CAR_Public/161020.mbx              C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

           Thursday, October 20, 2016, Vol. 18, No. 210




                            Headlines

2249 CORP: Does Not Properly Pay Employees, "Nieto" Suit Claims
AIR METHODS: Faces "Stephens" Suit Over High Service Charge
AMADOR, CA: "Stewart" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Wages
AMERICAN LANDSCAPE: Sued in Cal. Over Failure to Pay Proper Wages
ASCENT RESOURCES: Cunningham Suit Seeks Re-Accounting of Royalties

AUSTRALIA: Law Firm Gets More Inquiries on Camden Cancer Suit
AUSTRALIA: Ex-Camden Students, Teachers Urged to Join Class Suit
BAKER HUGHES: McCulloch Wins Certification of Drillers Class
BANK OF NEW YORK: Class of Bondholders Certified in "Becker" Suit
BEST TRANSPORTATION: Berry Seeks Certification of Collective Suit

BREG INC: Lucas Did Not Satisfy Class Cert. Requisite, Court Says
CANADA: Two Law Firms Commence "Sixties Scoop" Class Action
CERTAINTEED GYPSUM: Indirect Purchasers Move to Certify Classes
COSTCO WHOLESALE: Paci Seeks Certification of Customers Class
DYNAMEX OPERATIONS: "Ouadani" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Wages

EAGLEVILLE HOSPITAL: Galt Wants to Send Class Notice Under FLSA
ENDOCHOICE HOLDINGS: Faces Suit Over Misleading Financial Reports
ETHOS GALLERY: "Stancu" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Wages
EVOLVED INC: Court Certifies Class Under FLSA in "Perkins" Suit
FELTEX: Appeals Court Affirms Shareholder Class Action Dismissal

FIFTY/50 MNGT: "Arias" Suit to Recover Overtime Pay
FORD MOTOR: MyFord Class Action Expected to Go to Court in 2017
GC SERVICES: "Dickens" Suit Parties Must File Damage Assessments
GENERAL MOTORS: Plans to Offer 1.6 Liter Diesel Amid Settlement
GIUMARRA VINEYARDS: Bid to Decertify Class in "Munoz" Suit Denied

HAMPTON ROADS: Sued in Va. Over Alleged Merger Agreement Breach
HBN MEDIA: Faces "Perry" Suit in Ga. Over Failure to Pay Overtime
HMG PARK: Class of Vocational Nurses Certified in "Abeldano" Suit
JAHM J NAJAFI: "McCauley" Class Suit Removed to Arizona District
JC CHRISTENSEN: Certification of Class Sought in "Lopez" Suit

JF MILLWORK: "Perez" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages
JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Consumers Classes Certified in Goldemberg Suit
LENDINGCLUB: WPERP Selects Robbins Geller as Lead Counsel
LJ ROSS: Bid to Certify Under Damasco Sought in "Johnson" Suit
LUMBER LIQUIDATORS: "Manzo" Product Suit Transferred to E.D. Vi.

MARION COUNTY, IN: Court Narrows Subclasses in "Driver" Suit
MEDPRO GROUP: Certification of FMLA Class Sought in "Carrel" Suit
MODERN METHOD: Class in "Espinoza" Suit Conditionally Certified
MYLAN NV: Faces "Duppen" Suit Over Misleading Financial Reports
PEPSICO: Says Naked Juice False Advertising Class Action Baseless

PHOENIX RISING: Case Managers Class Certified in "Adkins" Suit
PRUDENTIAL INSURANCE: Court Denies Huffman's Bid to Certify Class
QUEEN STUCCO: Conditional Certification Granted in "Hopson" Suit
SAINT FRANCIS: Denial of Nicodemus' Class Cert. Bid Reversed
SAMSUNG: Law Firm May File Class Action Over Note 7 Overheating

SEADRILL AMERICAS: Faces "Woodward" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT
SLATER & GORDON: Class Action Looms Over 2015 Share Price Plunge
SPIRIT REALTY: Sued Over Wheelchair-Inaccessible Parking Lots
SPRINGWOOD LAKE: Faces "Stolicny" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT
SUNEDISON INC: "Usenko" Class Suit Transferred to S.D. New York

SUSAN J SZWED: Maine Residents Class Certified in "Marcoux" Suit
TAMKO BUILDING: Court to Decide on Class Action This Month
TENET HEALTHCARE: Sued in Tex. Over Misleading Financial Reports
TLC IN HOME: Coakley Seeks to Certify Class of Care Providers
UNITED PARCEL: "Zapata" Suit to Recover Overtime Pay

UNITED STATES: Guam Contractors Seeks to Certify H2B Worker Class
WEST VIRGINIA: Disability Waiver Class Action Can Proceed
XPO LAST MILE: Delivery Drivers Class Certified in "Carter" Suit
YAHOO! INC: E-mail Forwarding Option Disabled Amid Hacking Suits

* CFPB's New Arbitration Rules May Face Legal Challenge
* Scope of US Plaintiffs to Pursue Class Actions Remains Unclear
* Japan Introduces New Consumer Class Action Law
* Supreme Court Tackles "Natural" Labeling Class Litigation




                            *********


2249 CORP: Does Not Properly Pay Employees, "Nieto" Suit Claims
---------------------------------------------------------------
Jorge Nieto and Mario Garcia, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. 2249 Corp. and 22 E. 49th St. Food
Corp. d/b/a Liberty Deli & Pizza, Jessica Gupta, Sanjiv Chand and
Samy Elfoully, Case No. 1:16-cv-07947 (S.D.N.Y., October 11,
2016), is brought against the Defendants for failure to pay
minimum wages, overtime premium pay, and failure to provide wages
notices and wage statements pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards
Act.

The Defendants own and operate Liberty Deli & Pizza located at 22
E. 49th Street, New York, New York.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Maria L. Chickedantz, Esq.
      MIRER MAZZOCCHI SCHALET JULIEN & CHICKEDANTZ
      150 Broadway, Suite 1200
      New York, NY 10038
      Telephone: (212) 231-2235
      E-mail: maria@mmsjlaw.com


AIR METHODS: Faces "Stephens" Suit Over High Service Charge
-----------------------------------------------------------
Jenny Lee Stephens, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated v. Air Methods Corporation and Rocky Mountain Holdings,
LLC, Case No. 2:16-cv-01659-JEO (N.D. Ala., October 10, 2016), is
an action for damages as a result of the Defendants' practice of
charging higher prices that bear no reasonable relationship to the
services rendered or what is customarily charged for the services.

The Defendants own and operate a company that provides medical
transport service.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Andrew P. Campbell, Esq.
      Stephen D. Wadsworth, Esq.
      CAMPBELL, GUIN, LLC
      505 20th Street North, Suite 1600
      Birmingham, AL 35203
      Telephone: (205) 224-0750
      E-mail: andrew.campbell@campbellguin.com
              stephen.wadsworth@campbellguin.com

         - and -

      Arthur F. Fite, Esq.
      THE FITE LAW FIRM, LLC
      P.O. Box 368
      Anniston, AL 36202
      Telephone: (256) 231-9330
      Facsimile: (256) 231-4518
      E-mail: arthur@fitelawfirm.com


AMADOR, CA: "Stewart" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Wages
--------------------------------------------------------
Clint Stewart, on behalf of himself and all similarly situated
individuals v. County of Amador, Case No. 2:16-at-01264 (E.D.
Cal., October 10, 2016), seeks to recover unpaid overtime and
other compensation, interest thereon, liquidated damages, costs of
suit and reasonable attorney fees pursuant to the Fair Labor
Standards Act.

County of Amador is a political subdivision of the State of
California.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      David E. Mastagni, Esq.
      Isaac S. Stevens, Esq.
      Ace T. Tate, Esq.
      MASTAGNI HOLSTEDT
      A Professional Corporation
      1912 "I" Street
      Sacramento, CA 95811
      Telephone: (916) 446-4692
      Facsimile: (916) 447-4614


AMERICAN LANDSCAPE: Sued in Cal. Over Failure to Pay Proper Wages
-----------------------------------------------------------------
David Lizarraga, individually, and on behalf of other members of
the general public similarly situated v. American Landscape, Inc.
and Does 1 through 100, inclusive, Case No. BC636919 (Cal. Super.
Ct., October 11, 2016), is brought against the Defendants for
failure to pay minimum and overtime wages in violation of the
California Labor Code.

American Landscape, Inc. is a landscaping services company
providing landscape design, maintenance, tree service and snow
removal.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Ronald H. Bae, Esq.
      Olivia D. Scharrer, Esq.
      AEQUITAS LEGAL GROUP
      A Professional Law Corporation
      1156 E. Green Street, Suite 200
      Pasadena, CA 91106
      Telephone: (213)674-6080
      Facsimile: (213)674-6081


ASCENT RESOURCES: Cunningham Suit Seeks Re-Accounting of Royalties
------------------------------------------------------------------
Cunningham Property Management Trust, individually and on behalf
of a class of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Ascent
Resources, LLC, Ascent Resources - Utica, LLC and Ascent Resources
Operating, LLC, seeks an accounting of royalty payments.  The suit
also seeks compensatory damages, punitive damages, injunctive
relief, equitable relief, equitable disgorgement, pre-judgment
interest, post-judgment interest, attorney's fees and costs and
any other relief resulting from unjust enrichment, breach of
contract, breach of duty to act in good faith and fraud.

Cunningham Property Management Trust owns approximately 272 acres
of real property in Moorefield Township, Harrison County, Ohio.
Cunningham is a lessor of oil and gas leases.

The Ascent Group recover natural gas by fracking in the Utica
Shale lying under New York, Pennsylvania, Ohio, and West Virginia,
as well as extending into parts of Kentucky, Maryland, Tennessee
and Virginia. It allegedly took advantage of the lessors by
improperly shifting fracking expenses to them and inflating
deductions from royalty payments.

Plaintiff is represented by:

      Ethan Vessels, Esq.
      FIELDS, DEHMLOW & VESSELS LLC
      309 Second Street
      Marietta, OH 45750
      Tel: (740) 374-5346
      Fax: (740) 374-5349
      Email: ethan@fieldsdehmlow.com

             - and -

      Mark H. Troutman, Esq.
      Gregory M. Travalio, Esq.
      Shawn Judge, Esq.
      ISAAC WILES BURKHOLDER & TEETOR, LLC
      Two Miranova Place, Suite 700
      Columbus, OH 43215
      Tel: (614) 221-2121
      Fax: (614) 365-9516
      Email: mtroutman@isaacwiles.com
             gtravalio@isaacwiles.com
             sjudge@isaacwiles.com


AUSTRALIA: Law Firm Gets More Inquiries on Camden Cancer Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
Chris Hook, writing for The Daily Telegraph, reports that Sean
Charters is constantly on the toilet, can barely keep food down
and his weight has halved -- but it's the indignity that hurts the
former Camden High student more than anything.

For years the 49-year-old Minto spray-painter and father of six
has struggled with gastrointestinal problems, the situation
culminating in a ruptured bowel and the removal of about 45cm of
his lower intestine three years ago.

But the cause was unknown, Mr. Charters variously prescribed
useless courses of antibiotics or told to change his diet.

"It was really scary not knowing what it was, and seeing so many
doctors who couldn't work it out, it was like having food
poisoning every few weeks," Mr. Charters said.

Now, Mr. Charters still struggles with pain and can't keep weight
on, having dropped from a burly 117kg to just 53kg.

"Every time I eat I get stomach pains and I probably go to the
toilet 15 times a day," he said.

Back in the 1980s, Mr. Charters was a student at Camden High
School, which was built in 1956 beside a former gasworks, before
being extended into that site in 1970.

An EPA report confirmed in 1996 that the site had been
contaminated and there were concerns about people coming into
contact with soil.

Remediation works were undertaken but plans to move the school
were also launched and in 2001 it was relocated.

The Sunday Telegraph revealed that 30 former staff and students
had died from cancers, rare tumours and blood disorders and 320
had joined a class action against the NSW Education Department,
alleging it had failed in its duty of care.

Mr. Charters made the phone call to Marsdens Law Group to join
them, one of more than 60 inquiries in the wake of The Sunday
Telegraph story.

"In just 24 hours that is incredible, and most of them have been
from people who have suffered, are suffering, or have close
relatives who have suffered from cancer," Marsden Law Group
partner Joe Bonura said.

He said he had two secretaries and a senior law clerk sifting
through them all and urged anybody who thinks they might be
affected to get in touch.

"I think the number will grow exponentially," he said.

The action was launched by the late former student Leonie Curry
and her husband Rod, as she battled brain cancer three years ago,
and became concerned about the number of her former classmates who
were also battling myriad serious health problems, including
cancers, fertility problems and other issues.

Although Mrs. Curry died in June, her husband Rod and her best
friend Natasha Hoare are continuing the fight.

The story touched a nerve with Facebook shares and comments into
the thousands by midday on Oct. 9, including disturbing stories of
dead birds beside the science blocks and strange smells throughout
the school.

"I have been really overwhelmed by it all, there has been a
massive response, and we didn't expect that," Mrs. Hoare said.

"There are sad stories, and it is tragic, we just went to school
to get an education."

Leonie's widower Rod Curry said he was hoping that awareness of
the issue would lead former students and staff to get health
checks should they suspect any problems.

"When my wife started this, what she wanted to do was to make
people aware that if something happens, go to the doctor," Mr
Curry said.

Mrs Hoare said she was also keen to raise awareness, so former
staff and students who suspected health problems got themselves
checked out.

"I'm just one person trying to make a difference for everyone who
can no longer be heard," she said.

Leonie's widower Rod Curry said he was hoping that awareness of
the issue would lead former students and staff to get health
checks should they suspect any problems.

"When my wife started this, what she wanted to do was to make
people aware that if something happens, go to the doctor," Mr
Curry said.

Mrs Hoare said she was also keen to raise awareness, so former
staff and students who suspected health problems got themselves
checked out.

"I'm just one person trying to make a difference for everyone who
can no longer be heard," she said.


AUSTRALIA: Ex-Camden Students, Teachers Urged to Join Class Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Kayla Osborne, writing for Camden-Narellan Advertiser, reports
that Marsdens Law Group has renewed its call for former students
or teachers from Camden High School who have been diagnosed with a
serious illness, especially cancer, to get in touch.

Partner and personal injury compensation expert Joe Bonura said he
hoped to lodge a class action lawsuit with the Supreme Court
against the Department of Education in the next six to 12 months.
He said he was under siege on Oct. 10 with scores of calls and
emails "flooding in" following the publication of a story about
the class action in a weekend newspaper.

An Advertiser exclusive published in July 2013 revealed plans to
instigate the lawsuit.

Mr. Bonura said for the case to be successful the class action
would need to prove the illnesses were caused by exposure to a
carcinogenic source at the site.

"We have a good database but we need to improve it," he said.
"It's important for us to know how many people who went to the
school are ill or have a problem.

"We've established a team to work on new inquiries because we want
to get back to people as soon as possible."

Mr. Bonura said Marsdens would also need to obtain expert evidence
showing the comparison rate of cancer/serious illness among Camden
High School students and teachers was higher than the statistical
normal in the general population.

Mr. Bonura said he was confident he could prove a carcinogenic
source existed at the school.

"We know anecdotally from the many, many statements we have taken
from former students that there were odours, gas leaks, bubbling
of tar on school grounds, etcetera," he said.

"What we need now is a bigger database so that expert
statisticians and epidemiologists can examine and show that the
incidence of disease is higher than it should be."

Mr. Bonura said Marsdens would hold a "town hall" meeting in
Camden later this year with all interested residents invited to
attend.

"We'll explain why we're lodging a class action suit and where
we're up to," he said.

Camden High School opened in 1956 and closed in 2001 when the
school was moved to its current location on Cawdor Road.

The investigation began in late 2012 when a former student was
diagnosed with a brain stem tumour which doctors said could have
been caused by a contaminant.

Since then more than 300 people have registered their interest
with Marsdens fearing the illnesses they suffered might have been
a result of the toxins they were exposed to at the school.

While contamination was discovered at the site in 1995, the school
was not relocated until six years later.


BAKER HUGHES: McCulloch Wins Certification of Drillers Class
------------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit entitled MARC MCCULLOCH, individually, on behalf of
others similarly situated, and on behalf of the general public v.
BAKER HUGHES INTEQ DRILLING FLUIDS, INC., et al., Case No. 1:16-
cv-00157-DAD-JLT (E.D. Cal.), the Hon. Dale A. Drozd conditionally
certified a class, pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act,
consisting of:

     All persons who provided services as consultant directional
     drillers, and in other independent contractor directional
     driller positions with similar job titles and/or job duties
     to Baker Hughes, at any time from three years prior to the
     filing of this action.

The Defendant may later seek decertification of the class at an
appropriate point in time, Judge Drozd stated.

The parties also seek a stay pending mediation pursuant to their
stipulation, agree to notify the court of the results of their
mediation attempts within three days of the completion of
mediation or by January 20, 2017, whichever is earlier, and will
request a Case Management Conference at that time in the event a
settlement is not reached.

The Court finds such a stay appropriate and, therefore, vacates
the scheduling order previously entered in the action.  The
parties are directed to notify the Court within three days of the
completion of mediation or by January 20, 2017, whichever is
earlier, of the status of the action.  The matter will thereafter
be referred back to the assigned magistrate judge for further
scheduling as necessary and appropriate, pursuant to Local Rule
302(c).

A copy of the Order is available at no charge at
https://goo.gl/VdJyFo from Leagle.com.

Plaintiff Marc McCulloch is represented by:

          Michele R. Fisher, Esq.
          Daniel Solomon Brome, Esq.
          NICHOLS KASTER, PLLP
          4600 IDS Center
          80th South 8th St.
          Minneapolis, MN 55402
          Telephone: (612) 256-3200
          E-mail: fisher@nka.com
                  dbrome@nka.com

Defendants Baker Hughes Inteq Drilling Fluids, Inc., and Baker
Hughes, Inc., are represented by:

          Kevin White, Esq.
          Michael Brett Burns, Esq.
          HUNTON & WILLIAMS LLP
          575 Market Street, Suite 3700
          San Francisco, CA 94105
          Telephone: (415) 975-3700
          Facsimile: (415) 975-3701
          E-mail: kwhite@hunton.com
                  mbrettburns@hunton.com


BANK OF NEW YORK: Class of Bondholders Certified in "Becker" Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The Hon. Legrome D. Davis entered a memorandum in the lawsuit
styled LEONARD BECKER, v. THE BANK OF NEW YORK MELLON TRUST
COMPANY, N.A. and J.P. MORGAN TRUST COMPANY, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION,
Case No. 11-6460, consolidated with Case No. 12-6412 (E.D. Pa.),
stating that the Plaintiff's motion for class certification will
be granted.

Under Rules 23(a) and 23(b)(3) of the Federal Rules of Civil
Procedure, the proposed class of bondholders will be certified as
a class action, and the Plaintiff will be certified as the class
representative.  Under Rule 23(g), Barrack, Rodos & Bacine will be
appointed as class counsel, Judge Davis wrote in the Memorandum.

Plaintiff Leonard Becker moved in the consolidated litigation to
certify a class comprising holders of revenue bonds, who are
entitled to a distribution under the Plan for reorganization of
the bond debtor, Lower Bucks Hospital, which Plan was confirmed
under Chapter 11 of the Bankruptcy Code.

A copy of the Memorandum is available at no charge at
https://goo.gl/94Sr4J from Leagle.com.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Daniel E. Bacine, Esq.
          Lisa M. Port, Esq.
          BARRACK, RODOS & BACINE
          Two Commerce Square
          2001 Market Street
          Philadelphia, PA 19103
          Telephone: (215) 963-0600
          Facsimile: (215) 963-0838
          E-mail: dbacine@barrack.com
                  lport@barrack.com

Defendants THE BANK OF NEW YORK MELLON TRUST COMPANY, N.A., and
J.P. MORGAN TRUST COMPANY, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION, are represented
by:

          Christine Cesare, Esq.
          Howard M. Rogatnick, Esq.
          Stephanie Wickouski, Esq.
          Thomas J. Schell, Esq.
          BRYAN CAVE LLP
          1290 6th Ave.
          New York, NY 10104
          Telephone: (212) 541-1228
          E-mail: cbcesare@bryancave.com
                  hmrogatnick@bryancave.com
                  stephanie.wickouski@bryancave.com
                  tjschell@bryancave.com

               - and -

          Natalie D. Ramsey, Esq.
          Patrick T. Ryan, Esq.
          MONTGOMERY MCCRACKEN WALKER & RHOADS LLP
          123 South Broad Street
          Avenue of the Arts
          Philadelphia, PA 19109
          Telephone: (215) 772-7354
          Facsimile: (215) 772-7620
          E-mail: nramsey@mmwr.com
                  pryan@mmwr.com

Respondents SAUL EWING LLP and ADAM ISENBERG are represented by:

          Timothy W. Callahan, II, Esq.
          SAUL EWING LLP
          Centre Square West
          1500 Market Street, 38th Floor
          Philadelphia, PA 19102-2186
          Telephone: (215) 972-1081
          Facsimile: (215) 972-1828
          E-mail: tcallahan@saul.com

Respondents BLANK ROME LLP and JOHN LUCIAN are represented by:

          Jeremy A. Rist, Esq.
          BLANK ROME LLP
          One Logan Square
          130 North 18th Street
          Philadelphia, PA 19103-6998
          Telephone: (215) 569-5361
          Facsimile: (215) 832-5361
          E-mail: Rist@BlankRome.com


BEST TRANSPORTATION: Berry Seeks Certification of Collective Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The Plaintiffs in the lawsuit entitled MARIO BERRY and GLENN
SMITH, on behalf of himself and others similarly-situated v. BEST
TRANSPORTATION, INC. d/b/a BEST TRANSPORTATION OF ST. LOUIS and
KIM GARNER, DEBORAH RUDAWSKY, Individually, Case No. 4:16-cv-
00473-JAR (E.D. Mo.), seek conditional certification of and send
supervised notice to these Potential Plaintiffs:

     Individuals who were employed by Best Transportation, Inc.
     d/b/a Best Transportation of St. Louis from April 2013 to
     the present who were paid in whole or in part on an hourly
     basis.

Mario Berry and Glenn Smith told the Court that this Motion is not
a motion for class certification under Rule 23 of the Federal
Rules of Civil Procedure but a motion brought pursuant to the Fair
Labor Standards Act's collective action provisions.  The
Plaintiffs contend that they sued the Defendants to recover
alleged unpaid overtime wages that were not paid in accordance
with the FLSA.

A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=J9AfmSOP

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

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


BREG INC: Lucas Did Not Satisfy Class Cert. Requisite, Court Says
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The Hon. Cynthia Bashant entered an order in the lawsuit captioned
STACY LUCAS, an individual, TAREK ALBABA, an individual, RIGOBERTO
VINDIOLA, an individual, DAVID GAMMA, an individual, SARAH FISHER,
an individual, on behalf of themselves and all other similarly
situated consumers v. BREG, INC., a California corporation; GARY
LOSSE, an individual; MARK HOWARD, an individual; and DOES 1
through 50, inclusive, Case No. 15-cv-00258-BAS-NLS (S.D. Cal.):

   (1) granting in part and denying in part the Defendant's
       motion for summary judgment; and

   (2) denying the Plaintiffs' motion for class certification.

The case arises out of alleged misrepresentations and omissions
made by Defendant Breg in connection with the marketing and sale
of its Polar Care 500 cold therapy device.  The Plaintiffs assert
claims for violations of California's consumer protection laws,
common law fraud, and breach of warranty, and moved to certify a
nationwide class and California subclass of consumers, who
purchased or rented the product.

In her Order, Judge Bashant opines that the Plaintiffs fail to
satisfy the requirements for class certification under both Rule
23(b)(3) and Rule 23(b)(2) of the Federal Rules of Civil
Procedure.  She adds that the Plaintiffs also fail to satisfy the
requirement that a proposed class be ascertainable.

The Court granted summary judgment on (1) Plaintiffs' breach of
warranty claims (Plaintiffs' Sixth and Seventh Cause of Action),
(2) the issue of Plaintiffs' standing to seek injunctive relief,
and (3) the issue of Plaintiff Lucas, Fisher, and Gamma's
entitlement to restitution.  Summary judgment is denied on (1) the
question whether Plaintiffs' California's Unfair Competition Law,
California's Consumers Legal Remedies Act, California's False
Advertising Law and common law fraud claims are time-barred, and
(2) whether Plaintiff Albaba is entitled to restitution.

Since the Court did not rely on the proffered declarations and
testimony of Kenneth Diller, Dr. Daniel Lozano, Dr. Jon A.
Krosnick, or Wesley Nutten, the Defendants' motions to exclude
these declarations and testimony are terminated as moot.  The
Plaintiffs' motion to file under seal exhibits in support of their
opposition to the Defendants' motion to exclude is also terminated
as moot.

A copy of the Order is available at no charge at
https://goo.gl/uNVUHQ from Leagle.com.

Plaintiffs Stacy Lucas, Tarek Albaba, David Gamma and Sarah Fisher
are represented by:

          Chase Stern, Esq.
          William A. Lemkul, Esq.
          MORRIS, SULLIVAN & LEMKUL, LLP
          9915 Mira Mesa Boulevard, Suite 300
          San Diego, CA 92131
          Telephone: (858) 566-7600
          Facsimile: (858) 566-6602
          E-mail: Lemkul@morrissullivanlaw.com
                  stern@morrissullivanlaw.com

               - and -

          Marc O. Stern, Esq.
          LAW OFFICE OF MARC O. STERN
          8070 La Jolla Shores Drive, # 519
          La Jolla, CA 92037
          Telephone: (858) 677-9200
          Facsimile: (858) 677-0735
          E-mail: moslaw@san.rr.com

Defendants Breg, Inc., and Mark Howard are represented by:

          David Jeffrey Duke, Esq.
          Eden Darrell, Esq.
          Marion V. Mauch, Esq.
          Mary Novacheck, Esq.
          Paul Gerard Cereghini, Esq.
          Randall L. Christian, Esq.
          Robert Latane Wise, Esq.
          Susan Elizabeth Burnett, Esq.
          BOWMAN AND BROOKE LLP
          750 B Street, Suite 1740
          San Diego, CA 92101
          Telephone: (619) 376-2500
          Facsimile: (619) 376-2501
          E-mail: david.duke@bowmanandbrooke.com
                  eden.darrell@bowmanandbrooke.com
                  marion.mauch@bowmanandbrooke.com
                  mary.novacheck@bowmanandbrooke.com
                  paul.cereghini@bowmanandbrooke.com
                  randy.christian@bowmanandbrooke.com
                  rob.wise@bowmanandbrooke.com
                  susan.burnett@bowmanandbrooke.com

Defendant Gary Losse is represented by:

          C. Christopher Brown, Esq.
          LEWIS, BRISBOIS, BISGAARD & SMITH
          701 "B" Street, Suite 1900
          San Diego, CA 92101
          Telephone: (619) 233-1006
          Facsimile: (619) 233-8627
          E-mail: C.Christopher.Brown@lewisbrisbois.com


CANADA: Two Law Firms Commence "Sixties Scoop" Class Action
-----------------------------------------------------------
Koskie Minsky LLP in Toronto, with Sunchild Law in Battleford,
Saskatchewan, has commenced a class action against the Attorney
General of Canada on behalf of individuals affected by the
"Sixties Scoop" in Saskatchewan.

The term "Sixties Scoop" refers to the practice in Saskatchewan
whereby Aboriginal children were taken ("scooped up") from their
families for placing in foster homes or adoption with non-
Aboriginal homes.  As a result, it is alleged these "scooped"
children lost their identity as Aboriginal persons and suffered
mentally, emotionally, spiritually, and physically.  The plaintiff
also claims that he and class members were deprived of their
status and other Aboriginal-related benefits, which Canada
unjustly retained. Aboriginal communities describe the Sixties
Scoop as destructive to their culture.

The claim alleges that by virtue of the Sixties Scoop in
Saskatchewan, Canada was negligent and breached fiduciary duties
owed to the Aboriginal class members.

The lawsuit is brought on behalf of all "Indian, non-status
Indian, and/or MÇtis" children who were scooped after January 1,
1960 and were placed in the care of non-Aboriginal foster or
adoptive parents who did not raise the children in accordance with
the Aboriginal person's customs, traditions, and practices.

It seeks $200 million in damages for breach of fiduciary duty and
negligence and $50 million in punitive damages.

"Saskatchewan has a particularly dark history with respect to the
Sixties Scoop and many people have suffered, and continue to
suffer, because of it," says Kirk Baert, co-lead counsel at Koskie
Minsky LLP, "and this case can start to right these wrongs of the
past."


CERTAINTEED GYPSUM: Indirect Purchasers Move to Certify Classes
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Indirect Purchaser Plaintiffs in the multidistrict litigation
captioned In re: Domestic Drywall Antitrust Litigation, MDL No.
2:13-md-02437-MMB (E.D. Pa.), move the Court for an order
certifying Statewide Damages Classes, each identically defined
other than the state of its members' purchases, and appointing
class representatives for each state:

     All persons and entities who, from January 1, 2012 through
     present indirectly purchased gypsum board in [STATE]
     manufactured by any of the Defendants, their subsidiaries,
     affiliates, or joint-venturers for end use and not for
     resale.  Excluded from the Class are: Defendants; the
     officers, directors or employees of any Defendant; the
     parent companies, subsidiaries and affiliates of any
     Defendant; the legal representatives and heirs or assigns of
     any Defendants; and any coconspirators.  Also excluded are
     any federal, state or local governmental entities, any
     judicial officer presiding over this action and the members
     of his/her immediate family and judicial staff, and any
     juror assigned to this action.

     The Statewide Damages Classes and their proposed
     Representatives are:

     a. Arizona (represented by William Perry);

     b. California (represented by Afamefuna Agbodike and 220
        Golden Gate Associates L.P.);

     c. Illinois (represented by Todd Ramsey);

     d. Florida (represented by Kevin Tragesser);

     e. Massachusetts (represented by East Island Commercial
        LLC);

     f. Michigan (represented by Dan Stringer);

     g. Minnesota (represented by Mark Petersen);

     h. Missouri (represented by Geoffrey Jones);

     i. New York (represented by Nicholas DeMarco);

     j. Utah (represented by Brian Lisonbee); and

     k. Wisconsin (represented by Alan Shultz and John and Amy
        Hauser).

The Indirect Purchaser Plaintiffs ask for an order certifying this
class ("National Class"), and appointing all of the Statewide
Damages Class representatives as class representatives for the
National Class:

     All persons and entities who, from January 1, 2012 through
     present, as residents of the United States, indirectly
     purchased gypsum board manufactured by any of the
     Defendants, their subsidiaries, affiliates, or
     joint-venturers for end use and not for resale.  Excluded
     from the Class are: Defendants; the officers, directors or
     employees of any Defendant; the parent companies,
     subsidiaries and affiliates of any Defendant; the legal
     representatives and heirs or assigns of any Defendants; and
     any co-conspirators.  Also excluded are any federal, state
     or local governmental entities, any judicial officer
     presiding over this action and the members of his/her
     immediate family and judicial staff, and any juror assigned
     to this action.

The Indirect Purchaser Plaintiffs further ask the Court to appoint
Interim Class Counsel for the Indirect Purchasers as Class Counsel
for the National Class and the Statewide Damages Classes.

A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=gH9dUwDQ

The Indirect Purchaser Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Whitney Street, Esq.
          BLOCK & LEVITON LLP
          610 16th Street, Suite 214
          Oakland, CA 94612
          Telephone: (415) 968-1852
          Facsimile: (617) 507-6020
          E-mail: Whitney@blockesq.com


COSTCO WHOLESALE: Paci Seeks Certification of Customers Class
-------------------------------------------------------------
Emiguela Paci asks the Court to enter an order certifying that the
matter titled EMIGUELA PACI, individually and on behalf of
similarly situated persons v. COSTCO WHOLESALE CORPORATION, Case
No. 1:16-cv-00094 (N.D. Ill.), may proceed as a class action
against Costco.  The Plaintiff seeks to have certified this class:

     All persons whom within a Costco Warehouse store located in
     the United States were provided an electronically printed
     receipt that contained more than the last five digits of
     their payment card's account number, from a time period
     beginning two years prior to the filing of this lawsuit,
     January 6, 2014, until Costco stopped printing such
     receipts.

The Plaintiff brings the action against the Defendant for
allegedly violating the Fair and Accurate Credit Transactions Act
amendment to the Fair Credit Reporting Act, in that Costco was
printing the first six digits of credit cards' account numbers, in
addition to the last four digits, on electronically printed
receipts provided to the cardholder at the point of sale or
transaction, despite knowing that it was illegal to do so.

A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=h2AAFSXd

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Curtis C. Warner, Esq.
          WARNER LAW FIRM, LLC
          350 S. Northwest Hwy., Suite 300
          Park Ridge, IL 60068
          Telephone: (847) 701-5290
          E-mail: cwarner@warnerlawllc.com


DYNAMEX OPERATIONS: "Ouadani" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Wages
----------------------------------------------------------------
Djamel Ouadani, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated v. Dynamex Operations East, LLC, Case No. 1:16-cv-12036
(D. Mass., October 11, 2016), seeks to recover unpaid minimum
wages, liquidated damages, interest, costs, and attorneys' fees
pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act.

Dynamex Operations East, LLC provides transportation services to
customers ranging from local companies to Fortune 500 corporations
in the United States.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Stephen Churchill, Esq.
      Hillary Schwab, Esq.
      Rachel Smit, Esq.
      FAIR WORK, P.C.
      192 South Street, Suite 450
      Boston, MA 02111
      Telephone: (6170 607-3260
      E-mail: steve@fairworklaw.com
              hillary@fairworklaw.com
              rachel@fairworklaw.com


EAGLEVILLE HOSPITAL: Galt Wants to Send Class Notice Under FLSA
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Plaintiffs in the lawsuit entitled ADRIENNE GALT and NANCY
MURPHY, for themselves and all others similarly situated v.
EAGLEVILLE HOSPITAL, Case No. 2:15-cv-06851-CMR (E.D. Pa.), seek
authority from the Court to disseminate class notice to all
similarly-situated persons pursuant to the "opt-in" mechanism for
collective actions authorized by the Fair Labor Standards Act.

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

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          David J. Cohen, Esq.
          STEPHAN ZOURAS LLP
          604 Spruce Street
          Philadelphia, PA 19106
          Telephone: (215) 873-4836
          E-mail: dcohen@stephanzouras.com

               - and -

          Ryan F. Stephan, Esq.
          James B. Zouras, Esq.
          Andrew C. Ficzko, Esq.
          STEPHAN ZOURAS LLP
          205 N. Michigan Avenue, Suite 2560
          Chicago, IL 60601
          Telephone: (312) 255-1550
          Facsimile: (312) 233-1560
          E-mail: rstephan@stephanzouras.com
                  jzouras@stephanzouras.com
                  aficzko@stephanzouras.com


ENDOCHOICE HOLDINGS: Faces Suit Over Misleading Financial Reports
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Kenneth T. Raczewski, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. Endochoice Holdings, Inc.; Mark G. Gilreath;
David N. Gill; R. Scott Huennekens; James R. Balkcom, Jr.; J.
Scott Carter; D. Scott Davis; Uri Geiger; David L. Kaufman; Rurik
G. Vandevenne; J.P. Morgan Securities LLC; Merrilllynch, Pierce,
Fenner & Smith Incorporated; William Blair & Company, L.L.C.; and
Stifel, Nicolaus & Company, Incorporated, Case No. 2016CV281193
(Ga. Super. Ct., October 10, 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 in connection with their initial public
offering.

Endochoice Holdings, Inc. is a medical device company that designs
and commercializes various products for gastrointestinal
caregivers in the United States and internationally.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      David A. Bain, Esq.
      LAW OFFICES OFDAVID A. BAIN, LLC
      1050 Promenade II 1230 Peachtree Street, NE
      Atlanta, GA 30309
      Telephone: (404) 724-9990
      Facsimile: (404) 724-9986
      E-mail: dbain@bain-law.com

         - and -

      Shannon L. Hopkins
      LEVI & KORSINSKY, LLP
      733 Summer Street, Suite 304
      Stanford, CT 06901
      Telephone: (203) 992-4523
      E-mail: shopkins@zlk.com


ETHOS GALLERY: "Stancu" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Wages
----------------------------------------------------------
Marius Stancu, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated v. Ethos Gallery 51, LLC, and Yiannis Chatiris, Case No.
1:16-cv-07958 (S.D.N.Y., October 11, 2016), seeks to recover
unpaid back wages and an additional amount as liquidated damages,
reasonable attorneys' fees and costs pursuant to the Fair Labor
Standards Act.

The Defendants own and operate a restaurant located at 905 1st
Ave, New York, New York 10022.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Jess Rose, Esq.
      THE ROSE LAW GROUP, PLLC
      3109 Newtown Avenue Suite 309
      Astoria, NY 11102
      Telephone: (718) 989-1864
      Facsimile: (917) 831-4595

EVOLVED INC: Court Certifies Class Under FLSA in "Perkins" Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Hon. James L. Graham granted the Plaintiffs' motion to
conditionally certify the case styled Brittany Perkins, et al.,
Individually and on behalf of other members of the general public
similarly situated v. Evolved, Inc., et al., Case No. 2:16-cv-
00724-JLG-KAJ (S.D. Ohio), as a collective action pursuant to the
Fair Labor Standards Act and to order that notice be provided to
putative class members of Plaintiffs' FLSA claims.

The Court also approves the agreed notice and consent forms.

A copy of the Order is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=KFgx79pQ


FELTEX: Appeals Court Affirms Shareholder Class Action Dismissal
----------------------------------------------------------------
Hamish Rutherford, writing for stuff.co.nz, reports that the Court
of Appeal has dismissed a class action against the former
directors and owners of carpet manufacturer Feltex, which failed
two years after its 2004 float.

In April former investor Eric Houghton took an action on behalf of
more than 3600 former shareholders, to the Court of Appeal,
attempting to overturn a 2014 High Court decision.

Among other things, the action claimed shareholders should have
been told that the amount the former owners were seeking to raise
was increased in the months before the float to fund a dividend in
the first year as a public company.

The case focused on what the class action alleged were five
misleading statements under the Securities Act.

The decision found that with one exception, Justice Robert Dobson
had been right to reject the class action's case.

While the Court of Appeal found that the forecast revenues in the
company prospectus for the 2004 financial year represented an
"untrue statement".

"The directors of Feltex could not have believed the forecast to
be true or accurate when the shares were allotted to Mr Houghton,"
a media release summarizing the decision said.

"They knew there would be a small shortfall in revenue as against
the forecast but did not correct the forecast in the prospectus as
they believed the shortfall to be immaterial."

However the court ruled that "no liability could arise because,
even if the forecast had been corrected, it would not have changed
the prudent but non-expert investor's decision to invest in
Feltex".

A spokeswoman for the Feltex Claimants Group said that while the
Court of Appeal had ruled that the group were not entitled to
compensation under the Securities Act, it also held that the
investors were not precluded from making a claim under the Fair
Trading Act.

The judgment's references to the Fair Trading Act would be the
subject of a "detailed review" by the group's legal team.


FIFTY/50 MNGT: "Arias" Suit to Recover Overtime Pay
---------------------------------------------------
Luis Arias, on behalf of himself and all other similarly situated
employees, known and unknown, Plaintiff, v. The Fifty/50
Management Group, Inc., Bravo Tapas & Lounge, Inc., Fifty/50 LLC,
Scott A. Weiner and Gregory R. Mohr, individually, Defendants,
Case No. 1:16-cv-09528 (N.D. Ill., October 5, 2016), seeks damages
in an amount equal to the unpaid overtime compensation due,
damages in an amount equal to the unpaid minimum wages due,
statutory treble damages, interest on all amounts awarded,
attorneys' fees, together with costs of suit and collection and
such further relief under the Fair Labor Standards Act and the
Illinois Minimum Wage Law.

Fifty, Inc. is an Illinois corporation that maintains a registered
office in Illinois at 190 S. LaSalle St., Suite 450, Chicago, IL
60603. Bravo is an Illinois corporation located at 190 S. LaSalle
St., Suite 450, Chicago, IL 60603. Both are retail stores where
Weiner and Mohr hold an ownership interest in. Plaintiff was
jointly employed by the defendants as a stocker.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Paul Luka, Esq.
      LAW OFFICE OF PAUL LUKA, P.C.
      120 S. State Street, Suite 400
      Chicago, IL 60603
      Tel: (312) 971-7309
      Email: paul@lukapc.com


FORD MOTOR: MyFord Class Action Expected to Go to Court in 2017
---------------------------------------------------------------
Lucas Mearian, writing for ComputerWorld, reports that documents
in a class-action lawsuit against Ford and its original MyFord
Touch in-vehicle infotainment (IVI) system reveal that the
company's engineers and even its top executive were frustrated
with the problematic technology.

The documents from the 2013 lawsuit show Ford engineers believed
the IVI, which was powered by the SYNC operating system launched
in 2010, might be "unsaleable" and even described a later upgrade
as a "polished turd," according to a report in the Detroit News,
which was confirmed by Computerworld.

The SYNC OS was originally powered by Microsoft software.
Microsoft continued releasing software revisions it knew were
defective, according to the lawsuit.

"In the spring of 2011, Ford hired Microsoft to oversee revisions,
and hopefully the improvement, of the [software].  But . . .
Microsoft was unable to meaningfully improve the software, and
Ford continued releasing revised software that it knew was still
defective," the lawsuit states.

A U.S. District Court judge certified the case as a class action.

Microsoft did not immediately respond to requests for comment.  In
an email reply to Computerworld Ford stated, "We don't comment on
pending litigation; however, this is an interim order and not a
merits ruling."

Consumer groups from nine states are involved in the lawsuit
against Ford.  The lawsuit describes an IVI screen that would
freeze or go blank; generate error messages that wouldn't go away;
voice recognition and navigation systems that failed to work,
problems wirelessly pairing with smartphones, and a generally slow
system.

Ford's CEO Mark Fields even described his own travails with the
SYNC IVI, referring to it as having crashed on several occasions,
and that he was so frustrated with the system he may have damaged
his car's screen out of aggravation, the lawsuit revealed.

"I am once again having many problems with my Sync system,"
Fields, who was president of Ford's Americas division at the time,
wrote in January 2013.  "And yes, you guys already installed
version 3.5!!!"

Three months later, Fields expressed his frustration with
customers who had to wait for fixes and stated, "I don't even use
the system anymore."

Even Henry Ford's great grandson experienced significant problems
with SYNC.  In one incident, Edsel Ford was forced to wait on a
roadside for the system to reset and could not continue to drive
because he was unable to use the IVI's navigation system, the
report stated.

The law firm representing consumers in the class-action complaint
stated that internal Ford documents purportedly show that "500 of
every 1,000 vehicles have issues involving MyFord Touch due to
software bugs, and failures of the software process and
architecture."

"Owners report that Ford has been unable to fix the problem, even
after repeated visits," it stated.

In 2014, Ford announced it was dropping Microsoft as the platform
supplier for SYNC and moving to one based on Blackberry QNX for
its SYNC 3 IVI -- a friendlier platform for mobile app developers.

This reporter reviewed SYNC 3 and found it an improvement on the
previous version but also that the system was not as smartphone
friendly as it was purported to be.  At the time of its launch,
iPhones owners still had to plug into their vehicle via a USB port
to use mobile apps on Ford's AppLink system.  Bluetooth wireless
connectivity for mobile apps only worked with Android smartphones.

Last year, Ford rolled out a software upgrade to its SYNC
infotainment system that lets iPhone users wirelessly access Siri
Eyes-Free capabilities over Bluetooth.

While the upgrade enables users to make phone calls to contacts in
their address book, ask for weather updates, select music to play,
send and receive text messages via voice and get directions
through Apple Maps, the system has glitches.

For example, when using it to look up phone numbers for points of
interest, such as a restaurant, the system will find the phone
number but fails to dial it on command.

The class-action lawsuit is expected to go to court sometime in
2017.


GC SERVICES: "Dickens" Suit Parties Must File Damage Assessments
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Hon. James S. Moody, Jr., entered an order in the lawsuit
titled RONNIE E. DICKENS v. GC SERVICES LIMITED PARTNERSHIP, Case
No. 8:16-cv-803-T-30TGW (M.D. Fla.), directing the parties that
within 14 days of the Order's entry, they will submit written
briefs addressing:

   (a) their respective assessments of the damages at issue in
       this case; and

   (b) how that assessment bears on the propriety of class
       certification.  The briefs may contain any evidentiary and
       legal support, but shall not exceed 15 pages in length.

The Parties will then have 14 days, from the date on which the
opposition brief is filed, to file responses.  Responses will not
exceed 10 pages.

In his putative class action complaint, Plaintiff Ronnie Dickens
alleges that the Defendant violated the Fair Debt Collection
Practices Act by failing to adhere to certain debt-collection
practices required by the Act.  More specifically, the Plaintiff
alleges that the Defendant failed to notify him and other
similarly situated debtors that in order to trigger Defendant's
legal requirement to verify their debts, the debtors would have to
communicate this desire to the Defendant in writing.

A copy of the Order is available at no charge at
https://goo.gl/MH4Sgw from Leagle.com.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          James L. Davidson, Esq.
          Michael L. Greenwald, Esq.
          GREENWALD DAVIDSON RADBIL PLLC
          5550 Glades Road, Suite 500
          Boca Raton, FL 33431
          Telephone: (561) 826-5477
          Facsimile: (561) 961-5684
          E-mail: jdavidson@gdrlawfirm.com
                  mgreenwald@gdrlawfirm.com

The Defendant is represented by:

          Michael Shelby Sperounes, Esq.
          William S. Helfand, Esq.
          LEWIS, BRISBOIS, BISGAARD & SMITH, LLP
          3812 Coconut Palm Dr., Suite 200
          Tampa, FL 33619-1393
          Telephone: (813) 739-1971
          Facsimile: (813) 739-1919
          E-mail: michael.sperounes@lewisbrisbois.com
                  bill.helfand@lewisbrisbois.com


GENERAL MOTORS: Plans to Offer 1.6 Liter Diesel Amid Settlement
---------------------------------------------------------------
Marc Stern, writing for Torque News, reports that General Motors,
seeking a piece of the huge $10 billion VW Dieselgate payout,
plans to offer a 1.6-liter diesel powerplant in its compact
crossover Equinox and two Chevy Cruze models.

Does it seem that there might be a large hole in the wake of the
impending Dieselgate class-action lawsuit settlement? On the one
hand, there 475,000 VW diesel owners awaiting final approval of
the class-action settlement so that they can get their payouts.
On the other, there is no VW-based alternative, and it is
currently barred from selling diesels.

The Missing Elements
So, what is missing? Though no one is talking about it at the
moment, what will happen to the owners when they turn in their
keys? Will they find replacements? Will there be a market? Why
would any automaker care? On the surface, the answer seems
straightforward.  No one knows if they will find replacements (if
they want to remain in diesel); no one knows if there will be a
market.  However, at least one automaker cares, General Motors.
Why would it care? The most apparent reason is the huge Dieselgate
class-action lawsuit payout cash stash.  The $10 billion will
leave a potential market of up to 475,000 buyers with money to buy
new diesel vehicles -- if they opt for new ones -- and very few,
if any, automakers offering reasonably priced replacements.  BMW
and Mercedes-Benz offer diesels, but they are expensive.  And,
other automakers such as Toyota, Nissan or Mitsubishi only offer
them as specialty vehicles.

General Motors believes there's a market waiting to be tapped.
According to Automotive News, Dan Nicholson, the General's
powertrain chief, strongly believes it.

"There are a lot of diesel intenders, and diesel-loyal people who
are looking for a brand and vehicles to go after," said Nicholson,
vice president of GM's global propulsion systems.  GM intends to
meet their needs with a 1.6-liter diesel powerplant. The first
vehicle in which the new engine will be installed is the Chevy
Equinox crossover.  Slated for 2017, the engine option will be a
first for the segment.

And, sources told Automotive News, two Cruze models, the new five-
door hatch, and the sedan, restyled for 2017, will be offered with
a diesel option in about a year.  The automaker declined to
comment.

GM has hard work ahead.  Thanks to the Dieselgate scandal -- VW's
admitted diesel emissions cheating -- the diesel market has
tanked.  Through September, sales have dropped by nearly a factor
of 20.  A year earlier, diesel sales for the same period were
about 62,000.  For the same period this year, diesel car sales
have been about 3,200. Even light truck diesel sales are off about
five percent.

GM Has Work Ahead
To make its plan work, General Motors has a huge job ahead
trying to rebuild the once small, but dependable diesel car
market.  The market was decimated by the Dieselgate scandal.
A soon as it broke in September 2015, sales of VW diesels were
halted.  The halt has left owners with vehicles they cannot resell
or trade and dealers with unsold diesel cars still sitting brand-
new on their lots.

General Motors, seeking a piece of the huge $10 billion VW
Dieselgate payout, plans to offer a 1.6-liter diesel powerplant in
its compact crossover Equinox and two Chevy Cruze models.
Can GM do it? David Sullivan, an analyst with AutoPacific, told
Automotive News that "18 months ago, I would have said no; VW
buyers would not consider switching." However, "that tide has
turned."

Looking specifically at the Equinox, he said the diesel version
"plays in the only white space of the segment that seems to be
left. Toyota and Nissan have competing hybrids in the segment. The
diesel is a different direction."

GM's "Whisper Diesel"

The new engine, called the "Whisper Diesel" because it runs very
quietly, was developed at GM's Turin, Italy, engineering facility.
The 1.6-liter features a new design.  It's used in the Opel Astra
in Europe where it develops 160 horsepower and 258 pounds-feet of
torque.  GM hasn't released official numbers yet for North
America.

As it expands the use of the 1.6-liter four to the Cruze, GM is
seeking to win over buyers of the Golf TDi hatch, whose sales were
halted when Dieselgate broke wide open.  It was one of the German
automaker's best-selling diesels before the sales halt. It would
be a coup for GM if its gambit succeeds.


GIUMARRA VINEYARDS: Bid to Decertify Class in "Munoz" Suit Denied
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The Hon. Anthony W. Ishii adopted in full the findings and
recommendations issued by Magistrate Judge Jennifer L. Thurston on
May 12, 2016, in the lawsuit entitled RAFAEL MUNOZ, LIDIA CRUZ,
YANET HERNANDEZ, SANTOS R. VALENZUELA, TRINIDAD RUIZ, MARTA A.
RINCON de DIAZ, RAMON CERVANTES PERALES, and HUGO PEREZ RIOS, on
behalf of themselves, and all current and former employees, and on
behalf of a class of similarly situated employees v. GIUMARRA
VINEYARDS CORPORATION; and DOES 1-20, Case No. 1:09-CV-0703 AWI
JLT (E.D. Cal.).

The Court denied the Defendant's motion for decertification of the
late meal break class.  As clarification, the "fieldworkers"
encompassed in the class definition do not include irrigators and
drivers.

The case has a complex history but traces back to a suit filed by
the Plaintiffs on behalf of themselves and a class of others
similarly situated against Defendant Giumarra Vineyards
Corporation on December 16, 2005.  The Plaintiffs allege that
Defendant has violated a number of federal and California laws
governing employee wages and working conditions.  Ultimately,
class certification was granted for two classes of employees, who
were allegedly provided late meal breaks and required to purchase
their own tools.

In its Motion, the Defendant moved to decertify the late meal
break class.  The Plaintiffs opposed the Motion.

A copy of the Order is available at no charge at
https://goo.gl/cydc7x from Leagle.com.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Darren Michael Cohen, Esq.
          Eric Bryce Kingsley, Esq.
          KINGSLEY & KINGSLEY APC
          16133 Ventura Blvd., #1200
          Encino, CA 91436
          Telephone: (818) 990-8300
          Facsimile: (818) 990-2903
          E-mail: dcohenlaw@sbcglobal.net
                  eric@kingsleykingsley.com

               - and -

          Erica Deutsch, Esq.
          BUSH GOTTLIEB, A LAW CORPORATION
          500 N Central Ave., Suite 800
          Glendale, CA 91203-3345
          Telephone: (818) 973-3200
          Facsimile: (818) 973-3201
          E-mail: edeutsch@bushgottlieb.com

               - and -

          Hector Rodriguez Martinez, Esq.
          Joseph Donald Sutton, Esq.
          Marco A. Palau, Esq.
          MALLISON & MARTINEZ
          1939 Harrison Street, Suite 730
          Oakland, CA 94612
          Telephone: (510) 832-9999
          Facsimile: (510) 832-1101
          E-mail: hectorm@themmlawfirm.com
                  jsutton@themmlawfirm.com
                  mpalau@themmlawfirm.com

Defendant Giumarra Vineyards Corporation is represented by:

          Joseph C. Markowitz, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF JOSEPH C. MARKOWITZ
          350 S Figueroa St., Suite 975
          Los Angeles, CA 90071
          Telephone: (213) 437-1720
          Facsimile: (213) 788-3398
          E-mail: jcmarkowitz@jcmarkowitz.com


HAMPTON ROADS: Sued in Va. Over Alleged Merger Agreement Breach
---------------------------------------------------------------
Linwood Byrd, Belinda Ashby, Stewart Ashby, Jr. Frank Adkinson,
Sr., Melvin Bandy, Derek Barley, Sr., Sherrod Blow, Michael Boone,
Rashard Boyd, Robert Brown, Shonn Brown, Valdize Bryant, Rodderic
Dade, Charles Daugherty, Andrew Davis, Nadine Eason, Eric Everett,
Steve Fitchett, Tonya Gadson, Shawn Gainey, Christopher Harrison,
Edward L. Hill, Jr., Ron Hill, Desmond Holland, Kennis Howard,
Yvonne Hunter, Melvin Jackson, Jr., Billy L. Jones, Jr., Delano F.
James, II, Kimberly Jones, Keith Keller,
Kelvin Kitchen, Floyd Langford, Jr., Glenn Laribo, Edward Lee,
James Manning, Elisa Mings, Charles Nichols, Jr., Tommy Pittman,
Jabril Rahman, Darrin Riddick, Eric Robinson, George Rouser, Jr.,
George Rouser, Sr., Lessell Sanderson, Tony Scott, Vernon Shorts,
Derek Steele, Eric Steele, Clifton Stokes, Otis Taylor, Alexander
Wardrett, Percy Watford, Robert Weaver, Jr., James Williams, Larry
Williams, and Stephen Wyatt, on behalf of themselves and all
others similarly situated v. Local 1248 of the International
Longshoremen's Association, AFL-CIO and Hampton Roads Shipping
Association, Case No. 4:16-cv-00155-RAJ-RJK (E.D. Va., October 11,
2016), is brought against the Defendants for alleged breach
of a merger agreement and a seniority plan amendment, specifically
by giving seniority level of former members of Local 846 lower
than all existing members in good standing of Local 1248
regardless of the actual seniority of the individuals.

Local 1248 of the International Longshoremen's Association, AFL-
CIO is a labor union that represents employees in an industry
affecting interstate commerce.

Hampton Roads Shipping Association is a multi-employer collective-
bargaining association which represents the Hampton Roads maritime
industry employers.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Joshua M. David, Esq.
      Nicholas A. Nunes, Esq.
      DAVID, KAMP & FRANK, L.L.C.
      739 Thimble Shoals Blvd., Suite 105
      Newport News, VA  23606
      Telephone: (757) 595-4500
      Facsimile: (757) 595-6723
      E-mail: jdavid@davidkampfrank.com
              nanunes@davidkampfrank.com

           - and -

      James H. Shoemaker, Esq.
      Andrew J. Dean, Esq.
      PATTEN, WORNOM, HATTEN & DIAMONSTEIN, L.C.
      12350 Jefferson Avenue, Suite 300
      Newport News, VA 23602
      Telephone: (757) 223-4580
      Facsimile: (757) 223-4518
      E-mail: jshoemaker@pwhd.com
              adean@pwhd.com


HBN MEDIA: Faces "Perry" Suit in Ga. Over Failure to Pay Overtime
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Tonya Perry, on behalf of herself and all similarly situated
individuals v. HBN Media, Inc. d/b/a Commissions, Inc., Case No.
1:16-cv-03762-ELR (N.D. Ga., October 10, 2016), is brought against
the Defendants for failure to pay overtime wages in violation of
the Fair Labor Standards Act.

HBN Media, Inc. engages in designing, developing, and marketing
Internet Web-free broadcasting technologies and products for
public and private networks.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      V. Severin Roberts, Esq.
      BARRETT & FARAHANY
      1100 Peachtree Street, Suite 500
      Atlanta, GA 30309
      Telephone: (404) 214-0120
      Facsimile: (404) 214-0125
      E-mail: vsroberts@justsiceatwork.com

HMG PARK: Class of Vocational Nurses Certified in "Abeldano" Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit captioned MARIA ABELDANO and JEANINE POLLION,
individually and on behalf of others similarly situated v. HMG
PARK MANOR OF WESTCHASE, LLC D/B/A PARK MANOR OF WESTCHASE, Case
No. H-16-1044 (S.D. Tex.), Magistrate Judge Nancy K. Johnson
grants the Plaintiffs' motion for conditional certification and
notice, and denies the Defendant's motion to strike.

In their complaint, the Plaintiffs alleged that the Defendant
violated the Fair Labor Standards Act by not paying them minimum
wage and overtime as required by law.  The Plaintiffs allege that
there are other similarly situated putative class members. who
would be interested in opting into the lawsuit.

The Court defines the conditional class as:

     Licensed Vocational Nurses employed at Park Manor of
     Westchase at any time during October 6, 2013 to present, who
     were subject to an automatic deduction of their meal-break
     times and who were either interrupted or were subject to
     interruptions during a substantial number of meal breaks.

Additionally, Judge Johnson directs the Defendant to provide the
Plaintiffs the last known e-mail addresses, telephone numbers, and
addresses of all LVNs, who worked for the Defendant from October
6, 2016, until now.  Judge Johnson also allows the Plaintiffs to
notify putative class members.

A copy of the Memorandum Opinion is available at no charge at
https://goo.gl/MONDLk from Leagle.com.

Plaintiffs Maria Abeldano and Jeanine Pollion are represented by:

          David G. Langenfeld, Esq.
          LEICHTER LAW FIRM PC
          3700 N Main St.
          Houston, TX 77009
          Telephone: (713) 966-6945
          E-mail: david@leichterlaw.com

Defendant HMG Park Manor of WestChase LLC is represented by:

          Kelly Dean Utsinger, Esq.
          Stephanie Jean Larsen, Esq.
          UNDERWOOD LAW FIRM P.C.
          500 S. Taylor, Suite 1200
          Amarillo, TX 79101
          Telephone: (806) 379-0336
          Facsimile: (806) 349-9476
          E-mail: kelly.utsinger@uwlaw.com
                  stephanie.james@uwlaw.com


JAHM J NAJAFI: "McCauley" Class Suit Removed to Arizona District
----------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit styled Bill McCauley and Edward D.
Kendler, sole trustee of the Kendler Family Trust, individually
and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Jahm J. Najafi
and Cheryl Najafi, husband and wife; Kevin M. Weiss and  Elizabeth
S. Weiss, husband and wife; David P. Franke and Stephanie M.
Rankin Franke, husband and wife; James D. Staudohar and Kathleen
M. Staudohar, husband and wife; Scott Wiley and Gail E. Wiley,
husband and wife, Case No. CV2016-013272, was removed from the
Maricopa County Superior Court to the U.S. District Court for the
District of Arizona. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No.
2:16-cv-03461-JWS to the proceeding.

The Plaintiffs bring this action on behalf of a nationwide class
that purchased Xhibit stock between May 16, 2013 and September 10,
2014.

All Defendants are residents, domiciliaries, and citizens of
Arizona.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Andrew S. Friedman, Esq.
      BONNETT FAIRBOURN FRIEDMAN & BALINT, P.C.
      2325 E. Camelback Road, Suite 300
      Phoenix, AZ  85016
      Telephone: (602) 274-1100
      Facsimile: (602) 274-1199
      E-mail: afriedman@bffb.com

The Defendant is represented by:

      John Maston O,Neal, Esq.
      Edward A. Salanga, Esq.
      QUARLES & BRADY LLP
      Renaissance One
      Two North Central Avenue
      Phoenix, AZ  85004-2391
      Telephone: (602) 229-5200
      Facsimile: (602) 229-5690
      E-mail: John.Oneal@quarles.com
              Edward.Salanga@quarles.com

JC CHRISTENSEN: Certification of Class Sought in "Lopez" Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
The Plaintiffs move the Court to certify the class described in
the complaint of their lawsuit captioned EDUARDO LOPEZ and
CERILINA DEVERA, Individually and on Behalf of All Others
Similarly Situated v. JC CHRISTENSEN & ASSOCIATES, INC. and LVNV
FUNDING, LLC, Case No. 2:16-cv-01368 (E.D. Wisc.), and further ask
that the Court both stay the Motion and to grant Plaintiffs (and
the Defendants) relief from the Local Rules setting automatic
briefing schedules and requiring briefs and supporting material to
be filed with the Motion.

Damasco and decisions like it imposed significant burdens on the
Court and on Plaintiff's Counsel, the Plaintiffs assert, citing
Damasco v. Clearwire Corp., 662 F.3d 891 (7th Cir. 2011),
overruled, Chapman v. First Index, Inc., 796 F.3d 783, 787 (7th
Cir. 2015).

To avoid the risk of a defendant mooting a putative class
representative's individual stake in the litigation, the Seventh
Circuit in Damasco instructed plaintiffs to file a certification
motion with the complaint, along with a motion to stay briefing on
the certification motion until discovery could commence, the
Plaintiffs said.  The Plaintiffs contend that they are obligated
to move for class certification to protect the interests of the
putative class.

As the Motion is a placeholder motion as described in Damasco, the
parties and the Court should not be burdened with unnecessary
paperwork and the resulting expense when a one paragraph, single
page motion to certify and stay should suffice until an amended
motion is filed, the Plaintiffs contend.

The Plaintiffs also ask to be appointed as class representatives
and further ask the Court to appoint Ademi & O'Reilly, LLP as
class counsel.

A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=DQS3mgrn

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

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


JF MILLWORK: "Perez" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages
----------------------------------------------------------------
Ivan Rodriguez Perez, and others similarly situated v. JF
Millwork, Inc., Case No. 4:16-cv-03025 (S.D. Tex., October 11,
2016), seeks to recover unpaid overtime wages and other damages
pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act.

JF Millwork, Inc. is a professional custom millwork producer
providing services to corporate clientele.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Jeralynn Manor, Esq.
      THE MANOR LAW FIRM
      1730 Jefferson Ste. 218
      Houston, TX 77003
      Telephone: (713) 225-2667
      Facsimile: (832) 778-8112
      E-mail: jmanor@manorlaw.net


JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Consumers Classes Certified in Goldemberg Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The Hon. Nelson S. Roman granted, as modified, the Plaintiffs'
motion for class certification and appointment of class counsel in
the lawsuit captioned MICHAEL GOLDEMBERG, ANNIE LE, and HOWARD
PETLACK, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated
v. JOHNSON & JOHNSON CONSUMER COMPANIES, INC., Case No. 13 Civ.
3073 (NSR) (S.D.N.Y.).

In his opinion & order, Judge Roman certified under Rule 23(b)(3)
of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and separately under Rule
23(b)(2) with regard to injunctive relief, the New York Class of
consumers that purchased any of these products during the
limitations period, with subclasses based on the Aveeno Active
Naturals product at issue:

   a. Creamy Moisturizing Oil (12 fl. oz.),
   b. Therapeutic Shave Gel (7 fl. oz.),
   c. Positively Smooth Shave Gel (7 fl. oz.),
   d. Positively Nourishing Comforting Whipped Souffle (6 oz.),
   e. Nourish+ Moisturize Shampoo (10.5 fl. oz.), or
   f. Nourish+ Moisturize Conditioner (10.5 fl. oz.).

The California Class of consumers that purchased any of these
products during the limitations period is certified under Rule
23(b)(3) and separately under Rule 23(b)(2) with regard to
injunctive relief, with subclasses based on the Aveeno Active
Naturals product at issue:

   a. Moisturizing Lotion with Broad Spectrum SPF 15 (12 fl.
      oz.),

   b. Skin Relief 24hr Moisturizing Lotion (12 fl. oz.),
   c. Positively Nourishing Energizing Body Lotion (7 oz.),
   d. Positively Ageless Firming Body Lotion (8 oz.),
   e. Positively Radiant Makeup Removing Wipes (25 count),
   f. Positively Ageless Youth Perfecting Moisturizer Broad
      Spectrum SPF 30 (2.5 fl. oz.),

   g. Positively Ageless Lifting & Firming Eye Cream (0.5 oz.),
      or

   h. Positively Radiant Daily Moisturizer Broad Spectrum SPF 15
      (4 fl. oz.).

The Florida Class of consumers that purchased any of these
products during the limitations period is hereby certified under
Rule 23(b)(3) and separately under Rule 23(b)(2) with regard to
injunctive relief, with subclasses based on the Aveeno Active
Naturals product at issue:

   a. Therapeutic Shave Gel (7 oz.), or
   b. Moisturizing Bar (3.5 oz.).

Plaintiff Michael Goldemberg is appointed as class representative
for the New York Classes and Subclasses.  Plaintiff Howard Petlack
is appointed as class representative for the Florida Classes and
Subclasses.  Finkelstein, Blankinship, Frei-Pearson & Garber, LLP
and The Richmond Law Group are appointed as co-class counsel.

The Court also denied the Defendant's Daubert motion, as Dr.
Dube's methodology is sufficiently explained in the report to
demonstrate that it is designed to go further than is necessary in
this case (as it considers both supply and demand changes
accompanied by the removal of the Active Naturals branding),
meaning the Court need only rely on the report, and find it
reliable, for the limited proposition that a price premium
attributable to the products can eventually be determined.  The
Court finds the report sufficiently reliable to inform it of that
potential.

Dr. Jean-Pierre H. Dube is the Plaintiffs' damages expert, who
prepared a damages model proposal.

Judge Roman directed the Plaintiffs, on or before November 5 and
after conferring with the Defendant, to provide the Court with a
joint proposed notice designed to achieve the best practicable
notice to identifiable class members and explain the methodology
that will be employed to determine such class members.  The
parties are also directed to contact Magistrate Judge Lisa M.
Smith within 48 hours of the issuance of the opinion and, after
consultation before Judge Smith, to write the Court regarding the
status of pending discovery issues.

A copy of the Opinion & Order is available at no charge at
https://goo.gl/xKSUIj from Leagle.com.

Plaintiff Michael Goldemberg is represented by:

          George Volney Granade, II, Esq.
          Michael Robert Reese, Esq.
          REESE RICHMAN, LLP
          100 West 93rd Street, 16th floor
          New York, NY 10025
          Telephone: (212) 643-0500
          Facsimile: (212) 253-4272
          E-mail: ggranade@reesellp.com
                  michael@reesellp.com

               - and -

          Todd Seth Garber, Esq.
          Douglas Gregory Blankinship, Esq.
          Jeremiah Lee Frei-Pearson, Esq.
          FINKELSTEIN, BLANKINSHIP, FREI-PEARSON & GARBER, LLP
          445 Hamilton Ave, Suite 605
          White Plains, NY, 10601
          Telephone: (914) 298-3281
          Facsimile: (914) 824-1561
          E-mail: tgarber@fbfglaw.com
                  gblankinship@fbfglaw.com
                  jfrei-pearson@fbfglaw.com

               - and -

          Kim Eleazer Richman, Esq.
          RICHMAN LAW GROUP
          81 Prospect Street
          Brooklyn, NY 11201
          Telephone: (718) 705-4579
          Facsimile: (718) 228-8522
          E-mail: ker@kerichman.com

Plaintiffs Annie Le and Howard Petlack are represented by:

          Todd Seth Garber, Esq.
          FINKELSTEIN, BLANKINSHIP, FREI-PEARSON & GARBER, LLP
          445 Hamilton Ave, Suite 605
          White Plains, NY, 10601
          Telephone: (914) 298-3281
          Facsimile: (914) 824-1561
          E-mail: tgarber@fbfglaw.com

               - and -

          George Volney Granade, II, Esq.
          Michael Robert Reese, Esq.
          REESE RICHMAN, LLP
          100 West 93rd Street, 16th floor
          New York, NY 10025
          Telephone: (212) 643-0500
          Facsimile: (212) 253-4272
          E-mail: ggranade@reesellp.com

Defendant Johnson & Johnson Consumer Companies, Inc., is
represented by:

          Anna Kallet Ostrom, Esq.
          Benjamin Maxwell Arrow, Esq.
          Eileen Miriam Patt, Esq.
          Harold Paul Weinberger, Esq.
          KRAMER, LEVIN, NAFTALIS & FRANKEL, LLP
          1177 Avenue of the Americas
          New York, NY 10036
          Telephone: (212) 715-9100
          Facsimile: (212) 715-8000
          E-mail: aostrom@kramerlevin.com
                  barrow@kramerlevin.com
                  epatt@kramerlevin.com
                  hweinberger@kramerlevin.com


LENDINGCLUB: WPERP Selects Robbins Geller as Lead Counsel
---------------------------------------------------------
Dawn Geske, writing for Legal Newsline, reports that a judge has
ordered that attorneys hoping to be named lead counsel in a class
action case against LendingClub must submit an application -- but
the lead plaintiff still chose its own attorneys.

In an unusual maneuver, U.S. District Court Judge William Alsup,
of the Northern District of California, recently declined to
appoint lead counsel in a class action suit against LendingClub,
instead opting to have firms submit applications and then be
approved by the lead plaintiff in the case.

The lead plaintiff was appointed by Judge Alsup as the Water and
Power Employees Retirement System Disability and Death Plan
(WPERP), as it was the only plaintiff that didn't withdraw or
oppose WPERP's motion for appointment.  Although WPERP has its own
legal representation in the case, they too must submit to be lead
counsel.

Although WPERP has gone through the application process, it has
selected its previous law firm, Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP,
as its lead counsel in the class action case.

"Now that WPERP [has] selected Robbins Geller, its prior counsel,
as lead counsel, it remains to be seen whether the court looks at
WPERP's motion with more scrutiny to ensure that WPERP performed
its diligence with regard to the other applicants," Mr. McMahon
said.

The case against LendingClub involves its former CEO Renaud
Laplanche's alleged interest in third party fund Cirrix Capital
while LendingClub was considering investing in the fund and also
selling $22 million in loans to a loan investor against the
investor's direct wishes.

"Although the court's decision to split the lead plaintiff and
lead counsel process is unusual, Judge Alsup noted that 'no
decision by the lead plaintiff is more important than the
selection of class counsel,' and since '[a] lead plaintiff is a
fiduciary for the investor class . . . the lead plaintiff should
precede its choice with due diligence,'" John S. "Terry" McMahon
III -- TMcMahon@mintz.com -- an associate at Mintz Levin Cohn
Ferris Glovsky and Popeo PC, told Legal Newsline.

"That said, one could also argue that the decision to retain
counsel is always important and that WPERP had the same incentive
to find the best counsel on its own behalf that it does to find
the best lead counsel for all the class plaintiffs.

Although the gesture to have lead counsel submit to a review
process by WPERP is unusual, it is not the first time Alsup has
done this. He made a similar ruling in a case against Diamond
Foods - also requiring the plaintiff to select counsel based on
who could provide the best option for the class.

In that case, the lead plaintiff selected the two law firms that
provided their representation to become lead plaintiff in the same
case.

Alsup directed WPERP to advertise for counsel and take into
consideration fees and abilities.

"The court instructed WPERP to advertise for applicants, but it
did not make clear what exactly should be included in the
application process," McMahon said.

"That said, when directing WPERP to conduct this process, the
court said: 'Considerations should include their fee proposal,
their track record, the particular lawyers assigned to the case,
their ability and willingness to finance the case, and their
proposals for the prosecution of the case, or the factors set
forth in the questionnaire.'"


LJ ROSS: Bid to Certify Under Damasco Sought in "Johnson" Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Krysten Johnson moves the Court to certify the class described in
the complaint of the lawsuit titled KRYSTEN JOHNSON, Individually
and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated v. LJ ROSS
ASSOCIATES, INC., Case No. 2:16-cv-01367 (E.D. Wisc.), and further
asks that the Court both stay the Motion and to grant the
Plaintiff (and the Defendant) relief from the Local Rules setting
automatic briefing schedules and requiring briefs and supporting
material to be filed with the Motion.

Damasco and decisions like it imposed significant burdens on the
Court and on Plaintiff's Counsel, the Plaintiff asserts, citing
Damasco v. Clearwire Corp., 662 F.3d 891 (7th Cir. 2011),
overruled, Chapman v. First Index, Inc., 796 F.3d 783, 787 (7th
Cir. 2015).

To avoid the risk of a defendant mooting a putative class
representative's individual stake in the litigation, the Seventh
Circuit in Damasco instructed plaintiffs to file a certification
motion with the complaint, along with a motion to stay briefing on
the certification motion until discovery could commence, the
Plaintiff states.  The Plaintiff asserts that the Plaintiff is
obligated to move for class certification to protect the interests
of the putative class.

As the Motion is a placeholder motion as described in Damasco, the
parties and the Court should not be burdened with unnecessary
paperwork and the resulting expense when a one paragraph, single
page motion to certify and stay should suffice until an amended
motion is filed, the Plaintiff contends.

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

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

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


LUMBER LIQUIDATORS: "Manzo" Product Suit Transferred to E.D. Vi.
----------------------------------------------------------------
Christopher Manzo, an individual, on behalf of himself and all
others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Lumber Liquidators, Inc.,
a Delaware corporation, Defendant, Case No. 2:16-CV-5289 (C.D.
Cal., July 18, 2016), was transferred to the U.S. District Court
for the Eastern District of Virginia on October 4, 2016.

Plaintiff seeks to recover damages caused by product failure,
substandard and defective materials, breach of warranty and
fraudulent omission/concealment in violation of the Magnuson-Moss
Warranty Act and New Jersey Consumer Fraud Act.

Lumber Liquidators is one of the largest specialty retailers of
hardwood flooring and laminates in the United States. The Company
sells directly to homeowners or to contractors acting on behalf of
homeowners through its network of approximately 300 retail stores
in 46 states, including New Jersey and California. They distribute
laminate flooring products manufactured in China under the house
brand "Dream Home." Products allegedly prematurely displayed wear
patterns including chipping, fading, warping and staining.

Christopher Manzo is represented by:

Alexander Robertson, IV, Esq.
      ROBERTSON & ASSOCIATES, LLP
      32121 Lindero Canyon Road, Suite 200
      Westlake Village, CA 91361
      Tel: (818) 851-3850
      Fax: (818) 851-3850
      Email: arobertson@arobertsonlaw.com


MARION COUNTY, IN: Court Narrows Subclasses in "Driver" Suit
------------------------------------------------------------
The Hon. Richard L. Young grants in part and denies in part the
Plaintiffs' motion for class certification filed in the lawsuit
entitled MICHAEL DRIVER, TERRY CLAYTON, MICHAEL BOYD, NICHOLAS
SWORDS, and ROY SHOFNER, individually and as representatives of a
class of all similarly situated individuals v. MARION COUNTY
SHERIFF, and CONSOLIDATED CITY OF INDIANAPOLIS AND MARION COUNTY,
Case No. 1:14-cv-02076-RLY-MJD (S.D. Ind.).

The Plaintiffs bring a claim under 42 U.S.C. Section 1983,
claiming the policies and practices of the Marion County Sheriff
caused them to be detained in the Marion County Jail awaiting
release for an unreasonably long period of time, in violation of
the Fourth Amendment.  The Plaintiffs move to certify a class with
five subclasses under Rules 23(a) and (b)(3) of the Federal Rules
of Civil Procedure.

Judge Young granted the Motion with respect to the subclasses
defined as: All individuals who, from December 19, 2012, to the
present, were held in confinement by the Sheriff after legal
authority for those detentions ceased due to the Sheriff's
policies or practices of: (1) re-arresting and imprisoning
individuals who are released on their own recognizance, found not
guilty or acquitted, or who have had their criminal charges
vacated or dismissed; and (2) keeping inmates imprisoned who the
courts have released to Community Corrections for electronic
monitoring.

Judge Young denied the Motion with respect to the subclasses
defined as: All individuals who, from December 19, 2012, to the
present, were held in confinement by the Sheriff after legal
authority for those detentions ceased due to the Sheriff's
policies or practices of: (1) operating under a standard of 72
hours to release prisoners who are ordered released; (2) not
accepting cash or surety bonds but instead outsourcing the payment
and processing of these bonds to the Marion County Clerk; and (3)
employing a computer system inadequate for the purposes intended
with respect to the timely release of prisoners.

A copy of the Order is available at no charge at
https://goo.gl/evvS1X from Leagle.com.

Plaintiffs MICHAEL DRIVER, TERRY CLAYTON, MICHAEL BOYD, NICHOLAS
SWORDS and ROY SHOFNER are represented by:

          John P. Young, Esq.
          YOUNG AND YOUNG ATTORNEYS AT LAW
          128 N Delaware St., 3rd Floor
          Indianapolis, IN 46204
          Telephone: (317) 639-5161
          Facsimile: (317) 639-4978
          E-mail: john@youngandyoungin.com

               - and -

          Richard A. Waples, Esq.
          WAPLES & HANGER
          410 North Audubon Road
          Indianapolis, IN 46219
          Telephone: (317) 357-0903
          Facsimile: (317) 357-0275
          E-mail: rwaples@wapleshanger.com

Defendants MARION COUNTY SHERIFF and CONSOLIDATED CITY OF
INDIANAPOLIS AND MARION COUNTY are represented by:

          Anthony W. Overholt, Esq.
          FROST BROWN TODD LLC
          201 North Illinois Street, Suite 1900
          Indianapolis, IN 46204-4236
          Telephone: (317) 237-3936
          Facsimile: (317) 237-3900
          E-mail: aoverholt@fbtlaw.com

Interested Party AMITAV THAMBA is represented by:

          Richard G. McDermott, Esq.
          OFFICE OF CORPORATION COUNSEL
          City-County Building, 1601
          200 E. Washington St.
          Indianapolis, IN 46204
          Telephone: (317) 327-4055
          E-mail: rmcdermo@indygov.org


MEDPRO GROUP: Certification of FMLA Class Sought in "Carrel" Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Gretchen B. Carrel asks the Court to certify her lawsuit captioned
GRETCHEN B. CARREL, on behalf of herself and all other similarly
situated persons v. MEDPRO GROUP, INC., Case No. 1:16-cv-00130-
TLS-SLC (N.D. Ind.), as a class action brought under the Family
and Medical Leave Act and to appoint her counsel as class counsel.
Ms. Carrel proposes that the class be defined as:

     all current and former MedPro employees who took FMLA leave
     at any point since March 29, 2013 (three years before this
     lawsuit was filed).

Ms. Carrel also asks the Court to direct MedPro to provide full
contact information of each class member, within five business
days of the Court entering a class certification order, and to
authorize the issuance of the class action notice to the
accompanying brief.

In her complaint, Ms. Carrel alleges that MedPro had a uniform
policy under which employees who, took FMLA leave throughout the
year were docked "annual allotment of paid time off" benefits.  In
essence, she contends, when an employee took FMLA leave, MedPro
reduced the previously earned PTO benefits in an amount
proportional to the FMLA leave that was taken.

A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=t2TGlr4I

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Matthew J. Elliott, Esq.
          BECKMAN LAWSON, LLP
          201 West Wayne Street
          Fort Wayne, IN 46802
          Telephone: (260) 422-0800
          E-mail: mje@beckmanlawson.com

The Defendant is represented by:

          Edward E. Hollis, Esq.
          Toni M. Everton, Esq.
          Rozlyn M. Fulgoni-Britton, Esq.
          FAEGRE BAKER DANIELS LLP
          300 N. Meridian Street, Suite 2700
          Indianapolis, IN 46204
          Telephone: (317) 237-1185
          Facsimile: (317) 237-8485
          E-mail: Edward.Hollis@faegrebd.com
                  Toni.Everton@faegrebd.com
                  Rozlyn.Fulgoni-Britton@faegrebd.com


MODERN METHOD: Class in "Espinoza" Suit Conditionally Certified
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Hon. Sim Lake grants the Plaintiff's unopposed motion for
conditional certification filed in the lawsuit styled JOSE
ESPINOZA, Individually and On Behalf of Others Similarly Situated
v. MODERN METHOD GUNITE, INC., Case No. 4:16-cv-01279 (S.D. Tex.).

Judge Lake authorized the Plaintiff to disseminate by first class
U.S. Mail and by E-mail the Notice and Consent Forms attached the
Motion, along with a Spanish translation of those documents, in
accordance with this schedule:

   -- 10 days from order approving notice to potential class
      members:

      MMG to provide to Plaintiff's counsel information regarding
      the individuals, who were employed by MMG as a laborer in
      its pebble division and were paid on a per job basis from
      September 21, 2013 to the present;

   -- 30 days from order approving notice to potential class
      members:

      Plaintiffs' Counsel shall send a copy of the Approving
      Notice to Court approved Notice and Consent Form to
      Potential Class Members the Putative Class Members by First
      Class U.S. Mail and/ or e-mail in English and Spanish;

   -- 60 days from date notice is mailed to potential class
      members:

      The Putative Class Members shall have 60 days to file their
      signed Consent forms with Members the Court; and

   -- 30 days from date notice is mailed to potential class
      members:

      Plaintiffs' Counsel is authorized to mail a second
      identical copy of the notice/ consent form to the Putative
      Class Members.

A copy of the Order is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=n5s3n60w


MYLAN NV: Faces "Duppen" Suit Over Misleading Financial Reports
---------------------------------------------------------------
Stef Van Duppen, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. Mylan N.V., Mylan Inc., Heather Bresch, and
John D. Sheehan, Case No. 1:16-cv-07926 (S.D.N.Y., October 11,
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.

Mylan N.V., together with its subsidiaries, develops, licenses,
manufactures, markets, and distributes generic, branded generic,
and specialty pharmaceuticals worldwide.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Phillip Kim, Esq.
      Laurence M. Rosen, Esq.
      THE ROSEN LAW FIRM, P.A.
      275 Madison Avenue, 34th Floor
      New York, NY 10016
      Telephone: (212) 686-1060
      Facsimile: (212) 202-3827
      E-mail: lrosen@rosenlegal.com
              pkim@rosenlegal.com


PEPSICO: Says Naked Juice False Advertising Class Action Baseless
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Jessica Karmasek, writing for Legal Newsline, reports that a non-
profit nutrition advocate and food-safety watchdog group helped
file a class action lawsuit against PepsiCo, the maker of Naked
Juices, claiming the company's supposedly healthier beverages
actually consist of "cheaper and less nutritious ingredients."

The Center for Science in the Public Interest, along with
New York law firm Reese LLP, filed the 35-page lawsuit in the U.S.
District Court for the Eastern District of New York Oct. 4.

The lawsuit was filed on behalf of plaintiffs Dina Lipkind of
Brooklyn, Lyle Takeshita of Los Angeles and Chad Fenwick of
Chatsworth, Calif., individually, and on behalf of all others
similarly situated.

The plaintiffs had purchased Kale Blazer, Green Machine and other
Naked drinks.

According to their lawsuit, PepsiCo misleadingly markets its Naked
Juices as mostly containing high-value ingredients such as acai
berry, kale, mango and blueberries.  However, the predominant
ingredient is usually cheaper and nutrient-poorer apple juice, the
suit alleges.

"PepsiCo markets its Naked beverages as highly nutritious drinks
comprised of super nutrients -- 'only the best ingredients' -- in
liquid form. PepsiCo does this by naming each Naked beverage after
a food or ingredient perceived by consumers to be highly
nutritious, like kale, and filling its labels with photographs of
these same ingredients," the suit states.

"PepsiCo's claims are false and misleading because the drinks do
not have the ingredient profile represented."

The lawsuit also alleges that the company's "No Sugar Added"
claims on its Naked labels imply that the products are low in
sugar, when, in fact, they are loaded with sugar.

"The 'NO SUGAR ADDED' claim is not qualified with the words, 'not
a low calorie food,' nor a reference to the nutrition facts panel
for information on sugar and calorie content, as required by
regulations," the plaintiffs allege.

According to the lawsuit, Naked beverages contain between 35 and
61 grams of sugar per serving -- that is, between about six and 15
teaspoons of sugar each.  To compare, a can of Pepsi has 41 grams
of sugar, or about 10 teaspoons of sugar.

The plaintiffs claim they were "deceived into believing" that the
beverages contained a "different ingredient value and nutritional
profile that they do."

"Plaintiffs would not have purchased Naked beverages had they
known that they lacked the ingredient value and nutritional
profile marketed by PepsiCo," the lawsuit states.

For example, labels for Naked's Kale Blazer feature leaves of kale
and other leafy greens and two cucumber slices, CSPI points out.
"Kale is the king of the garden," according to the text on the
side of the bottle, which continues: "And, when it's blended with
cucumber, spinach, celery and a pinch of ginger, you get a royal
roundtable of yum.  Long live greens."

The nonprofit contends that advertisements for the product on
social media and elsewhere similarly exaggerate the presence of
kale in the product, stating ". . . you might actually live
forever because kale has tons of antioxidants that combat aging,"
and that the drink is a way to "pack more kale into your diet."

CSPI litigation director Maia Kats said consumers simply aren't
getting what they paid for.

"Consumers are paying higher prices for the healthful and
expensive ingredients advertised on Naked labels, such as berries,
cherries, kale and other greens, and mango," Kats said in a
statement.

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

Naked Juice, in a statement, called the lawsuit "baseless."

"There is nothing misleading about our Naked Juice products. Every
bottle of Naked Juice clearly identifies the fruit and vegetables
that are within," the company said.  "For example, the label on
our Kale Blazer juice accurately indicates each bottle contains 5
3/4 Kale leaves.  All products in the Naked portfolio proudly use
fruits and/or vegetables with no sugar added, and all Non-GMO
claims on label are verified by an independent third party.  Any
sugar present in Naked Juice products comes from the fruits and/or
vegetables contained within and the sugar content is clearly
reflected on label for all consumers to see.

"We hold ourselves to a high standard and proudly support clear
and transparent labeling of all ingredients on our packaging, on
our website and in our marketing."

CSPI's litigation department has won numerous agreements improving
the marketing or labeling of other products, including an
agreement with Coca-Cola prohibiting deceptive statements on its
Vitaminwater line and requiring better disclosure of its
sweeteners.

The nonprofit also is currently involved in litigation against
General Mills over Cheerios Protein, and against CVS over its
Algal-900 supplement.


PHOENIX RISING: Case Managers Class Certified in "Adkins" Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit titled NATALIE ADKINS v. PHOENIX RISING BEHAVIORAL
HEALTHCARE & RECOVERY INC., et al., Case No. 5:15cv922 (N.D.
Ohio), Judge Benita Y. Pearson denied the Defendants' motion for
summary judgment and granted the Plaintiff's motion for
conditional certification.

The Plaintiff has proposed a class of "[a]ll current and former
Case Managers, employed at Phoenix Rising Behavioral Healthcare &
Recovery, Inc. from three (3) years preceding the filing date of
this action through the date of final disposition, who worked in
excess of forty (40) hours per week and were not compensated for
overtime worked at a rate of no less than one and one half times
their regular rates."  The Plaintiff brought the lawsuit under the
Fair Labor Standards Act.

In her memorandum of opinion and order, Judge Pearson stated that
regarding whether the Plaintiff was properly compensated for
overtime work as a Licensed Practical Nurse, the Court enters
judgment in favor of the Plaintiff.  The Court also directs the
Parties to meet and confer to submit a proposed schedule for
filing a proposed joint notice to the Court and notifying all
potential collective members.  The jointly proposed schedule will
be filed with the Court within seven days of the Order.

A copy of the Order is available at no charge at
https://goo.gl/S12m2f from Leagle.com.

Plaintiff Natalie Adkins is represented by:

          Hans A. Nilges, Esq.
          Shannon M. Draher, Esq.
          NILGES DRAHER LLC
          4580 Stephen Circle, N.W., Suite 201
          Canton, OH 44718
          Telephone: (330) 470-4429
          Facsimile: (330) 754-1430
          E-mail: hans@ohlaborlaw.com
                  sdraher@ohlaborlaw.com

               - and -

          Robi J. Baishnab, Esq.
          Robert E. DeRose, Esq.
          BARKAN MEIZLISH HANDELMAN GOODIN DEROSE WENTZ, LLP
          250 E. Broad St., 10th Floor
          Columbus, OH 43215
          Telephone: (614) 221-4221
          Facsimile: (614) 744-2300
          E-mail: rbaishnab@barkanmeizlish.com
                  bderose@barkanmeizlish.com

Defendants Phoenix Rising Behavioral Healthcare & Recovery, Inc.,
and Lisa Grubbs are represented by:

          Jennifer L. Arnold, Esq.
          Robert J. Tscholl, Esq.
          220 Market Ave. S., Suite 1120
          Canton, OH 44702
          Telephone: (330) 497-8614
          Facsimile: (330) 497-8613
          E-mail: jlamesq@earthlink.net
                  btscholl740@yahoo.com


PRUDENTIAL INSURANCE: Court Denies Huffman's Bid to Certify Class
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The Hon. Joseph F. Leeson, Jr., denied the Plaintiffs' motion for
class certification in the lawsuit styled CLARK R. HUFFMAN;
PATRICIA L. GRANTHAM; LINDA M. PACE; and BRANDI K. WINTERS,
individually and on behalf of a class of all others similarly
situated v. THE PRUDENTIAL INSURANCE COMPANY OF AMERICA, Case No.
2:10-cv-05135 (E.D. Pa.).

The Plaintiffs are beneficiaries of employer-sponsored life
insurance policies.  Defendant Prudential Insurance Company of
America is the insurer.  The Plaintiffs filed the action on behalf
of themselves and a putative class, claiming that Prudential
flouted the language of the policies and breached its fiduciary
duties under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974
and state law.

In the Motion, the Plaintiffs moved to certify a class of
beneficiaries of Prudential-insured life insurance plans whom
Prudential paid in this manner.

"Class certification is not appropriate "[i]f proof of the
essential elements of the cause of action requires individual
treatment," In re Cmty. Bank, 795 F.3d at 399 (quoting Newton, 259
F.3d at 172), and that is the case here.  The Court finds that
Plaintiffs have failed to show that their proposed class satisfies
Rule 23(b)(3)'s predominance requirement, which is fatal to their
motion for class certification," Judge Leeson stated in his
memorandum opinion.

A copy of the Memorandum Opinion is available at no charge at
https://goo.gl/dkyORF from Leagle.com.

Plaintiff CLARK R. HUFFMAN is represented by:

          Yael Shavit, Esq.
          NATIONAL CONSUMER LAW CENTER
          7 Winthrop Sq., 4th Floor
          Boston, MA 02110-1245
          Telephone: (617) 542-8010
          E-mail: yshavit@nclc.org

Plaintiffs CLARK R. HUFFMAN, PATRICIA L. GRANTHAM, LINDA M. PACE
and BRANDI K. WINTERS are represented by:

          Cary L. Flitter, Esq.
          Andrew M. Milz, Esq.
          FLITTER MILZ, P.C.
          450 N. Narberth Avenue
          Narberth, PA 19072
          Telephone: (610) 822-0789
          E-mail: cflitter@consumerslaw.com
                  amilz@consumerslaw.com

               - and -

          Stuart T. Rossman, Esq.
          NATIONAL CONSUMER LAW CENTER
          7 Winthrop Sq., 4th Floor
          Boston, MA 02110-1245
          Telephone: (617) 542-8010
          E-mail: srossman@nclc.org

               - and -

          John C. Bell, Esq.
          Lee W. Brigham, Esq.
          BELL & BRIGHAM
          Post Office Box 1547
          Augusta, GA 30903
          Telephone: (706) 722-2014
          E-mail: john@bellbrigham.com
                  lee@bellbrigham.com

               - and -

          M. Scott Barrett, Esq.
          BARRETT WYLIE, LLC
          PO Box 5233
          Bloomington, IN 47407-5233
          Telephone: (812) 334-2600
          E-mail: Scott@barrettwylie.com

Defendant THE PRUDENTIAL INSURANCE COMPANY OF AMERICA is
represented by:

          Donald E. Wieand, Jr., Esq.
          STEVENS & LEE
          840 W. Hamilton Street, Suite 521
          Allentown, PA 18101
          Telephone: (610) 691-7111
          Facsimile: (610) 691-7175
          E-mail: dew@stevenslee.com

               - and -

          Edwin G. Schallert, Esq.
          Maeve O'Connor, Esq.
          DEBEVOISE & PLIMPTON LLP
          919 3rd Avenue
          New York, NY 10022
          Telephone: (212) 909-6000
          E-mail: egschallert@debevoise.com
                  mloconnor@debevoise.com

               - and -

          Martin C. Bryce, Jr., Esq.
          BALLARD SPAHR ANDREWS AND INGERSOLL, L.L.P.
          1735 Market Street, 51st Floor
          Philadelphia, PA 19103
          Telephone: (215) 864-8238
          Facsimile: (215) 864-9511
          E-mail: Bryce@ballardspahr.com

               - and -

          Alison V. Douglass, Esq.
          James O. Fleckner, Esq.
          GOODWIN PROCTER LLP
          Exchange Place
          53 State Street
          Boston, MA 02109
          Telephone: (617) 570-1921
          Facsimile: (617) 523-1231
          E-mail: adouglass@goodwinprocter.com
                  jfleckner@goodwinprocter.com

               - and -

          David Rosenberg, Esq.
          Jordan D. Weiss, Esq.
          Michael K. Isenman, Esq.
          GOODWIN PROCTER LLP
          100 Northern Avenue
          Boston, MA 02210
          Telephone: (617) 570-1000
          Facsimile: (617) 523-1231
          E-mail: drosenberg@goodwinlaw.com
                  jweiss@goodwinlaw.com
                  misenman@goodwinlaw.com


QUEEN STUCCO: Conditional Certification Granted in "Hopson" Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Hon. James L. Graham grants the Plaintiff's pre-discovery
motion for conditional class certification and Court-supervised
notice to potential opt-in plaintiffs pursuant to the Fair Labor
Standards Act filed in the lawsuit titled SHANE HOPSON v. QUEEN
STUCCO, INC., et al., Case No. 2:16-cv-00782-JLG-EPD (S.D. Ohio).

According to the Order, the parties have agreed to conditionally
certify the collective action and to provide notice to the
putative class members via agreed notice and consent forms.  As
detailed by the parties' joint stipulation, the Court
conditionally certified the collective action, and authorized the
sending of notice and consent forms.

A copy of the Order is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=DYowa2nS


SAINT FRANCIS: Denial of Nicodemus' Class Cert. Bid Reversed
------------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit titled KRISTEN NICODEMUS, et al., Plaintiffs and
Appellants, v. SAINT FRANCIS MEMORIAL HOSPITAL, et al., Defendants
and Respondents, Case No. A141500, in the Court of Appeals of
California, First District, Division Four, the Hon. Maria P.
Rivera reversed the order denying class certification, and
remanded the matter with directions to grant the motion for class
certification.  The Plaintiff will recover costs incurred on
appeal.

Plaintiff Kristen Nicodemus filed the action against HealthPort
Technologies, LLC and Saint Francis Memorial alleging they
overcharged her for copies of her patient medical records.  She
sought to bring the action on her own behalf and on behalf of
others who, acting through an attorney, requested patient medical
records from a medical provider in California prior to litigation
and were charged more than the amounts specified in Evidence Code
1 Section 1158.

"Plaintiff's motion to certify the class was denied.  We conclude
this was error and reverse," Judge Rivera ruled.  Ruvolo, P.J. and
Reardon, J., concurs.

A copy of the Order is available at no charge at
https://goo.gl/uGa8i6 from Leagle.com.

The Plaintiffs-Appellants are represented by:

          Lori E. Andrus, Esq.
          ANDRUS ANDERSON LLP
          155 Montgomery St Ste 900
          San Francisco, CA 94104
          Telephone: (415) 986-1400
          Facsimile: (415) 986-1474
          E-mail: lori.andrus@andrusanderson.com

               - and -

          Mark E. Burton, Esq.
          HERSH & HERSH, P.C.
          601 Van Ness Ave #2080
          San Francisco, CA 94102
          Telephone: (415) 441-5544
          Facsimile: (415) 441-7586
          E-mail: mburton@hershlaw.com

The Defendants-Respondents are represented by:

          Jay Woollacott, Esq.
          WOOLLACOTT PLC
          10850 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 825
          Los Angeles CA 90024
          Telephone: (310) 481-2222
          Facsimile: (310) 481-9801
          E-mail: jw@woollacottplc.com


SAMSUNG: Law Firm May File Class Action Over Note 7 Overheating
---------------------------------------------------------------
Connie Thompson, writing for KomoNews.com, reports that complaints
about overheating Samsung smartphones could soon end up in court.
Attorneys at Keller Rohrback in Seattle told KomoNews.com they're
investigating complaints and will likely file a class action
lawsuit.

Samsung meantime is reportedly cranking out more Galaxy S7 and S7
Edge models to replace the fire-prone Galaxy Note7.

There's still no clue as to why the Samsung Note 7 can overheat to
the point of fire and explosion.  But after more than 3 dozen
incidents worldwide -- even with replacement models -- Samsung is
finally ordering retailers to stop selling them.

If you have a Note 7, return it to the place of purchase.
Everything you need to know is posted on Samsung's website,
however the notice is at the top of the page and is so tiny, it's
easy to miss.

The "Updated Consumer Guidance", as Samsung calls it -- says
you'll either get a Galaxy S7 or a Galaxy S7 Edge plus a refund
for any Note7 accessories.  You also have the option of getting a
full refund for your Note7.

In its "frequently asked questions" section Samsung says consumers
should not continue to use the Note 7.  Power it down and turn it
in.


SEADRILL AMERICAS: Faces "Woodward" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT
---------------------------------------------------------------
Dennis Woodward, Robert Laws, and Vernon L. Cromuel, individually
and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Seadrill
Americas, Inc., Case No. 4:16-cv-03022 (S.D. Tex., October 11,
2016), is brought against the Defendants for failure to pay
overtime wages in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act.

Seadrill Americas, Inc. is a Texas corporation that is engaged in
the business of offshore deepwater drilling.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Melissa Moore, Esq.
      Rochelle Owens, Esq.
      MOORE & ASSOCIATES
      Lyric Center
      440 Louisiana Street, Suite 675
      Houston, TX 77002
      Telephone: (713) 222-6775
      Facsimile: (713) 222-6739


SLATER & GORDON: Class Action Looms Over 2015 Share Price Plunge
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Sydney Morning Herald reports that thousands of investors
allegedly "blindsided" by Slater and Gordon are suing the legal
firm in what may end up as Australia's largest shareholder class
action.

More than 3000 shareholders who lost more than $250 million in
Slater and Gordon's 2015 share price plunge have so far signed up
to the Maurice Blackburn Lawyers class action.

The claim has been filed as an open class action to cover tens of
thousands of affected shareholders, and will end up being
significantly larger, Maurice Blackburn national head of class
actions Andrew Watson said.

"The claim will vastly exceed the $250 million and has the
potential to be one of Australia's largest shareholder class
actions, if not the largest," he said.

A second legal firm, ACA Lawyers, also plans to launch class
action proceedings against Slater and Gordon over what financial
information the company disclosed to the stock market, and when.

Maurice Blackburn's action claims Slater and Gordon misrepresented
to the market, and failed to disclose in a timely way, a range of
information about its financial performance and prospects.

It mainly relates to the firm's disclosure of details about what
Mr. Watson described as its "spectacularly bad" $1.2 billion
acquisition of Quindell's professional services division in the
UK, announced in March 2015.

"They didn't just miss their earnings guidance predictions -- they
were miles off -- and that suggests systemic issues across the
company," Mr. Watson said.

"To blindside shareholders once is really bad news; if it happens
twice, it's then a farce, but to happen again and again and again
-- you can understand why shareholders want serious questions
answered about the internal corporate governance of the company."

The shareholder leading the class action, Matt Hall, lost hundreds
of thousands of dollars because of Slater and Gordon's share price
plunge.

"There's been a colossal failure here," he told reporters in
Melbourne.

"An Australian listed company, purporting to comply with all the
rules, has seen a decrease of nearly $2 billion in its market
capitalization.  It shouldn't have been a surprise."

Slater and Gordon shares plunged about 95 per cent between April
2015 and February 2016.

ACA Lawyers said on Oct. 11 it was finalizing its investigation
into a competing shareholder class action against Slater and
Gordon.

The firm had identified potential misconduct dating back as far as
Slater and Gordon's 2014 full-year results, ACA principal Bruce
Clarke said.

"We are taking the time to ensure we make the strongest case
possible to recover the maximum possible losses on behalf of
Slater and Gordon shareholders," Mr. Clarke said.

Slater and Gordon on Oct. 12 said it had yet to be served with a
class action claim.

The company has said it intends to take legal action against
Watchstone Group, formerly Quindell, arising from the UK
acquisition.

Slater and Gordon posted a $1 billion annual loss for 2015/16,
largely due to writedowns on its UK business.


SPIRIT REALTY: Sued Over Wheelchair-Inaccessible Parking Lots
-------------------------------------------------------------
Josie Badger, Emily Gellatly and Ceara Nario-Redmond, individually
and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Spirit Realty
Capital, Inc., Case No. 2:16-cv-01558-DSC (W.D. Penn., October 11,
2016), alleges that numerous facilities owned and managed by the
Defendant have parking lots and paths of travel that are
inaccessible to individuals who rely on wheelchairs for mobility.

Spirit Realty Capital, Inc. is real estate investment trust
headquartered at 16767 North Perimeter Drive, Suite 210,
Scottsdale, Arizona 85260.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Benjamin J. Sweet, Esq.
      Edwin J. Kilpela, Esq.
      Stephanie K. Goldin, Esq.
      CARLSON LYNCH SWEET KILPELA & CARPENTER, LLP
      1133 Penn Avenue, 5th Floor
      Pittsburgh, PA 15222
      Telephone: (412) 322-9243
      E-mail: bsweet@carlsonlynch.com
              ekilpela@carlsonlynch.com
              sgoldin@carlsonlynch.com


SPRINGWOOD LAKE: Faces "Stolicny" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT
-------------------------------------------------------------
Laura Stolicny, on behalf of herself and all similarly situated
individuals v. Springwood Lake Camp Club Charities, Inc. and
Springwood Lake Camp Club Property Owners Association, Inc., Case
No. 5:16-cv-02483-JRA (N.D. Ohio, October 11, 2016), is brought
against the Defendants for failure to pay overtime wages in
violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act.

The Defendants operate a camp club in Stark County, Ohio.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      James J. Collum, Esq.
      LAW OFFICE OF JAMES J. COLLUM
      Crescent Pointe Building
      4774 Munson Street NW, Suite 400
      Canton, OH 44718-3634
      Telephone: (330) 494-4877
      Facsimile: (330) 433-1313
      E-mail: jcollum@collumlawoffice.com

           - and -

      Cortney R. Oren Morgan, Esq.
      LAW OFFICES OF CORTNEY MORGAN, LLC
      Crescent Pointe Building
      4774 Munson Street NW, Suite 401
      Canton, OH 44718-3634
      Telephone: (330) 966-5389
      Facsimile: (330) 915-4803
      E-mail: cortney@navigatelifeohio.com


SUNEDISON INC: "Usenko" Class Suit Transferred to S.D. New York
---------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit captioned Alexander Y. Usenko,
individually and on behalf of the SunEdison Retirement Savings
Plan, and all other similarly situated v. Sunedison, Inc., Board
of Directors Of Sunedison, Inc., Sunedison, Inc. Investment
Committee, State Street Bank & Trust Co., Ahmad R. Chatila,
Emmanuel T. Hernandez, Antonio R. Alvarez, Peter Blackmore,
Clayton C. Daley, Jr., Georganne C. Proctor, Steven V. Tesoriere,
James B. Williams, Randy H. Zwirn, Matthew Herzberg, and John Doe
Defendants 1-10, Case No. 4:16-cv-00076, was transferred from the
United States District Court for the Eastern District  of Missouri
to the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York.
The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:16-cv-07950-PKC to
the proceeding.

Sunedison, Inc. finances, builds, owns, and operates various solar
and wind power plants, having developed over 1,300 solar and wind
projects in 20 countries.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Daniella Quitt, Esq.
      Robert I. Harwood, Esq.
      Tanya Korkhov, Esq.
      HARWOOD FEFFER LLP
      488 Madison Avenue
      New York, NY 10022
      Telephone: (212) 935-7400
      Facsimile: (212) 753-3630
      E-mail: dquitt@hfesq.com
              rharwood@hfesq.com
              tkorkhov@hfesq.com

         - and -

      Mark A. Potashnick, Esq.
      WEINHAUS AND POTASHNICK
      11500 Olive Boulevard, Suite 133
      St. Louis, MO 63141
      Telephone: (314) 997-9150
      Facsimile: (314) 997-9170
      E-mail: attorneymp@hotmail.com

The Defendant is represented by:

      Glenn E. Davis, Esq.
      HEPLER BROOM
      211 North Broadway, Suite 2700
      St. Louis, MO 63102
      Telephone: (314) 241-6160
      Facsimile: (314) 241-6116
      E-mail: Glenn.Davis@heplerbroom.com


SUSAN J SZWED: Maine Residents Class Certified in "Marcoux" Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit styled ALFRED MARCOUX and CHARLENE JONES v. SUSAN
J. SZWED, P.A., Case No. 2:15-cv-093-NT (D. Me.), the Hon. Nancy
Torresen grants the Plaintiffs' motion and preliminarily certifies
this class:

     All persons (a) with an address in Maine, (b) to whom Susan
     J. Szwed, P.A. mailed an initial debt collection
     communication that stated: If you notify this firm within
     thirty (30) days after your receipt of this letter, that the
     debt or any portion thereof, is disputed, we will obtain
     verification of the debt or a copy of the judgment, if any,
     and mail a copy of such verification or judgment to you, (c)
     between March 10, 2014 and March 10, 2015, (d) in connection
     with the collection of a consumer debt on behalf of Bank of
     America, N.A.

The Action involves standardized initial debt collection letters
sent to consumers by Susan J. Szwed, P.A.  The Plaintiffs Alfred
Marcoux and Charlene Jones allege those letters violated the Fair
Debt Collection Practices Act by failing to properly notify Maine
consumers of how they could dispute the validity of the debts they
were alleged to owe and how they could obtain from the Defendant
verification of the legitimacy of those debts.

A copy of the Order is available at no charge at
https://goo.gl/lQKz5a from Leagle.com.

Plaintiffs ALFRED MARCOUX and CHARLENE JONES are represented by:

          Douglas F. Jennings, Esq.
          WALKER & JENNINGS
          226 Water Street
          Hallowell, ME 04347
          Telephone: (207) 621-8188
          E-mail: dfjlaw@live.com

               - and -

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

Defendant SUSAN J. SZWED PA is represented by:

          James M. Bowie, Esq.
          Rosie M. Williams, Esq.
          THOMPSON BOWIE & HATCH LLC
          Three Canal Plaza
          P.O. Box 4630
          Portland, ME 04112-4630
          Telephone: (207) 774-2500
          Facsimile: (207) 774-3591
          E-mail: jbowie@thompsonbowie.com
                  rwilliams@thompsonbowie.com


TAMKO BUILDING: Court to Decide on Class Action This Month
----------------------------------------------------------
Tony Messenger, writing for St. Louis Post-Dispatch, reports that
David Humphreys really wants Republican Josh Hawley to be the next
attorney general of Missouri.

How much so?

To date, Humphreys and members of his family -- they own Joplin-
based TAMKO Building Products -- have given at least $3.5 million
to Hawley's campaign.

The actual number, though, could be even higher.  That's because
Mr.  Hawley has also received more than $3 million from an arm of
the Republican Attorney Generals Association.

Donors to RAGA might not be known until after the election. Viewed
together, the $6.5 million is more than 90 percent of what Hawley
has raised.

Why would one very wealthy man want to see a political newcomer
elected to the attorney general's office?

The answer might be found in the warped roofing shingles atop a
Jasper County church.

In September 2007, the Jonesburg United Methodist Church bought
Heritage Series Shingles from TAMKO for its roof.  The shingles,
according to court records, were marketed as being "durable,
reliable and free from defects for at least 30 years."

By 2013, the Jonesburg church had leaks in its ceiling it
attributed to the failed shingles.

Around the same time, another Jasper County man, Lee Hobbs, was
having similar issues with the same kinds of shingles. Many other
homeowners reported similar problems.

In April 2014, Jonesburg and Hobbs filed a class action lawsuit
against TAMKO, alleging a violation of the Missouri Merchandising
Practicing Act.  The company argued that the plaintiffs didn't
have a right to sue because every package of TAMKO shingles
contains an "arbitration clause" on its wrapping.  Lawyers for
Humphreys' company sought to force Jonesburg, Hobbs and the other
class members into arbitration.

The Southern District of the Missouri Court of Appeals agreed with
the church.

"Plaintiffs' retention and use of the shingles does not prove that
they accepted the terms to arbitrate their disputes in the case,"
a unanimous panel wrote.

A month before the decision was filed, Humphreys and two of his
family members wrote their first checks to Hawley, for a total of
$500,000.  At the time Hawley was running in a heated GOP primary
against Sen. Kurt Schaefer of Columbia. Now he's facing Democrat
Teresa Hensley, the Cass County prosecuting attorney, in the
general election.

Since the primary, the Humphreys' investment has grown
exponentially.

Here's why that matters:

The U.S. Supreme Court is accepting arguments in the TAMKO case.
It is possible the court will decide this month whether to weigh
in on the case.  The lawyer handling the case for TAMKO before the
Supreme Court is Paul D. Clement, a former U.S. solicitor general.
In 2014, Clement successfully argued the landmark Hobby Lobby case
before the court, which allowed certain corporations to be exempt
from federal contraception rules.

One of the lawyers who wrote briefs in that case? None other than
Mr. Hawley, who has based much of his campaign on the Hobby Lobby
case.

Perhaps the connection of those dots are a mere $6 million
coincidence. Mr. Humphreys was out of town and couldn't be reached
for comment for this column.  Mr. Hawley says he's "very proud" to
have the support of the Humphreys family.  He says he has never
discussed the class action suit with the Humphreys.

Meanwhile, the class action suit continues in Jasper County, with
the plaintiffs having at least temporarily won the right to take
their dispute to before a jury.

But regardless of what happens in either circuit court or the
Supreme Court, it is possible the next attorney general could have
an effect on the outcome of the case.

That's because the merchandising practices act gives the attorney
general in Missouri wide-ranging powers to intervene in class
action lawsuits filed under Chapter 407 of the state statutes.

Count attorney Eric Holland of St. Louis among those who have a
problem with Humphreys donating millions of dollars to
Mr. Hawley's campaign while the class action lawsuit is pending.

"I think it's outrageous," says Mr. Holland, who represents Hobbs
and the Jonesburg church.  "It demonstrates that Citizens United
is the worst Supreme Court decision of my lifetime."

Because Missouri is one of the few states to allow unlimited
campaign contributions, the Citizens United decision has little
effect on Mr. Humphreys' ability to donate $3 million and counting
to Mr. Hawley.   But it opened the door to the anonymity of
federal super PACs, and that has allowed somebody to add the
anonymous stench of an additional $3 million to Hawley through the
Missouri Freedom PAC.

So while homeowners and others try to recoup money from the
allegedly faulty shingles protecting their biggest investment, the
wealthy mega-donor fighting them is trying to handpick Missouri's
next attorney general.

"For Humphreys to funnel millions to politicians and then dispute
his customers' ability to recover damages against him, there's
something wrong with that picture," Mr. Holland says.

In Missouri, though, buying an attorney general is as easy as
buying a package of roofing shingles.

The 30-year warranty costs extra.


TENET HEALTHCARE: Sued in Tex. Over Misleading Financial Reports
----------------------------------------------------------------
Sameh M. Yamany, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. Tenet Healthcare Corporation, Trevor Fetter,
and Daniel J. Cancelmi, Case No. 3:16-cv-02848-C (N.D. Tex.,
October 10, 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.

Tenet Healthcare Corporation operates acute care hospitals and
related healthcare facilities.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      WILLIE C. BRISCOE
      THE BRISCOE LAW FIRM, PLLC
      8150 N. Central Expressway, Suite 1575
      Dallas, TX  75206
      Telephone: (214) 239-4568
      Facsimile: (281) 254-7789
      E-mail: wbriscoe@thebriscoelawfirm.com

         - and -

      Jeremy A. Lieberman, Esq.
      J. Alexander Hood II, Esq.
      Marc C. Gorrie, Esq
      POMERANTZ LLP
      600 Third Avenue, 20th Floor
      New York, NY 10016
      Telephone: (212) 661-1100
      Facsimile: (212) 661-8665
      E-mail: jalieberman@pomlaw.com
              ahood@pomlaw.com
              mgorrie@pomlaw.com

         - and -

      Patrick V. Dahlstrom, Esq.
      POMERANTZ LLP
      10 South La Salle Street, Suite 3505
      Chicago, IL 60603
      Telephone: (312) 377-1181
      Facsimile: (312) 377-1184
      E-mail:  pdahlstrom@pomlaw.com

         - and -

      Peretz Bronstein, Esq.
      BRONSTEIN, GEWIRTZ & GROSSMAN, LLC
      60 East 42nd Street, Suite 4600
      New York, NY 10165
      Telephone: (212) 697-6484
      Facsimile: (212) 697-7296
      E-mail:  peretz@bgandg.com


TLC IN HOME: Coakley Seeks to Certify Class of Care Providers
-------------------------------------------------------------
The Plaintiff in the lawsuit entitled Victoria Coakley, On behalf
of herself and those similarly situated v. TLC In Home Care
Service Inc., et al., Case No. 2:16-cv-07408 (S.D.W. Va.), moves
under Section 216(b) of the Fair Labor Standards Act for an order
granting conditional certification of a collective action on
behalf of the proposed putative class:

     All home health care providers who worked for TLC In Home
     Care Service, Inc. from January 2015 to the present.

Ms. Coakley was employed from December 2015 to May 2016 as a home
health care aide with TLC.  She alleges that Defendants failed to
pay her one-and-one-half times her regular hourly rate for hours
worked in excess of 40 hours per week.

A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=LLBTf67n

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Zachary B. Pyers, Esq.
          REMINGER CO., LPA
          200 Civic Center Dr., Suite 800
          Columbus, OH 43215
          Telephone: (614) 232-2634
          Facsimile: (614) 232-2410
          E-mail: zpyers@reminger.com

               - and -

          Ethan Vessels, Esq.
          FIELDS, DEHMLOW & VESSELS
          309 Second Street
          Marietta, OH 45750
          Telephone: (740) 374-5346
          Facsimile: (740) 374-5349
          E-mail: ethan@fieldsdehmlow.com


UNITED PARCEL: "Zapata" Suit to Recover Overtime Pay
----------------------------------------------------
Desmond Augustine, Daniel Campos, Terry Jackson, Nick James, and
Carlos Silva, as individuals, on behalf of themselves, all others
similarly situated, and the general public, Plaintiffs, v. United
Parcel Service, Inc., an Ohio corporation doing business in
California, and Does 1-15, inclusive, Defendants, Case No.
BC636468 (Cal. Super., October 4, 2016), seeks unpaid and withheld
wages, including minimum wage, recovery of waiting time penalties,
all applicable statutory and civil penalties, attorneys' fees,
costs and interest as well as injunctive relief under California
Labor Code and California's Unfair Compensation Law (Business and
Professions Code).

Defendants provide a wide range of delivery services, including
delivery of packages to business and residences where Plaintiffs
were employed as handlers. They allege that the Defendants did not
pay all of their earned wages and manipulated timekeeping records.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Michael S. Morrison, Esq.
      Amelia Alvarez, Esq.
      ALEXANDER KRAKOW + GLICK LLP
      401 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 1000
      Santa Monica, CA 90401
      Tel: (310) 394-0888
      Fax: (310) 394-0811
      Email: mmorrison@akgllp.com
             aalvarez@akgllp.com


UNITED STATES: Guam Contractors Seeks to Certify H2B Worker Class
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The Plaintiffs in the lawsuit styled Guam Contractors Association,
et al. v. Loretta E. Lynch, Attorney General of the United States,
et al., Case No. 1:16-cv-00075 (D. Guam), move the Court to
certify a district-wide class and to appoint all individual and
associational Plaintiffs as class representatives of the class
defined as:

     Petitioners who have filed or will file an I-129 application
     for H2B workers for Guam under one of the following two
     categories:

     1. Peakload need (the "Peakload Subclass); or

     2. One-Time Occurrence (the "One-Time Occurrence Subclass")
        And who have received or will receive a denial of such
        I-129 application based on a finding that the Petitioner
        is unable to demonstrate "temporary need."

The Individual and Associational Plaintiffs bring the action to
allegedly compel the Defendants to reopen and approve the I-129
H2B petitions that have been previously denied.  The Plaintiffs
contend that the actions of denying these petitions based on the
same set of operative facts after years (and in some cases
decades) of approvals is both arbitrary and capricious.
Additionally, the Plaintiffs assert that the employers in these
cases have demonstrated based on substantial evidence in the
record that there are not qualified U.S. workers to complete these
critical projects, and that the need for these workers is based on
a temporary need.

A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=pF1xMLKj

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Jeff Joseph, Esq.
          JOSEPH LAW FIRM, P.C.
          12203 East Second Ave.
          Aurora, CO 80011
          Telephone: (303) 297-9171
          Facsimile: (303) 733-4188
          E-mail: jeff@immigrationissues.com

               - and -

          Jennifer C. Davis, Esq.
          DAVIS & DAVIS, P.C.
          P.O. Box 326686
          Hagatna, GU 96932
          Telephone: (671) 649-1997
          Facsimile: (671) 649-1995
          E-mail: atty@davisdavis-law.com

The Defendants are represented by:

          Loretta E. Lynch, Esq.
          ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE UNITED STATES
          U.S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
          950 Pennsylvania Ave., NW
          Washington, DC 20530-0001
          Telephone: (202) 514-2000
          E-mail: loretta.lynch@usdoj.gov

               - and -

          Glenn Matthew Girdharry, Esq.
          U.S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
          P.O. Box 868 Ben Franklin Station
          Washington, DC 20044
          Telephone: (202) 532-4807
          E-mail: glenn.girdharry@usdoj.gov

               - and -

          Alicia A.G. Limtiaco, Esq.
          Michael W. Schwab, Esq.
          OFFICE OF THE U.S. ATTORNEY
          Sirena Plaza, Suite 500
          108 Hernan Cortes Ave.
          Hagatna, GU 96910
          Telephone: (671) 479-4142
          E-mail: alicia.limtiaco@usdoj.gov
                  mikel.schwab@usdoj.gov


WEST VIRGINIA: Disability Waiver Class Action Can Proceed
---------------------------------------------------------
Sarah Plummer, writing for Register-Herald Reporter, reports that
a federal judge has certified a class action lawsuit for
individuals affected by cuts to a Department of Health and Human
Resources program that provides disabled Medicaid recipients with
money for in-home and community-based services.

U.S. District Judge Thomas Johnson certified the class-action on
Sept. 30.

The lawsuit, filed by Mountain State Justice on behalf of five
West Virginians with disabilities, states that the Medicaid
Intellectual/Developmental Disabilities waiver program violates
the Americans with Disabilities Act.

According to the suit, individuals with intellectual and
developmental disabilities who qualify receive a certain amount of
waiver benefits which, by law, must be based on individuals'
needs.

Instead, the suit asserts the Bureau for Medical Services uses
contracted firm APS Healthcare Inc. to generate benefit amounts
"arbitrarily through a secret and proprietary computer algorithm
that does not give appropriate weight to recipient need and the
amount of waiver benefits actually authorized in prior years."

Individuals who qualified to receive I/DD Home and Community-Based
waivers processed using the APS calculations on or after Oct. 1,
2014, are eligible to join the class action.

The suit also states the Department of Health and Human Resources
implemented a reduction or termination in benefits due to
budgetary shortfalls without publishing a reduction policy or
implementing it with due process.

"DHHR has implemented these massive reductions and terminations of
the waiver benefits needed by plaintiffs and the class
unjustifiably, arbitrarily and unlawfully, despite the lack of any
meaningful change in an individual's actual need for services,"
according to the court documents.

The suit also claims DHHR instructed local care provider teams not
to request necessary services previously provided if they would
exceed the waiver budget.

These cuts mean that many receiving in-home care could be
institutionalized.

One plaintiff, S.F. of Lewisburg, requires assistance with all
daily tasks and functions on the level of an 11-month-old,
according to the suit.

In past years S.F. received more than $100,000 in waiver benefits.
In 2015, under the new algorithm, she received $72,000 despite no
change in her circumstances.

She had two or three care staff working to cover her needs seven
days a week, but the family can now only bring in 40 hours of home
care a week, leaving her aging parents to provide 16 hours of
personal care each weekday and 24 hours per day on weekends, the
suit states.

She is at risk of institutionalization because her parents are
physically unable to lift her from bed to a wheelchair multiple
times a day.

In August, Judge Johnson issued an injunction ordering the five
plaintiffs' waiver benefits be raised to the 2014 amount.

A settlement conference is slated for Oct. 28 in U.S. District
Court in Charleston.


XPO LAST MILE: Delivery Drivers Class Certified in "Carter" Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Hon. William H. Orrick grants the Plaintiffs' motion for
conditional certification under the Fair Labor Standards Act of a
class of Delivery Drivers, who signed Delivery Service Agreements
with XPO in the lawsuit styled RON CARTER, et al. v. XPO LAST
MILE, INC., Case No. 16-cv-01231-WHO (N.D. Cal.).

The Court conditionally certify this class:

     All persons who are or have operated as a Delivery Driver
     for Defendant in the State of California and who executed an
     XPO or 3PD Delivery Service Agreement or a similar written
     contract on behalf of themselves or entities in which they
     have an ownership interest that was in effect during the
     period commencing March 11, 2013 through the present.

A copy of the Order is available at no charge at
https://goo.gl/2UaR0j from Leagle.com.

Plaintiffs Ron Carter, Juan Estrada, Jerry Green, Burl Malmgren,
Bill McDonald and Joel Morales are represented by:

          Beth A. Ross, Esq.
          Amy Sayoko Endo, Esq.
          Jennifer Grace Keating, Esq.
          LEONARD CARDER LLP
          1330 Broadway, Suite 1450
          Oakland, CA 94612
          Telephone: (510) 272-0169
          Facsimile: (510) 272-0174
          E-mail: bross@leonardcarder.com
                  aendo@leonardcarder.com
                  jkeating@leonardcarder.com

Defendant XPO Logistices, Inc., is represented by:

          Becki Diana Graham, Esq.
          James Clay Rollins, Esq.
          Jeffrey Hamilton Newhouse, Esq.
          OGLETREE DEAKINS NASH SMOAK & STEWART, P.C.
          Steuart Tower
          1 Market Plaza, Suite 1300
          San Francisco, CA 94105
          Telephone: (415) 442-4810
          Facsimile: (415) 442-4870
          E-mail: becki.graham@ogletreedeakins.com
                  clay.rollins@ogletreedeakins.com
                  jeffrey.newhouse@ogletreedeakins.com




YAHOO! INC: E-mail Forwarding Option Disabled Amid Hacking Suits
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Christian Science Monitor's Steven Porter, Reuters and The
Associated Press, report that after back-to-back revelations that
hackers had compromised a staggering 500 million Yahoo Mail
accounts and that the company had complied with a US government
request to open incoming emails for surveillance, some users are
having a hard time switching to any of Yahoo's competitors.

While it remains unclear how many users intend to leave over the
privacy concerns and bad publicity, several told the Associated
Press that their ability to do so has been hampered since the
beginning of the month, when Yahoo disabled its automated email-
forwarding option.

Those who had already set up their forwarding are unaffected, but
those who wish to begin forwarding messages now are unable.

Recommended: How secure is your data? Take our quiz and find out
"This is all extremely suspicious timing," Jason Danner, who owns
an information technology business in New Zealand, told the
Associated Press.  After 18 years using Yahoo, Mr. Danner is
trying to switch.

Yahoo declined to comment beyond a three-sentence notice on its
website describing the feature as "under development."

"While we work to improve it, we've temporarily disabled the
ability to turn on Mail Forwarding for new forwarding addresses,"
the undated statement says.

This development comes after the embarrassing announcement last
month that a state-sponsored adversary, which the company did not
name, had stolen users' names, email addresses, passwords, phone
numbers, birth dates, and security questions in late 2014, as The
Christian Science Monitor's correspondent Jaikumar Vijayan
reported:

In Yahoo's case, the company's failure to disclose the breach for
nearly two years suggests that it did not have adequate breach
detection and response capabilities or that it remained mum
despite knowing about it.

Either way, the consequences are likely enormous.  The leak has
given hackers 500 million new keys to try and break into
organizations says Rajiv Gupta, chief executive officer of
security vendor Skyhigh Networks.

Many of the username and password combinations may not work or
lead nowhere.  But some of them will lead to sensitive
information, as users tend to reuse login credentials.
Then, Reuters reported that Yahoo had secretly built a custom
software program designed to search all incoming email for terms
provided by US intelligence officials, scanning hundreds of
millions of its customers' accounts on behalf of the Federal
Bureau of Investigation or National Security Agency.

"It is deeply disappointing that Yahoo declined to challenge this
sweeping surveillance order, because customers are counting on
technology companies to stand up to novel spying demands in
court," Patrick Toomey, an attorney with the American Civil
Liberties Union, said in a statement.  Mr. Toomey described the
request as "precisely the type of general, suspicionless search
that the Fourth Amendment was intended to prohibit."

Already facing a class action lawsuit over its massive hack, Yahoo
could face additional legal challenges over its complicity in
government surveillance, as the Monitor's Jack Detsch reported.

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

Merissa Silk, an American expatriate mobile product manager living
in Sydney, said there is an expectation that some surveillance
happens in secret all the time.

"But providing the US government unrestricted access - that
really, really violates our privacy," she told the AP.

Ms. Silk said she has skipped Yahoo Mail's email-forwarding
feature altogether and decided, instead, to leave an out-of-office
message that cites "recent data and privacy breaches" then
provides customers with her new address.


* CFPB's New Arbitration Rules May Face Legal Challenge
-------------------------------------------------------
Kristin Danley-Greiner, writing for Legal Newsline, reports that
the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) has proposed a set
of rules that would prohibit arbitration clauses designed to
prevent class action lawsuits on behalf of consumers.

In a study released last year, the CFPB revealed consumers benefit
more from arbitration than class actions.

Alan Kaplinsky, head of the consumer financial services group for
Ballard Spahr, said he doesn't anticipate the rules being
finalized until next year at the earliest and anticipates a legal
challenge in court.

Lawmakers, industry members and academia believe that limiting
arbitration isn't in the best interests of consumers and the CFPB
proposal only favors class action lawyers, Mr. Kaplinsky said.

The CFPB study examined 850 consumer finance agreements, 1,800
consumer finance agreements, 3,400 individual federal court
lawsuits, 42,000 credit card cases in small claims court, 420
class-action settlements in federal court and 1,100 state and
federal public enforcement actions in consumer finance.  The
report shows that consumers in class action suits end up with
nothing, while a few receive an average of $32.35, Mr. Kaplinsky
said.

Mr. Kaplinsky helped author a comment letter that was submitted on
behalf of the American Bankers Association, Consumer Banker
Association and The Financial Services Roundtable, stating that
the proposal wasn't in anyone's best interests.

"I pioneered the use of consumer arbitration provisions about 15
years ago and I came up with the idea of class action waivers, so
this subject is very near and dear to my heart," Mr. Kaplinsky
told Legal Newsline.  "It is one I've been working on and involved
in for a long time."

The letter noted the proposal would inflict serious financial harm
on consumers, the federal and state court systems and financial
services providers.  According to the CFPB, the proposal is
estimated to cause 53,000 providers who currently utilize
arbitration agreements to incur between $2.62 billion and $5.23
billion on a continuing five-year basis in defending against an
additional 6,042 class actions that will be brought every five
years after the proposed rule becomes final.

These costs are not one-time costs, but continuing costs as the
increase in class action filings are perpetual.

Mr. Kaplinsky also said consumers will suffer if the proposal
becomes final.

"As taxpayers they will be paying for the increased costs to the
court systems required to handle the permanent surge of 6,042
additional class actions every five years," he said.

As litigants, they will endure increased court backlogs that delay
resolutions of their cases.  As customers of the providers, they
could be saddled with higher prices or reduced services, because
the billions of dollars in additional class action litigation
costs will be passed on to them.

Mr. Kaplinsky said in at least 87 percent of class action suits,
consumers will not benefit because, as the CFPB found in its
study, they receive no compensation.

"In the rare cases where they do receive a cash payment from a
class action settlement, it will be a pittance," he said.


* Scope of US Plaintiffs to Pursue Class Actions Remains Unclear
----------------------------------------------------------------
Benjamin Rubinstein, Esq. -- Benjamin.Rubinstein@hsf.com -- and
David L Wallace, Esq., of Herbert Smith Freehills LLP, in article
for Lexology, report that while corporate defendants had hoped the
Supreme Court's decisions last term would continue a recent trend
in the Court's jurisprudence of making class actions more and more
difficult for the US plaintiffs' bar to pursue and win, those
expectations failed to materialize.

SCALE BACK HOPES HAVEN'T EVENTUATED

While corporate defendants had hoped the Supreme Court's decisions
last term would continue a recent trend in the Court's
jurisprudence of making class actions more and more difficult for
the US plaintiffs' bar to pursue and win, those expectations
failed to materialize.  Instead, the Court's more narrow recent
rulings have left much to the lower courts to clarify and for the
parties in class action cases to litigate.

From a client's perspective, the following questions should be
considered:

   * Whether and under what circumstances of a defendants' offer
of full payment to a named class member can moot individual and
class claims?

   * Whether and under what circumstances an alleged harm will be
regarded as sufficient to confer standing to bring class claims in
data use and data breach suits?

   * Whether and under what circumstances statistical evidence may
be used to prove liability and entitlement to remedial relief for
class action claims?

Since the Supreme Court's 2011 decision to decertify a class of
1.6 million female Wal-Mart employees alleging discrimination over
pay and promotion due to a lack of common issues, there has been
much speculation (and hope) among corporate defendants that the
Court would continue to scale back the ability of plaintiffs to
pursue class action claims.

Roughly five years later, the high Court's class action
jurisprudence has taken a more nuanced and measured approach
toward defining and constraining the ability of plaintiffs to
pursue class action litigation.  On the defense side of the
ledger, two prominent decisions (one issued two months before Wal-
Mart and the other a few years later) held that arguments based on
public policy and unconscionability cannot be used to invalidate
class action waivers in arbitration agreements.  The reason was
the Federal Arbitration Act preempts such state law principles.

In three cases decided this past term however, the high court
largely demurred from issuing rulings that would have imposed
clear initial barriers to plaintiffs' pursuit of class action.
Here we examine these recent Supreme Court decisions, along with
some of the issues lower courts and litigants are already, and are
set to, grapple with in their wake.

CAMPBELL-EWALD

In the case of Campbell-Ewald Co. v. Gomez, 136 S. Ct. 663 (Jan.
20, 2016) , the Court held that a defendant's unaccepted offer of
settlement does not moot the plaintiff's claim, but reserved
decision on whether a prospective class representative can
continue to litigate in federal court if she receives
unconditional payment in full.

Following the Supreme Court's ruling, a number of courts have been
hesitant to dismiss individual or class claims based solely on
offers that were not clearly accepted, were provided on partial
payment, were made only after a class had been certified, or
otherwise left open the possibility that the plaintiff retained a
live claim.

Not all courts have taken such a limited view of the impact of
tendering payment to the plaintiff.  In a case briefed and argued
by Herbert Smith Freehills, Demmler v. ACH Food Cos., 2016 WL
4703875 (D. Mass. June 9, 2016), the court found that, in light of
the defendant's tender of full relief, the court could offer
nothing more on the plaintiff's underlying claim than what had
already been provided.  This dynamic, the court concluded, served
to moot the case.

Because the named plaintiff received such relief before there was
any certified class, the court directed judgment for the defense.
The nature of the claims, timing and method of payment, and
relationship of the individual and class plaintiffs' respective
interests all factored into the court's decision.  As Demmler
illustrates, a tender or payment of relief may still prove an
effective strategy for early dismissal of class action claims,
especially in consumer fraud cases with multiple low-dollar-amount
claims and classes that are not easy to ascertain.

SPOKEO

In the Spokeo, Inc. v. Robins, 136 S.Ct. 1540 (May 16, 2016) class
action case, the Supreme Court held that a "bare procedural
violation" is not an "injury-in-fact" permitting a plaintiff to
sue in federal court. The claim in Spokeo was that the defendant
had published inaccurate information about plaintiff in alleged
violation of the Fair Credit Reporting Act.  Although recognizing
that a plaintiff's injury could be either tangible or intangible,
such as risk of future harm or harm to reputation, the Court's
ruling does little to clarify the circumstances under which a
plaintiff may bring suit to address intangible injuries.

This issue of tangible versus intangible harms is at the center of
controversies over data use and data breach suits, which invite
class action claims.  In Khan v. Children's Nat'l Health System,
2016 WL 2946165 (D.Md. May 19, 2016), for example, the court ruled
that a prospective class action could not proceed in federal court
because an increased risk of identity theft does not mean that the
plaintiffs suffered an injury-in-fact.

In contrast, the court in Boelter v. Hearst Communications, Inc.,
2016 WL 3369541 (S.D.N.Y. June 17, 2016) found that the plaintiffs
had asserted a sufficient "intangible" harm in the form of their
exposure to unwanted solicitations and possible fraudsters,
allegedly stemming from the defendant's sale of plaintiffs'
personal information to third parties and by providing it to "data
mining" companies.

Citing Spokeo, the court reasoned that a de facto harm that the
legislature has identified and elevated such that an individual
may seek relief when she suffers the harm, is sufficient.  The
court concluded that the plaintiffs had suffered a particularized
and concrete injury-in-fact, including the violation of their
statutory rights and economic harm, that could be remedied by
court action.

TYSON FOODS

Tyson Foods, Inc. v. Bouaphakeo, 136 S.Ct. 1036 (March 22, 2016),
was a wage and hour class action by employees of a meat-processing
plant.  The plaintiffs claimed that the defendant violated the
Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) by not properly compensating
workers for time spent changing into and out of protective gear at
the beginning and end of their work shifts.

The question on appeal was whether statistical evidence regarding
average time spent on these activities could be used to prove
liability for overtime pay to the class as a whole, avoiding the
individualized issues that might otherwise preclude certification
of the class as a cohesive group.  The Supreme Court's decision
avoided a broad rule, and neither prohibits nor permits the use of
statistical evidence as a matter of course in class action cases.

Rather, the decision recognized that if the evidence put forward
by a plaintiff could be used by an individual class member in
pursuit of his or her own claims in an individual lawsuit, it was
appropriate for use by the class.  In this respect, the high
Court's ruling did not further advance Wal-Mart's criticism of
"trial by formula" in class actions.

Nevertheless, issues surrounding the use of representative
evidence has presented a hurdle to class certification in some
post-Tyson Foods cases.  In Harnish v. Widener University School
of Law, 2016 WL 4363133 (3d Cir. Aug. 16, 2016),  for example, the
court affirmed the denial of class certification for failure to
meet the predominance requirement.


* Japan Introduces New Consumer Class Action Law
------------------------------------------------
Yoshiaki Muto, Esq. -- yoshiaki.muto@bakermckenzie.com -- Kengo
Nishigaki, Esq. -- kengo.nishigaki@bakermckenzie.com -- Takeshi
Yoshida, Esq. -- takeshi.yoshida@bakermckenzie.com -- and Oliver
McEntee, Esq., of Baker & McKenzie, in an article for Lexology,
report that on October 1, a new law came into force introducing
class actions in Japan, the Act on Special Measures Concerning
Civil Court Proceedings for the Collective Redress for Property
Damage Incurred by Consumers (hereafter, the "Consumer Special
Measures Act").

Japanese-style class actions involve risks which businesses cannot
ignore, and these extend beyond the class action itself. The
foreseeable risks include satellite litigation and reputational
risks. For global companies, how to manage these risks under the
local regime in Japan will be a key business challenge.

What is a Japanese-style class action?

The Japanese-style class action differs from the archetypal US
class action.  The Japanese system provides for a two-stage, opt-
in procedure.  In outline, at the first stage, a Specific
Qualified Consumer Organization commences litigation against a
company seeking a declaration as to the liability of the company
under the consumer contract (defined as "Common Obligations" under
the Consumer Special Measures Act) as representatives of other
potential consumer claimants.  At the second stage, if the court
finds that the company is liable (in respect of those common
obligations), other consumers may then join the litigation as
creditors in their own right without there being any uncertainty
as to whether the company in question is liable, enabling them to
claim damages for their individual economic loss cheaply and
easily.  For more detail on the procedure under the Consumer
Special Measures Act, you may wish to consult "The New Class
Action Promulgated in Japan".

As further explained below, from the point of view of risk
management, there are dangers associated with Japanese-style class
actions which global companies need to grasp.

What are the risks associated with a Japanese-style class action?

1. Reputational risks

First and foremost among the risks associated with a Japanese-
style class action is the risk of adverse publicity where dozens
of individuals bring claims, even though these may be for
comparatively small sums individually.  Once such a class action
receives media attention, the reputation of the company may be
severely damaged.

In order for a claim to be brought under the Consumer Special
Measures Act, the sole requirement which must be satisfied in
terms of extent of loss is that a "considerable number" of
consumers have sustained damage, and in practical terms, it is
thought that tens of individuals will suffice for this purpose.
Accordingly, it is possible that, if a few dozen consumers suffer
loss, a company may face a consumer class action, exposing it to
unwanted media attention which will have a serious adverse effect
on its public image.

2. The risk of damages for consequential and other losses

In the end result, the potential scope of liability arising out of
a Japanese-style class action extends to consequential loss, loss
of profits, personal injury and damages for pain, suffering and
distress.

It is true that the Consumer Special Measures Act excludes from
the scope of recoverable loss in a class action: (i) so-called
'consequential' loss (loss resulting from the destruction or
damage to property other than the subject matter of the consumer
contract); (ii) loss of profits (loss resulting from the failure
to secure an advantage that likely would have been obtained had
the consumer contract been fulfilled); (iii) personal injury (loss
consisting of harm to life or limb); and (iv) damages for pain,
suffering and distress (i.e., loss constituted by the infliction
of psychological suffering).

Nonetheless, the risk that consumers will bring claims for these
heads of loss in satellite actions that follow on from Japanese-
style class actions is substantial.  What this means in specific
terms is that once consumers get a favorable judgment under the
Consumer Special Measures Act, they are very likely to commence
separate proceedings and plead the fact of the previous judgment
in order to claim losses that could not be recovered in those
earlier proceedings.

Such risks are potentially wide-ranging for any business that
provides services or goods that make their way into the hands of
consumers, and are likely to be a significant concern for many
global companies which have a presence in Japan.

What measures should global companies take to avoid such risks?

In the first instance, internal by-laws governing claims handling
should be put in place, information relating to quality issues
that have arisen in the market should be collated at an early
stage, and a framework should be put in place which ensures
improvement measures are implemented as soon as possible at the
production line level and elsewhere.  As part of this process,
provisions must be adopted that specify which departments and
which personnel will be responsible for handling claims, lay down
duties to report promptly information regarding claims and
relevant procedures, impose a duty of cooperation in relation to
fault investigations and quality improvement on all departments
involved, and stipulate penalties for the breach of such duties.

Moreover, there needs to be an organization in place that can
rapidly introduce proactive damage limitation measures such as
product recalls, exchanges, repairs and returns.  The official
view of the Consumer Affairs Agency is that if, as a result of a
product recall, there ceases to be a "considerable number" of
consumer complainants, the condition precedent to commencing a
claim for a declaration under the Consumer Special Measures Act
will not be satisfied and any claim likely will be struck out.
When conducting product recalls, it must be borne in mind that
there is a duty, in any event, to notify the supervisory
authorities of any steps taken as part of the recall exercise in
the event that the relevant laws are applicable.


* Supreme Court Tackles "Natural" Labeling Class Litigation
-----------------------------------------------------------
Locke Beatty, Esq., of McGuireWoods LLP, in an article JDSupra
Business Advisor, reports that there have been a couple major
recent decisions in product-labeling class actions, as well as a
close call the Supreme Court will not be deciding this term.

Ninth Circuit Rejects Class Counsel's Damages Theory, but Leaves a
Side Door to Class-wide Relief Open:  The Ninth Circuit's reversal
of the lower court's determination that an "all natural fruit"
label on fruit packed in synthetic citric and ascorbic acids was
not likely to deceive consumers as a matter of law has attracted a
lot of attention in the world of food-labeling litigation.  The
Court vacated an award of summary judgment in favor of the
defendant, holding that the jury should decide the question of
whether the labeling was misleading to a reasonable consumer.

Of particular interest to readers of this blog is the Ninth
Circuit's holding that the lower court did not err by decertifying
the class due to difficulties in calculating damages on a class-
wide basis.  The court reasoned that each purchaser's damages were
the amount the consumer paid with the understanding it was an
"all-natural" product, less the subjective value of fruit packed
in a man-made acid to that particular consumer--and that class
counsel had offered no explanation as to how this premium could be
calculated with proof common to the class.  Notably, however, the
court allowed that the plaintiff could continue to pursue
injunctive relief on behalf of the class on remand, providing an
avenue to the recovery of class attorneys' fees--and thus plenty
incentive for plaintiffs' attorneys to file similar claims, even
in the absence of a fully-formed class damages theory.

Court Deems Sworn Statements Sufficient to Ascertain Class:
Continuing in the world of "natural" product labeling, a federal
district court judge certifying three classes of purchasers of
skin- and hair-care products marketed as "Active Naturals" held
that class members could satisfy Rule 23's ascertainability
requirement by submitting sworn statements.  Ascertainability is
often a difficult hurdle to clear for those seeking to certify
classes based on the purchase of routine, day-to-day products
because so few consumers retain proof of their purchase  Here, the
U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York held
that the class members who contended that synthetic ingredients in
the products rendered the package-labeling deceptive could
establish membership through sworn statements stating they
"purchased the products at issue in the necessary state during the
necessary time period."  While the court acknowledged that this
"somewhat criticized method of self-reporting" had its problems,
it ultimately determined that denying certification for lack of
more objective proof would "severely contract the class action
mechanism as a means for injured consumers to seek redress under
statutes specifically designed to protect their interests."

Uncertainty Remains as to Who Decides Class Arbitrability under
Standard AAA Arbitration Clause:  One issue the Supreme Court will
not be providing clarity on this term is whether an arbitrator or
court should decide if class-wide arbitration is available under
an arbitration agreement that states all "disputes shall be
determined by arbitration in accordance with the rules of the
American Arbitration Association."  By denying cert in Scout
Petroleum LLC v. Chesapeake Appalachia, LLC, the high court leaves
standing the Third Circuit's holding that, under this particular
language, the authority to make this threshold determination
belongs to the court, because the arbitration agreement does not
"clearly and unmistakably" delegate the question of class-wide
arbitrability to the arbitrator.   The Supreme Court's decision
not to take up the issue leaves the waters somewhat murky, as
other courts have held that similarly-worded arbitration
agreements meet the "clear and unmistakable" standard and thus
delegate the issue of class arbitrability to the arbitrator.

Similarities between Claim Rate and Asserted Defect Rate Weigh in
Favor of Approving Class Settlement:  A U.S. District Court for
the Northern District of Ohio approved a class settlement of
claims alleging certain washing machines were particularly
susceptible to mold.  In approving the settlement, the Court
observed that 7.3% of the 3.5 million class members who received
notice of the settlement filed a claim for an award.  As the
defendant represented that only 7% of the millions of washing
machines sold had an observable defect, the court deemed the
congruence in these percentages as evidence of a "favorable class
reaction" supporting final approval.


                            *********

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  * * *