business secretary, Vince Cable.

The FCA appointed Promontory Financial Group and Mazars to carry
out the review and the FCA was expected to publish its findings by
the end of 2015.

However FCA chief executive Andrew Bailey has yet to set a date
for publication.

Andrew Tyrie, chairman of parliament's Treasury Select Committee,
said he will be writing to the FCA seeking a publication date.

"The leaks today illustrate the need for the FCA to get on with
publication as soon as possible," he said.

"The basis of what has come out so far, this appears to be a
shocking story, with many businesses at the wrong end of it."

The FCA said the review is "complex and lengthy" and stressed it
was "important . . not rush the final stages of this process."

Laith Khalaf, a senior analyst at Hargreaves Lansdowne, said the
leaked documents present a "material threat" to RBS's future
prospects.

Mr. Khalaf said: "RBS is already potentially facing a multi-
billion dollar fine in the US for mis-selling in the run up to the
credit crunch.

"These latest revelations suggest the financial crisis may not
have brought an end to bad behavior at the bank however, which
looks to have continued while under government ownership."

He added: "The financial watchdog will give its verdict on the
allegations facing RBS in due course, which could lead to yet
another fine, and the prospect of a fresh wave of litigation.

"It's a sad fact that despite the specter of the PPI scandal
beginning to fade away, conduct costs remain a material threat to
the Royal Bank of Scotland."


ROBERT HALF: Attorney Fees in Employment Class Action Upheld
------------------------------------------------------------
Kristin Danley-Greiner, writing for Legal Newsline, reports that
the California Supreme Court has upheld the attorney fees awarded
in an employment class action lawsuit, stating the award was not
unreasonable because it is calculated as a percentage of the
common fund instead of using a lodestar calculation.

In Lafitte v. Robert Half International Inc., the class action
lawsuit was settled before trial for $19 million with no more than
one-third of the recovery given to class counsel as attorney's
fees.

Class counsel, however, sought the maximum fee amount of
$6,333,333.33, which the trial court approved minus the objection
of one class member who contended that the trial court's award of
attorney fees as a percentage of the total settlement amount
violated the California Supreme Court's holding in Serrano v.
Priest.  In that case, the objector reasoned that every class
action fee award must be calculated on the basis of time spent by
counsel on the case and that awarding attorney's fees based upon a
percentage of recovery is impermissible.

The Supreme Court then clarified, in an appeal, that the case did
not preclude an award of a percentage fee in a common fund case.
The court reached its decision by analyzing the history of
attorney fee awards in class actions, comparing the percentage of
recovery award approved by the court and the lodestar award method
that was popular in the 1970s and '80s.  The lodestar method
calculates the fee by multiplying the number of hours reasonably
expended by counsel by a reasonably hourly rate.

The court did distinguish in the Serrano case that the attorney
fee calculation was made under the "private attorney general"
doctrine and did not involve payment from a common fund.

The court upheld that the percentage of fund method can be used in
California class action cases and the trial court did not abuse
its discretion by using it to approve the fee request in the class
action suit.

Jonathan Moss -- jmoss@sheppardmullin.com -- an attorney with
Sheppard Mullin, said he didn't think the objection would be
successful.

"As the Supreme Court noted in its opinion, the majority of
federal and state courts permit attorney fee awards to be
calculated as a percentage of a class action common fund,"
Mr. Moss told Legal Newsline.

Mr. Moss said the Supreme Court leaned toward the prevailing
opinion versus California law.

"The Supreme Court clarified that it was effectively joining in
the prevailing opinion approving percentage-based awards, as
opposed to distinguishing California law on this issue," he said.

Percentage fee awards are fairly standard for class action
settlements where attorney fees are awarded from a common fund,
Moss said.

"However, courts often apply a 'lodestar cross check' to assure
the reasonableness of the percentage fee," he said.  "Here, the
objector [David Brennan] seems to have been motivated by the
belief that the percentage award method provides too much
compensation to attorneys rather than class members."


SAMSUNG: CPSC Issues Warning on Top-Load Washing Machines
---------------------------------------------------------
ANI reports that the U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission
(CPSC) has issued a warning about certain top-load washing
machines made by Samsung between March 2011 and April 2016.

"CPSC is advising consumers to only use the delicate cycle when
washing bedding, water-resistant and bulky items," read a
statement at the commission's website.

"The lower spin speed in the delicate cycle lessens the risk of
impact injuries or property damage due to the washing machine
becoming dislodged," the statement added.

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

The CPSC warning comes a month after the filing of a class action
lawsuit in federal court over problems with the washers.

Reportedly, the U.S. regulators have warned the owners of certain
top-loading Samsung washing machines of "safety issues" following
reports that some have exploded.

Exact model numbers are not specified, rather that numerous top
load washing machine models have the ability to intensely vibrate
until explosion.

Samsung in September announced a voluntary recall and exchange
program for versions of its Galaxy Note 7 smartphone sold in the
United States before September 15.

The devices "can overheat and pose a safety risk," the company
said in a statement.

Currently, the brand new Note 7 products that have been swapped in
overseas markets are using identical batteries to those that were
supplied and used for the Chinese version.

Meanwhile, Southwest Airlines evacuated a plane after one of the
"safe" phones reportedly began sparking and smoking.

Another "safe" new phone purchased by a tech worker in China
reportedly burst into flames after being charged overnight.


SABRE COMPANIES: Court Certifies Operators Class in "Nelson" Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
United States Magistrate Judge Therese Wiley Dancks entered a
decision and order in the lawsuit captioned KIRK NELSON and JOHN
EVANS, individually and on behalf of all other persons similarly
situated v. SABRE COMPANIES, LLC and SABRE ENERGY SERVICES, LLC,
Case No. 1:15-cv-00314-BKS-TWD (N.D.N.Y.), granting the
Plaintiffs' motion to conditionally certify the action pursuant to
the Fair Labor Standards Act.

The Court approves preliminary certification of the matter as a
collective action with the scope extending to all levels of
operators, fluid technicians, and supervisors in all states where
Sabre employs them.  The Court also permits discovery of the
identities of potential opt-in plaintiffs, with Sabre to provide a
list, in computer-readable format, of the names, last known
mailing addresses, last known telephone numbers, last known e-mail
addresses, dates of work, and work locations for all Operators in
all states where Sabre employs or employed them between November
10, 2012, and the date of the Decision and Order within 30 days of
the filing date of the Decision and Order.

The parties are directed to negotiate concerning the content of
the notice to potential opt-in plaintiffs that would be acceptable
to the Court and consistent with the mandates of Section 216(b) of
the Fair Labor Standards Act.  The time period within which
potential plaintiffs may opt-in is 60 days and the opt-in period
will commence to run on the date that Sabre provides the necessary
information.

The statute of limitations for the putative class is tolled during
the pendency of the Motion from November 10, 2015, the date on
which the Plaintiffs filed the Motion.

A copy of the Decision and Order is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=mrsMv4Ov

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Elmer R. Keach, III, Esq.
          Maria K. Dyson, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF ELMER ROBERT KEACH, III, P.C.
          1 Pine West Plaza, Suite 109
          Albany, NY 12205
          Telephone: (518) 434-1718
          E-mail: bobkeach@keachlawfirm.com
                  mariadyson@keachlawfirm.com

               - and -

          Nicholas A. Migliaccio, ESQ.
          MIGLIACCIO LAW FIRM PLLC

               - and -

          Jason S. Rathod, Esq.
          WHITFIELD BRYSON & MASON LLP
          1625 Massachusetts Avenue, N.W., Suite 605
          Washington, D.C. 20036
          Telephone: (202) 429-2290
          E-mail: jrathod@wbmllp.com

               - and -

          D. Aaron Rihn, Esq.
          ROBERT PEIRCE & ASSOCIATES, P.C.
          707 Grant Street
          2500 Gulf Tower
          Pittsburgh, PA 15219
          Telephone: (412) 281-7229
          Facsimile: (412) 281-4229
          E-mail: arihn@peircelaw.com

The Defendants are represented by:

          Shauna Johnson Clark, Esq.
          Kimberly Cheeseman, Esq.
          NORTON ROSE FULBRIGHT US LLP
          Fulbright Tower
          1301 McKinney, Suite 5100
          Houston, TX 77010-3095
          Telephone: (713) 651-5601
          Facsimile: (713) 651-5246
          E-mail: shauna.clark@nortonrosefulbright.com
                  kimberly.cheeseman@nortonrosefulbright.com

               - and -

          John Scalia, Esq.
          PILLSBURY WINTHROP SHAW PITTMAN
          1200 Seventeenth Street, NW
          Washington, DC 20036
          Telephone: (202) 663-8000
          Facsimile: (202) 663-8007
          E-mail: john.scalia@pillsburylaw.com


SPECTRA ENERGY: Faces "Parshall" Suit Over Sale to Enbridge
-----------------------------------------------------------
Paul Parshall, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. Spectra Energy Corp., Gregory L. Ebel, F. Anthony
Comper, Austin A. Adams, Joseph Alvarado, Pamela L. Carter,
Clarence P. Cazalot, Jr., Peter B. Hamilton, Miranda C. Hubbs,
Michael Mcshane, Michael G. Morris, Michael E.J. Phelps, Enbridge
Inc., and Sand Merger Sub, Inc., Case No. 12809 (Del. Ch. Ct.,
October 6, 2016), is brought on behalf of all public stockholders
of Spectra Energy Corp., to enjoin a proposed transaction
announced on September 6, 2016, pursuant to which Spectra will be
acquired by Enbridge Inc. and its wholly-owned subsidiary, Sand
Merger Sub, Inc., through a flawed process and inadequate
consideration.

Spectra Energy Corp. is one of North America's leading pipeline
and midstream companies.

Enbridge Inc. is an energy delivery company based in Calgary,
Canada.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      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

         - and -

      Katharine M. Ryan, Esq.
      Richard A. Maniskas, Esq.
      RYAN & MANISKAS, LLP
      995 Old Eagle School Road, Suite 311
      Wayne, PA 19087
      Telephone: (484) 588-5516
      E-mail: kryan@rmclasslaw.com
              rmaniskas@rmclasslaw.com


STUDENT FINANCIAL: Faces "Vaughn" Suit in S.D. of California
------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Student Financial
Help Center. The case is captioned Allison Vaughn, Individually
and on behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, the Plaintiff, v.
Student Financial Help Center, the Defendant, Case No. 3:16-cv-
02526-LAB-WVG (S.D. Cal., Oct. 12, 2016). The case is assigned to
Judge Larry Alan Burns.

Student Financial offers private, fee-based application assistance
services to aid consumers in applying for government offered
programs.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Joshua Swigart, Esq.
          HYDE & SWIGART
          2221 Camino Del Rio South, Suite 101
          San Diego, CA 92108
          Telephone: (619) 233 7770
          Facsimile: (619) 297 1022
          E-mail: josh@westcoastlitigation.com


TEMPUR-SEALY INT'L: Court Refuses to Certify Class in "Todd" Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The Hon. Jon S. Tigar denied the Plaintiffs' motion for class
certification filed in the lawsuit styled ALVIN TODD, et al. v.
TEMPUR-SEALY INTERNATIONAL, INC., et al., Case No. 3:13-cv-04984-
JST (N.D. Cal.).

The Plaintiffs bring the action on their own behalf and on behalf
of a putative class of purchasers of Tempur products against the
Defendants for claims arising out of the Defendants' marketing and
sale of mattresses, pillows, and other bedding products containing
Tempur material.  Specifically, the Plaintiffs allege that
Defendants' representations of their Tempur products as
"formaldehyde free," "free of harmful VOCs," "allergen and
dustmite resistant," "hypoallergenic," and with a "completely
harmless" odor, are false and misleading.

The Plaintiffs seek certification for this class:

     All persons who purchased, not for resale, a Tempur-Pedic
     mattress or pillow in the States of California, Illinois,
     Maryland, Massachusetts, Missouri, New Jersey, New Mexico,
     New York, Wisconsin and Washington from January 1, 2006,
     through December 31, 2013.

     Excluded from the Class are: (i) Defendants, any entity in
     which Defendants have a controlling interest or which has a
     controlling interest in Defendants, and Defendants' legal
     representatives, predecessors, successors, and assigns; (ii)
     governmental entities; (iii) Defendants' employees,
     officers, directors, agents and representatives and their
     direct family members; (iv) the Judge and staff to whom this
     case is assigned and any member of the Judge's immediate
     family; (v) all those who validly and timely opt-out of the
     certified class; and (vi) claims for physical injuries.

In his Order, Judge Tigar concludes that the proposed class is
ascertainable and that a class action would not be a superior
mechanism for resolving this dispute.

A Case Management Conference is scheduled for October 26, 2016, at
2:00 p.m.  A Joint Case Management Statement must be filed by
October 17.

A copy of the Order is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=7W8ZwCoR


TENET HEALTHCARE: Dec. 6 Lead Plaintiff Motion Deadline Set
-----------------------------------------------------------
The following statement is being issued by Levi & Korsinsky, LLP:

To: All persons or entities who purchased or otherwise acquired
securities of Tenet Healthcare Corp. ("Tenet Healthcare") between
February 28, 2012 and October 3, 2016.  You are hereby notified
that a securities class action lawsuit has been commenced in the
USDC for the Central District of California.  To get more
information go to:

         http://www.zlk.com/pslra/tenet-healthcare-corp

or contact Joseph E. Levi, Esq. either via email at jlevi@zlk.com
or by telephone at (212) 363-7500, toll-free: (877) 363-5972.
There is no cost or obligation to you.

The complaint alleges that throughout the Class Period defendants
issued false and misleading statements to investors and/or failed
to disclose that: (1) Tenet illegally paid kickbacks to induce the
referral of patients to Tenet's hospitals for labor and delivery;
(2) through this scheme, Tenet defrauded the Georgia Medicaid
program; and (3) as a result, defendants' statements about Tenet'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 damages.

If you suffered a loss in Tenet Healthcare you have until December
6, 2016 to request that the Court appoint you as lead plaintiff.
Your ability to share in any recovery doesn't require that you
serve as a lead plaintiff.

Levi & Korsinsky -- http://www.zlk.com-- is a national firm with
offices in New York, New Jersey, California, Connecticut, and
Washington D.C.  The firm's attorneys have extensive expertise and
experience representing investors in securities litigation, and
have recovered hundreds of millions of dollars for aggrieved
shareholders.


TESLA MOTORS: Shareholder Suits Over SolarCity Merger Pile Up
-------------------------------------------------------------
Electrek reports that in September, Tesla disclosed that it was
fighting four different lawsuits from stockholders over the
SolarCity merger alleging breached of fiduciary duties in
connection with the proposed merger.  Electrek now learns that the
number has gone up to seven lawsuits against Tesla CEO Elon Musk
ahead of a scheduled court hearing to consolidate the actions on
October 14th.

Tesla disclosed the lawsuits in an updated SEC filing on Oct. 6
and wrote that the company believes they are 'without merit'.

Here are previously reported lawsuits:

   -- City of Riviera Beach Police Pension Fund v. Elon Musk, et
al. , C.A, No. 12711-VCS

   -- Ellen Prasinos v. Elon Musk, et al. , C.A. No. 12723-VCS
Arkansas Teacher Retirement System, et al. v. Elon Musk, et al. ,
C.A. No. 12740-VCS

   -- P. Evan Stephens v. Elon Musk, et al. , C.A. No. 1275-VCS
And the 3 new ones:

   -- Pyare Diwana v. Elon Musk, et al ., C.A. No. 12796-VCS

   -- Nguyen v. Elon Musk, et al ., C.A. No. 12804-VCS

   -- Wolf v. Elon Musk, et al. , C.A. No. 12805-VCS

There are no institutional investors involved in the lawsuits, but
some of the actions are pressing for a class action against Tesla
over the disclosure of the proposed merger.

As previously reported, these kinds of lawsuits happen routinely
after the price of a stock is affected negatively following a
particular event.  In this case, the proposed merger between Tesla
and SolarCity.  Both Tesla and SolarCity faced similar lawsuits in
the past, but what is particularly interesting is that it could
affect the merger in this case.

Some of the plaintiffs are asking for an injunction to prevent
Tesla from consummating the merger and the next hearing was set
for October 14.

Tesla is expected to hold an event jointly with SolarCity on
October 28 to unveil new products.


TRANS UNION: Certification of Class Sought in "Dennis" Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------
Deidre L. Dennis moves the Court to certify the action entitled
DEIDRE L. DENNIS, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated v. TRANS UNION, LLC, Case No. 2:14-cv-02865-MSG (E.D.
Pa.), as a class action.

A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=k4cGAXqV

As reported by the Class Action Reporter, Plaintiff filed a
complaint against Trans Union for its failure to accurately and
completely disclose the true source of its public records
information about plaintiff in her consumer file disclosure in
violation of 15 U.S.C. Section 1681(g) and pursuant to 15 U.S.C.
Sections 1681n and 1681o, for its failure to maintain reasonable
procedures to ensure maximum possible accuracy of the report it
prepared about plaintiff, in violation of 15 U.S.C. Section
1681e(b) and pursuant to 15 U.S.C. Sections 1681n and 1681o and
for its failure to conduct a reasonable re-investigation after
receiving plaintiff's notice of dispute, in violation of 15 U.S.C.
Section 1681i(a)(1)(A) and pursuant to 15 U.S.C. Section 1681n and
1681o.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          James A. Francis, Esq.
          John Soumilas, Esq.
          David A. Searles, Esq.
          Lauren KW Brennan, Esq.
          FRANCIS & MAILMAN, P.C.
          Land Title Building, 19th Floor
          100 South Broad Street
          Philadelphia, PA 19110
          Telephone: (215) 735-8600
          E-mail: jfrancis@consumerlawfirm.com
                  jsoumilas@consumerlawfirm.com
                  dsearles@consumerlawfirm.com
                  lbrennan@consumerlawfirm.com

               - and -

          Kristi C. Kelly, Esq.
          Andrew Guzzo, Esq.
          KELLY & CRANDALL PLC
          4084 University Dr., Suite 202A
          Fairfax, VA 22030
          Telephone: (703) 424-7572
          Facsimile: (703) 591-0167
          E-mail: kkelly@kellyandcrandall.com
                  aguzzo@kellyandcrandall.com

               - and -

          Leonard A. Bennett, Esq.
          CONSUMER LITIGATION ASSOCIATES, PC
          763 J Clyde Morris Blvd., Suite 1-A
          Newport News, VA 23601
          Telephone: (757) 930-3660
          Facsimile: (757) 930-3662
          E-mail: leonard@clalegal.com

               - and -

          Matthew J. Erausquin, Esq.
          Casey S. Nash, Esq.
          CONSUMER LITIGATION ASSOCIATES, PC
          1800 Diagonal Road, Suite 600
          Alexandria, VA 22314
          Telephone: (703) 273-7770
          E-mail: matt@clalegal.com
                  casey@clalegal.com

TRANS UNION, LLC, Defendant, represented by ALISA M. TAORMINA --
ataormina@stroock.com -- STROOCK & STROOCK & LAVAN LLP, ANDREW M.
LEHMANN -- alehmann@schuckitlaw.com -- SCHUCKIT & ASSOCIATES PC,
BRIAN C. FRONTINO -- bfrontino@stroock.com -- STROOCK & STROOCK &
LAVAN LLP, CAMILLE R. NICODEMUS -- cnicodemus@schuckitlaw.com --
SCHUCKIT & ASSOCIATES PC, ROBERT J. SCHUCKIT --
rschuckit@schuckitlaw.com -- SCHUCKIT & ASSOCIATES PC, STEPHEN J.
NEWMAN -- snewman@stroock.com -- STROOCK STROOCK & LAVAN LLP,
WILLIAM R. BROWN -- wbrown@schuckitlaw.com -- SCHUCKIT &
ASSOCIATES PC, CASEY GREEN -- cg@greatlawyers.com -- SIDKOFF,
PINCUS & GREEN, P.C. & WADE D. ALBERT -- walbert@greatlawyers.com
-- SIDKOFF PINCUS & GREEN PC.


TRUMP ORGANIZATION: Faces Sexual Harassment, Gender Bias Suits
--------------------------------------------------------------
Feliks Garcia, writing for Independent, reports that Donald Trump
and his companies have been accused of sexual harassment and
gender discrimination at least 20 times in a series of lawsuits
spanning three decades.

Among thousands of lawsuits filed against Trump organizations
reviewed by USA Today, 20 of the 130 employment cases found
involve complaints from women who describe a culture of sexual
harassment that date back to the early 1980s.

The report comes as the Trump campaign hemorrhaged Republican
support following the release of 2005 video that captured the
presidential nominee suggesting he could sexually assault women
because of his star power.  And as Mr. Trump himself insists
nobody has more respect for women than he does, public record
continues to suggest otherwise.

In one case, a woman who worked at the Trump National Doral golf
resort in Miami, Florida, alleged in a state and federal lawsuit
that she was fired after becoming pregnant. Itzel Hudek claims
that her supervisor became annoyed with accommodating her schedule
and laid her off.  The case was settled by Ms Hudek's lawyers for
an undisclosed amount.

A recent case involved a woman, Erin Breen, who sued after
allegedly enduring "persistent, unwelcome sexual advances" by a
manager at the Trump Kids Club in Jupiter, Florida.  Two weeks
after filing a complaint with human resources and another
supervisor this summer, Ms Breen claimed to have been fired.

General counsel for the Trump Organisation, Jill Martin, told USA
Today that the claims are "without merit" and "we look forward to
defeating" Ms. Breen in court.


TURN: Consumers Want Reversal of Privacy Case Arbitration Ruling
----------------------------------------------------------------
Wendy Davis, writing for MediaPost, reports that two consumers who
are suing Turn for allegedly violating the privacy of Verizon
subscribers are asking an appellate court to reject the ad
company's argument that the case belongs in arbitration.

New York residents Anthony Henson and William Cintron argue in
court papers filed on Oct. 7 that their contract with Verizon --
which calls for arbitration of disputes -- doesn't apply to their
dispute with Turn.

The legal battle dates to last year, when Messrs. Henson and
Cintron alleged in a class-action complaint that Turn violated a
consumer protection law prohibiting deceptive practices.
Messrs. Henson and Cintron, who say they are Verizon Wireless
customers, alleged that Turn wrongly used a controversial
technology that enabled it to track consumers for online ad
purposes, even when people deleted their cookies.  The allegations
centered on Verizon's "supercookies" -- headers, called UIDHs,
that Verizon previously injected into all unencrypted mobile
traffic.

Those headers -- 50-character alphanumeric strings -- enabled ad
companies to compile profiles of users and serve them targeted
ads.  The UIDHs also are known as "zombie" cookies, or
"supercookies" because they allow ad companies to recreate cookies
that users delete.

In March, U.S. District Court Judge Jeffrey White in the Northern
District of California granted Turn's request to send the matter
to arbitration.  Judge White said at the time that he agreed with
Turn that the consumers' allegations were closely connected to
their subscriber agreements with Verizon -- which call for
arbitration of all disputes.

Messrs. Henson and Cintron recently asked the 9th Circuit to
reverse that ruling, arguing that their arbitration agreements
were with Verizon, not Mr. Turn.

Mr. Turn is opposing that request.  The company argued in papers
filed in September that the class-action allegations stem from
"interdependent and concerted conduct" by itself and Verizon.

Mr. Turn added that Verizon's contract with subscribers included
information about the company's targeted ad programs.

Messrs. Henson and Cintron counter that Verizon's subscriber
agreement "does not permit, contemplate, or suggest the deployment
of [a] zombie cookie scheme."

They add, "Verizon disclosing the use of UIDHs is hardly the same
as Mr. Turn disclosing that it will repopulate deleted history and
cookies on a user's device."

Verizon used the controversial headers for ad targeting since
2012, but didn't disclose their existence in its privacy policy
until last year.

Initially, Verizon didn't let its subscribers opt out of the
header insertions.  Last year, faced with pressure from lawmakers,
Verizon revised its policies to allow opt-outs.  The company later
narrowed the program by saying it would only send the header to
Verizon companies, including AOL.

Verizon initially predicted that ad networks weren't likely to
draw on the headers in order to compile profiles of Web users. But
in January of 2015, researcher Jonathan Mayer -- who is now with
the FCC -- reported that the ad network Turn drew on Verizon's
headers to collect data and send targeted ads to mobile users who
delete their cookies.

Turn no longer users the headers for ad targeting.

The company has consistently said it honors the industry's
self-regulatory code and doesn't serve targeted ads to users if
their cookies reveal that they opted out via links at sites
operated by the self-regulatory groups Network Advertising
Initiative or Digital Advertising Alliance.  But when users clear
their cookies, they also delete the opt-out cookies installed by
the DAA and NAI.

Turn also said it doesn't serve targeted ads to people who opt out
via its own link, or Verizon's opt-out mechanism. (Verizon's
mechanism can persist even when users delete their cookies,
according to Turn.)

Earlier this year, the Federal Communications Commission fined
Verizon $1.35 million to settle an investigation surrounding the
headers.  That investigation focused on whether Verizon violated
the Communications Act's privacy provisions -- which require
carriers to protect customers' "proprietary information" -- and
whether the company violated a 2010 net neutrality rule requiring
disclosure of broadband management practices.

The FCC is now considering rules that would require Verizon and
other broadband service providers to obtain users' opt-in consent
before sharing or using data about their Web activity to target
ads.  The agency is expected to vote on those rules later this
month.


TYSON FOODS: Loses Bid for New Trial in Worker Gear Suit
--------------------------------------------------------
Nick Hytrek, writing for Sioux City Journal, reports that a
federal judge has denied Tyson Foods' request for a new trial in a
case in which workers at the company's Storm Lake pork plant were
awarded $5.8 million.

U.S. District Judge John Jarvey also ordered the jury's award to
the more than 2,700 workers included in the class-action lawsuit
will be distributed according to a method developed by an expert
who testified for the plaintiffs.

Peg Bouaphakeo and other Tyson Storm Lake employees sued in 2007
to collect back pay for the time they spent putting on and taking
off protective work clothes and equipment before and after their
work shifts.

A federal jury in Sioux City awarded more than $5.8 million in
overtime and damages, a decision upheld by the 8th Circuit Court
of Appeals in 2014.

Tyson appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court, challenging the means by
which the class-action was granted and whether statistics should
have been allowed to determine damages for all employees. The
Supreme Court in March voted 6-2 to reject new limits Tyson asked
to have imposed on the ability of workers to band together to
challenge pay and workplace issues.

In June, Tyson lawyers filed a brief in U.S. District Court in
Sioux City saying that a new trial was needed to address liability
and damages issues and ensure that workers included in the class-
action are entitled to a share of the verdict.

In his ruling, filed on Oct. 6 in Sioux City, Jarvey, the chief
judge in Iowa's Southern District, said the proposed distribution
of damages ensured that workers not entitled to damages would not
receive a portion of the jury award because workers receiving an
award must have worked 40 hours a week and earned at least $50 in
damages.

Caroline Ahn, Tyson public relations manager, said the company had
no comment on the ruling.

Tyson did not keep records on the amount of time workers spent
donning and doffing the protective gear, so workers had to prove
damages based on the expert's statistical inferences of how long
it took the workers to get ready for their jobs on the plant's
slaughter or "kill" floor and the processing or "fabrication"
floor.

In denying Tyson's request for a new trial, Judge Jarvey said the
company invited the problem of how damages were determined by its
failure to keep complete records, as required by law.


TYSON FOODS: Faces Class Actions Over Alleged Price-Fixing
----------------------------------------------------------
Dean Best, writing for just-food, reports that an analyst claimed
a lawsuit facing the company could hit the US meat titan.

Tyson Foods was among more than a dozen poultry processors to be
named in a suit filed in September by New York-based distributor
Maplevale Farms, which claimed the businesses "conspired and
combined to fix, raise, maintain, and stabilize the price of
broilers" from as early as January 2008.

A second, class-action suit then emerged echoing the allegations.

Contacted by just-food in September, Tyson said: "We dispute the
claims made in these complaints and will defend ourselves in
court."

Tim Ramey, an analyst at Pivotal Research Group, issued a note to
clients in which he insisted he was not alleging Tyson had
colluded on pricing or production -- but did say the suit was
"powerfully convincing".

"Our thesis is that the class-action suit has merit and will lead
to intense scrutiny of the broiler sector,"  Mr. Ramey wrote,
according to Reuters.  "We have long wondered how an industry
marked by such volatility and lack of discipline could morph to a
highly disciplined industry where production remains constrained
and pricing remains high."

The note -- and subsequent tumble in Tyson's share price on
Oct. 10, 2016 at almost 9% -- prompted the company to make the
unusual move of issuing a statement.

"An analyst report has been issued commenting on pending antitrust
litigation which was filed over a month ago.  While we don't
normally make substantive comments regarding pending litigation,
we dispute the allegations in the complaints as well as the
speculative conclusions reached by the analyst, and we will defend
ourselves in court.  Contrary to what the analyst assumed, we have
not made any changes to our business practices in response to the
complaints," Tyson said.

The ball, clearly, is in the hands of the US courts. One would
imagine Mr. Ramey was confident enough in his assertions to have
published the note but, equally, Tyson must be sure in its
position to have responded swiftly.  One to watch.


UKA'S BIG: Faces "Phan" Suit Over FACTA Violation
-------------------------------------------------
Kieu Phan and Taline Keshishian, on behalf of themselves and all
others similarly situated v. Uka's Big Saver Foods, Inc. d/b/a Big
Saver Foods and Does 1 through 100, Case No. BC636343 (Cal. Super.
Ct., October 6, 2016), is brought against the Defendants for
violations of the Fair and Accurate Credit Transactions Act,
specifically by printing more than the last 5 digits of the card
number upon the receipts provided to the credit card and debit
card cardholders with whom they transact business.

Uka's Big Saver Foods, Inc. owns, manages, maintains and operates
one or more physical locations within California, through which it
offers various goods and services for sale to retail customers.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Chant Yedalian, Esq.
      CHANT & COMPANY
      A Professional Law Corporation
      1010 N. Central Ave.
      Glendale, CA 91202
      Telephone: (877) 574-7100
      E-mail: chant@chant.mobi


UNITED COLLECTION: Class Certification Sought in "Ocampo" Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Plaintiff in the lawsuit captioned JOSE LUIS OCAMPO,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v.
UNITED COLLECTION BUREAU, INC., Case No. 1:16-cv-09401 (N.D.
Ill.), asks the Court to certify this class:

     (1) all persons with addresses in the State of Illinois (2)
     from whom Defendant attempted to collect a delinquent
     consumer debt (3) which went into default less than 5 years
     from the filing of Plaintiff's complaint (4) upon which
     Defendant sent a letter substantially similar to that of
     Exhibit C (5) which states that if the subject debt of this
     letter is time-barred, paying any amount on the account may
     revive the obligation to pay.

Mr. Ocampo brings the class action against United Collection for
alleged violations of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act.  He
alleges that the Defendant violated the FDCPA by making deceptive
and misleading representations in an attempt to collect the
alleged debt.

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

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


UNITED CONSUMER: Faces "Smith" Suit in Central Dist. of Cal.
------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against United Consumer
Financial Services Company. The case is captioned Sherman Smith,
on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, the
Plaintiff, v. United Consumer Financial Services Company, and Does
1-50, inclusive, and each of them, the Defendants, Case No. 5:16-
cv-02142 (C.D. Cal., Oct. 12, 2016).

United Consumer is a sales finance company providing financing for
consumers' retail purchases of various goods and services.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          John P Kristensen, Esq.
          KRISTENEN WEISBERG LLP
          12304 Santa Monica Boulevard Suite 100
          Los Angeles, CA 90025
          Telephone: (310) 507 7924
          Facsimile: (310) 507 7906
          E-mail: john@kristensenlaw.com


UNITED STATES: Faces "Flora" Suit in Western District of Virginia
-----------------------------------------------------------------
A lawsuit has been filed against The United States. The case is
captioned Mark R. Flora, (on behalf of himself and all others
similarly situated), the Plaintiff, v. The United States, the
Defendant, Case No. 5:16-cv-00066-MFU (W.D. Va., Oct. 11, 2016).
The case is assigned to Hon. District Judge Michael F. Urbanski.

The U.S. is a country of 50 states covering a vast swath of North
America, with Alaska in the northwest and Hawaii extending the
nation's presence into the Pacific Ocean.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Kathleen Yunli Hsu, Esq.
          SMITH, CURRIE & HANCOCK LLP
          1025 Connecticut Avenue NW, Suite 600
          Washington, DC 20036
          Telephone: (202) 452 2140
          Facsimile: (202) 775 8217
          E-mail: khsu@smithcurrie.com


UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA: Doesn't Properly Pay Workers, Suit Says
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Helen Rhodes, on behalf of herself and all other similarly-
situated v. The Regents of The University of California
("Regents") and DOES 1 through 50 inclusive, Case No. BC636536
(Cal. Super. Ct., October 6, 2016), is brought against the
Defendants for failure to provide employees meal and rest periods,
minimum wage, and overtime compensation in violation of the
California Labor Code.

The Regents of The University of California is the governing board
of the University of California system.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Matthew J. Matern, Esq.
      Launa Adolph, Esq.
      MATERN LAW GROUP, PC
      1230 Rosecrans Avenue, Suite 200
      Manhattan Beach, CA 90266
      Telephone: (310) 531-1900
      Facsimile: (310) 531-1901
      E-mail: info@maternlawgroup.com


VIRTUS INVESTMENT: Law Firm Probes Potential Securities Claims
--------------------------------------------------------------
Johnson & Weaver, LLP, is investigating potential violations of
federal and state laws by certain officers and directors of Virtus
Investment Partners, Inc.  On July 1, 2016, a federal court denied
in part a motion to dismiss a securities fraud class action filed
against Virtus and certain executives.

Virtus is a mutual fund company which is best known for its
"AlphaSector Rotation" and "Premium AlphaSector" Funds.  The
complaint in the class action alleges that Defendants misled
investors by representing that the historical track record of the
AlphaSector funds was based on live client assets.  Specifically,
the complaint in the class action contends that Defendants
inaccurately stated that the AlphaSector index had an "inception
date" of April 1, 2001, when it is undisputed that AlphaSector
returns were based on hypothetical, back-tested data until 2008.

If you have held Virtus shares continuously since at least
May 28, 2013, you may have standing to hold Virtus harmless from
the damage the officers and directors caused by making them
personally responsible.  You may also be able to assist in
reforming the Company's corporate governance to prevent future
wrongdoing.

If you are a Virtus shareholder and are interested in learning
more about the investigation or your legal rights and remedies,
please contact lead analyst Jim Baker (jimb@johnsonandweaver.com)
at 619-814-4471.  If you email, please include your phone number

AAC Holdings, Inc.
Johnson & Weaver, LLP continues its investigation of certain
officers and directors of AAC Holdings, Inc. (NYSE: AAC). In
addition to Federal law violations the investigation has been open
to reviewing potential state violations as well.

On July 1, 2016, a federal court denied a motion to dismiss a
securities fraud class action filed against AAC and certain
executives.  According to the complaint, AAC deceived investors
about an active criminal investigation by the California
Department of Justice.  The California DOJ's investigation
ultimately materialized into an indictment against AAC for, inter
alia, second-degree murder of an AAC patient.  The complaint
alleges that AAC deliberately disregarded the federal securities
laws by concealing the criminal investigation into the
circumstances surrounding the patient's death.

If you have held AAC shares continuously long-term, you may have
standing to hold AAC harmless from the damage the officers and
directors caused by making them personally responsible. You may
also be able to assist in reforming the Company's corporate
governance to prevent future wrongdoing.

If you are an AAC shareholder and are interested in learning more
about the investigation or your legal rights and remedies, please
contact lead analyst Jim Baker (jimb@johnsonandweaver.com) at 619-
814-4471.  If you email, please include your phone number.


VOXX INTERNATIONAL: Plaintiffs Did Not File Amended Complaint
-------------------------------------------------------------
VOXX International Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on October 11, 2016,
for the quarterly period ended August 31, 2016, that a judge has
granted the Defendants' motion to dismiss the Amended Complaint in
a class action lawsuit and the plaintiffs did not file a Second
Amendment Complaint by the Court-ordered deadline of October 4,
2016.

The Company said, "On July 8, 2014, a purported class action suit,
Brian Ford v. VOXX International Corporation et. al., was filed
against us and two of our present executive officers
(collectively, the "Defendants") in the U.S. District Court for
the Eastern District of New York.  On July 16, 2015, the judge
approved the designation of the lead plaintiffs and counsel for
the plaintiffs."

"On September 28, 2015, the plaintiff filed an amended complaint
which alleges the same claims as the original complaint (that the
Defendants violated the federal securities laws by making false or
misleading statements which artificially inflated the price of our
stock and that purchasers of our stock during the relevant period
were damaged when the stock price later declined) under Sections
10(a) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act but expands the
class period by five months, from January 9, 2013 through May 14,
2014.  According to the allegations contained in the amended
complaint, the defendants knew or should have known, by virtue of
their roles and positions, that their statements were false and
misleading and the Defendants were purportedly motivated because
their conduct enabled Company insiders to sell VOXX stock at
inflated prices. On November 25, 2015, the Defendants moved to
dismiss the Amended Complaint for failure to state a claim.

"On July 22, 2016, the judge granted the Defendants' motion to
dismiss the Amended Complaint. The plaintiffs did not file a
Second Amendment Complaint by the Court-ordered deadline of
October 4, 2016."


WEINSTEIN PINSON: Class Certification Sought in "Marquez" Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Plaintiffs ask the Court to enter an order determining that
the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act action titled ERICK
MARQUEZ, IRAIDA GARRIGA formerly known as IRAIDA ORTIZ, and DORIS
RUSSELL, on behalf of plaintiffs and a class v. WEINSTEIN, PINSON
& RILEY, P.S.; EVAN L. MOSCOV, and NCO FINANCIAL SYSTEMS, INC.,
Case No. 1:14-cv-00739 (N.D. Ill.), may proceed as a class action
against the Defendants.  The Plaintiffs seek to certify a class,
defined as:

     (a) all individuals in Illinois, (b) against whom WPR filed
         a complaint, (c) containing the language in paragraph 12
         of Appendices A-D, (d) which complaint was filed on or
         after February 3, 2013 and prior to February 23, 2014.

The Case arises out of the Defendants' alleged attempts to collect
private student loan debts allegedly owned by various "National
Collegiate Student Loan Trusts."

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

A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=84aYgDnF

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

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

Defendants WEINSTEIN, PINSON & RILEY, P.S., and EVAN L. MOSCOV are
represented by:

          David M. Schultz, Esq.
          Justin M. Penn, Esq.
          HINSHAW & CULBERTSON
          222 North LaSalle Street, Suite 300
          Chicago, IL 60601-1081
          Telephone: (312) 704-3527
          Facsimile: (312) 704-3001
          E-mail: dschultz@hinshawlaw.com
                  jpenn@hinshawlaw.com

Defendant NCO FINANCIAL SYSTEMS, INC., is represented by:

          James Kevin Schultz, Esq.
          SESSIONS FISHMAN NATHAN & ISRAEL LLP
          120 South LaSalle Street, Suite 1960
          Chicago, IL 60603
          Telephone: (312) 578-0990
          Facsimile: (312) 578-0991
          E-mail: jschultz@sessions.legal

               - and -

          Michael D. Slodov, Esq.
          SESSIONS, FISHMAN, NATHAN & ISRAEL, LLC
          15 E. Summit St.
          Chagrin Falls, OH 44022
          Telephone: (440) 318-1073
          Facsimile: (216) 359-0049
          E-mail: mslodov@sessions-law.biz


WELLS FARGO: Fake Accounts Scandal Jeopardizes Employees' Future
----------------------------------------------------------------
Ted Haller, writing for Fox9, reports that the fake-accounts
scandal at Wells Fargo is jeopardizing the future of hundreds of
thousands of current and former employees, according to a lawsuit
filed in federal court in Minnesota.

The class-action lawsuit alleges senior executives knew the
scandal would damage the bank's stock price and reputation, but
still allowed employees' retirement plans, including 401Ks, to
rely on Wells Fargo stock prices.

The suit claims "senior executives sold millions of their personal
Wells Fargo stock at inflated rices, earning hundreds of millions
of dollars, while failing to take corrective action to protect
Plan Participants."

Since 2010, the stock value of Wells Fargo doubled, but when news
of the fake-accounts scandal broke in early September 2016, the
stock started to fall -- and is down about 12 percent.

"What you see here is a rampant breach of trust that the Wells
Fargo executives engaged in with their most important asset, their
employees," said Adam Levitt, the attorney representing the named
plaintiff in the lawsuit.

This lawsuit is the latest claim against Wells Fargo following the
September 8 announcement the bank had opened 1.5 million bank
accounts and applied for 565,000 credits, without customer
permission.  The bank fired 5,300 employees and its CEO took a
grilling by political leaders.

Federal regulators say the fake accounts stem from a culture of
aggressively demanding employees enroll current customers in
additional accounts, called cross-selling.  The lawsuit provides
an inside look at some of the terminology used by employees
creating fake accounts:

   -- "Pinning"  --  when a banker would create a pin number to
enroll the customer in online banking

   -- "Bundling"  --  when a banker would falsely tell a customer
he/she could only open an account after opening others

   -- "Sandbagging"  --  when a banker delayed opening a new
account until a time helpful to the employee meeting a sales goal

A Wells Fargo spokesperson told Fox 9: "We are reviewing the
complaint and cannot comment further at this time."


WEST VIRGINIA, USA: Court Certifies Class in Michael T. Suit
------------------------------------------------------------
The Hon. Thomas E. Johnston entered an order in the lawsuit
entitled MICHAEL T., et al. v. KAREN BOWLING, in her official
capacity as Secretary of the WEST VIRGINIA DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH
AND HUMAN RESOURCES, Case No. 2:15-cv-09655 (S.D.W. Va.):

   -- denying the Defendant's motion to dismiss counts III and IV
      and the claims of Plaintiffs Michael T. and Eric D.; and

   -- granting the Plaintiffs' motion for class certification.

Judge Johnston defines the class as:

     All persons who were or will be at any time on or after
     October 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 algorithm.

The Court orders Gary Smith, Bren Pomponio and Lydia Milnes, to
serve as class counsel in accordance with Rule 23(g) of the
Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.

The Court schedules a settlement conference for October 28, 2016,
at 9:00 a.m.  All persons with full authority to settle the matter
are directed to be in attendance.

A copy of the Order is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=PnHVoP9N


WEST VIRGINIA AMERICAN: Wins Motion to Dismiss Lost Wages Claims
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Associated Press reports that a judge has ruled against local
workers who sued a water company to recoup wages lost during a
January 2014 chemical spill.

The Charleston Gazette-Mail reports U.S. District Judge John
Copenhaver in Charleston granted West Virginia American Water's
motion to dismiss those claims.  The judge denied a similar motion
by Eastman Chemical, the producer of the spilled chemical.

It was one of several rulings issued in the class-action lawsuit
against the water company and Eastman by residents, businesses and
workers who were ordered not to use contaminated water.  A trial
starts Oct. 25.

The lawsuit alleges the water company was unprepared for the
Freedom Industries spill that spurred a do-not-use order on tap
water for 300,000 people for days.  It claims Eastman didn't
advise Freedom of the chemical's dangers.


XBIOTECH INC: Court Grants Motion to Dismiss Securities Suit
------------------------------------------------------------
XBiotech Inc., developer of next-generation True Human(TM)
therapeutic antibodies, on Oct. 10 announced that the U.S.
District Court for the Western District of Texas granted the
Company's motion to dismiss in the 2015 securities class action
lawsuit brought against the Company and certain of its directors.
In a final judgment issued on October 7, 2016, the Honorable Judge
Sam Sparks dismissed the lawsuit with prejudice, meaning the
plaintiff is barred from refiling the claim (Case 1:15-CV-1083-
SS).

"We are pleased with the expeditious ruling by Judge Sparks in
this case," said XBiotech Associate Counsel, Sarah Schick.

As previously disclosed, the Company and certain of its directors
and officers were also named in a class action suit filed in the
Superior Court for the State of California, Los Angeles County.
On September 20, 2016, the Los Angeles court entered an order
staying the California case in deference to the Texas case.
Now that the Texas case has been dismissed, the Company intends to
seek the dismissal of the California suit.

          About True Human(TM) Therapeutic Antibodies

Unlike previous generations of antibody therapies, XBiotech's True
Human(TM) antibodies are derived without modification from
individuals who possess natural immunity to certain diseases. With
discovery and clinical programs across multiple disease areas,
XBiotech's True Human antibodies have the potential to harness the
body's natural immunity to fight disease with increased safety,
efficacy and tolerability.

                       About XBiotech
XBiotech -- http://www.xbiotech.com-- is a fully integrated
global biosciences company dedicated to pioneering the discovery,
development and commercialization of therapeutic antibodies based
on its True Human(TM) proprietary technology.  XBiotech currently
is advancing a robust pipeline of antibody therapies to redefine
the standards of care in oncology, inflammatory conditions and
infectious diseases.  Headquartered in Austin, Texas, XBiotech
also is leading the development of innovative biotech
manufacturing technologies designed to more rapidly,
cost-effectively and flexibly produce new therapies urgently
needed by patients worldwide.


YAHOO! CANADA: Account Holders File Data Breach Class Action
------------------------------------------------------------
Business Vancouver reports that account holders affected by a 2014
data breach are suing Yahoo! Canada Co. and Yahoo! Inc., claiming
the company failed to adequately safeguard and protect their
personal and financial information.

Lead plaintiff Jagdeep Gill, a building inspector who lives in
Surrey, filed a notice of civil claim under the Class Proceedings
Act in BC Supreme Court on September 26.  According to the
lawsuit, Yahoo! announced on September 22, 2016, that an
investigation had confirmed that information from 500 million
accounts was stolen by what the company believed was a
"state-sponsored actor" some time in late 2014.

"The stolen information included users' names, email addresses,
telephone number, dates of birth, hashed passwords and, in some
cases, encrypted or unencrypted security questions and answers,"
the claim states.  "Reports indicate that this data breach was the
largest from a single Internet website in history."

The breach, the claim says, "could potentially have major
consequences" because the information stolen compromises users'
banking information and social media profiles, "data that is
highly valuable to perpetrators of identity theft."

The class claims Yahoo! was reckless in securing its users'
information and failed to discover the theft for two years, "an
unusually long time to identify a data breach or hacking
incident," the lawsuit states.

Mr. Gill filed the action on behalf of B.C. residents who were
Yahoo! account holders whose information was compromised in the
breach, seeking compensation for any resulting account fraud and
for measures taken to secure their information "put at risk by the
Defendants."

The action has not been certified as a class action, and the
allegations have not been tested or proven in court.  Yahoo! and
Yahoo! Canada had not filed a response by press time.


YUM! BRANDS: Appeal Pending Over Underpaid Meal Premium Claims
--------------------------------------------------------------
Yum! Brands, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on October 11, 2016, for the
quarterly period ended September 3, 2016, that an appeal from a
class action lawsuit remains pending.

The Company and Taco Bell were named as defendants in a number of
putative class action suits filed in 2007, 2008, 2009 and 2010
alleging violations of California labor laws including unpaid
overtime, failure to timely pay wages on termination, failure to
pay accrued vacation wages, failure to pay minimum wage, denial of
meal and rest breaks, improper wage statements, unpaid business
expenses, wrongful termination, discrimination, conversion and
unfair or unlawful business practices in violation of California
Business & Professions Code Sec.17200. Some plaintiffs also sought
penalties for alleged violations of California's Labor Code under
California's Private Attorneys General Act ("PAGA") as well as
statutory "waiting time" penalties and alleged violations of
California's Unfair Business Practices Act. Plaintiffs sought to
represent a California state-wide class of hourly employees.

These matters were consolidated, and the consolidated case is
styled In Re Taco Bell Wage and Hour Actions. The In Re Taco Bell
Wage and Hour Actions plaintiffs filed a consolidated complaint in
June 2009, and in March 2010 the court approved the parties'
stipulation to dismiss the Company from the action, leaving Taco
Bell as the sole defendant. Plaintiffs filed their motion for
class certification on the vacation and final pay claims in
December 2010, and on September 26, 2011 the court issued its
order denying the certification of the vacation and final pay
claims. Plaintiffs then sought to certify four separate meal and
rest break classes. On January 2, 2013, the court rejected three
of the proposed classes but granted certification with respect to
the late meal break class. The parties thereafter agreed on a list
of putative class members, and the class notice and opt out forms
were mailed on January 21, 2014.

Per order of the court, plaintiffs filed a second amended
complaint to clarify the class claims. Plaintiffs also filed a
motion for partial summary judgment. Taco Bell filed motions to
strike and to dismiss, as well as a motion to alter or amend the
second amended complaint. On August 29, 2014, the court denied
plaintiffs' motion for partial summary judgment. On that same
date, the court granted Taco Bell's motion to dismiss all but one
of the PAGA claims.

On October 29, 2014, plaintiffs filed a motion to amend the
operative complaint and a motion to amend the class certification
order. On December 16, 2014, the court partially granted both
motions, rejecting plaintiffs' proposed on-duty meal period class
but certifying a limited rest break class and certifying an
underpaid meal premium class, and allowing the plaintiffs to amend
the complaint to reflect those certifications. On December 30,
2014, plaintiffs filed the third amended complaint. On February
26, 2015, the court denied a motion by Taco Bell to dismiss or
strike the underpaid meal premium class.

Beginning on February 22, 2016, the late meal period class claim,
the limited rest break class claim, the underpaid meal premium
class claim, and the associated statutory "waiting time" penalty
claim was tried to a jury. On March 9, 2016, the jury returned
verdicts in favor of Taco Bell on the late meal period claim, the
limited rest break claim, and the statutory "waiting time" penalty
claim. The jury found for the plaintiffs on the underpaid meal
premium class claim, awarding approximately $0.5 million. A bench
trial was subsequently conducted with respect to the PAGA claims
and plaintiffs' Business & Professions Code Sec.17200 claim.

On April 8, 2016, the court returned a verdict in favor of Taco
Bell on the PAGA claims and the Sec.17200 claim. In a separate
ruling issued the same day, the court also ruled that plaintiffs
were entitled to prejudgment interest on the underpaid meal
premium class claim, awarding approximately $0.3 million.

Taco Bell denies liability as to the underpaid meal premium class
claim and filed a post-trial motion to overturn the verdict.
Plaintiffs' also filed various post-trial motions.

On July 15, 2016, the court denied Taco Bell's motion to overturn
the verdict. The court denied Plaintiffs' motions: (1) for a new
trial, (2) for judgment as a matter of law to overturn the
verdicts in favor of Taco Bell, (3) challenging the jury
instructions and special verdict forms, and (4) to overturn the
court's rejection of the Sec.17200 claims for meal and rest break
violations. The court also denied Plaintiffs' motions for
additional costs and for enhanced awards to two of the named
Plaintiffs. The court granted Plaintiffs' motion for judgment on
the Sec.17200 claim regarding the underpaid meal premium claim,
but rejected awarding any additional damages, finding that the
jury verdict sufficiently compensated the class. The court granted
Plaintiffs' motion for attorneys' fees, but awarded only
approximately $1.1 million of the $7.3 million requested. The
court also granted Plaintiffs' bill of costs, but only awarded
approximately $93,000 of Plaintiffs' $166,000.

Thereafter, both Plaintiffs and Taco Bell timely filed notices of
appeal and the matter is now before the Ninth Circuit.

"We have provided for a reasonable estimate of the possible loss
relating to this lawsuit. However, in view of the inherent
uncertainties of litigation, there can be no assurance that this
lawsuit will not result in losses in excess of those currently
provided for in our Condensed Consolidated Financial Statements,"
the Company said.


ZOCDOC INC: "Chambers" Suit to Recover Overtime Pay
---------------------------------------------------
Geoff Chambers, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. ZocDoc, Inc., Defendant, Case No. 5:16-cv-
05609, (N.D. Cal., October 3, 2016), demands overtime pay, damages
and other relief relating to violations of the Fair Labor
Standards Act.

ZocDoc is Delware company with principal office is located at 568
Broadway, 9th Floor, New York, New York 10012. It sells
appointment scheduling software to doctors, provider practices,
hospitals, clinics and healthcare systems nationwide. This
software, among other things, allows the patients at those various
providers to schedule appointments with their smartphones.
Plaintiff was employed by ZocDoc as an Inside Sales Executive. He
worked at Defendant's call center in Scottsdale, Arizona where he
cold called doctors and other providers to purchase Defendant's
software.

Defendant has failed to maintain time keeping records thus missing
out on its employee's overtime.

Plaintiff is represented by:

David E. Schlesinger, Esq.
      Michele R. Fisher, Esq.
      NICHOLS KASTER, PLLP
      4600 IDS Center
      80 South Eighth Street
      Minneapolis, MN 55402
      Tel: (612) 256-3200
      Fax: (612) 215-6870
      Email: schlesinger@nka.com

            - and -

      Daniel S. Brome, Esq.
      NICHOLS KASTER, LLP
      One Embarcadero Center, Suite 720
      San Francisco, CA 94111
      Tel: (415) 277-7235
      Fax: (415) 277-7238
      Email: dbrome@nka.com


* NCDRC Says CP Act Can Be Filed for Benefit of Consumers Only
--------------------------------------------------------------
Ashok KM, writing for LiveLaw.in, reports that the National
Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (NCDRC) has held that a
complaint under Section 12 (1)(c) of the Consumer Protection (CP)
Act can be filed only on behalf of or for the benefit of all the
consumers, having a common interest or a common grievance and
seeking the same/identical relief against the same person.

It has also been made clear that in a class action suit
(complaint) instituted under Section 12(1)(c) of the Consumer
Protection Act, the pecuniary jurisdiction is to be determined on
the basis of aggregate of the value of the goods purchased or the
services hired or availed by all the consumers on whose behalf or
for whose benefit the complaint is instituted and the total
compensation claimed in respect of such consumers.

Answering a reference to it, the full bench comprising NCDRC
president D.K. Jain, members V.K. Jain and B.C. Gupta made the
following observations:

A complaint under Section 12 (1)(c) of the Consumer Protection Act
can be filed only on behalf of or for the benefit of all the
consumers, having a common interest or a common grievance and
seeking the same / identical relief against the same person.  Such
a complaint however, shall not be deemed to have been filed on
behalf of or for the benefit of the consumers who have already
filed individual complaints before the requisite permission in
terms of Section 12(1) (c) of the Consumer Protection Act is
accorded.

A complaint under Section 12 (1) (c) of the Consumer Protection
Act is maintainable before this Commission where the aggregate of
the value of the goods purchased or the services hired or availed
of by all the consumers on whose behalf or for whose benefit the
complaint is instituted and the total compensation, if any,
claimed in respect of all such consumers exceeds Rs 1 crore.  The
value of the goods purchased or the services hired and availed of
by an individual consumer or the size, or date of booking /
allotment / purchase of the flat would be wholly irrelevant in
such a complaint where the complaint relates to the sale /
allotment of several flats / plots in the same project / building.

It is the value of the goods or services, as the case may be, and
not the value or cost of removing the deficiency in the service
which is to be considered for the purpose of determining the
pecuniary jurisdiction.

The interest has to be taken into account for the purpose of
determining the pecuniary jurisdiction of a consumer forum.

The consideration paid or agreed to be paid by the consumer at the
time of purchasing the goods or hiring or availing of the
services, as the case may be, is to be considered, along with the
compensation, if any, claimed in the complaint, to determine the
pecuniary jurisdiction of a consumer forum.

In a complaint instituted under Section 12(1) (c) of the Consumer
Protection Act, the pecuniary jurisdiction is to be determined on
the basis of aggregate of the value of the goods purchased or the
services hired or availed by all the consumers on whose behalf or
for whose benefit the complaint is instituted and the total
compensation claimed in respect of such consumers.

A complaint under Section 12(1) (c) of the Consumer Protection Act
can be instituted only by one or more consumers, as defined in
Section 2(1)(d) of the Consumer Protection Act.  Therefore, a
group of cooperative societies, Firms, Association or other
Society cannot file such a complaint unless such society etc.
itself is a consumer as defined in the aforesaid provision.


More than one complaints under Section 12(1)(c) of the Consumer
Protection Act are not maintainable on behalf of or for the
benefit of consumers having the same interest i.e. a common
grievance and seeking the same / identical against the same
person.  In case more than one such complaints have been
instituted, it is only the complaint instituted first under
Section 12(1) (c) of the Consumer Protection Act, with the
requisite permission of the Consumer Forum, which can continue and
the remaining complaints filed under Section 12(1)(c) of the
Consumer Protection Act are liable to be dismissed with liberty to
join in the complaint instituted first with the requisite
permission of the consumer forum.

The bench also observed that exercise due care and caution while
considering such a complaint even at the initial stage and to
grant the requisite permission, only where the complaint fulfils
all the requisite conditions in terms of Section 12(1) (c) of the
Consumer Protection Act read with Order I Rule 8 of the Code of
Civil Procedure.

"It would also be necessary for the bench to either give
individual notices or an adequate public notice of the institution
of the complaint to all the persons on whose behalf or for whose
benefit the complaint is instituted.  Such a notice should
disclose inter-alia (i) the subject matter of the complaint
including the particulars of the project if the complaint relates
to a housing project / scheme, (ii) the class of persons on whose
behalf or for whose benefit the complaint is filed, (iii) the
common grievance sought to get redressed through the class action,
(iv) the alleged deficiency in the services and (v) the reliefs
claimed in the complaint," the bench added.


* Stephen Engstrom Withdraws From Class Actions After Sanctions
---------------------------------------------------------------
Mark Friedman, writing for Arkansas Business, reports that less
than a month after Little Rock attorney Stephen Engstrom was
cleared of wrongdoing in a controversial class-action case, he
asked to withdraw from seven other pending class actions in which
his co-counsel included Texarkana attorney John Goodson.

The federal judges assigned to the cases approved Mr. Engstrom's
requests.

In all of the motions to withdraw as an attorney, Mr. Engstrom
wrote at the end of August that he no longer represented the
plaintiffs in the cases.  He also said that his withdrawal
wouldn't hurt the interests of the clients.

But he gave no specific reason for wanting to leave the cases,
most of which date back to 2014.

Mr. Engstrom didn't return calls or an email from Arkansas
Business, so it could not be determined whether the withdrawals
were connected with his health.  In March, Mr. Engstrom was
featured in an advertisement for the University of Arkansas for
Medical Sciences that said he was diagnosed more than 10 years ago
with "an extremely rare bone marrow disease."  The ad said Mr.
Engstrom continued to undergo treatment and "close,
day-to-day monitoring of his condition" at the UAMS Myeloma
Institute.

Mr. Engstrom left cases that involved several plaintiffs'
attorneys who were part of a class-action case in which U.S.
District Court Judge P.K. Holmes III of Fort Smith, the chief
federal judge for the Western District of Arkansas, reprimanded
five attorneys, including Goodson, the husband of a state Supreme
Court justice.

On Aug. 3, Judge Holmes found the attorneys acted in bad faith and
abused the court system in their manipulation of the class-action
case.

Ten other attorneys were found to have abused the judicial
process, but their misconduct didn't rise to the level of bad
faith, the chief judge for the Western District of Arkansas said.
They were not sanctioned.

In the August order, Judge Holmes reversed his earlier finding of
misconduct by Mr. Engstrom.

Twelve plaintiffs' attorneys and three defense attorneys have
appealed Judge Holmes' order to the 8th U.S. Circuit Court of
Appeals in St. Louis.  They will ask the appeals court to decide
whether the attorneys' conduct abused the federal court system and
whether Judge Holmes had inherent power to sanction them for it.

The case at the center of the matter was Mark and Katherine Adams
v. United Services Automobile Association.  The Adams case, which
concerned the method used to calculate homeowners' insurance
claims, was pending in Judge Holmes' court for 17 months until
both sides jointly agreed to dismiss it in June 2015. (Under court
rules, the judge did not have to approve the agreed dismissal.)

The case was refiled the next day, with a settlement agreement
attached, in Polk County Circuit Court, where the settlement was
approved without any questions by Circuit Judge Jerry Ryan.
Meanwhile, Robert Trammell, a Little Rock attorney who tried to
slow down the settlement in Polk County Circuit Court last fall,
is pushing forward with his class-action suit against the lawyers
who were sanctioned for abusing the court system.


                            *********

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  * * *